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.

  • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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.