I just found your post via the reblog of @hashtag-booster (for hive affiliate Intercommunities

Finally, quality content which should allow some curators to reflect on their votes.
By reading several posts, I started to analyze the why of certain negative votes. One of the causes is the one that you had clearly identified (rivalry or disagreement between people (not necessarily content)).
However, I have also noticed that some curators destroy and strongly discourage new ones. For example

I invite for example @hivewatchers / @spaminator / @adm to reread your post and reflect on some of their actions that sometimes hurt the motivation of young beginners. Personally, I have nothing against these curators who love to vote negatively (they are free to do so). I only ask them to weigh their psycho-socio-economic impact?

I am objectively analyzing the strategies of these negative voters and I hope the interwievers.

In your post, I am 95% in agreement with your ideas and I defend the same values. However, you target the Communists, by generalizing on a case (abusive generalization, in my opinion). So you take a stand (it's your right). But your style of writing and your notoriety influence people to think negatively against the Communists. By analyzing the origins and primary objectives of this philosophy before it became politicized, this school of thought is built on social mutual aid and community and equitable sharing of gains. I understand that it is difficult to conceive of communism and decentralization, but it is possible !!!.
So yes (95%) for your admirable arguments against negative votes, and no (5%) against your positions against a community.

(For information, I am not a communist, nor a capitalist)
.

Bravo again @ura-soul for this admirable post