this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
85 points (68.9% liked)
Fediverse
39438 readers
945 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are a lot of people supportive of the PRC, both because the US Empire is declining and the PRC is positioned as an alternative to the US Empire's naked terrorism, and because Lemmy has a lot of communists. Lemmy has a lot of communists because the lead developers are communists, FOSS attracts communists, and because as Reddit bans communist communities they are often suggested to come here.
There's absolutely no credible evidence of CPC interference in Lemmy, this is a normal thing to happen to a FOSS alternative to Reddit.
okay but it's also a normal thing for the CPC to monitor and influence online spaces and it's certainly not restricted to lemmy
Prove it
To a degree, perhaps, though the CPC largely sticks to the Chinese sphere of the internet. I haven't seen any evidence for CPC interference in Lemmy though, nor of widespread CPC influence over western, English-speaking spaces. China doesn't really care as much for that, plus the implication is that the US Empire is fundamentally weaker than the PRC at propagandizing on the Statesian "home turf" when we know the opposite is the case.
the PRC is not nearly an alternative to the US empire, its a replacement to it, with different but overlapping trade-offs. what about neither? It's seriously like instagram users fleeing to tiktok, then to upscroll or whichever other corporate platform.
the bad of the US does not make the PRC good. I want change, big changes, but definitely not that kind.
The US Empire is currently exporting mass death and destruction globally, threatening Greenland and Canada with annexation, kidnapped another country's president and first lady, is performing piracy for oil, threatening Cuba, and on top of all of these overt acts of terror, is super-exploiting the global south for super profits. The PRC, on the other hand, as a socialist country, is far more peaceful, maintains a defensive millitary, has ~3 overseas millitary bases compared to the hundreds of the US Empire, and offers mutual development opportunities like Belt and Road.
The differences are staggering. When countries in the global south partner with the US Empire, they are trapped in cycles of underdevelopment, where their surplus value is plundered. When countries in the global south trade and partner with the PRC, they achieve rapid development, and escape the never-ending cycle of impoverishment. This win-win development isn't because China is more morally good, but because their economic structure and geopolitical position compels them towards mutual cooperation over plunder and terror.
Further, there isn't really an alternative to the US Empire and PRC. The US Empire is actively invading countries to make sure they comply. The EU is vassalized by the US Empire. When we look at who the global south goes to for development opportunities, they are increasingly rejecting western imperialism in favor of cooperation with China and BRICS, and forming mutual partnerships with neighboring countries (like the Alliance of Sahel States).
The bad of the US Empire isn't why the PRC is better, the sheer benefit of working with the PRC is why the PRC is better.
Man's freaking out cos he just learned .ml stands for marxist-leninist 😂 Glad to find something we strongly agree on tho comrade.
To be clear, .ml stands for Mali, and it was allegedly chosen because it was cheap/free. Lemmy.ml is just the flagship, test instance, and happens to have a lot of communists because the devs are communists. Lemmygrad.ml is explicitly ML.
Ah cheers for the clarity, my mistake
No worries!
@Cowbee@lemmygrad.ml
Exploring Left-Wing Extremism on the Decentralized Web: An Analysis of Lemmygrad. ml
The whole study makes a good read.
Communist subreddits like r/GenZedong and lately r/TheDeprogram, after being banned by Reddit, migrated largely to Lemmygrad.ml. I agree that the study is a good read, but for humor, not serious journalism. Their study is essentially them finding out that communists are on a communist platform, and then the study conductors conflate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, a common hasbara tactic.
Nothing you said contradicts that Lemmygrad.ml is Marxist-Leninist, all you've really done is confirm that it is, while also conflating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. Further, the only comment they point out as anti-semitic, was in fact removed by the moderation for spilling over the edge, as comrade Edie pointed out here. Claiming grad is anti-semitic because of comments it removes is tortured logic.
Also not sure why you're tagging my grad account, if I was trying to hide that I wouldn't post in my account description that I'm a Marxist-Leninist, nor would I have made my grad account the same name as my Hexbear and Lemmy.ml accounts.
I liked the part where they conflate anti Zionism with antisemitism, show one comment/"post" as proof, and don't reference it so readers can view upvotes or context around said post.
https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/18989
5 downvotes, removed by mod. Modlog for user: https://lemmygrad.ml/modlog?userId=2803
I thought that's what happened with that one, thanks for digging it up!
It was actually TankieTanuki that dug it up https://hexbear.net/comment/6404332
Ah, thanks!
Lmao wow
Srry I can't take it seriously when the author is this guy
Is that real?
Yes lol
Holy shit 😂
Incredible, the shining knight of Zionism and anti-communism.
The problem with political studies is that they're nonscientific. It's a blog post they're calling a study. No amount of statistical analysis or clever methodology makes this a proper study because it's based on political opinions. A terrible, ignorant set of opinions at that.
"But isn't Marxism a study of politics?!" No, it's a body of works in economics and historical analysis, not wayward political opinions.
We already went over this garbage study with your @Scotty@scribe.disroot.org account^1 and @Sepia@mander.xyz account^2 two days ago and your @Sepia@mander.xyz account two months ago^3.
You’re like a broken record, bot.
Well that explains a lot
3½ years of anti-China & anti-Russia news posts by several similar Lemmy accounts
Idk which I dislike more. Those types of accounts or the ones upset when you point out the I want x country to attack y country means people/civilians will get killed
This seems right. Personally I'm not sure I could roll my eyes harder at the fact that so many people in 2026 are so ignorant as to be prepared to call themselves "communists" - after all the famines, the purges, the 40 years in which much of Europe was struggling to escape (literally) from communism... And then I saw that you, too, call yourself a communist! So I guess I'll stop there.
Except to recommend you the Ones and Tooze podcast, in which the brilliant host (an ex-communist) recently did a whole series, in great and illuminating detail, on the various communist thinkers. Which I listened to... dutifully.
Communists govern the largest economy in the world by PPP, and capitalism is falling apart at the seams as the spoils of imperialism are beginning to be cut off. The global south is escaping underdevelopment, and this is forcing austerity in the west, explaining the surge to the right. In the US Empire, communists are more and more common than ever before:
Famine was ended by communists in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. These areas had woefully inefficient systems of agriculture, such as the kulak system, which served to enrich one group of people over the laborers they employed. Collectivization combined with industrialization is why food security was achieved after the introduction of socialism to these countries, and the famines commonly attributed by western historians to communism were the last of a long line of regular famines.
Similarly, purges in the largest majority of cases meant expulsion from the party or position, not execution, except in times of crisis, like the 1930s when fascism was on the rise. They were not done arbitrarily, but as a response to corruption, subterfuge, and sabotage.
It's also a bit silly to suggest that people spent "40 years trying to escape communism." Right up to the end, the majority of people in the USSR wished to retain both the USSR and the system of socialism. This is proven not just from eyewitness reports of support, but also vote totals:
Moreover, after the fall of socialism in Europe, the majority of people want it back or say they are worse off. This is compounded by the fact that over 90% of the Chinese population supports their government and system. Socialist countries run by communists have higher approval rates than capitalist states.
Looking at Adam Tooze, I don't see much indicating him as a former communist. He grew up in West Germany in the height of the Cold War, is trained in liberal economics such as Keynesian economics, though his grandfather was allegedly a soviet recruiter, which is cool. I'm not really convinced I could find much out of his mini-series on Luxemburg, Trotsky, Stalin, or Lenin, considering I've already read works both by them and about them in greater detail than a podcast is going to cover.
This isn't entirely true. The question posed essentially meant the USSR would reform into a more supranational organisation, granting more sovereignty and independence to the constituent republics. Voting "yes" was basically a vote for "'less' Soviet Union", as there was no option to vote to dissolve it entirely. It's also why after the yes-vote won, Soviet hardliners tried to coup the government.
When the New Union Treaty wasn't fully implemented, member republics took it upon themselves to run full independence referendums, which were passed with overwhelming numbers (see the results on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_in_the_Soviet_Union, 90%+ pro-independence in most countries. Remember, most happened in 1991 just like the Union referendum, and no large population swings to the complete opposite direction that fast). The massive disapproval of the communist party was also very visible, as the vast majority of republics started electing non-communist leaders.
And of course there were people still in favour of the Union, but they were largely outnumbered. Pro-union manifestations were met with large protests that often ended in police action to suppress them. Pro-Union sentiments started increasing again after the economic crises post-collapse, but it has never become so popular again to lead to a reformation.
I'm aware that after the votes, crisis in politics caused a dramatic swing in faith in the system. The question of viability of the socialist project wasn't unclear, however. The dissolution of the USSR was something that happened not due to some inevitable death clock in socialism. Contrary to what you believe, popular opinion can swing that fast, such as in the US Empire, where within a single month sentiment on Israel flipped from overwhelmingly positive to majority negative.
Further, as I already showed, the large majority of people in post-soviet countries feel worse off and/or regret its fall. Socialism was an effective system at meeting the needs of the people, and though liberalization and a harsh recovery process from World War II strained the system, it was not on the way to collapse.
It didn't go from +90% to -90%. That's what I mean with the huge 'swing' seen here. Negative attitudes on Israel went from 42% to 53% in 3 years time. Yet this supposed "total reversal of opinion" happened in months? Nonsense of course. Remember, the Soviet referendum did not have "dissolution" as an option. People picked the option closest to it.
This is irrelevant to the false notion that the Soviet Union dissolved against what the people wanted at the time, which that graphic is often used to misleadingly suggest.
Even then, opinion polling on the subject is highly unreliable. Even the same pollster slightly rephrasing the question nets wildly different results. In the Baltics opinion is pretty consistent that the fall of the USSR was a good thing. But Belarusians tend to disagree with that. But when Belarusians are asked if they prefer to follow a Soviet system or a western democratic system, they choose the latter. And when another pollster asks them again in the same year, opinions flip again.
There's certainly a strong sentimental nostalgia towards the Union, though not in all former member states. Yet it seems unlikely the population would be willing to vote it back into existence.
People did have a massive swing in opinion. I'm aware that dissolution was not an option, but your claim that people didn't change their opinion in light of the immense political turmoil between that vote and the second vote requires more evidence than "people don't change their minds that quickly." Rather, to the contrary, large shifts in opinion do happen more swiftly than gradually.
Further, the fact that the large majority regret the fall of the soviet union is relevant in showing that it clearly wasn't as simple as saying everyone hated living in the soviet union, but realized how good they had it afterwards. Polling is often inconsistent not because of bad polling, but political instability caused by the immense fuckery of capitalism and imperialism in these countries, and forces like NATO.
He talked about it - some variety of Trotskyism IIRC. A bit of a surprise but shouldn't have been. Tons of former Maoists have been in high positions. Even a neoliberal head of the European Commission (Barroso).
On the supposed virtues of communism, you won't convince me but I suppose you know that already. IMO the world would have done very well to listen to George Orwell, someone who saw through it all on the basis of up-front experience 90 years ago. That might have saved an awful lot of needless suffering. Or Orlando Figes, who wrote a book whose title says it all: "The USSR: A People's Tragedy".
Just straight up admitting your anti-communism is an unshakable article of faith that no argument or evidence can change.
To be fair, I don't think many communists globally are fans of Trotskyism, considering it's predominantly western and liberal-compatible. The vast majority of communists globally are Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyism is seen as more fringe. Trotskyists tend to already begin with anti-AES stances (for a variety of reasons, usually a combination of Red Scare propaganda mixed with alienation from capitalism), so going from "socialism is a good idea but never existed" to "socialism is a bad idea because what's existed hasn't worked" is a common jump. A former Trotskyist making loads of money off of denouncing communism is both entirely predictable and hardly compelling for those who've studied communism in theory and practice.
As for the rapist Eric Blair, also known as George Orwell, the western world listened to him too well. He didn't see through anything, rather, his position as a British fed (known for keeping a journal of people he knew and suspected of being Jewish and/or communists) and propagandist was extremely useful to western intelligence agencies. On Orwell is a good essay going over his dreadfall past and role in propagandizing. Orwell has been taught in countless schools not because of any truth, but because of his utility.
As for Figes, another that earns an enourmous sum of money from preaching the bible of anti-communism to serve capitalist interests, better historians exist. Syzmanski's Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union today, Pat Sloan's Soviet Democracy, Human Rights in the Soviet Union, Anna Louise Strong's This Soviet World, Mary Stevenson Callcott's Russian Justice, the recently deceased Dr. Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds, all the way up to Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, there's tons of academic resources to get a much better view of socialism in practice.
I don't expect you to read these, of course, my point is that just like you don't expect to change your mind by me sharing evidence counter to your views, I'm unlikely to be swayed by professionals repeating standard anti-communist dogma. It takes a much greater amount of study and reflection to go against the dominant, hegemonic culture, nearly every common anti-communist talking point has been wielded against me at some point simply by me stating that I support socialism.
Is there anything specific you'd like to discuss, regarding the effectiveness of socialism/communism? We can have a constructive conversation surrounding specifics.
Their idol Mao killed approx 160 million humans.
Do you have a source on that? Even if you include landlords killed by the peasantry during land reform, all of the deaths by unintentional famine, and the excesses of the cultural revolution as deliberately killed by Mao, the numbers accepted by Historians are nowhere close to 160 million. This is such a fantastical number that even the famously debunked Black Book of Communism doesn't go over 100 million, and that was including the entire history of the soviet union as well as PRC. The Black Book of Communism famously included both non-births as deaths, and Nazis killed by the Red Army as "victims of communism."
Damn, out jerking the black book of communism by an order of magnitude. You're really going for it