Has anyone else noticed how prevalent Hexbear posters have suddenly become? Maybe sometime last week I noticed nearly every political post had at least one long thread of Hexbear users that do nothing but repeat CCP talking points while waving anyway anything even remotely reliable as Western propaganda. That or getting all excited about trolled libs. The way they tell it, you’d think everything from DW, to Fox, to Propublica, to straight up AP News articles, are all written by the same people.

Not to mention, their info on the Fediverse observer is either straight up wrong or there’s some serious botting going on. According to that, the instance is less than a month old, yet somehow they already have one of the largest, most active userbases, along with far and away the most comments of any instance.

Seems to me like Lemmygrad on steroids. Considering we defederated from them, seems like a no-brainer to block Hexbear as well.

So glad this thread could become such a perfect microcosm of why we need to defederate.

  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no problem with communism, I have a problem with authoritarian propaganda.

    • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s not pretend that your politics aren’t inherently authoritarian as well.

      Either you support capitalism (or worse), which is grossly authoritarian as it inflicts massive violence not only via warfare but through mass starvation and deprivation, or you support socialism, in which case you have two options:

      1. The violent overthrow of the current system (spoiler alert: that’s a very authoritarian thing to do!)

      2. The gradual reform of the current system, meaning maintaining the status quo for an exceptionally long time as we ever so slowly creep our way to a more just economic system while countless people starve, go homeless, die without healthcare, end up in yet-another war and so on (which is a very authoritarian proposition, just throwing away the lives of the poor in your own country-not to mention those in the developing world-just so you can have a neat and tidy reformist approach that doesn’t rock the boat.)

          • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hey, what about this tangentially-connected thing from 70 years ago?

              • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                The cold war ended, the USSR collapsed, and china shifted to being a semi-capitalist autocracy… I could go on but you’re just trying to dunk on the libs (like MAGA, big surprise) and I’m not one anyway.

                • autismdragon [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  38
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  (like MAGA, big surprise)

                  You understand the fact that the content of the dunks, and what we’re dunking ON, being different materially matters right? That just the mere fact that we both dislike liberalism doesn’t make us the same when we dislike it for entirely different reasons?

                  Like, even on the few points where we agree, its almost always different reasons and logic behind taking those positions.

                  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Similar because a good portion of the propaganda in both extremist groups is coming from places like the CCP and Kremlin that want to destabilize the US and other powerful countries (like India).

                    Divide and conquer isn’t anything new, but it’s implementation on social media is.

                • booty [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  25
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And we live in a gerontocracy, like the children of the people responsible for the stuff that happened 70 years ago are still in power right now. It’s not like 70 years is a world away, the current US president has firmly established memories of 1954, the guy was 12.

                  • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    21
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Very true. In fact I would like to elaborate on your point to say the very same individuals in charge during all the heinous shit during the cold war are still in place, of whom Biden is one.

        • very_poggers_gay [any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.

          Hey America (and Canada, UK, Australia, etc.), how ya doing?

          ✅ Rejection of political plurality (See: Range of acceptable thought among mainstream political parties; Also, consider some self-reflection)

          ✅ Strong central power to preserve the political status quo (See: Mainstream media apparatus, spanning news, movies, tv, etc.)

          ✅ Reductions in the rule of law (See: Absolute failure to hold politicians or corporations accountable)

          ✅ Reductions in the separation of powers (See: Politicians funded by and catering to corporate interests)

          ✅ Reductions in democratic Voting (See again: Politicians funded by and catering to corporate interests + absolute failure to hold politicians accountable; Also see: Rampant gerrymandering, erosion of voters’ right, zero democracy in the workplace or outside of political elections)

          • autismdragon [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            45
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No see you’re allowed to decide if the guy with the blue tie or the guy with the red tie is your representative (uh… if you live in one of the handful of districts that are competitive anyway) so that means it cant be authoritarian. God I love our illusion of democracy. It makes me feel so nice.

        • aaro [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          rejectetion of political plurality

          use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo

          reductions in the rule of law

          authoritarianism is characterized by reductions in the rule of law?? what???

          separation of powers

          and Democratic voting

        • wild_dog [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          wanna explain how that definition applies to us??? it’s really easy to just point at a wikipedia article but you’re not really proving anything by just stating an extremely loaded definition.

    • SeventyTwoTrillion [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      name your favourite anti-authoritarian system. you wanna have a revolution to create it? whoopsie doopsie, you’re literally forcing people (maybe at gunpoint!!!) to do something that they don’t want to do, you fucking authoritarian tankie monster. next you’ll be saying you want to get rid of corporations (extremely authoritarian over those business owners)

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No I don’t want a revolution, I want people to try to work together instead of fighting.

        • Zoift [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          63
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, us too. Unfortuntely society is currently managed by a bunch of literal sociopaths who are more than willing to throw their stolen wealth into militarized police, private deathsquads, and good ol’ normal armies.

          We dont get to dictate the escalation of force, the bourgeoisie have and will do that for us.

            • SeborrheicDermatitis [any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              37
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You know, I am reading Rabinowitch’s book on the July-October 1917 period and what really strikes me is how all the leading Bolsheviks-including Lenin-really wanted the transfer of power to the soviets to be peaceful. They pretty much exhausted every option until the right-SRs/right-Mensheviks and Kerensky types gave them no possible alternative to violent insurrection. There were differences over the timing and tactics of this insurrection (on one hand, those like Lenin and later Bubnov and Sverdlov who wanted insurrection immediately, those in the ‘centre’ like Stalin, Trotsky, Volodarsky who supported insurrection soon but wanted to shore up support in the provinces + at the front more, and those on the party right like Zinoviev and Kamenev who wanted to create a democratic worker’s republic with the SRs and Menshevik internationalists before beginning any violence to ensure full peasant support).

              I didn’t know that at all. It shows how these guys-especially in 1917-did not like violence, did not glorify it, and did not fetishise it. They tried to avoid it and were all scared of unleashing the horrific civil war that eventually did come to pass. It’s something to remember.

              Violence is bad and scary and should be only be wielded with immense caution and respect, but at the same time, when the time comes, you have to be ready for the decisive confrontation. Maybe Kamenev or Zinoviev, or maybe Volodarsky and Podvoisky, were actually right and it would have been better to wait longer until the correlation of forces was more on their side and the civil war could have been lessened at the very least. Maybe they were wrong and the revolutionary moment would have passed and the ProvGov would’ve re-gathered its strength. I don’t know. I’m still reading the book!

        • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A smooth, voluntary, nonviolent transition to peace and harmony would be every leftist’s dream, but there are institutions with power who have used, are using, and will continue to use violence to prevent it from happening in order to maintain their material interests. Call it whatever you want, but the process of transitioning from our status quo to something better will require dismantling institutions that are capable of defending their existence with violence. It sucks.

        • SoyViking [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Please tell me how you’re imagining getting people like Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to “work together instead of fighting” and give up their hoarded wealth. What short of sheer force would compel them to do that?

          Utopian socialism would be nice if it worked but it patently does not. The bourgeoisie have a very fine time controlling the wealth of the world and they have nothing to gain by accepting democracy. Socialism, like any economic order, is only going to be a reality if it is enforced with violence. If somebody tries to undo the collective ownership to the means of production they will have to be stopped by force, just as force is applied today to stop people from violating bourgeois property rights.

        • GarbageShoot [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          36
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think the capitalists will work with you? Do you believe that their sense of fraternity and human decency will lead them to throw down arms and accept more radical change to the system than the strikes, protests, and abolition movements that the capitalists have met with mass murder for centuries?

          The capitalists are not your friends. Their power will not be voted away, it won’t be argued away, it won’t be negotiated away. It can only be removed by force, and removing it is the only way to keep them from using it to sculpt society into an ever-crueler engine of profiteering.

        • aaro [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          34
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          our literal entire platform is that the people should work together as much as possible and efforts to divide the people should be met with the harshest punishment

          hundreds of thousands of volumes of literature spread across every nation, every language, every race, every gender, every sexuality, spanning centuries, and this is like the one thing we agree on the most

        • marx_mentat [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah that would be great, unfortunately the world we live in doesn’t work like that. Asking for cooperation when the other side is perfectly fine using violence and manipulation then you are effectively just advocating for subservience to the bourgeoisie.

    • aaro [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which political system do you suggest is more authoritarian than the owner of the largest military in the world, the largest police force in the world, and the largest intelligence (espionage) agency in the world?

    • AOCapitulator [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      all political systems require authoritarian principles until class can be abolished after communism, do you know anything about the words you are using?

      Police are authoritarian, for instance. Do you think your “democracy” is peaceful? Do you think it is nonviolent?