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.

    • Left and right aren’t authoritarian or libertarian. The soviets were authoritarian and that’s why that happened. There’s no case to be made for equality and sharing resources to be a bad thing that could lead to something like that. It’s a problem with the implementation mainly the concentration of power that allowed authoritarianism. On the far right you have racism and suppression of “others” which clearly can lead to a nasty place very quickly.

      • The idea that the U.S.S.R. was socialist or communist, or that it’s controlling party was working to make it so, was propaganda that was convenient for both the U.S. (which was already deep in the throws of reaction against the left, and pretty much had been since its inception, and wanted to use it against its budding Cold-War enemy) and the U.S.S.R. (where leftist ideas were popular, so the government pretending to embody it was helpful to the state). It wasn’t. It was just a very widely-spread and useful authoritarian lie.

      • Left and right aren’t authoritarian or libertarian.

        Correct. It’s pro-equality and anti-equality, respectively. Starving an out-group (Ukrainians) while sparing an in-group (Russians) is not pro-equality.

        The soviets were authoritarian and that’s why that happened.

        Not only were they authoritarian, they also didn’t believe in distributing food equally. If they did, then perhaps everyone would have had less to eat, but no one would have starved.

        There’s no case to be made for equality and sharing resources to be a bad thing that could lead to something like that.

        Well, the Stalinists called themselves leftist, even while Ukraine starved and Russia did not. You might argue that they were leftist in name only, but if so, then I would make the same argument about Lemmygrad, for they celebrate the likes of Stalin.

        It’s a problem with the implementation mainly the concentration of power that allowed authoritarianism.

        Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to decide the rules that everyone must follow. It can be one person or many, chosen by heredity or election or combat, but there will always be a concentration of power. As we can see from the United States, even a system specifically designed to resist concentration of power can and will eventually be overcome, unless the populace is vigilant…which few populaces are.

        • Most of your comment is correct. But…

          Someone has to be in charge. Someone has to decide the rules that everyone must follow. It can be one person or many, chosen by heredity or election or combat, but there will always be a concentration of power.

          This is wrong. Horizontal systems exist, have always existed, and are quite viable. See Anarchy Works by Peter Gelderloos (also many works by David Graeber and so many other anarchists).

          As we can see from the United States, even a system specifically designed to resist concentration of power can and will eventually be overcome…

          Despite the liberal mythology, the United States’ system was specifically designed for exactly the opposite of that. It was instituted in reaction to more horizontal systems that were beginning to develop under the Articles of Confederation. The “Founding Fathers” literally hated and feared democracy, and were intentionally building a centralized and authoritarian state system in order to preserve and strengthen their own power. See No More Presidents by Renegade Cut.

          • An anarchistic society will be immediately destroyed and replaced with an authority-driven one, with violence if necessary, by someone who wants power over everyone else. Since there is no central authority with an army to resist him, he’ll win. Your own example of the United States, if it were true, would prove this point.

            However, your example is not true. The Articles of Confederation gave sovereignty to the governments of the 13 colonies, not to their people. It was by no means a horizontal society, merely a loose alliance of 13 vertical ones.

            The “anarchy works” article touches on the problem of horizontal societies being taken over and verticalized, but responds with, “[s]ocieties that do allow a bossy, more talented or stronger man to have more influence typically ignore him or kill him if he becomes too authoritarian, and the Big Man is unable to extend his influence very far, geographically or temporally.” This is clearly false. Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia for over a decade and no one is killing or ignoring him. A “Big Man” taking power is the whole reason tyranny exists at all.

            • An anarchistic society will be immediately destroyed and replaced with an authority-driven one, with violence if necessary, by someone who wants power over everyone else. Since there is no central authority with an army to resist him, he’ll win. Your own example of the United States, if it were true, would prove this point.

              This is really bad logic. One instance doesn’t prove that something is always true, no. And there are more horizontal societies that have persisted for thousands of years. They are generally the rule throughout the history of humanity, in fact. I pointed you at an excellent book that gives lots of examples, but you continue in ignorance while ignoring it by cherry picking some (“typically”) statement and an example which—once again—doesn’t prove what you think it proves. Why don’t you actually read it and educate yourself instead? Peter Gelderloos knows a shit ton more about this than you do, guaranteed.

              However, your example is not true. The Articles of Confederation gave sovereignty to the governments of the 13 colonies, not to their people. It was by no means a horizontal society, merely a loose alliance of 13 vertical ones.

              I didn’t say it did. I said there were more horizontal systems that the Constitution was drafted in order to quash, and that it was crafted to consolidate and enhance a hierarchy of power. Nowhere did I imply there was anarchy under the Articles of Confederation. Again, I pointed you at an excellent educational video that goes into detail about it, but you continue in ignorance and bad faith by completely ignoring it.

              I’m going to go ahead and make this my last response before blocking you, as I don’t particularly want to start a flame war with a reactionary liberal here. I hope other leftists continue to call you on your shit. Take care.