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.
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?
It doesn’t demand an end to hierarchy not sure what you mean.
Counter economics in the agorist sense.
The very core of Anarchism is individualism taken to the maximum. The purpose is to eliminate hierarchy, the means, ending formalized hierarchy, aka the state. The core of Marxism is collectivism, and the abolition of classes.
What you describe with agorism is quite “authoritarian.” You seek to turn the economic structure inside out and oppress the ruling class. I won’t shed any tears, but this is the same mechanism as building dual power with the implementation of Soviet Democracy.
What is it about Marxism that has more “auth” praxis than Anarchism? The Anarchists employed labor camps in Revolutionary Spain, after all, and while the victims were largely fascists and thus deserved it, the fact remains that that fits your definition of authoritarian.
I am telling you to abandon such a method and describe ideologies by what they actually are.