Trotsky was never trusted or “Lenin’s pick”. Lenin’s pick is meaningless, unless you believe that Lenin was a literal demigod dictator who could just say “I choose you” like Ash Ketchum chooses a pokemon and the CPSU central committee would make it so. This is contrary to any modern reading of western ‘Sovietology’ as they call it who recognize that Lenin did not have all powers unto himself, and is not how you can run a state in the modern age anyway.

You seem to be confusing two different groups when you say ‘Lenin’s pick to color revolutionist overnight’. One part (trotskyists) uphold him as this savant thinker who would have led the USSR to its gilded age and avoided the 1991 overthrow/breakup - which is a huge “what if history happened differently” LARP, because we inherit the history that happened, not the one that we wish happened - and another part (literally everyone who is not a trotskyist) considers him a clear individualist who was trying to split the party if not coup the government entirely, which is contrary to democratic centralism and rightfully got him kicked out. From there, those that delve into Trotsky’s actions in the party prior to his membership being revoked in 1926 realize that he was always a huge individualist who would have made the deeds attributed to Stalin look like a walk in the park in comparison. He was the type of guy who wanted to shoot soldiers just because they rubbed his fragile ego the wrong way when he was Commissar of the Red Army.

It’s a good thing he got purged and exiled (twice), exactly because he would not stop trying to split the party even after consequences came and he became dangerous to the whole of the USSR’s project. By that point everyone in the CPSU was fed up of his shit and wanted him gone.

His idea of permanent revolution, for those that actually looked into it, made no sense and would have completely destroyed the nascent USSR because it relied on the German workers succeeding at their revolution (which they didn’t, as we know) and then coming to help the USSR to oppress the peasantry. It was never a real thing.

Secondly you say that our citations will be a wiki we made because the ‘woke’ mods of Wikipedia (not sure what you mean by woke and why you felt like you had to include this dogwhistle but okay) wouldn’t allow a ‘self-hosted blog post’ as a citation.

There is a contradiction in your words however. You recognize that wikis are not infallible, because as per your claim Conservapedia and ProleWiki are problematic in how they operate. So that means Wikipedia is not infallible either, by definition. Yet you don’t extend this criticism to it, which prompts one to ask: what makes it infallible? The fact that it has a lot of people editing it? But how does that translate to policy exactly - Might makes right? Everyone on Wikipedia somehow reaches the correct, objective conclusion through the struggle of their conflicting ideas, whereas any niche wiki is immediately a groupthink project that allows no deviation?

Or is it that getting US government money to make it the de facto ‘people’s encyclopedia’ to the world makes it instantly better than other, grassroot projects? The bigger cohort is automatically the correct one?

Clearly that is what you believe, since you directly oppose the de facto hegemonic wiki against two smaller, niche wikis. To you, it’s a David vs. Goliath thing, when in fact these projects just coexist on the wider internet with almost no overlap aside from uncovering some of the same contradictions that all wiki projects (and even online collective projects such as software repos) eventually get into.

Or maybe you know the internal workings of Wikipedia because you’ve actually investigated the question and can point to something more specific. Because I have, personally. And I can tell you for over 7 years a teenager from the US was defacing the Scots Wikipedia with fake words and stereotypical accents, and it wasn’t caught for that span of time. 90% of the editors on Wikipedia are men, and women have found it very hard for over 20 years to even get accepted into Wikipedia, and continue to face sexism and harassment over their participation on Wikipedia. A sizeable chunk of editors are western (white) men. The most prolific editor is clearly a sockpuppet who makes mostly pro-war edits (Stephen Cross), manufacturing consent for war, and is active from 7AM to 7PM every day, every holidays, without ever any break. Someone with enough pull (who is liked by the community admins, in other words) will automatically win edit arguments over a newer user, regardless of whether the newer user is actually correct. Wikipedia doesn’t consider what Belgium did in the Congo a genocide because a user who named himself after his Belgian military General family member thinks it wasn’t a genocide. That’s it, that’s their entire reason for not calling it a genocide: some Belgian guy thinks it wasn’t one.

There is ample academic evidence and papers that what Belgium did in the Congo was a genocide. But, Wikipedia decided to side with the long-time editor and that was that. It’s now considered a settled topic and nobody is allowed to claim that what happened in the Congo was a genocide anymore, or they will get banned from editing. Doesn’t sound like all of their conflicting points of view somehow synthesize into the correct conclusion to me.

Yes, the ‘neutral point of view’ and ‘no primary sources’ policies have some upsides. They also have a lot of downsides. You are essentially implying that something is only real and actually happened if it was published in a ‘trusted’ source, such as an academic journal or famous newspaper. But the Jeju Island Massacre, for example, was not publicized or had a name for decades until someone did the research in the 90s. Yet the locals on Jeju Island knew what had transpired in their homes in 1949. Should their stories not be relayed or considered because they are primary sources, and no second-party has written about it yet? That’s what Wikipedia would do, by policy. If wikipedia had existed in the 80s, they would have essentially said “the Jeju Island Massacre did not happen because no third-party has written about it, and you can’t quote survivors of the massacre because they’re not reliable”. That’s what you are defending here when you defend Wikipedia so shoddily.

Does this strike you as sensible policies to have? And do you think this could be used to immediately silence non-Western victims of western acts?

Queers are also color revolution.

Nobody is saying that and you know it.

“Genocide denial” isn’t a magic spell. Do you not deny the genocide of white South Africans?

Better ban yourself, unless you think “White Genocide” in South Africa is a real thing. The west often uses atrocity propaganda to discredit its enemies, such as claiming Hamas wants to “kill all Jews.”

Nobody is saying that you should commit book worship, but instead that you should engage with the hard work of theorists and those that have put theory to practice. Your argument sounds more like you just want to use scary words like “hive mind” to dismiss the fact that a lot of people agree with theory as it has been put to practice and refined over time as the two inform and reinforce each other.

Which parts, specifically, do you disagree with? And can your source the evidence that lead you to this from sources other than the National Endowment for Democracy?

Usually when I argue with anti-communists it’s not for the OP’s benefit. I mostly provide counterpoints for lurkers.

Also, is crushing the US bad? Not the people, the system of government. The corporations. The military industrial complex. The jails. The police. All worth crushing, yeah?

I agree! They haven’t banned me yet, though, and I regularly post about how Russia sucks, and is the aggressor in Ukraine.

You’re an anarchist, yeah? Me too. I support a mainly modern syndicalist approach, because collective community effort is far more effective than individual effort, but it’s going to be a hard time demonstrating the effectiveness of our preferred model while the capitalists keep crushing it anywhere it threatens to become practical.

It’s more complicated than “Russia bad, Ukraine good” though. I think that’s the nuance that gets distorted by some ml people who have been arguing with centre-left Democrat voter types for ages and gotten tired.

Russia has a fucked up, Mafia government, it is bad for its people, it encourages corruption as long as the money flows to the top, etc.

Don’t ignore why that is, though: Russia was fucked over by the vultures of US capital in the 90s after Gorbachev and Yeltsin bent over and allowed former soviet state industrial assets to be bought for far less than their value. This is how the oligarchs were established. The economy was absolutely crushed, it reduced the living conditions of millions of people, increased crime, destroyed the social welfare state, etc.

This created the opportunity for Putin to get popular by killing a bunch of the oligarchs and taking their stolen wealth for himself, as well as promising to restore the glory of Russia’s military, stopping the breakaway of the few remaining former Soviet countries that had not yet left Russian control, like Georgia and Chechnya, promising to fight the terrorists (the terrorist attacks were done by him, btw), etc.

Basic Make Russia Great Again stuff, done more competently than Trump because he has at least half a brain.

This much is clear from history.

Ukraine does have a lot of Nazis in its power structure. And it has been very corrupt indeed ever since it broke away from Soviet control. Zelenzky has had to work with both of these power blocs as leader. He did gain power by promising to change things, but it’s impossible to run the place without working with the moderate parts of those factions, at least, even without a war. With the war, he has had to allow all sorts of very dodgy bastards indeed to coexist as long as they fight the Russians too.

Now, Putin was absolutely right when he said that NATO was invading his sphere of influence by bringing the Ukraine into the Western economic sphere. The US knew this, and knew that Russia may invade the Ukraine in return, and they were happy to provoke that. It was a completely ruthless move in the Great Game of geopolitics.

However, invading Ukraine is still an evil thing to do. It’s an imperialist action by Russia. It is one empire defending against an incursion by another empire.

The people of Ukraine, flawed as its government and society is, are right to defend themselves. Russia is not the good guy here, even if they are effectively part of China’s sphere now. They use slave armies. So does Ukraine, but far less brutally. It’s… not an ideal situation.

China practices ruthless geopolitics too, to defend its own system against the efforts of imperial capitalism, but that does not mean its client states are the good guys. China’s system is worth defending, imo, because capitalism is destroying the world with climate change and China is the biggest single factor in decarbonisation, not to mention a serious contender for a better economic system which we could learn a lot from.

When we survive climate change, it will likely be due to the sheer industrial capacity of the Chinese economy, which is rapidly transitioning to renewable energy and exporting solar panels and batteries to the entire world.

However, the Chinese defence of its “socialism with Chinese characteristics” system is ugly and throws a lot of people under the bus.

Palestinians, the Russian people sent to die on the front lines, people who get arrested by Chinese security services, people who have to move out of the way of large industrial projects, non-Han minorities, LGBT minorities, etc. (Not Falun Hong, btw, fuck those cultist assholes).

The mistake a lot of people make is to think that all systems of coercion are equally bad.

Representative democracy with capitalism looks good in theory, until you factor in all the people who don’t get a vote, who still get affected by the actions of the govt. And of course all the decisions made by people who aren’t elected at all.

And of course you as an anarchist know that nobody recognises economic violence when comparing systems by how much violence they do to their citizens, and nobody compares violence done by client states to protect capital’s ability to do that violence.

So America and Europe look less violent than the Soviets and China, even though they are all drenched in blood. Imo, the US most of all.

However, instead of having that sort of discussion, it’s way easier to say “go back to the DNC!” or “read a book, corpo!” or “boo, stop licking Xi’s asshole!”.

It takes way less time.

They’re all teenagers from America

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Many of those admins are not from the US, and none are teenagers by any stretch. I’m older than Danny Glover was when he said he was too old for this shit.

How can a person be pro-Palestine and anti-Ukraine?!?!

We’ve explained how, with receipts, hundreds of times. Previously.

I’m curious if you think Donetsk and Luhansk are in the wrong for requesting the Russian Federation to support them against Kiev in the Ukrainian civil war, sparked in 2014 after the Banderites took power. This is ultimately the reason Russia joined the civil war, so it’s a question of the rights of self-determination for those in the Donbass.

As for saying we’re all Statesian teenagers, this is both false and impossible to prove on your own end. No idea why you think this is some sort of coherent point.

As for not seeing how one can be pro-Palestine and pro-Donetsk and Luhansk, I don’t see how someone can be both pro-Palestine and pro-Ukraine when Ukraine is one of Israel’s strongest allies, has helped supply the genocide in Palestine, and serves the same role as Israel, as a forward operating base for western imperialists to threaten surrounding territories. Israel and Ukraine are firm allies and are both tools of imperialism.

history’s full of empires that swore they were the only ones without propaganda; you’re just repeating their script wo knowing it.

Evidence? I see this a lot, but nobody provides evidence that the market is in control of China. There are billionaires and companies there, yes, but they seem to be kept in line by the PRC.

I mean, they execute corrupt bankers there. Would a capitalist country allow that? They do things for the long-term future, not the short-term profit of companies. Are you asserting that they are long-term capitalists?

No, the PRC is a socialist country, same as Cuba, Vietnam, the DPRK, Laos, and former USSR. The working classes control the state since 1949, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. I have yet to see a compelling, rational argument for why this should be considered “capitalist” that doesn’t treat socialism like a fantasy in test-tube conditions, rather than a real mode of production and distribution.

Funny how ‘just like all the rest’ still manages to shrink billionaires instead of worshiping them or letting them control the gov’t; but sure, totally the same. Lol

The fuck did I do lol, wait until you come across imaqtpa2-t

I don’t see how it would be clever if you came up with it. Thank you for reinforcing the perception brainrot and narcissism are everywhere on these instances. You have no original thoughts.

I have sent you a message under the name clean cation. Please verify whether you have received it. Thanks.

Realistically, not really.
To be honest, these days, most bans are for obvious spam, *phobes or the occasional CSAM.

Just don’t post dentist adspam (which is oddly common) or be that one person who posts their cartoony-kiddie-diaper-fetish thing.

I really can’t see either instance as another CIA psyop. 🤷‍♀️

deleted by creator

The “brigading”/“dogpiling” excuse has always been terrible.

but effective – that’s the claim they made to defederate from the likes of hexbear and lemmygrad despite neither having the number of subscribers necessary to effectively brigade instances several fold larger than them.

Yes but theirs are much less comprehensive