[POLICY] Is Soviet/Maoist apologia a breach of the Terms of Service?

Submitted by Fossidarity in meta (edited )

The ToS states:

Content is prohibited if it:
Promotes white supremacy, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia or cisgenderism, misogyny or patriarchy, classism, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, Islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.
Sexualizes minors or promotes adults having sex with minors.
Trivializes or makes light of rape.
Apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, eugenics, genocide.
Apologizes for violence towards children.
Is a pornographic image/video (however, nudity is permitted if it's non-pornographic)


Are Marxist-Leninsm, Stalinism, Maoism or State Communism in general:

  • A form of imperialism?
  • A form of classism?
  • Promoting genocide (especially Stalinism)?
  • Promoting military brutality?
  • Promoting police brutality?

Should people promoting one of these forms be banned if the answer to at least one of these questions is "yes"?

9

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote (edited )

If they directly defend gulags, the holodomor genocide, secret police, the red terror, the population transfers, the red guards, Tiananmen Square, Chinese imperialism in Tibet and Taiwan, etc then yes.

13

Fossidarity OP wrote

But isn't that implied by supporting those systems? Similar to how fascism implies racism/genocide even though some fascists might deny it?

5

ziq wrote (edited )

When I was an admin, being a fash wasn't enough to get you b&, but promoting fash viewpoints was. So, violating the tos. They can say "I am a tankie", but not "the kulaks deserved it".

10

F_x wrote

To me, saying "I'm a tankie" is like saying "I'm a nazi", it means you support fascists ideologies. We don't need them around, they have nothing to bring except a knife in our back.

I have no problem with communist that maintain that we need to take control of the state and then move to a stateless society. But people that idolize scums and their atrocities shouldn't be here.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I don't agree because liberalism is guilty of even worse atrocities than stalinism and nazism. We'd have to ban everyone who isn't an anarchist. And there are plenty of shitty anarchists, too.

6

F_x wrote

It leaves, anarchists of all sort, communists, liberalists and all others that come in good faith, something that no tankie has done yet. I don't see why they should have a platform. I wouldn't want a liberal to come here and post shit but I don't mind a liberal that comes and ask question and is curious about left ideologies.

4

ziq wrote

What about /u/sudo? We've trained them pretty well to keep their tankie politics to themself.

2

F_x wrote

I don't remember interacting with them so I have no opinion.

1

emma wrote

IMO, Raddle is going down the wrong path if guilt by association becomes a thing. By these standards, people like Bernie liberals would have to be banned as their man is an Israel sympathiser. Either the ToS are interpreted strictly and Raddle is kept an open community, or this site becomes an exclusively anarchist club with limited appeal.

7

Fossidarity OP wrote

This is the kind of the reaction I'm trying to elicit, because guilt of association does seem to be a thing when someone calls themselves a nazi, which it should because it's almost impossible to associate with that in good faith except if you never heard anything about it.

I'm trying to gauge the community their feeling about what constitutes what in the ToS and how strictly it should be enforced.

1

F_x wrote

We could add "apoligizes for state violence" so that include cops and any other organisation working for the state. Police and military is already there but state violence is wider and Stalinism and Maoism fall in that category.

5

martasultan wrote

They can have arguments regarding imperialism, Maoists specifically, but the police and military are unavoidably central to their ideas and a very clear violation of this.

5

yaaqov wrote

So the Black Panther Party are now police brutality apologists because they were Maoists?

4

RosaReborn wrote

I agree with this point. Marxists can still have valuable input and as long as they oppose imperialism and police-states and do not defend the atrocities of past state-capitalist systems than they should be free to discuss ideas without a ban.

Certainly liberal media portrays states like Venezuela and N. Korea in a ridiculous light but just because there is immense pressure put upon these states from outside powers, that does not excuse abuses of citizens that still occur. Ultimately the discussion about having a state or not is a worthwhile discussion, but supporting acts of suppression by a state is never okay.

Basically I support the abolition of all state mechanism but I'm fine hosting others that may disagree so long as it is within a good historical context and in good faith

7

Fossidarity OP wrote

I think being a Maoist in the 60s is very different than being a Maoist now.

1

F_x wrote (edited )

⁽⁽ପ( •ु﹃ •ु)​.⑅*♡ Where the fuck are you getting that they were police brutality apologists from? ʚ♡⃛ɞ(ू•ᴗ•ू❁)

Edit: now with less aggression

−1

yaaqov wrote

This is the point I was intending to make. u/RosaReborn more or less expanded on where I was going.

Obviously, the BPP were not apologists for police brutality. But the insinuation of the original post was that all ML(M)s are necessarily, by virtue of their theoretical positioning, complicit in these structural oppressions listed there. My point is that this is absurd and false.

5

F_x wrote (edited )

This is a subject I'm not familiar with (BPP being maoist), were they supporting Mao or simply marxist ideas (like I said I have no problem with marxism/communism). If the BPP still existed and support maoism then I would be against them. My point was maybe the BPP weren't aware of Mao's atrocities. Anyway I'm aware and want nothing to do with fascist sympathisers/idolisers.

Edit:

If they knew of Mao's atrocities then yeah that make them police brutality apologists, I sure hope they didn't or else it's quite hypocrite to fight state violence in your own country but supporting it in another one. I am not discrediting the great things the black panthers did but they can be criticized.

2

emma wrote

This is a bad take. Many of the BPP's members were killed by police and/or tortured in prison. Some are still behind bars today. To admit you have little knowledge on the subject, and then suggest they're 'police brutality apologists', comes off as being in bad taste, especially when you consider that standing up to police violence was one of their primary activities.

6

F_x wrote (edited )

I thought they were black nationalist. My point is that it makes no sense to be maoist when you are fighting state violence, it comes of as hypocrite. Which is why I ask that maybe someone here knows if they were ignorant of Mao's atrocities or if they renounce maoism later.

I don't see it as a bad take to criticize their support of Mao and asking if it was because they didn't know of the atrocities. Because supporting state violence in China but being against it in the USA is hypocrisy.

As I said, I am not discrediting what they have done, simply their support to Mao. Their action had no link to maoism, supporting the black panthers is fine. But supporting Mao is not.

Edit: good info ziq posted

2