I wasn’t referring to Wikipedia backing up the June 2nd bit. I don’t 100% disagree or agree with the rest, but I don’t think there’s much to argue definitively anymore due to the nature of how hazy the estimates are.

Why do racist fascists come to the fediverse?

Edit: To be clear: I prefer socialism. Not whatever feelgood capitalism, but make it green on the left is.

The PRC has a socialist market economy, not “feelgood capitalism.” The commanding heights of industry are publicly owned, the working classes have control of the state, and this combination is what allows for the PRC’s strong movements towards electrification, combatting desertification, and uplifting the working classes. China in many ways is advancing towards what Solarpunks reportedly want, a green economy directed towards working class interests.

Socialism with Frutiger Aero Characteristics

It’s sarcasm.

Having a mix of people commenting with different viewpoints already contributes to this, but there’s also many people that scroll locally exclusively. There’s also differences in admins and moderators, their rules and preferences, etc. This itself forms its own culture. It isn’t the absence of culture, but the presence of a unique, blended culture, which isn’t inherently better or worse.

.world is widely federated, but it also selectively defederates from communist instances, and bans people for being too critical of Zionism. This influences Lemmy.world’s culture greatly despite relatively broad federation.

Interesting, I’ll have to give that a look!

The problem is that all of those “nicer parts” are used to justify and support the elephant in the room, the right to private property. Liberalism has been used historically to justify slavery, genocide, imperialism, and more. Liberalism cannot be removed from its economic basis, the economic basis is the driving force for the ideology. It’s individualism taken to an anti-social level.

Yep, that’s why language learning is such a useful skill!

Gotcha! For what it’s worth, neutrality doesn’t truly exist. What we think of as neutral is really that which conforms to our pre-existing beliefs. Our language, culture, norms, etc. reinforce this idea of what is “neutral,” which in reality is a comparison to these subjects. With that being said, I would think of it more in terms of what you want to see: broad federation, selective defederation, etc., as well as what each instance is like to browse locally. All have their own vibes, Lemmy.zip isn’t “vibeless” just because it is broadly federated.

Just a tip!

A bit odd coming from the instance currently trying to fake a Neo-Nazi takeover of an anarchist instance just because Feddit.org and Lemmy.world admins got outed as Zionists.

Regarding point 1, this is relatively true.

Regarding point 2, all of these states are “authoritarian,” the difference being which class has authority, and which classes has authority imposed upon them. Cuba, the PRC, and Vietnam are all socialist countries with the working class in charge of the state, while France, Europe, and the US are all imperialist countries/regions where capitalists control the state and impose their authoritarian rule upon the working classes.

Regarding point 3, this could be a possible explanation but requires actual backing.

Regarding point 4, it’s important to compare not just systems dogmatically, but against peers, and what came before. Germany, the UK, Austria, etc. are all imperialist countries, and thus have greater access to resources. It matters both how much resources you have, and what you do with them. Socialist countries have more pro-social policy that stretches resources farther.

In total, it certainly is propaganda in that it’s trying to convey a specific point for a specific aim, just like your comment can be considered propaganda. You offer some decent ideas of how to improve the data, but you also insert your own biases without backing them up, and run into metaphysical errors regarding how these are compared (such as ignoring levels of development and imperialism).

Yep! Been reading Gramsci lately, and he puts into words this phenomenon really well:

The widespread prejudice that philosophy is something very difficult because it is the intellectual activity of a specific category of specialist scholars or professional and systematic philosophers must be destroyed. To do this we must first show that all men are “philosophers,” defining the limitations of this “spontaneous philosophy” possessed by “everyone,” that is, of the philosophy contained in: (1) language itself, which is a totality of determined notions and concepts and not simply and solely of words grammatically void of content; (2) common sense and good sense; (3) popular religion and therefore also in the entire system of beliefs, superstitions, opinions, ways of perceiving and acting which make up what is generally called “folklore.”

Having shown that everyone is a philosopher, even if in his own way, unconsciously (because even in the smallest manifestation of any intellectual activity — “language” — is contained a definite conception of the world), we pass to the second stage, the stage of criticism and awareness. We pass to the question: is it preferable to “think” without having critical awareness, in a disjointed and irregular way, in other words to “participate” in a conception of the world “imposed” mechanically by external environment, that is, by one of the many social groups in which everyone is automatically involved from the time he enters the conscious world; [3] or is it preferable to work out one’s own conception of the world consciously and critically, and so out of this work of one’s own brain to choose one’s own sphere of activity, to participate actively in making the history of the world, and not simply to accept passively and without care the imprint of one’s own personality from outside?

Note 1: For his own conception of the world a man always belongs to a certain grouping, and precisely to that grouping of the social elements who all share the same ways of thinking and working. He is a conformist in relation to some conformity, he is always man of a mass or a man of a collective. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformity, the mass of which he is a part? When his conception of the world is not critical and coherent but haphazard and disconnected he belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of masses, giving his own personality a bizarre composition. It contains elements of the cave-man as well as principles of the most modern and advanced learning; shabby, local prejudices of all past historical phases as well as intuitions of a future philosophy of the human race united all over the world. Criticizing one’s own conception of the world means, therefore, to make it coherent and unified and to raise it to the point reached by the most advanced modern thought. It also means criticizing all hitherto existing philosophy in so far as it has left layers incorporated into the popular philosophy. The beginning of the critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, that is, a “know thyself” as the product of the historical process which has left you an infinity of traces gathered together without the advantage of an inventory. To begin, then, it is necessary to first compile such an inventory.

Note 2: Philosophy cannot be separated from the history of philosophy nor culture from the history of culture. In the most immediate and pertinent sense one cannot have a critically coherent conception of the world — that is, one cannot be a philosopher — without being aware of one’s conception’s history, of the phases of development it represents, and of the fact that any conception stands in contradiction to other conceptions, or elements of other conceptions. The correct conception of the world answers certain problems posed by reality which are very much determined and “original” in their actuality. How is it possible to think about the present — and a well-determined present at that — with a philosophy elaborated in response to the problems of a remote and often outdated past? If this happens it means that one is an “anachronism” in one’s own time, a fossil and not a modern living being. Or at least one is “composed” bizarrely. And in fact it so happens that social groups which in certain ways express the most developed modernity, are arrested in other ways by their social position, and so are incapable of complete historical independence. [4]

Note 3: Given that language contains the elements of a conception of the world and of a culture, it will also be true that the greater or lesser complexity of a person’s conception of the world can be judged from that person’s language. A person who only speaks a dialect or who understands the national language in varying degrees necessarily enjoys a more or less restricted and provincial, fossilized and anachronistic perception of the world in comparison with the great currents of thought which dominate world history. His interests will be restricted, more or less guild-like or economistic, and not universal. If it is not always possible to learn foreign languages so as to put oneself in touch with different cultures, one must at least learn the national tongue. One great culture can be translated into the language of another great culture, that is, one great national language which is historically rich and complex, can translate any other great culture, i.e. can be a world expression. But a dialect cannot do the same thing.

Note 4: The creation of a new culture does not only mean individually making some “original” discoveries. It means also and especially the critical propagation of truths already discovered, “socializing them” so to speak, and so making them become a basis for vibrant actions, an element of co-ordination and of intellectual and moral order. The leading of a mass of men to think coherently and in a unitary way about present-day reality is a “philosophical” fact of much greater importance and “originality” than the discovery by a philosophical “genius” of a new truth which remains the inheritance of small groups of intellectuals.

• The Study of Philosophy and of Historical Materialism

How exactly is this cherry-picking? Communists wanting everyone to have food and be taken care of are entirely different from capitalists that want to suck the surplus value out of every worker. Horseshoe theory is wrong.

The distribution of medicine in the USSR, a much poorer country, was widely available because of the socialist economy and distribution of resources. Medicine does not magically appear, economics decides how and where it goes.

No? Socialism made a life-saving medicine more widely available.

🤣

And the really angry ones tend to be banned for some flavor of bigotry.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

Churchill did not take the Nazis as a serious threat, and was horrified when FDR and Stalin made a joke about executing Nazis. Churchill starved millions to death in India in preventable ways, and had this to say about it:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

Meanwhile, the soviet famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in the USSR, because collectivized farming achieved food security in a region where famine was common. As a consequence, life expectancy doubled:

The Nazis and soviets were never allies. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance, and the non-aggression pact between the soviets and the Nazis was unique among the other non-aggression pacts in that it was on the eve of war. The soviets knew war was coming, and so bought more time to prepare.

Lend-Lease helped, but the reason the communists beat the Nazis and saved the world was already because they had turned the tide of the war before the arms arrived. Contrary to pop-culture depictions of World War II, the soviets did not use “human wave” style attacks, and the communists were in fact greeted as the liberators they were. The Nazis brought genocide wherever they went, while the communists saved the world.

Nobody here is forgetting history, you’re inventing history.

The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning that still lasts to this day despite capitalism neglecting it. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.

Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.

The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.

Death rates spiked:

And wealth disparity skyrocketed alongside the newly impoverished majority:

Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism and reintroduction of capitalism, and this is why the large majority of post-soviet citizens regret its fall. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries.

When you look at the US Empire and western Europe as having higher quality of life than the USSR, you are looking at the benefits of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonialism and wishing the USSR also practiced this, instead of helping liberate colonies and the global south. Russia in particular was a semi-feudal backwater in 1917, and made it to space 5 decades later. The USSR was not the picture of wealth, but was for its time the picture of development and rapid progress.

Communism works in theory and in practice.