this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
356 points (98.4% liked)

196

6159 readers
1518 users here now

Community Rules

You must post before you leave

Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).

Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.

Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.

Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".

Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.

Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.

Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.

Avoid AI generated content.

Avoid misinformation.

Avoid incomprehensible posts.

No threats or personal attacks.

No spam.

Moderator Guidelines

Moderator Guidelines

  • Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
  • Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
  • When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
  • Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
  • Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
  • Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
  • Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
  • Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
  • Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
  • Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
  • Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
  • Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
  • First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
  • Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
  • No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
  • Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
  • Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

Some recommended reading about George "I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler" Orwell:

one could say the widespread misperception of who he actually was and what he stood for is rather... orwellian 🙄

[–] _Cid_@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

"I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power—till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter—I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity."

I think the first sentence was taken a bit out of context. In the second he says would kill him if got the chance to. I think he's just trying to say that Hitler was charismatic.

[–] parentesis@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The great Orwellian contribution to future technology is that the
television set is two-way, and that the people who are forced to hear and
see the television screen can themselves be heard and seen at all times and
are under constant supervision even while sleeping or in the bathroom.
Hence, the meaning of the phrase 'Big Brother is watching you'.
This is an extraordinarily inefficient system of keeping everyone under
control. To have a person being watched at all times means that some other
person must be doing the watching at all times (at least in the Orwellian
society) and must be doing so very narrowly, for there is a great
development of the art of interpreting gesture and facial expression.

Interesting that someone like Asimov has not seen how technology would make this possible, like it’s right now

[–] Juice@midwest.social 5 points 3 days ago

What no Foucault does to a MF.

The idea that every person will only behave as though they are being watched if they are actually being watched, fails to recognize that if people know that they could be watched at any time, but can't actually see if the watcher is watching them, they will behave as though they are being watched all the time.

Panopticon goes brrrr

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

Interesting that someone like Asimov has not seen how technology would make this possible

He did. A few paragraphs later he says:

Orwell was unable to conceive of computers or robots, or he would have placed everyone under non-human surveillance.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Both Orwell and Asimov assumed that The Party would care about false positives.

[–] djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The guy fought Nazi supplied Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War. This take is nuts, he almost died for the CNT-FAI. He's not a Nazi sympathizer.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

And went on to literally work for the British intelligence services and provide them lists of communists, you could read the provided sources.

Just a thought experiment: since you apply this logic that fighting the Nazi-supplied nationalists in the Spanish civil war makes one an antifascist, do you agree that the greatest antifascist force in Europe was the USSR as the only country supplying weapons, munitions, tanks and airplanes to the Republican and Anarchist during the civil war?

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The USSR didn't supply the anarchists. ~~They~~ The Communists actively refused to give them arms and worked against them. That was the cause of Orwell's disdain towards them. source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-on-anarchism#fn70

Edit: Correcting sentencing after being corrected in a reply.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Circular sourcing, you're quoting Orwell himself in that citation.

Regardless, "the communists" referred to in this link are not the USSR, they're the Spanish communists, you're conflating the two again and therefore pushing the fascist propaganda that the Jewish Bolsheviks were puppeteering everything in Spain. Also, are there any quantitative modern studies of the scale of this "embargo"? Because I've provided sources* proving that the extent of the "anarchist repression" by the USSR in Spain was about 20 individuals, and motivated by the revolts in Barcelona that the Fascists and Nazis were pushing for.

*I linked the sources in another comment, here is my research on the topic as a Spaniard myself. If you read through this, you'll see that Stalin himself commended the anarchists in private meetings with the Republican diplomats and tried to get the Spanish Second Republic to collaborate with them

Edit: adding Stalin's opinion on collaboration with anarchists:

Aludió ampliamente a los anarquistas y señaló que en las filas confederales había buenos elementos. Preguntó si podría haber una plataforma común entre socialistas y comunistas a propósito de la CNT. La respuesta de Pascua fue afirmativa, aunque con matices.

He extensivelty referred to the Anarchists and pointed out that there were good elements among the confederates [CNT, largest Spanish anarchist organization at the time]. He asked whether there could be a common platform between socialists and communist regarding the CNT. Pascua’s answer was affirmative, though with caveats.

(Translated by myself from one of the sources linked, feel free to browse through the books yourself as I did).

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

To be honest I don't care if the communists are Soviet or Spain. The arms that the USSR was sending didn't reach the anarchists. That was the only claim I was refuting.

Reiterating for the sake of clarity.

That the Communists withheld arms from the Aragon front seems established beyond question, and it can hardly be doubted that the motivation was political. See, for example, D.T. Cattell, Communism and the Spanish Civil War (1955; reprinted New York: Russell & Russell, 1965), p. 110.

The fact that the footnote ends with Orwell's own quote is just a nice tie back to the discussion.

Regarding the rest of the comment I'm not interested in reenacting "anarchist vs ML: spanish civil war" online theater. I just wanted to push back on the claim that the USSR supplied anarchists.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

To be honest I don't care if the communists are Soviet or Spain.

I just wanted to push back on the claim that the USSR supplied anarchists

Least intellectually dishonest anticommunist.

I'll go ahead and spend one fucking hour reading through the sources again just to prove you wrong because I'm 100% certain that the at least half of weapons that the anarchists used were of Soviet origin, and I know for certain you won't provide such sourcing because if you actually did the reading you wouldn't be saying that the USSR didn't supply the anarchists too.

Otherwise prove me wrong: give me a modern source estimating the availability of weaponry of anarchists in the Spanish civil war and its origin.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ok. You wanna dance? Let's dance.

The USSR did supply (provide any weapons to) anarchists in Spain.
However the Communists¹ didn't supply (provide as many weapons as they could have to) anarchists in Spain.

¹: because as you pointed out the fault wasn't just the USSR but Spanish as well.

I was hoping that the context made the distinction clear but clearly that is not the case.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Give. Me. A. Material. Numeric. Source.

Until you do that, your analysis is exclusively vibes-based, and should be rejected.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That the Communists withheld arms from the Aragon front seems established beyond question

That is my source. It's good enough for me. The fact that Chomsky (a well respected academic*) published that is good enough for me.

*: There are ties to Epstein, but for me that doesn't invalidate his academic opinion.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It seems good enough for you because it reinforces your previous beliefs. Keep calling yourself a leftist while you ignore material understanding of history and reality.

From the citation you quoted:

Orwell was also able to refute, from firsthand observation, many of the other absurdities that were appearing in the liberal press about the Aragon front, for example, the statement by Ralph Bates in the New Republic that the POUM troops were “playing football with the Fascists in no man’s land.”

It's a well-known historical fact that the Aragón front was mostly limp and that there was no pushing by either side for the longest time. From "González-Ruibal, A. (2020). The Archaeology of the Spanish Civil War (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260131":

In the winter of 1938, the fate of the war was being decided in the southern part of Aragón, in the province of Teruel which, as we saw, was the scenario of one of the largest battles of the Spanish Civil War. While the Battle of Teruel was raging, most of the Aragón frontline, however, remained calm— perhaps precisely because of that. This was the case in the lands of the province of Zaragoza that had experienced the ravages of war during the summer of 1937. In the previous chapter, we saw how the Popular Army managed to stop the Nationalist units in Mediana de Aragón that came to the rescue of Belchite. After September 1937 the front did not move and the soldiers of both armies dug in and waited.

Orwell continues to be an unreliable source. It's incredible to me that you still quote him as an authority figure when he's patently lying.

On that very source, the author performs archaeological excavations and, what do you know, what he finds the most from Republicans are Soviet munitions and Polish grenades!

Our work in the area began with an advanced Republican post that had a large amount of ammunition on the surface. The excavation revealed a dugout for a machine gun, which yielded a rather homogeneous assemblage: one hundred Soviet 7.62 mm shell casings and a stack of empty ammunition boxes. In all likelihood, this was the position of a Maxim machine gun. [...] first, Republicans appear by surprise and attack with grenades. The sentinel is forced to crouch while the attackers cut the barbed wire with pliers. After the explosions come the shots. The Breda replies to the Mosin’s fire. But the Republicans keep coming closer and closer. They throw grenades, they advance. The sentinel throws his Lafittes, which explode at a close range, but he is unable to stop the attackers, who fall upon him and shoot from the top of the parapet. How does the story end? We do not know. But several Mosin shell casings around the foxhole and the trench indicate that Republicans made it that far.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
  1. I'm not a leftist. I'm an anarchist. One that is drifting further and further from "the left" as discussions like these happen.
  2. I haven't quoted Orwell once. My source is a footnote that has Orwell's quotes among others. My main one for the claim you made are from D.T. Cattell.
  3. Are you really claiming that the front being slow is the same as them playing football? Or do you actually believe that the POUM was playing football with the fascists? because that is the only way your claim that Orwell is unreliable by refuting this makes sense.
  4. I think the fact that the Communists were intentionally withholding supplies makes the claim that they were supplying anarchists complicated enough to warrant my reply, even if it was a bit too absolutist.
  5. None of this matters. Our disagreement is ideological, both of our minds are made up and neither of us is budging, so why are we doing this. Especially when the subject is a civil war nearly a century ago.
  6. It doesn't matter weather or not the USSR supplied anarchists. The Communists were (same as in the own russian revolution) suppressing the anarchists and stopping them from achieving their goals. They made decisions that actively hurt the collectivized society in Aragon.
[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

That's a lot of text to type "I'm moving the goalposts from my original statement that the USSR didn't supply the anarchists because the Spanish Republican government (not communist) applied certain restrictions to anarchist weapon deliveries that I refuse to quantitatively source".

Our disagreement is not ideological, i'm not arguing for you to stop being an anarchist neither you for me to stop being a Marxist-Leninist. We're arguing about demonstrable historical events that can be studied in the literature. You're a comrade to me, which is precisely why I expect quality sourcing with MATERIAL, NUMERICAL evidence when discussing topics such as "a communist blockade of weaponry towards the anarchists". I wouldn't ask for such sources from a lib because I know they don't do the reading, I just expect better from comrades.

[–] anaVal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

After taking a walk and taking time for some reflection. Yeah. You're right. I don't really know what I'm talking about and am taking a "vibes-based" approach. However for me that's preferable to giving vanguardists any credit for anything.

That being said I did find this: https://socialismtoday.org/archive/38/spain38.html

Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War. By Gerald Howson, John Murray, 1998. Reviewed by Dave Murray

The biggest myth to bite the dust, is that the Soviet Union under Stalin materially aided the republican side. He has tracked down documentary proof that the vast bulk of military material supplied to the republicans by Stalin was of poor quality, that the republic was charged at or above market price and that by falsifying the currency exchange rates employed in these deals, the Soviet Union defrauded the republic of at least $51m (at 1936 prices). Helpfully, Stalin arranged for the Spanish government to ship its gold reserves (in 1936 the fifth largest in the world at $518m) to the Soviet Union and, guess what, by the end of the civil war most of it had been transferred to the Soviet government as payment for arms procurement or in return for credits at the Soviet Bank in Paris. That Stalin was one of the executioners of the Spanish revolution is no surprise to us Trots, but Howson has done us a favour in furnishing us with cold hard facts.

Now I can't find an actual open copy of the book (nor am I spending that much effort looking for it) so I can't really give you anything more.

[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The May Days is not some unknown event.

I can walk down the street here see the bullet holes.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] mattyroses@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You don't need Orwell to know that the anarchists and Stalinists fell into opposition.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com -1 points 3 days ago

I don't see where I argued that the may days didnt happen

[–] Soulg@ani.social 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Being anti communism is the same as being pro Nazi now?

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Always has been, but not sure why you're telling this in response to my comment

🙄 MLs are not the only leftists. Pretending they are is flatly dishonest.

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago

Everything we know about Orwell disagrees, from his review of Mein Kampf to his comments about Jews and Homosexuals. He opposed fighting the literal German Nazis until war actually broke out. The civil was was a few years and a single book, and hardly representative of his entire life.

[–] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 days ago

ohh hell nah they made a tanky conservapedia 💀

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Didn't he also call Indians "yellow-faced animals?"

[–] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 7 points 4 days ago

Its a bit off topic, but its really amusing in that Isaac Asimov article how he talks about the Spain thing where Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists were at odds. Basically, the left righting amongst themselves.

The more things change...