I’ve been using Lemmy for a while now, and I’ve noticed something that I was hoping to potentially discuss with the community.
As a leftist myself (communist), I generally enjoy the content and discussions on Lemmy.
However, I’ve been wondering if we might be facing an issue with ideological diversity.
From my observations:
- Most Lemmy Instances, news articles, posts, comments, etc. seem to come from a distinctly leftist perspective.
- There appears to be a lack of “centrist”, non-political, or right-wing voices (and I don’t mean extreme MAGA-type views, but rather more moderate conservative positions).
- Discussions often feel like they’re happening within an ideological bubble.
My questions to the community are:
- Have others noticed this trend?
- Do you think Lemmy is at risk of becoming an echo chamber for leftist views, a sort of Truth Social, Parler, Gab, etc., esque platform, but for Leftists?
- Is this a problem we should be concerned about, or is it a natural result of Lemmy’s community-driven nature?
- How might we encourage more diverse political perspectives while still maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment?
- What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of having a more politically diverse user base on Lemmy?
As much as I align with many of the views expressed here, I wonder if we’re missing out on valuable dialogue and perspective by not having a more diverse range of political opinions represented.
I’m genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Communism as the praxis (marixism, etc) it’s auth-left whereas the end goal is lib-left (stateless).
Liberalism is auth-centre-right.
They are incompatible because leftism is anti capitalist.
This is actually misleading, you’re getting how statelessness functions for Marxists and inserting the Anarchist goal. That’s why you see a misalignment between theory and practice.
The foundations of the Marxist analysis of Capitalism are in its centralizing and socializing character over time through competition. The Marxists want to take this to a higher level, public ownership and central planning. This is not supposed to go away, but continue developing.
The State, for Marxists, is separate from governance. The State are elements of Class Oppression, like “special bodies of armed men” and things like Private Property rights. When all classes are gone, and they will all be gone when all property is in the public sector, the state ceases to have a reason to exist and withers away. This is a global process, you can have socialism in one country but Communism is global.
Marxism in practice operates on these ideas.
Anarchists have a similar critique of capitalism but see it being solved through horizontal and voluntary means so I’m not sure how it’s misleading.
It’s misleading because you call the “end goal” of Communism “lib-left,” when it would have full public ownership among the entire world and economic planning. The means of Marxism isn’t to get more “authoritarian,” but to turn the balance of power on its head so that the Working Class is on top. In this manner, the means are not “authoritarian” either, compared to Capitalism. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are misleading at best and distractions at worst, which is why it’s important to judge based on actual policies and ideological frameworks.
Goal is to get less authoritarian over time though?
See, this is why the political compass is ruining your own perception of ideology. The goal is not to get “less authoritarian.” The goal is to collectivize all Private Property globally, this is the purpose. By folding all property into the public sector, there is the abolition of classes, and the state as a special mechanism of class oppression withers away, ie no private property rights because of no more private property.
Communism, a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, is a fully centralized system where everything is controlled by a democratic administration. This is the most centralized possible, yet also the most democratic. It doesn’t fit on the political compass. The goal isn’t to abolish authoritarianism, but classes.
Well goal is maybe the wrong word but objectively it does get less authoritarian over time if it goes as planned.
In what manner? What does “authoritarian” mean to you?
Enforcing obedience at the expense of personal liberty.