Update:
The comments from this post will not be removed as to preserve the discussion around the announcement. Any continued discussions outside of this thread that violate server rules will be removed. We feel that everyone that has an opinion, and wanted to vent, has been heard.

————-

Original post:
Yesterday, we received information about the planned federation by Hexbear. The announcement thread can be found here: https://www.hexbear.net/post/280770. After reviewing the thread and the comments, it became evident that allowing Hexbear to federate would violate our rules.

Our code of conduct and server rules can be found here.

The announcement included several concerning statements, as highlighted below:

“Please try to keep the dirtbag lib-dunking to hexbear itself. Do not follow the Chapo Rules of Posting, instead try to engage utilizing informed rhetoric with sources to dismantle western propaganda. Posting the western atrocity propaganda and pig poop balls is hilarious but will pretty quickly get you banned and if enough of us do it defederated.”
“The West's role in the world, through organizations such as NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - among many others - are deeply harmful to the billions of people living both inside and outside of their imperial core.”
“These organizations constitute the modern imperial order, with the United States at its heart - we are not fooled by the term "rules-based international order." It is in the Left's interest for these organizations to be demolished. When and how this will occur, and what precisely comes after, is the cause of great debate and discussion on this site, but it is necessary for a better world.”

The rhetoric and goal of Hexbar are clear based on their announcement: to "dismantle western propaganda" and "demolish organizations such as NATO” shows that Hexbar has no intention of "respecting the rules of the community instance in which they are posting/commenting.” It’s to push their beliefs and ideology.

In addition, several comments from a Hexbear admin, demonstrate that instance rules will not be respected.

Here are some examples:

“I can assure you there will be no lemmygrad brigades, that energy would be better funneled into the current war against liberalism on the wider fediverse.”

“All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.”

Overall community comments:

To clarify, for those who have inquired about why Hexbear versus Lemmygrad, it should be noted that we are currently exploring the possibility of defederating from Lemmygrad as well based on similar comments Hexbear has made.

Defederation should only be considered as a last resort. However, based on their comments and behavior, no positive outcomes can be expected.

We made the decision to preemptively defederate from Hexbear for these reasons. While we understand that not everyone may agree with our decision, we believe it is important to prioritize the best interests of our community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll paste a quote from a book called the Jakarta Method, which details the US-backed mass killing of over a million communists in Indonesia:

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Considering the first thing Lenin did when getting to power was kill actual socialists that wanted democracy, I'll never side with MLs(or more like stalinists since that ideology has little to do with Marx or Lenin). And my family got to experience the soviet regime first hand, loosing many friends and family to their death camp thinly veiled as work camps. MLs are as useful as nazies when it comes to finding solutions to humanity's problems.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

First, the Kronstadt rebellion was 100 years ago and has nothing to do with the struggle of people today to improve their lives. Second, it happened in the immediate aftermath of a bloody civil war against the capitalist-backed white army, before the soviet government had even fully established itself. Lenin viewed the rebellion as an existential threat, and said as much in his letters at the time. Third, you just read a passage about the bloody annihilation of open, democratic socialist movements throughout the 20th century. The Kronstadt rebels demanded that the nascent soviet union become one of those. How do you think that would have ended? Two decades later, the nazis would invade the soviet union and attempt to genocide the russian people. How would that have gone in your timeline? Ultimately, in 2023, none of these questions matter. There are more pressing concerns than whether or not Lenin overreacted to the Kronstadt rebellion in 1921. It's only ever brought up as a gotcha to shut down socialist discussion, most people who mention it have never read about it and don't give a shit about it as a historical event.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Instead the soviet union genocide it's neighbours while allying with the nazies so that was not an improvement.

Also yea, the US is like the #1 killer of socialist governments, that's not really news. And I don't doubt that if it was between anarchists and authoritarians, the authoritarians would shoot the anarchist without hesitation to rule over the working class with an iron fist like it has happened every time so the choice is meaningless, actual socialists die in either case.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

genocide its neighbors

Most historians — not communists, just regular academics — agree the famine was not a deliberate genocide. Read the preface to The Years of Hunger. The authors, R. W. Davies and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, are neither communists nor supporters of Stalin. Theirs is one of the definitive accounts of the famine, referenced on Wikipedia and cited often in other academic works.

allying with the nazis

This is facebook meme-tier history.

First of all, when the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonaggression pact (not an alliance) was signed, both parties expected to fight each other in the near future. Hitler viewed war with the Soviet Union as "inevitable." Stalin expressed similar feelings. The pact was a temporary delaying tactic that allowed the Soviets to prepare for war while Germany focused on other targets.

Second, Stalin approached Germany only after France and the UK had already rebuffed his 1939 offer to form an anti-fascist alliance. Stalin offered to send France and the UK a million troops in 1939 and was denied. Nonaggression with Germany was his only other option. Even the US state department confirmed this was Stalin's rationale for a nonaggression pact with Hitler: "The Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany"

Third, everyone else had already signed pacts with Germany at various points in the preceding decade:

1933 - UK, France, Italy, Germany - The four powers pact

1934 - Poland and Germany - Hitler-Pilsudski Pact

1935 - UK and Germany - Anglo-German Naval agreement

1936 - Japan and Germany - Anti-Comintern pact

1938 - September - UK and Germany - German-British Non Aggression Pact (Munich Agreement)

1938 - December - France and Germany - German-French Non Aggression Pact

1939 - March - Romania and Germany - German Romanian Economical Treaty

1939 - March - Lithuania and Germany - Non aggression ultimatum

1939 - May - Italy and Germany - Pact of Steel (Friendship and Alliance)

1939 - May - Denmark and Germany - Non aggression pact

1939 - June - Estonia and Germany - non aggression pact

1939 - July - Latvia and Germany - non aggression pact

1939 - August - USSR and Germany - Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression pact — the only one liberals care about

Belligerents signed and broke pacts left and right.

[–] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not even talking about the famines soviet incompetence caused and deliberately worsened. Their death camps killed 1-8 million people, nobody knows exactly how many because, unlike the nazies, soviet records were absolute garbage and all accounts come from guards and prisoners. They also tried to destroy the culture and language of the occupied areas and replace the local population with Russians.

Not a meme considering exactly that happened, they agreed to divide Europe between themselves and not attack each other. Stalin absolutely wanted an alliance with Hitler and nothing indicates he was interested in fighting Hitler until he invaded. He got rid of Jewish diplomats to make Hitler happy. When Hitler invaded he refused to act since he did not want to believe that his ally betrayed him. I don't doubt Hitler intended to break their alliance. Also are you saying if no one else wants to ally with you then allying with nazies is a good idea?

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I'm heading out to meet friends, and I also feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. Take care.