One of the biggest topics of these days is that of mods in lemmy.ml banning and censoring people because they’re Tankies. This has had a rather sizeable discussion of people agreeing and even arguing for defederating ml. I’m sure a lot of people are arguing from good intentions, but there’s also bad faith actors among them, as I will try to show in this post. The original post was based on the moderation history of the ml instance so I respond in a similar fashion.

I browsed through the discussion for a while, and stumbled upon a comment of someone who had created an instance in response, namely de_ml@lemmy.blahaj.zone The original post in about the moderation in ml has to do with the Tiananmen Square Massacre, so I decided to make a few posts in this new instance about other historical facts which are less discussed, but that we should remember too, namely the Bengal Famine and the US support of fascism in Spain.

Initially these posts were well received and had some upvoted, but after a while I got a notification that one of them had been banned. To my surprise, I looked at the mod log of the instance and found this. So, both posts being about historical atrocities committed by capitalist countries were either banned or locked, and I had been banned from the community altogether for the reason “commie?”

I checked through the admin’s history of comments and found this.

Is this admin, who censors posts that talk about historical grievances committed by capitalism, who pins “fuck Tankies” to the instance, really a person without an agenda trying to protect a community from a supposed malignant moderation, or is it someone with an agenda trying to call everyone to the left of centrism a Tankie?

We should, in my opinion, be careful with accusing and polarising one of the biggest communities in Lemmy away, which is full of non-political content, and really examine what’s going on and what agenda there is behind it.

  • Alphane Moon@lemmy.mlEnglish
    94·
    7 months ago

    I should have been a bit more clear when I said “Varoufakis is just the tip of the iceberg”, what I meant is that he is somewhat more empathetic than you typical western “leftist”.

    That being said, if you read the details of his proposals regarding Ukraine (I will note he doesn’t speak Ukrainian, or russian, and has never lived in Ukraine, let alone Donbas), you can very quickly identify tankie-lite type gibberish.

    The same article that you seem to quote also says:

    And I hope that those whose politics differ from mine do the likewise: place the task of pushing Russian troops out of Ukraine above their ideological preferences (e.g. a Ukraine that is a NATO or an EU member).

    Everyone in Ukraine wants to join NATO and EU. This is complete bullshit. But this is relatively modest stuff, it gets better:

    This is not to suggest that the Ukrainian fighters should surrender. No, if I were them, I would keep fighting come-what-may, to the bitter end. What I am saying is something different: That a diplomatic solution needs to be found as soon as possible.

    The bitter end can be avoided by providing our country with any needed western weapons (including long range cruise missile) and providing us with both the right to strike the russians (anywhere in russia) and any relevant intel info to do so. This is already happening, but it took nearly 2.5 years, with a lot of slow walking (and a lot of death and destruction due to the delay). Varoufakis cannot even comprehend the possibility that weapons and the ability to strike your enemy is important when you are being invaded.

    Given that NATO will not intervene, and that sanctions take a long, long time to succeed (if at all), the only way of driving Russian troops out of the Ukraine is through a diplomatic solution.

    What would an agreeable diplomatic solution entail? Three things: First, an immediate ceasefire followed by the withdrawal of Russian troops. Second, the opportunity for Putin to portray any such agreement as a form of victory – a deal that gives him something close to what he wanted. Third, it must be an agreement guaranteed jointly by Washington and Moscow, guaranteeing an independent and neutral Ukraine as part of a broader agreement that de-escalates tensions with the Baltics, Poland, around the Black Sea, across Europe.

    An immediate ceasefire followed by the withdrawal of russian troops? They are just going to leave? There is no way this statement was done without malicious intent. Ukraine was neutral before 2014; guess what happened to change this?

    Such an agreement would leave everyone a little dissatisfied but also grant Ukrainians the chance to re-build a free, democratic and independent Ukraine. Many issues will have to be settled but, once de-escalation begins, a healing process can commence. For example, the EU can pour investments into Ukraine, well before any move to admit it into the EU. Once Washington and Moscow jointly guarantee a de-militarized zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border, the contested Donetsk-Luhansk region could be administered along the lines of the Northern Irish Good Friday agreement in a manner that guarantees the rights of all ethnic communities under the supervision of Kiyv, Moscow and the European Union.

    Once again Varoufakis demonstrates his malicious intent. Russia is not interested de-escalation and Varoufakis knows this. The Good Friday part is comical. It’s like a satirical comedy show about western “leftists” talking about Ukraine.

    Now this article was written in 2022, but even in 2024, he continues to think in russo-centric terms. Here is an article from Jan 2024:

    …advocated for the West to negotiate an immediate end of the Ukraine war by trading the retreat of Russian troops for a pledge to keep Ukraine out of NATO. To me, what mattered most was that the West did whatever it took to push Russia’s troops back to where they were on 22 February 2022, while enabling Ukraine to flourish within liberal democratic Western Europe.

    He is still rambling on about NATO and advocating for a return to the line on Feb 22. Don’t get me wrong, I think we will be very lucky to get back to those lines by the end of the war, but it’s russo-centric, pro-imperialist worldview that makes me wonder whether everything else he says is just bullshit.

    • iarigby@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      7 months ago

      Thank you for the write up! These snakes are so good at fooling most people into believing complete gibberish.