In light of user Wisconcom’s community Hoxhaism (created using an alternate account named Ouisconkom), and the anti-China/anti-Mao sectarianism that permeates the rhetoric of the community. It has come to our attention that some members of the community are unhappy with this sort of content being allowed.
In the past, we’ve removed other Ultra-leftists, such as Patriotic Socialists, for their sectarianism. And some of the admins feel this might be a time to do that again.
Lemmygrad’s success depends on transparency and communication between the user base and the admins, so we would like the Lemmygrad community to tell us how they feel about this possible issue.
I propose we call the Hoxhaism instance a pilot program and review its effects in three to four months time. If it becomes a source of toxicity, hostility, and internal drama, we scrap it. If not, wonderful.
I am of the opinion that Ouisconkom is self-aware and restrained enough to be trusted. At least I know they are a communist. I disagree with their stances on things, but honestly, I’ve been busy reading Mao, Stalin, Lenin. I would be glad to keep the Hoxhaism instance as long as it’s a place where productive ideas are put forth strictly about Hoxhaism and its tenets.
I think it’s important to have a space for ideas that challenge our own, but it’s a different thing to have a platform that poisons the well.
That is acceptable. Our community is largely focused on teaching people about Hoxhaism and further applying the ideology to the modern day. It is in our best interest to ensure it contributes to Lemmygrad.
My personal take on this - and mind you this isn’t the take of the admin team, only my own - is that Wisconcom/Ouisconkom’s a little too eager to say the right thing to stay on Lemmygrad, and the community which currently only consists of them as both the only contributor and the only moderator gives me the impression that they really are just ban evading, and using their community so we (the admins) can’t simply give them the banhammer again for spouting highly sectarian (and frankly untrue) rhetoric about China, without needing to make a post like this.
But, I will be willing to let them take this as a warning to stop the incessant sectarianism, and rather focus more on what Hoxhaism is before they make arguments as to what Hoxhaists believe about other revolutionary states. At least, in my opinion, we should give them a few weeks to ‘fix their act’, and if they fail to make their community a place for real discussion that is civil and non-sectarian, we’ll either remove the community, or shift it into someone else’s hands.
If the community is really about “teaching”, as they say. Then the community should be teaching, not going on rants about China being “revisionist” or “capitalist”. It’s possible for different Marxist ideology groups to coexist within the framework of Lemmygrad, but the bare minimum of that is being civil and respectful towards the other sects of Marxism. Wisconcom has failed at doing that, and in doing so they’ve not only put their community in jeopardy, but they’ve also hammered a wedge between them and the majority ideologies of Lemmygrad (ML, and ML-MZT).
We don’t want to foster a culture of banning everyone we disagree with on Lemmygrad, which is why The People’s Court was founded, and why we pose these questions to the community when applicable. My personal experience with Hoxhaists is, frankly, not very positive. For the sake of not starting my own sectarian arguments, I’ll sum down simply to; Hoxhaists tend to grasp to ultra-leftist talking points, and can be a pain to try to work with. I’m personally uncomfortable with having a Hoxhaist community, just as I’m uncomfortable with an MLM or Trotskyist community. But, I will self-crit and admit that Hoxhaism at one point in time was the dominant ideology of a functioning revolutionary state, and as such deserves more examination than the previous two ideologies mentioned.
And on that point, I will urge members of GenZedong and our pro-PRC comrades to give Hoxhaism equal respect, as long as Wisconcom and the Hoxhaist community does the same. The last thing we want is a gang war of sorts to form, and the easiest way we can keep that from happening is to encourage comradeship and mutual respect. Please refrain from throwing around terms like “reformist” at each other, please refrain from trying to flame one another’s communities. Friendship in our shared goals should be more important than trying to pwn each other online.
Though I don’t have many personal experiences with Hoxhaists, I believe the above to be the most reasonable course of action.
the community which currently only consists of them as both the only contributor and the only moderator gives me the impression that they really are just ban evading, and using their community so we (the admins) can’t simply give them the banhammer again for spouting highly sectarian (and frankly untrue) rhetoric about China, without needing to make a post like this.
I don’t think I fully understand this: are you unable to ban a user if they’re the creator of a community or something?
Further: is/should public deliberation over deleting a community be necessary when it was created by an individual who, on account of being banned, should not have been able to create a community here, and was only able to do so by ban evading?
we could just ban them, nothing is really stopping us from doing it. But for anti-sectarianism within Marxism, the best course of action is to ask the LG community how they feel and act accordingly. If this community could be redirected to following the site rules, then there’s no reason for us to need to remove it.
On Wisconcom’s ban evasion though, if they’re willing to change their behaviour and stop being problematic we’re willing to let them stay. However, at the current moment they are very close to being rebanned. If they don’t correct themselves, they’ll be removed.
deleted by creator
That is a reasonable criticism. Perhaps in the past I resorted to much on simple name calling, and made some factual erroneous claims.
I accept that I perhaps promoted sectarian behavior with topics such as the PRC, Mao Zedong Thought, and such. I am willing to show respect to others, and further restrict my theoretical criticisms to the Hoxhaist community itself.
deleted by creator
That was in the past, when conversational wisdom was lacking.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You are completely miss contextualising that. That conversation was lacking in any sort of respect, and was full of uneeded sectarianism and misinformation.
deleted by creator
Yes, and that conversation cited bad sources that are not being used today.
It’s possible for different Marxist ideology groups to coexist within the framework of Lemmygrad, but the bare minimum of that is being civil and respectful towards the other sects of Marxism.
I think what you said here is the crux of it.
Is it possible for Hoxhaism to actually do that? If you take away the criticism of China and the USSR, it’s just Stalinism. It doesn’t add anything to the ideological discussion except criticism of other forms of Marxism. Therefore there’s a case to be made that a dedicated Hoxhaist community doesn’t offer anything to the Lemmygrad community other than divisive invective.
That is false, Hoxhaism is not just “Stalinism”. It has unique theoretical content.
碉堡爱好者
deleted by creator
This is one of purposes of the Hoxhaist community here - to fight against the common misconceptions about Hoxhaism. While Enver Hoxha’s investment into fortifications was warranted, it is not the ideological content of Hoxhaism.
毛泽东说“要把朋友搞得多多的，把敌人搞的少少的”然而全世界一番光明伟大正义，唯一的真正马克思主义者，全欧洲的明灯霍查同志宁愿将南斯拉夫苏联中国设立为自己的敌人，并且颅内臆想苏联和南斯拉夫要侵略自己，在阿尔巴尼亚建造数十万个堡垒而不愿用这些材料建造住宅分给人民
deleted by creator
Let’s analyze Wisconcom’s arguments:
“So you are unwilling to have your notion of “AES” be put through intellectual criticism by other Marxists who maintain a dialectial and materialist framework?” [link]
Here user @Ouisconkom@lemmygrad.ml claims his criticism of China is done through a “dialectical and materialist framework.” And what examples of criticism does he give?
“So, for example, saying that the People’s Republic of China should return to a centrally planned economy from its present economic system is a “CIA talking point”?” [link]
He claims the People’s Republic of China should return to a centrally planned economy. User @cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml pointed out that in fact, the PRC still maintains a high degree of economic planning (see Chinese five-year plans, for instance):
“The PRC does use a centrally planned economic system. The socialist market economy is used to “fill in the gaps” so to speak. Just like the Soviet Union, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Yugoslavia (except Yugoslavia had more market elements than the other socialist countries I listed.)
The PRC primarily abides by Central Planning targets put forward by the state, with bottom-up and top-down input from specialists and proletarian representatives, and leeway given if necessary. The private/market economic activity is used to generate a higher degree of profit, while still subject to the commanding heights and regulation of the CPC. Even partially private for profit enterprises are in all but name state-owned.” [link]This is a known fact by most Marxists-Leninists today. But after receiving that answer, Ouisconkom/Wisconcom is extremely dismissive and refuses to recognize his mistakes:
"I disagree with you on a number of your arguments. However, the point of this discussion does not concern the economic system of China. [link]
Your purported facts are false, or atleast not fully telling of the truth. I am willing to discuss this further, but not in this particular context." [link]He began talking about the economic system of China, then later after being corrected, he says “the point of this discussion does not concern the economic system of China.” This is the type of behavior that I have already personally addressed to this user. Wisconcom has made several high-quality contributions to the English ProleWiki, and I’m certain he could be a valuable comrade to our community, but his manners, his hostile and dismissive behavior towards others has been extremely annoying both in ProleWiki and in Lemmygrad. This is what I said about my experiences with Wisconcom:
“I should state, though, that your personality is sometimes “in the way” when you engage with others. You very commonly resort to name-calling (calling them “revisionists”, “liberals”, “anti-Marxists”, etc.) and you do not engage with the idea of others, you simply attack them, calling their political understanding “Dengist Revisionist propaganda”, and in general being usually hostile towards others in this position. I should remember you, in the last discussion we had about the Nazi sympathies of the Ukraine state and government, where you claimed I was “destroying our revolutionary ideals” through “text-book revisionism”, when in fact, as you later realized, you simply misinterpreted what I had said.”
Wisconcom hasn’t engaged intellectually, he is simply dismissive by calling the person a “revisionist”, a “Dengist propagandist”, “liberal”, “anti-Marxist”, but while he arrogantly insults others, he fails to deliver a reasonable argument which contradicts our claims. At most, he picks a bunch of quotes by Hoxha on Mao Zedong and China and it boils down to, “since Hoxha said it, it’s true.” That way he ignores the inumerous scholars, historians and economists who say China is a transition economy, by analyzing the 50 years of development since Deng Xiaoping, which has raised the living standards of the people like no other capitalist country achieved in its history. China was the most impoverished country in the planet at some point, now it is the industrial superpower of the world. If someone claims China is a capitalist country, they are therefore claiming capitalism is what made China develop, but it was not, it was an economy controlled by the Communist Party of China. The country led by Hoxha fell under a bourgeois dictatorship while the Communist Party of China still maintains its leadership in the country. This tells us a lot about the correctness of one political line over the other.
This is my critique not of Hoxhaism, but Wisconcom himself. His behavior is not that of a revolutionary, but of an ultra-leftist idealist which no grasp over Marxism nor Marxism-Leninism. But there are several Hoxhaist parties in the world, communist parties which follows this line. One example is the Brazilian Partido Comunista Revolucionário, which I think does actually a good work together with the Unidade Popular, which I’m not sure is Hoxhaist, but maintains a close affiliation with PCR. So I believe this user is not representative of Hoxhaism in general, he’s just an annoying exponent. Usually the Hoxhaists I know are mostly grounded in Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and finally Hoxha. But Wisconcom appears to be grounded in Hoxha alone, which I think is responsible for his awful deviations.
My personal opinion on Hoxha is that he was a great revolutionary in practice, but if by reading his works people become as insufferable as Wisconcom, I don’t think there’s much value in taking Hoxha’s works as the only truth, under the assumption Hoxha did not make terrible ideological and theoretical mistakes in his lifetime. I think we should read works by everyone possible, even from bourgeois sources like Marx did actually. But there’s a difference in reading something critically and taking a single author as your unchangeable ideological and political line.
I don’t think Wisconcom should be banned if they manage to correct their positions and behavior. Right now, I haven’t seen any willingness to admit his mistakes or recognize that the way he engages with others is extremely toxic. But if this behavior continues, I would recommend a ban, no hard feelings. And if he tries to do the same thing in ProleWiki, he will be banned in ProleWiki as well. Quick reminder that the MediaWiki software bans people based on IP, so it will be tougher to circumvent than to simply create another account. You’re free to criticize China, Cuba, People’s Korea, Vietnam and Laos all you want, but be ready to be criticized. If your response is to simply call others “revisionists” and not engage with the arguments other will give you, you’re showing that you have no interest in dialogue and just want the freedom to attack, not criticize.
But if this behavior continues
Impressive amounts of patience from the admins here, but for how long do you wait to see changes, considering this will be setting a precedent for other ban evaders?
The decision taken here will set a precedent, which is the more important aspect because it is long-term. Ban evasion is not a problem on lemmygrad and ban evaders can be banned again regardless of their ultra affiliations or lack thereof, so it’s important to have wisconcom participate in this discussion no matter what happens next.
i agree with you
This is an extremly dishonest assessment. You completely remove any context from what I am saying in order to crudely make me falsely seem like some sort of fanatical and single-minded Ultra-left.
The reason why I said:
“I am willing to discuss this further, but not in this particular context.”
Is not because I am close-minded about that person’s arguments, but simply because this is not the place to do it. I am willing to consider their views, in fact, I have already had a respectful discussion with somebody who left a critique of a post I made in the Hoxhaist community. If they were to, say, comment on one of the posts in my community, or somewhere else, I would be perfectly willing to reply to them with a counter-argument in a respectful manner, as I have already done recently.
“Right now, I haven’t seen any willingness to admit his mistakes or recognize that the way he engages with others is extremely toxic.”
I have done just that. I admited that I falsely resorted to petty-name calling, that I was false to say that Xi Jinping was a millionaire, and that I lacked good sources for that claim, and that I was overall being disrespectful to others. I have since retracted all my criticisms of, for example, Mao Zedong to the Hoxhaist community itself - as I understand that people outside that community are going to dislike what I have to say.
I was false to say that Xi Jinping was a millionaire, and that I lacked good sources for that claim
It’s not just that you lacked good sources, it’s that you cited terrible ones. You actually looked at ‘caknowledge.com/xi-jinping-net-worth’ and decided to cite it. Why? You’re clearly not an idiot, so you can’t have thought it was a reliable source.
因为你的话没几句是真的捏
I have nothing of substance to add. But I will say that when someone unironiclly tells me that their tendency is the most theoretically advanced version of marxism and the revolutionary traditions, I immediately assume they are dogmatists and lose interest.
deleted by creator
Sectarian tendencies that defend anti-AES need to go. In my experience on reddit, allowing these types of communities to foster will eventually lead to the liberalization of this website.
So you are unwilling to have your notion of “AES” be put through intellectual criticism by other Marxists who maintain a dialectial and materialist framework? Would amiable self-criticism improve our theory? Lastly, define “liberalization”, please.
It’s one thing to criticize, it’s another to spout CIA talking points. By liberalization I mean the sub gets full of liberals, look at Late Stage Capitalism.
So, for example, saying that the People’s Republic of China should return to a centrally planned economy from its present economic system is a “CIA talking point”? The criticism we may have concerns topics that are Socialistic, and something which the State Department would never care about - as they are Capitalist.
The PRC does use a centrally planned economic system. The socialist market economy is used to “fill in the gaps” so to speak. Just like the Soviet Union, Cuba, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, Yugoslavia (except Yugoslavia had more market elements than the other socialist countries I listed.)
The PRC primarily abides by Central Planning targets put forward by the state, with bottom-up and top-down input from specialists and proletarian representatives, and leeway given if necessary. The private/market economic activity is used to generate a higher degree of profit, while still subject to the commanding heights and regulation of the CPC. Even partially private for profit enterprises are in all but name state-owned.
I disagree with you on a number of your arguments. However, the point of this discussion does not concern the economic system of China.
With all due respect, none of what I said are arguments, I am stating facts. My arguments would be different.
Your purported facts are false, or atleast not fully telling of the truth. I am willing to discuss this further, but not in this particular context.
In our world we only have 5 countries that uphold the Communist banner. If you find yourself more concerned about criticizing these countries instead of building Socialism in your country, then you are useless the struggle and quite frankly reactionary.
If you dislike how they do Socialism, then build a better one in your country. Show us how to do Socialism properly, instead of just criticizing it from the comfort of your armchair. We need Lenins, Stalins and Castros, not Bordigians of try to pass themselves as Hoxhaists.
Fyi, China does have economic planning, a quick search on Google will show you this. It just goes to show you, how your critique of China is ill-informed. You should instead, spend more time studying them and understanding them, rather than making critiques based on Western pre-conceptions.
Yes, that is particularly what we are attempting to do: help bulid a revolution movement which is able to create new Socialist states, and we think that Hoxhaism is the primary ideology of today which could create a better Socialist state.
Lastly, you are correct, there still is a small amont of economic planning in the Chinese economy, however, it is no where near the levels seen in a centrally planned economy.
那你去弄呀？网上敲键盘可比治理一个国家简单十的一一四五一四次方倍
I’m fine with it as long as it stays in that community
That is fair.
I myself don’t take pleasure at all from bashing other leftists (radlibs and obvious shills like Vaush excluded) and prefer to just leave arguments as is with others that subscribe to a different subset of Marxist ideas. I think the best method of handling infighting with other leftist is to try to come to the mutual agreement that you each hate liberals and fascists more then you do each other and agree to do the best to stay out of each others way. If the other can’t come to that agreement and insist on calling YOU a liberal or a fascist, then it is a lost cause.
Yes, I agree. Wanton infighting between Communists is a regressive force for our movement.
Commenting for the algorithm cause this is important for the whole instance.
deleted by creator
We are in full agreement with the ideas of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, ect.
We are also willing to critically support nations like the Republic of Cuba or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
deleted by creator
We have criticism of their economic policy, but reject the common Liberal lies constantly thrown at them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So, because I don’t consider my self an expert on Hoxhaism, this comment will not be a criticism of the ideology.
But I feel like there’s a certain standard that everyone on here should consider regarding debate in the comments, and so far I’m not seeing that. Most criticism against the community seem to get countered by a comment on the level ‘no this is not true’ without any further explanation. If the people from the Hoxhaism community can come forward and have a meaningful debate in comments where their intentions and ideology get challenged, it’s fine in my opinion.
But if it stays on the level it currently is, what does it add? It’s not a meaningful addition if all criticism gets pushed aside by saying it’s not true, without ever going into details as to why it is not true. Other ideologies over here actually do these things.
I can’t say it’s in bad faith but it would be nice if it could spark some actual meaningful debate.
it would be nice if it could spark some actual meaningful debate.
Screenshot of rule 3 in that community as at the time of this comment:
Pre-emptively shuts down any meaningful debate comparing Hoxhaism to any ideology that Hoxhaism considers to be social-imperialist or revisionist… which is a lot of them.
Their claims of being open to discussion completely lack substance.
Hmm… Perhaps that rule could be changed.
IMO, you should change all of the rules that mention “revisionism”, as they’re all a little too sectarian. My suggestion for you would be to find other people who follow Hoxhaist ideology and add them to your moderation team, so these kinds of issues can be resolved collaboratively, rather than it clearly being your personal biases putting your community in a tight spot.
I am presently waiting for other Hoxhaists to join my community who are active enough for community moderation.
A pleasant invitation to casual conversation in the free market place of people’s court of ideas
The Hoxhaist community is willing to converse with non-Hoxhaists with matters concerning our ideas, however, I did not think that the purpose of this post on the People’s Court was for debate on theory.
No but that doesn’t mean the debate can be at least meaningful, which in my opinion, it’s not with regards to comments in this thread.
That being said, if the Hoxhaist community welcomes more debate and is willing to, if necessary, concede in said debates, that’s fine by me. We’re all here to learn I hope, ML’s included.
Of course.
I agree with Grain Eater, I just think GZD shouldn’t have that type of stuff, in the same way I think Gonzaloists shouldn’t be there. I also think it’s fair to criticize them in those spaces.
LG isn’t just GZD, GZD is only one community within the 'grad.
Assign him his own personal moderator that follows him around on LG to police his comments for bullshit. Then we can let him stay. I think that’s the only way this doesn’t turn to shit eventually. Lot of communities have been overrun by utopian, perfectionist hoxhaist type folks and destroyed. Let’s please be careful.
I refuse to compare Patzi bullshit to Hoxhaism.
At least the Hoxs are on some level in good faith.
