You may disagree with the first statement on being an imperialist propaganda outlet, but the rest of information is relevant.

I don’t get your point of posting the article on the Shining Path, though

supplementary wikis

We have them, e.g. ProleWiki, but good luck trying to explain to the average western Wikipedia user that for certain geopolitical topics they might be worth checking out and contrasted with Wikipedia. My problem isn’t the lack of alternatives, my problem is the anticommunist and pro-western bias in Wikipedia, the most used encyclopedia, in geopolitically charged topics.

Tankies don’t think Wikipedia is the devil. You could call me a tankie from my political views, and I very much appreciate Wikipedia and use it on a daily basis. That is not to say it should be used uncritically and unaware of its biases.

Because of the way Wikipedia works, it requires sourcing claims with references, which is a good thing. The problem comes when you have an overwhelming majority of available references in one topic being heavily biased in one particular direction for whatever reason.

For example, when doing research on geopolitically charged topics, you may expect an intrinsic bias in the source availability. Say you go to China and create an open encyclopedia, Wikipedia style, and make an article about the Tiananmen Square events. You may expect that, if the encyclopedia is primarily edited by Chinese users using Chinese language sources, given the bias in the availability of said sources, the article will end up portraying the bias that the sources suffer from.

This is the criticism of tankies towards Wikipedia: in geopolitically charged topics, western sources are quick to unite. We saw it with the genocide in Palestine, where most media regardless of supposed ideological allegiance was reporting on the “both sides are bad” style at best, and outright Israeli propaganda at worst.

So, the point is not to hate on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is as good as an open encyclopedia edited by random people can get. The problem is that if you don’t specifically incorporate filters to compensate for the ideological bias present in the demographic cohort of editors (white, young males of English-speaking countries) and their sources, you will end up with a similar bias in your open encyclopedia. This is why us tankies say that Wikipedia isn’t really that reliable when it comes to, e.g., the eastern block or socialist history.

I’m saying each community bans something different. I agree with banning fascist discourse, I dont agree with banning communist discourse. .world thinks otherwise and that’s why it’s shit IMO.

You were responding to a comment quoting Anna Louise Strong on the USSR, that’s why I brought it up.

Communists are almost universally against UBI. As much as the right wing wants to portray us as lazy non working people, communists believe that everyone should contribute to society to the extent of their capabilities and should receive at least enough to have their needs covered. Or, as Marx put it, “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”.

UBI is a patch to capitalism. The idea behind it presupposes the existence of unemployment, which communists are fundamentally against. There is no need for unemployment, it’s a fairly new invention (no unemployment in most societies before the industrial revolution), and many nations overcame it (there was no unemployment in the USSR and AFAIK there’s none in Cuba either). Communists want to guarantee to everyone capable of working a decent job, and to people without the physical capabilities to work (due to heavy disabilities, age, or whatever reason) there would be specific aid.

You’re not doing materialist analysis of reality. If the USSR had been ruled by a selfish cadre of self-selected bureaucrats, it wouldn’t have continuously reduced wealth inequality to the point of being the most equal country on earth. It wouldn’t have universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, guaranteed affordable housing or guaranteed jobs. It wouldn’t have had walkable urban planning in the mikroraion system, affordable good quality public transit, affordable and subsidized basic foodstuffs, and it wouldn’t have been the case that by the 1960s there were more female engineers in the USSR than in the rest of the world combined.

For an example of the results of something closer to what you call a dictatorship, you can look at the social and economic results in Saudi Arabia, where the majority of workers are immigrants whose passports are taken away and work for misery wages in what effectively is an apartheid state.

it’s just another hierarchy wearing red paint

If that were the case, we would expect similar social and economic outcomes in both cases. Then, why did the USSR have the lowest recorded wealth and income inequality in history? Why did it have guaranteed employment, guaranteed housing at a cost of 3% of the average income, universal free healthcare and free education to the highest level? Why did it have walkable and public transit-oriented urban planning with services accessible by foot (look up the word “mikroraion” on Wikipedia)? Why could unions remove factory managers if they so decided, and why was there a newspaper to each workplace in which workers could write their complaints and their ideas? Why were the highest-earning individuals university professors and artists and not political bureaucrats?

Fascist apologia here gets banned, in .world you have people openly saying that Palestinians deserve to be genocided and you guys don’t give a shit

Chinese citizens are, by all polls, much happier with their government and feel more represented by it than westerners. Being able to choose every 4 years the colour of the party applying austerity policy isn’t democracy. Germany ignored a referendum in Berlin to establish rent caps because an old fart with a wig said it was “un institutional”. The EU forced Greece to act against the state-wide referendum to revise sovereign debt. China is much more of a democracy than western countries.

Which of the several things I mentioned while paraphrasing the video titles that you can literally look up yourself?

Propagating feel-goodism about climate change while taking money from the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation and saying that eventually climate change will be solved by technology, whitewashing carbon capture technologies and overselling their potential, taking money from Templeton Foundation when making videos about consciousness, using the “Israel fighting Hamas” narrative in a 2025 video regarding wars…