this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
26 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10180 readers
17 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm simply asking this question because of Lemmygrad.ml existing, and that there isn't a far-right equivalent of it yet. If Lemmygrad has any standing for its right to exist under free speech, where is the line drawn for other extremist political ideologies? If Holodomor skepticism is allowed, then what stops Holocaust skepticism? (as it is generally accepted the Holodomor was man-made). I'm simply wondering what gives far-left politics a right to promote such extremist views in the Fediverse, when their far-right counterparts would be Defederated in minutes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shanghaibebop 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Eh... I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don't think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.

I don't think that level of intolerance should be tolerated, regardless of whether someone is on the right or left of the spectrum.

[–] gibs@lemmy.nz 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I have too, but let’s be realistic, and accept the honest fact that in far left spaces, racism, homophobia, transphobia etc us far, far less acceptable than in far right spaces. I’ve hung out with hardcore marxists and despite not necessarily agreeing with their political takes I’ve never had to feel uncomfortable with my race or sexuality in the same way that even mildly right-leaning folks have made me feel.

Yes, I’m sure racism and homophobia exist on the far left, but it’s an extreme minority on that side compared to on the right where it’s a pretty mild take, and treating the two as remotely equivalent is very harmful in itself.

[–] shanghaibebop 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just want to clarify, nowhere did I equate the two. I'm simply saying I personally wouldn't tolerate intolerance regardless of the political ideology. The previous poster suggested that they didn't see such type behaviors from far-left folks, I had a different experience.

I totally agree far-right ideologies are inherently intolerant.

[–] azureeight 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I love "i know all right spaces are intolerant but ive know some bad leftists so they are exactly the same" 😩

[–] shanghaibebop 3 points 1 year ago

Quit trolling, if you have anything to add to the discussion feel free to do so.

Like I said, I don’t give a shit if you’re left or right, if you advocate for the persecution of someone solely based their religious, sexual orientation, ethic background and etc, I am not interested in hearing what you have to say.

[–] argv_minus_one 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Try being an Uyghur in China, then, or a Ukrainian among Stalinists. You will not feel accepted.

[–] RIPSync@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unless it's racism against Asians, that's rampant on the left.

[–] NattyNatty2x4 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd love to see any evidence of this

[–] RIPSync@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] kalanggam 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mummelpuffin 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Affirmative action was specifically designed to lift up groups that are born into poverty far more than others in the United States. Asian-Americans don't fall under that category.

[–] azureeight 9 points 1 year ago

You're not arguing in good faith at all. You don't have any evidence, you just have wild accusations.

[–] MuffinMangler 3 points 1 year ago

tf are you talking about?

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You can't be a fascist and not be bigoted. You can be a marxist-leninist and not as a rule hate minorities. I encourage you to go to lemmygrad yourself, see if you find any hatred of minorities being tolerated there. You just won't.

I can coexist in a space with them, they're not going to start calling for the genocide of minority groups. They may dispute the way historical events transpired, but there's a fundamental difference between "these events didnt happen the way you're describing" and a fascist saying "let's mass murder all the minorities because they're biologically impure". I can coexist in a space with one, with the other my murder (or the murder of any other marginalized group) is as a rule being outright advocated for.

No matter how hard you try tankies even at their worst are not fascists. To try and equate the two is beyond ridiculous. You can point out that some historical regimes have done a lot of horrible things, fair enough. But ideologically marxist-leninists are not comparable on any level to fascists.

I can not, and will never under any circumstances tolerate the presence of fascism to any degree.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP mentioned Holodomor, so I'll just point out that ML's generally don't deny that there was a famine, or even that it was exacerbated by bad policy. The specific point of contention is whether it was intentional.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question

Even historians debate this, so I don't think it's reasonable to characterize it as "genocide denial".

[–] argv_minus_one 2 points 1 year ago

It's a false “question” just like the “question” of whether the Holocaust of German Jews occurred. Genocide denial is precisely what it is.

[–] shanghaibebop 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wasn't really talking about lemmygrad, even though they have some VERY questionable defense of authoritarian policies. I have met far-leftists who were more than eager to call for the genocide of minorities under the guise of class revolution.

Personally, I draw the bar at the intolerance of other people regardless of whether that ideology is on the left or right. Hell, I'm sure there are some radical centrists who are extremely intolerant of [insert x people] as well.

[–] MuffinMangler 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm a leftist and consider myself moderately well-educated on the topic, but I don't understand the connection between class revolution and genociding minorities.

[–] shanghaibebop 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Cambodian revolution is a perfect example of this. Killing of targeted minorities under the guise of class revolution.

Whenever someone advocates for violence against some group of people, it inevitably turns into some type of persecution thats colored by the prejudices of those in power and within the existing social norms.

Plenty of anti colonial militia groups turned against minority groups when they took power.

[–] argv_minus_one 2 points 1 year ago

Genocidal people are always looking for ways to disguise their intentions.

[–] relevants@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What does "far-left" mean to you, then? If someone with views entirely counter to progressive ideas just calls themselves "far-left" while spewing hateful garbage, do you just accept that they are part of the left?

Politics isn't team sports. Your political association is defined by your views, not by what side you claim to be on.

[–] shanghaibebop 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Then it’s just a “no true Scotsman” argument.

There are plenty of examples of leftist governments who were openly hostile to minorities.

[–] insurgenRat 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not really. If someone says "I am a woodworker" but you never see anything they make from wood, they have no woodworking tools, they don't know about woodworking techniques, they don't attend a woodworking club or job or class they're just... not a woodworker.

People who claim to be leftists without doing the required actions aren't leftists. Liking the aesthetics isn't enough.

[–] shanghaibebop 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So was the USSR not a leftist government?

I feel like we’re going into the semantics of who is a “true” leftist.

[–] azureeight 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let us know when the ussr is doing anything modern. You just keep moving the goalposts.

[–] shanghaibebop 4 points 1 year ago

What goalpost?

I literally said intolerance exists across all political spectrum, and I will not tolerate that whether someone is “on my team” or not.

Is that such a controversial opinion?

[–] StrayCatFrump 6 points 1 year ago

So was the USSR not a leftist government?

It was not.

[–] insurgenRat 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry I missed this.

I feel like this is potentially a bait post but if I steel man you for the sake of civility and learning:

I am not the most knowledgeable about the USSR, my grandparents came from occupied poland and thus had certain opinions, that's a large part of my exposure and likely biases me. That said, the revolutionary movement and corresponding government seems to have gone through many phases, and have expressed various degrees of leftism at various times. Was assassinating lots of people, forcibly occupying people, collaborating with nazi germany, and engaging in genocide very leftist? I would say definitionally no. Even for the time there was considerable pushback from other leftist personalities and organisations.

On the other hand for many, many people there was massive increases in freedom, prosperity, and rights compared to tzarist russia. Including my grandmother, who was allowed to hold a technical office job! wow! (until she moved to Australia and was forced to work in a factory and be treated like an idiot. Not wow).

This seems like one of those situations where trying to fit something into a simplistic box will inevitably break down. I feel comfortable saying the USSR accomplished both wonderful and terrible things, that overall it was probably better than tsarist russia but it fell short of the ideals that founded it.

If I met someone who say volunteered to feed the homeless, agitated for unionism at work, volunteered to educate disadvantaged people, but also thought I should be executed as a social deviant (I'm mega queer) I would probably call them leftist even while I thought they were massively misguided and extremely dangerous. I'll note I've never actually met anyone like that though.

[–] shanghaibebop 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The left-right tolerance vs traditionalist alignment breaks down outside of the western/Eurocentric context.

For example, most folks in China who advocate for left leaning economic policies are much more prone to be traditionalists who are hostile towards LGBTQ and religious people. Where as social progressives are mich more likely to advocate for less state intervention in the economy.

So I have meant plenty of people who, while advocating for the wealth transfer from the rich, also were extremely intolerant of “social deviants”

It seems like folks here would not call these people leftists, but they sure do, and so does most of the world. Hence why I made the reference to no true Scotsman.

[–] insurgenRat 1 points 1 year ago

It's not really just the case in Europe. A lot of leftist movements in the middle east advocate tolerance, similarly in parts of Africa, Japan, India etc.

Fuck the Zapatista's in Mexico are an example of a very non Europe actual example of socialism that are radically feminist.

It's possible that the situation in China is the odd one out, and intolerance is usually expected in authoritarian states /shrug.

[–] Kwakigra 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is like saying "No true Scotsman was born and raised in Istanbul, speaks only Turkish, and has never even visited Scotland or ever mentioned being intereted in doing so." For example, the "National Socialists" were not actually socialists even though they used socialist-like policies exclusively on an ethnic national basis, and no one serious is arguing that they were on the left. The left wing represents social equality and progressivism, while the right wing represents tradition and hierarchy. This has been the understanding of these terms since they were invented during the French Revolution.

[–] shanghaibebop 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And the left wing politicians during the French Revolution never prosecuted minorities in the name of the republic?

Damn, what happened to the entire Occitaian culture?

Oh wait, it was deemed an enemy of progress.

  • The monarchy had reasons to resemble the Tower of Babel; in democracy, leaving the citizens to ignore the national language [that of Paris], unable to control the power, is betraying the motherland... For a free people, the tongue must be one and the same for everyone. -Bertrand Barère

If you want to use that definition of left right from the French Revolution, fine, are they not “left” when they literally sat on the left side of the National Assembly?

[–] Kwakigra 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting point you bring up. You are absolutely correct about the consequences of the revolution and the involvement of hierarchical thinking of the Parisians towards the other ethnic groups around them. The Parisians who went and carried out the genocides may have believed that their actions conformed to "Liberty, fraternity, and equality" of the French people, but I'm not sure it was the logical conclusion to the ideology of the revolution, or the left. Looking back from my modern perspective completely out of context I would say these actions went against the professed ideology of the revolution before reality came in and complicated everything.

What I'm saying is that the left is the idea of progressivism and social equality, while the right is the idea of hierarchy and tradition. Actors who intend for progressivism and social equality can, due to the various pressures of the real world, can end up taking right wing measures as above. If someone supports the idea of tradition and hierarchy in the first place, I would not consider them left wing regardless of how they label themselves.

[–] shanghaibebop 2 points 1 year ago

I can respect that.

[–] StrayCatFrump 1 points 1 year ago

So, does simply saying your are a Scotsman make you one, despite having no cultural or genetic heritage to that effect? This might be news to people, but there are, indeed, people who aren't Scottish. 😮

[–] Jo@readit.buzz 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have met enough far-left authoritarians who are openly racist, anti-lgbtq, and who advocated for violence against people solely based on their family background that I don’t think the extreme right has a monopoly on hate.

Yeah, they're banned from lemmygrad. Rule 5:

  1. No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  1. Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome, this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
  1. No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
  1. No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, strasserists, duginists, etc).
[–] argv_minus_one 5 points 1 year ago

Denying the Uyghur genocide is an act of bigotry, no different from denying the Holocaust of German Jews, yet such content is openly tolerated there.