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.
Because the people who run the majority of instances are leftists. And despite my many grievances with marxist-leninist ideology and particularly with stalinism, I’d rather talk with tankies who at least claim to respect me as a minority than nazis who actively wish death upon me.
Leftism should be tolerated because leftism advocates for the rights of the workers. Leftism is the way the world can and should be. Whichever flavor of it, they’re all better than fascism. And wherever fascists will gather their sole purpose is to propagate hatred against minorities. Leftists are overwhelming welcoming and accepting of minorities. They are no threat to the acceptance of marginalized peoples.
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.
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.
Then it’s just a “no true Scotsman” argument.
There are plenty of examples of leftist governments who were openly hostile to minorities.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I can respect that.
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.
So was the USSR not a leftist government?
I feel like we’re going into the semantics of who is a “true” leftist.
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.
It was not.
Let us know when the ussr is doing anything modern. You just keep moving the goalposts.
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 will deny that genocides have happened, which to be clear is bad but there’s a fundamental difference between “these events didnt happen” 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 prescience of fascism to any degree.
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”.
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.
Unless it’s racism against Asians, that’s rampant on the left.
I’d love to see any evidence of this
You’re not arguing in good faith at all. You don’t have any evidence, you just have wild accusations.
Try being an Uyghur in China, then, or a Ukrainian among Stalinists. You will not feel accepted.
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.
I love “i know all right spaces are intolerant but ive know some bad leftists so they are exactly the same” 😩
Yeah, they’re banned from lemmygrad. Rule 5:
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.
Can’t agree more. It’s amazing just how many posts I’ve seen since joining Lemmy equating the left and right, as if “workers should own the means of production” is just as bad as the literal genocide advocated by the hard right.
That said, given that lemmy.ml (and maybe latte.isnot.coffee?) is run by pro-CCP tankies, I think it’s worth taking a second to say that defending the genocide of the Uighurs is majorly fucked and the vast majority of hard leftists here on Lemmy vehimently oppose that.
But one can’t be hard-right and not be for genocide, basically. Not so on the left.
My philosophy has been that If you hate people you’re never met, I hate you. Otherwise, let’s have a drink and talk out whatever the differences are.
The people who made abortion illegal in most of the United States have harmed millions of innocent people without meeting them.
Unless you’re Jewish, the far left has had a huge blind spot for anti-Semitism over the last few years.
You might be mistaking denouncing Israel’s treatment of Palestininians as somehow anti-Semitic.
I’m not saying that all leftists aren’t bigots or that bigotry never happens in leftist spaces, but bigotry is the rule in fascist ones. Fascism is bigotry, it’s a core part of the ideology itself. For that reason they’re not comparable.
That sounds a little bit like the no true Scotsman argument
It isn’t at all a no true Scotsman argument, what are you talking about?
You can be a leftist and not be bigoted. Bigots also join the left, we can’t help that, but that’s because they personally are bigoted, not because the ideology is. In fact, most modern leftism argues that bigotry is fundamentally at odds with the core ideals, and in my experience a majority of the left, at least in English speaking countries, wants to distance these people.
You cannot be a fascist without being bigoted. Being bigoted is part of the ideology. It aims to spread and teach bigotry, that’s the purpose of it.
No true Scotsman would be “yeah but the anti Semitic leftists aren’t real leftists”, which isn’t what anyone said.
I disagree, but if we argue, it’ll go nowhere.
There’s not really anything to disagree with. What you’re calling a No True Scotsman isn’t a No True Scotsman argument in the slightest.
Yeah, the concept behind the fediverse nests pretty well with leftist ideals, so it’s no surprise that leftism has thrived here. An open-source site that anyone can host, with no centralized power structure, and that openly promotes opening and administrating your own server? The idea behind it is inherently anti-fascist, because fascism relies on consolidating power so only an elite landed gentry are allowed to make decisions.