Other than that you are correct. Lemmy.ml hexbear.ml and lemmygrad.ml all chose the Mali TLD because of the abbreviation.

it's hexbear.net

Have you read either Marx or Lenin?

Lenin was a militant revolutionary that thought he could ignore Marx's slow natural social evolution to communism

Huh, I never thought I'd encounter an actual Menshevik on Lemmy.

Please tell me through materialist historical analysis: without a strong vanguard party pushing for rapid collectivization in 1929 in pursuit of industrialization, and the rapid industrialization (15% GDP growth per year) between 1929 and 1941, what would have happened to all peoples standing between Berlin and the Urals?

That is such a simplification that it is probably wrong.

Marx did not really concern himself with the ultimate goal of communism. His great achievement was his analysis of capitalism. Marx did not describe a slow evolution toward communism, but rather a process in which the contradictions he identified in capitalism culminate in revolution. No evolution! The few times he commented on communism, he described its prerequisites. He writes in the Communist Manifesto "In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat."

Lenin's approach was enormously successful in some respects. After the October Revolution, the USSR underwent unprecedented industrial development, which greatly improved the living conditions of most people. In general, the argument that “it has never worked before” is very problematic. For some strange reason, communist countries have always found themselves under massive attack from capitalist countries. For example, by Hitler's Germany or the US. Inconceivable sums of money were invested by global capital and its states to show “that communism does not work.” If it really hadn't worked, none of that would have been necessary. That still applies today. Lenin was a right-wing, authoritarian communist and was rightly criticized for this by people like Rosa Luxemburg. But economically, things were improving so rapidly that capitalist states became increasingly concerned. The fear was so great that capitalists in the US even agreed to the New Deal. Something similar happened in Europe.

ML does not stand for Marx and Lenin, but for Marxism-Leninism. A propagandistic self-description of the system of the Soviet Union under Stalin. Another word for it is Stalinism.

Lenin wasn't trying to erase that transition to communism is gradual, but instead correctly identified that the beginning of that transition is revolution, which Marxists at the time had erased from Marx. Dialectical materialism posits that there are revolutionary leaps after quantitative buildups, the transition to socialism is the beginning of the next long gradual process of achieving communism. He did not "force it under authoritarian boot heel," but instead was the leader of the bolsheviks, a mass party chosen by the working claases.

Contrary to your position, Marxism-Leninism has successfully established socialism in many countries, and is so widely adopted by leftists partially because of its practical success. It's the western leftists that endlessly move goalposts to invalidate socialism outside the west that results in perpetuation of bourgeois narratives surrounding socialism as it exists in real life.

Honestly, your appraisal of Lenin and Marx makes it come off as though you haven't actually read either. Have you?