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.
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.
Of who? Just the ruling class, or everyone? Because if you are talking about oppressing the ruling class, revolution is the most authoritarian act there is. By your definition, Marxism is lib-left the whole way through.
Everyone. How do you keep the working class capitalist simps in line until classes are abolished?
A counter-economic revolution could be anti-authoritarian. The creation of parallel institutions that bypass and outcompete existing structures.
Marxists are ideologically liblefts the whole way, sure. But through an auth praxis
Anarchism, “libleft” if you want to call it that, can be seen as more auth than Marxism as it demands immediate ends to any hierarchy whatsoever. They have more “auth” praxis than Marxists.
Seondly, I have no idea what you mean by 'counter-economic," the latter part of that statement describes the Dual Power method employed by the Bolsheviks in creating the first Socialist state though. You called that “authoritarian” though.
See why the compass is worthless?