This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
See this GitHub page for a collection of sources about socialism, imperialism, and other relevant topics.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.
☭ Matrix homeserver and space
☭ Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
☭ Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive
tl;dr It was Mao.
We went back and forth about Chinese revolution for a short bit and they asked if it was worth all the people who died from starvation and the executions of educated people. I said the second part didn't even happen (I'm pretty sure this is what did me in), I probably should've looked into it and tried to debunk it properly but it just looks so wrong on it's face. Why would the Chinese even do that? Why would anyone do that (Pol Pot did because he was a crazy person but besides)? Given that the barefoot doctors program existed they clearly didn't mass murder doctors, what the hell even is this claim?
I'm sorry that happened to you. Strategically speaking, maybe it would have worked better to hunt down a source on it and post that? But at the same time, it sounds like they were trigger happy about finding an excuse to ban you anyway.
In my experience, communism or not, few places on the internet are actually moderated with any kind of fairness or consistency of standards. Lemmygrad is one of the few places I've seen where I mostly agree with the decisions made and think they are genuinely trying to be principled about it. And I don't say that to kiss ass, it's just sadly true how rare it is in my experience. Much of the time, even in my liberal days on the internet, my experience is that moderators either act based on the letter of their law and ignore the spirit of it. Or they act basically on what they feel like doing in the moment and then (maybe) cite a rule after the fact to try to justify it.
Thank you. I don't know if it would've helped in this specific case, but you are right comrade. I should do more reading and gather my sources properly if I end up doing something like this again.