I don’t know what to tell you, other than that a lot of the most active users of Lemmy.ml are Anarchists, and most communities on Lemmy.ml are not affiliated with Marxism to begin with, even if you include communities like World News that are more politically focused as “Marxist.”

Either way, I wouldn’t call Lemmy.world more tolerant, but tolerant of a different set of views. Lemmy.ml is more broadly federated than .world is, while .world selectively defederates from instances it isn’t aligned with politically. Even further, OP is on Lemm.ee, just asking on Lemmy.ml’s AskLemmy community, which makes sense as one of the biggest AskLemmy communities.

I’m not even trying to dig on Lemmy.world or anything, I just want to point out that it’s not really accurate to consider Lemmy.ml a Marxist-Leninist instance, unlike Lemmygrad.ml, or even Hexbear.net which is an umbrella Leftist instance.

Gonna go against the grain, and recommend browsing the instance list and browse whichever instances look interesting to you locally, and then make that your “home” instance. Lemmy’s connectedness is equal in importance to its disconnectedness, niche instances thrive and create interesting experiences, while federation allows crossover and further engagement.

Using Lemmy for its “all” sort is more of a replication of Reddit, while leaning into the strengths of federation can create a more unique experience IMO and usually a more pleasant one.

And finally, welcome!

There are a bunch of Anarchists on Lemmy.ml, as well as liberals and Social Democrats. Lemmygrad.ml is the Marxist-Leninist instance, Lemmy.ml is more of a generalist instance, but the users, mods, and admins lean Marxist.

Just being nitpicky, really.

No worries!

Think you mean can talk, not can’t, correct? In which case, I agree.

🫡

You can talk about June 4th, 1989 in China. Chinese usually call it the “June 4th incident,” which is what the government uses when referencing it in official statements on the subject.

Excellent rec, and one of Lenin’s best works, alongside Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism IMO

Yes. The property supply is a big one for them, that’s where the “ghost cities” narrative comes from, they intentionally build rapidly in anticipation for future demand. They do have wealth inequality, but they seem to be focusing more on directly combatting underdevelopment and poverty than making a point to punish their wealthiest, as they are wary of repeating some of the more dogmatic consequences of the Cultural Revolution, putting Class Struggle above the other foundations of Marxism, rather than alongside. Ie, you can’t just kill Capitalists or sieze their assets to turn a largely underdeveloped economy into a developed and complex publicly owned one, you have to develop into one, and that requires a more methodical approach that analyzes which firms are large or small, and which industries or sectors hold power over others.

If Marxism’s key observations of markets are “correct,” then centralization of markets are an almost assured bet, and as that happens, more and more industry can be publicly owned and planned directly, so the wealth inequality problem is one that almost fixes itself as long as the CPC continues to place a large emphasis on combatting corruption (which used to be a much bigger issue in the past) and directly appealing to the people via large programs like the Extreme Poverty Eradication Program.

These are separate questions, so I’ll answer them in order.

Why aren’t any governments focusing on wealth inequality and property supply-centered policies?

There are governments that focus on reducing wealth inequality and increasing the overall property supply. Socialist countries, like the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. They still have some lesser degree of inequality, of course, as well as their own struggles and issues from standing against the broader Capitalist hegemony, but there is a concerted effort in Socialist countries to address the needs of the working class through their structures, reflected in improved metrics in areas sensitive to their Working Class, such as China’s directed and planned efforts at successfully eliminating extreme poverty at a breakneck pace, or Cuba’s advanced healthcare system. China in particular does focus on supply a lot, that’s why they are endlessly building new cities to anticipate future necessity, the famous “ghost cities” that in reality are sound planning and help increase employment. They also have some of the most advanced automation and manufacturing, their strategy in the long run depends on rapidly increasing the productive forces.

As for small and medium-sized businesses, these disappear over time in favor of larger firms, and either grow or fail to be capable of influencing the system like the large firms do. In all countries, regardless of economic model, as long as markets persist there will be a gradual increase in proportion of production held by large firms compared to smaller firms, as competition forces growth and centralization. This is actually one of Marx’s most important observations, and forms the basis of Marxism’s scientific view of Socialism compared to earlier Utopian Socialist types like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon. The earlier Utopian Socialists thought that if you could picture in your head a good society, you could implement it directly, through fiat, simply by convincing others to follow suit. This ended up being wrong, of course.

Why can’t any government in the world aim to tax ultra rich more whilst making easier for small to medium large businesses to thrive? And policies on property supply rather than property buyers like all sorts of first time buyers programs?

The “ultra rich,” in Capitalist countries, control the government through mechanisms such as lobbying. In order to truly tax the rich and provide large safety nets, the working class needs to have control of the State. This is far easier said than done, however, even Capitalist democracies aren’t genuinely democratic. If you look at US policy polling, systems like Single Payer healthcare are extremely popular across the board, yet that isn’t seen as a genuine possibility despite being proven in many other countries in various forms. Revolution is necessary, and this requires working class organization.

The Nordic Countries that, on the surface, seem to have the best of all worlds in this respect on the outside hide that they fund these nets through international usury, large IMF loans and the like. They function as landlords in country form, essentially, so their working class is just as exploited internally, yet bribed using much larger exploitation globally. The US, of course, is the largest Empire and consequently its Imperialism is on a far larger scale, but that doesn’t mean the Nordic model would “work” for the US, as the profits of Imperialism to a greater extent go to the US bourgeoisie as compared to the Nordics, where comparatively stronger labor organizing gives the Nordic working class more of a bargaining edge. Perhaps temporarily, but Capitalists in the US hold enourmous power and organization of labor is weak, ergo this is certainly an uphill battle to begin with and still leaves open the necessity of overcoming US Imperialism.

Why are only same old policies keep being peddled when the world is still going to shit?

Old policies rise as the contradictions within Capitalism, ie wealth inequality, concentration of Capital into fewer and fewer hands, and so forth, sharpen. Fascism in particular is like a self-defense system for Capitalism against rising Leftist organization, generally. As Gramsci said, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.”

Look to Socialist countries to see where new ground is being tread. It isn’t all sunshine and roses, but progress is coming steadily. The CPC describes its process as “crossing the river by feeling for the stones,” you test for footing and pivot direction if it doesn’t work, gradually, and iteratively and continuously focus on refinement and improvement.

That doesn’t involve reducing the government size and budget entirely or subscribing to any extreme left or right?

The policies you ask for aren’t extreme anything, really. They are easy to think of, and easy to question why they aren’t seen as a priority. The part where this shifts dramatically to the Left, is translating those ideas into reality. Just like you cannot simply ask a banker to give you free money, Capitalist systems will not let you simply take from the dragon’s hoard, regardless of how that hoard was gained. The “right-wing,” liberal Capitalist answer is Imperialism in order to implement Social Democracy a la the Nordics, while the Left-wing answer is Socialism, as seen in previously mentioned countries like Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, etc.

Being “extreme” in the sense of being a solution outside the overton window doesn’t mean the stance is wrong, either. Socialism is correct, despite being outside of the status quo in Western countries.

If you’re interested more in analysis along these lines, I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list oriented towards absolute beginners to political theory.

Not really, no. I’m sure someone can cherry pick one individual instance where a CIA agent saved a puppy or something, but the function of the CIA is to serve as the covert arm of the US Empire and do what would even make the US public question the US’s position on the global stage. I recommend everyone listen to Blowback.

Big fan of beans, rice, and veggies. Cheap, vegan, filling, and healthy, while tasting great too!

They already are seen as bad guys by most people, yet are still around, that’s the power of FPTP.

Only once, and in passing, lol. The word is definitely very online

Kinda? Hard to disentangle that from the economic structures that changed.

It relates to talking with USians in general, which includes interactions online, including Lemmy.

I think I’d agree with you more if I believed “pushing for XYZ” was a valid strategy for implementing structures opening the door for progress in a system dominated by those who benefit from the status quo. Without that belief, I turn to other historically succesful methods of gaining change, like millitant labor organizing and revolution.

Still doesn’t really solve the problem of candidates being pre-approved for the bourgeoisie.

Sure, but IRL and outside media I still hear “tankie” more than “commie,” and more importantly the original comment was made in the context of Lemmy.

🫡