I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
Not really meaning for this to sound as arrogant as it’s going to, but… Lemmy is almost entirely populated by nerds so far.
Nerds tend to be open to tech, maybe a little smarter overall. You know? You can tell by the grammar, the spelling. It’s a different group here.
Reality is left leaning, and the stupider someone is, in general, the more likely they are to lean right politically. The rest of the right are the really rich, who tend to be up the psychological spectrum toward sociopathic, so of course they would have no time for caring for others’ needs.
Reality is left leaning
I know this was a joke Colbert made, but the truth is the reverse: the left is reality-leaning. It’s truly terrifying to see how divorced from reality the right-wing is, and how gleefully they just keep storming in that direction.
Reality is left leaning…
It really is. So much of conservatism involves pissing into the wind, and trying to argue against objective truth.
The super rich are usually highly educated but they live in such a homogenous bubble that they’re opinions on the majority of society should be entirely discounted. They usually have a total lack of empathy for people and vote for politicians with the same attitude. I have met some super rich people who try very hard to go against the grain and not fall into that mindset, but something about the need for protecting your money and lifestyle usually promotes an untrustworthy and skeptical view of everyone in their lives including their own family.
deleted by creator
Are those groups right wing, or just centrists that don’t react well to people trying to push far left ideals in their spaces?
deleted by creator
It’s not the tech nerds funding the right wing; it’s the venture capitalists
deleted by creator
Those are CEOs.
There’s a huge contingent of socialist/leftist techies. How do you think the open source movement happened? The most popular operating system for both servers and smartphones is given away to the world by a .org
deleted by creator
I’m not saying there are no right-wing tech nerds, I’m saying that your argument that tech nerds are right wing is overly reductive.
You concede my point about FOSS but then try to muddy the waters from there by citing “their platforms started getting cracked down on and [their having] adopted cryptocurrency” to try to make your prior pidgeon-holing still work. Mind citing me a source for either of those claims? Neither of those seem to me to be issues plaguing the wider FOSS community, and as a participant I’m interested to hear about this news I’ve apparently missed.
Silicon Valley is not representative of tech nerds in general. It is, like Hollywood, a small area filled with desperate people trying to turn their talents into fame and fortune. Insinuating that tech nerds in general have the same culture as Silicon Valley is like insinuating that actors in general dress, act, and think like Hollywood actors do. It’s ridiculous on its face.
All this to say it really sounds like you’ve built up a stereotype based on what you read in the news rather than by engaging with the actual community in question.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t call them nerds because they’re venture capitalists not nerds. Nerds implies some sort of technological or engineering skill or ability. Steve Jobs would qualify; not these two.
deleted by creator
The political vibe on Lemmy isn’t really a new thing. Reddit had it 15 years ago. Good forums and IRC channels had it before that. It’s been part of the “golden age” of every online social medium
Eventually, teenage edgelords find start taking up too much space. Shortly after that, the far-right turn up to prey on them.
The people who made the platform good in the first place leave and the cycle begins anew.
To an extent. But whenever there is a political discussion on Hacker News, the lib right response is very, very loud, and I try to remind myself I appreciate Hacker News for its tech news.
I think the culture is just different. Lemmy was started and run by Tankies. Hacker News was started by Y Combinator, which incubates silicon valley startups. They’re going to attract different audiences, or at least different groups of people who will put up with different politics. I can’t claim to be particularly upset about the .ml domains being pulled and the center mass of Lemmy moving away from those instances.
What’s a tankie? I keep seeing it.
I had to look it up too. Apparently it’s an authoritarian leftist. Thinks state-socialism was a good thing. As while most leftists are more of the democratic, market, and anarchist varieties.
State socialism is a good thing, what tankies promote is something else, they’re fascist that can’t accept that fact because it would mean having something in common with the fascists in the USA, a country that they hate so much that they’re ready to deny reality to have an anti USA opinion.
They’re authoritarian. Not fascist. There is a difference. Even if both groups are more dedicated to authoritarianism than anything else. I would not be caught dead voluntarily anywhere with a fascist. While I disagree heavily with ML communist I might associate with them a little bit. But just never give them power.
I’m confused, and you seem to be a lot more familiar with the term. I read the wiki link that explains tankies. I don’t personally know any left leaning people who support Russia/Stalin/China regimes. Maybe because of my America-centric viewpoint and where things are today, but typically people who are economically left are also socially and politically left (equal opportunity is more important than individual freedoms), which is very anti-fascist. I’ve heard people say how great a true communism could be if it were possible, but no one’s ever made it past a dictatorship to get there.
Are tankies people who are economically left but socially and politically right, and think someone has achieved a communist utopia without knowing anything about the corrupt oligarchies in Russia or CCP China?
The problem is not state socialism, it’s the authoritarian side of it. Tankies promote authoritarian views similar to fascists but with a different economics view (not even that different some times), hence they prefer the dictatorships like USSR (in these days even Putin, which is idiotic), North Korea, China; over what they perceive as imperialist, the USA (I agree on calling it imperialistic and disliking it, but not on considering it worse than dictatorships).
I’m a communist which likes state socialism, but what is and was present in those dictatorship (ignoring the authoritarian side which I despise) is state capitalism.
Thanks for explaining for me, that’s exactly what I meant, I just didn’t have the time to reply!
The problem is not state socialism, it’s the authoritarian side of it
The communist utopia needs authoritarianism to work
The confusion comes from so much mass media that equates socialism with communism. They’re orthogonal concepts! Saying socialism is the same as communism is like saying beer-making is exactly the same as cheese-making. Anyone who understands what beer and cheese are would be like, “I’m sorry, what‽”
The best way to think of socialism is that’s it’s a governance strategy that can be used wherever you want. Want everyone to pay taxes in order to fund and deliver government-run firefighting services? That’s socialism. Want to do the same with the military? Socialism. Whenever the government is delivering some good or service by way of taxpayer dollars that’s socialism.
Capitalism and communism are economic systems. You can have socialist government constructs under either capitalism or communism. It’s just that communism doesn’t really have the flexibility to provide goods or services in any other way than via the government.
Then there’s countries like China that claim to be communist (and the Right loves to call them that) but really, they’re more capitalist than communist. What they do have that most communists and fascist governments have is authoritarianism.
That authoritarianism is what fascists and “tankies” have in common: Fascists support an authoritarian, pseudo-capitalist government while “tankies” support an authoritarian, pseudo-communist government.
people who support Russia/Stalin/China regimes.
Congratulations: That, and only that, is a tankie. It is a good practical defintion for the term.
Are tankies people who are economically left but socially and politically right
As I see it, tankies are just the same as the Trumpers. You can’t really say where they stand socially and politically, because they do not have a coherent opinion or ideology. Everyone who opposes their favorite regime is WRONG, and everything their favorite regime does is RIGHT. Bonus points for every action and opinion that hurts “woke lefties”, because the favorite regimes of tankies are all inevitably incompatible with progressive ideas and ideologies.
without knowing anything about the corrupt oligarchies in Russia or CCP China?
Imagine the answer a Trumper would give when you ask them if they don’t know about Trump’s corruption and character. The tankies answer just the same in response to allegations in regard to corruption and character of their favorite regimes:
First of all, none of that is true, because the woke lefties, the media, and everyone are all corrupt, and lying. And what is true, is all a well played move of brilliant 5D chess which will save us all, because the supposed “corruption” is actually all part of a very smart and deliberate system of ploys and strategems which the woke lefties just don’t understand.
Now, do the tankies and Trumpers truly believe that? Who knows. Doesn’t really matter anyway. What is clear is that both of those “ideologies” are dumb idiots.
Thanks for not leaving out the anarchists
I don’t think you understand how small of a global majority white European men are.
People who cheer when others point out flaws in USA but start screaming when flaws in Russia or China are pointed out.
Basically authoritarian leftists that are caricaturized as worshipping the Soviet Union
deleted by creator
Lol! I am totally a nerd
There’s been tons of right-leaning Reddit alternatives before, but they always quickly devolved into Nazi spaces.
Lemmy was the first one that I’m aware of, which told Nazis to fuck off right from the beginning.
They just have their own instance and are defederated by some but not all, which is the best solution as it means they stick to their part of the fediverse instead of hijacking subs that weren’t right leaning in the first place.
Yeah, right-wingers flock to “safe-spaces” as much as the far-left does. Lemmy doesn’t have the tools to make a single community isolated like they could on Reddit, so they have to go to their own instances and end up defederated.
The main differences between left-wing and right-wing communities is that the right-wing ones quickly deteriorate towards a lot of hate related things. This leads them to being isolated from the rest. The left wingers are mostly tolerable and are just over zealous in preaching things like forcing everyone to use pronouns, lmao.
And everybody wins!
Lemmy is much less US-centric than Reddit.
Lemmy was initially created by communists.
It’s still in the process of being created, and the communism is a bit less in your face now alongside there being other contributors to the code, but that’s how it started.
deleted by creator
Most of comments on popular communities boil down to “capitalism bad communism only solution”. Very in your face and everywhere
deleted by creator
Are you arguing that Twitter is right wing because it is US-centric, and not because of Musk’s leveraged buyout?
I would argue that US social media platforms are (now) right wing because of aggressive financial attacks meant to break up open social engagement, as this is bad for business and sociopaths looking to exploit people for profit. Reddit was left wing, until it was bought and sold. Same with Twitter.
However my comment was merely rejecting the idea that Lemmy is left wing because it is not US-centric. Lemmy was started by tankies, who say they’re left wing and have some left wing ideologies, but really they’re more authoritarian fascists, and fascism is in fact right wing. However as Lemmy grew it became apparent that this stance would impede its growth - particularly in western markets - so the main devs have tried to minimise their political views and keep the program neutral; now those views are primarily concentrated at lemmygrad.
Lemmy is not US-centric, but that’s not why it’s left wing. Lemmy is left wing because rational empathetic thought is naturally left wing. Lemmy is full of communism because it was started by communists/tankies.
deleted by creator
The US is not inherently nor totally right wing, and Twitter was predominantly left wing until fairly recently. It might not have been full left wing socialist, but it was certainly left of centre.
deleted by creator
Both parties in the US government are indeed right wing, but not everyone and everything in the US is right wing.
Communism is unfortunately a dirty word in the US, and socialism isn’t far behind it. It doesn’t help that there have been numerous foreign governments that call themselves communist that the US has labeled as enemies and fought against. As a result, an American labeling themselves communist is often ostracised. However, many people do in fact hold those ideals, albeit quietly and/or without naming it such.
An American politics forum is of course going to mirror American politics.
However Twitter and reddit as a whole were left wing. Not as in reading Marx, but in being for the good of everyone, with the core principle of serving the needs of the many rather than the desires of the few. They were also incredibly liberal. They’ve since been taken over by pseudo right wing authoritarian interests, gradually since around 2016.
If you think Marxist-leninists are fascists, or like fascists, then you don’t really understand what either of those words mean man.
I wonder if there are demographics by IP already? TBH most of the threads I’ve been in have felt very US Centric. I also came with the great reddit migration too though.
On my feed, at least, I have my frontpage set to whatever the kbin equivalent to “all” is. I see lots of other languages beyond English populating - particularly German. The Lemmy instance I chose when I initially made my way to the fediverse operates out of China. They’re chill over there.
I dunno. I think if you’re only finding people discussing the US here, then you’ve probably accidentally pigeonholed yourself based on your own interests. The fediverse is diverse.
I mean yeah. Being only English speaking with gringo Spanish doesn’t let me understand memes in German or any of the other various non-english speaking magazines lol.
English is the defacto lingua franca though. Particularly on the web. The diversity I’ve seen still heavily leans English, and western, which makes plenty of sense.
progression tends not to be conservative
I’m afraid future will be conservative nevertheless due to the simple fact that they’re the only ones making kids. I’m liberal myself but I don’t have kids and will never have so my traits don’t pass to the next generations. The conservative neighbours with 7 kids on the other hand…
Politics being genetic, of course.
What?
Politics aren’t genetic.
But they ARE communal. Where you grow decides 90% of what you believe in.
It’s actually why I disagree with the top comment chain that smarter means more left leaning. I think it’s more that left leaning communities have better education standards and lead to smarter generations. Cause and effect reversed.
The ability to propagate the politics depends mightily on the success of the community though. It’s sort of the other side of the ‘brain drain’ principle-- if people have to leave the community for educational or economic opportunity, they’re probably not going to be able to reconstruct the same echo chambers.
Even when you see a preserved group within a larger population (think of Chinatowns and Little Italies), they’re inherently getting a lot more cultural exchange than back in the home country.
A lot of the most self-destructive policies (neglecting education, running the environment into the ground, skate-where-the-puck-was-in-1972 economic policy) are just begging for decades of brain drain. The kids are going to leave because there’s simply nothing there but the Gizzard Extraction Plant, and that got automated in 2032.
But if that logic held wouldn’t religion tend to increase instead of decrease?
Left and right are two stupid categories built up by propaganda, get them out of your head and start to think on your own terms
This. There an infinite number of ideologies that you could have, but our first past the post voting system (in the US) only allows for two candidates, so an infinite spectrum gets funneled into two camps.
Left/right isn’t an exclusively American concept, it is used all over the world regardless of the political system of the country.
The main thing I don’t like about these categories is how they try to lump both moral and political issues into one group as either right or left. They’re two different things. Societies do legislate morality, but as far as defining a person’s overall views I think it’s a poor metric. Personally I have some left views politically, but some right views morally.
I think it can be expected people participating in the Fediverse are somewhat anti-capitalist. We come here to get away from corporate driven media. That being the case I think it’s not erroneous to say Lemmy is more left politically and I appreciate that. However that does not mean I agree with all left views. There are some moral issues I may not agree with, but I don’t engage since I’m not interested in debating morality in these forums.
Finally words of wisdom. The rest of the comment section is a dumpster fire.
I’m not gonna start using niche political terms on a daily basis. Yes, I know that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same but nobody outside a small group of people cares. See that I put both in quotation marks as well.
to be fair, you wouldn’t say that Democrats or republicans are the same if you happen to be part of the groups the Republicans are currently advocating death for. There is a difference between NeoLiberal shill and “America should be a white ethnostate”
Wait, is “advocating death for” the evolution of “right to exist”? That sure escalated quickly.
I mean, sure one could argue that the Rights attacks on trans and LGBTQ people, calling them all pedophiles that need to be exterminated can be seen as a “right to exist” argument, in the same way that “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” can be seen as a “right to exist” statement…
Very nuanced take, I like it.
It’s pretty meaningfully different when one side wants to fix the climate and create social and economic policy that benefits the majority, while the other wants to concentrate wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of everyone else, and the climate, and is creating propaganda aimed at the dehumanization of LGBTQ+ and perceived-non-Americans (even when they’re citizens).
Any party that label themself as left or right is applying the same politics that benefits those in power and lie about it to the public.
Well, there’s a self-proclaimed Left which, though probably having started out with good intentions, is all about “lets classify people on visible things they were born with and then presume things about them purelly on their “classification” and treat them differently”.
If this sounds strangelly like the far-right thinking that’s because it is kinda derivative: the same architecture of deeming individuals as worthy/unworthy likely-good/likely-bad because they were born with certain characteristics as the far-right is used, and then the categories are swapped and the whole thing is called “being progressive” as if it was only unfair to judge and treat people because of their genetic makeup if done in one direction but not in a different one.
Then there is the tankie Left, which also started with good intentions but seem to have confuse the recipe-book of slogans and the Party über alles discipline invented in the late 19th century and early 20th century by middle class intellectuals to inspired the near-illiterate masses of the time to create an utopian leftwing world (which didn’t work) with the actual thinking Principles and Intentions from which the rules were made. Because these people follow the recipes without examining the against the principles and ideals and in contexts which are very different of the ones for which those rules were created, you went up with ridiculous ideas directly opposed to “the greatest good for the greatest number” principle like supporting Putin’s invasion.
The followers of such “Lefts” hate it when their faith-like beliefs are examined against the actual Principles of Equality and “the greatest good for the greatest numbers” and found often to be directly opposing them, just like when you grab some religious book or other and point out the inconsistencies in it: there is no greater hate than that of the faithfull who sees the basis of their Identity be examined under the cruel light of logic and found to be mainly bollocks.
Or in other words, I think the Left here is a lot more the product of thinking things through and concluding that it would be a lot better to live in a World with less poverty, more equality and were a few did not amass more power than whole countries thanks to their wealth, and continuing to actually continue to think things through when face with slogans from the tribalist flag waving slogan parroting and social-circle-jerk groups which call themselves “Left” and which are the leftovers from Marxism in the XXI Century and the Neoliberal-inspired “in the greed is good context, lets pursue personal-upside maximization as an ‘Identity’ group instead of individually so that we can claim we’re lefties”.
PS: If it sounds I’m raging against the Left here, that just because I find the pettyness and self-serving sociopathy of the modern Right to be self-evident. I actually don’t think you can be a true leftwinger genuinelly fighting for the greater good if you just blindly follow slogans and tribes. Funilly enough it also means I can actually respect a genuine old-style conservative, even whilst wholly disagreeing with him or her.
Then there is the tankie Left, which also started with good intentions but seem to have confuse the recipe-book of slogans and the Party über alles discipline invented in the late 19th century and early 20th century by middle class intellectuals to inspired the near-illiterate masses of the time to create an utopian leftwing world (which didn’t work) with the actual thinking Principles and Intentions from which the rules were made.
The “tankies” are absolutely not utopian. There was a great big schism about this very question more than a century ago, with Marxists roundly rejecting the utopianism of the libertarian socialists (Anarchists). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels is a good starting point.
Yeah that’s a whole lot of words for “both sides”. Maybe you’d be happier on Reddit.com/r/conservative
Yup it is. There are a lot of communist techie people I guess. I still generally state my political opinions here though. Let them be downvoted.
deleted by creator
I’ll quote Drew Curtis of fark.com fame:
“Reality has a liberal bias.”
I wonder how much of that on Reddit is just bots and shills, ie corporations paying to create and upvote posts and comments that support their agenda
I do wonder if it will happen here, and am hoping it is handled differently.
Hot take: you shouldn’t subscribe to an ism.
You know what my political affiliation is? I’m an engineer. You want to solve a problem, you break it apart and fix the broken parts.
Abortion? Sure.
What’s the problem? Women are pregnant and they don’t wanna be.
Well how’d they get pregnant? They had unprotected sex, or they got raped(including all kinds here). Teach people how to use birth control and make it easy to get. Teach men about consent. Fund sex crime policing.
That takes care of the input side of the equation. What’s next? Oh yeah, they don’t wanna be pregnant. Why not? Because it could kill them, or wreck thier bodies. OK, well let’s fund research and support for maternal mortality issues (including post-partum). If a pregnancy is likely to kill a woman (like double the normal mortality rate) she should be allowed to abort, even if she’s not in immediate danger. You can’t force somebody to risk their life.
Any other reasons? Because the fetus is severely deformed and will die in pain if allowed to make it to full term? Abortion, no question. Honestly any other position on this one is fucked up. I’m sure of very little when it comes to God, but I’m sure it doesn’t want preventable suffering.
What else? Families can’t afford a kid? Free high quality childcare for everyone. Free healthcare for kids and post-partum mothers (probably for everyone but that’s a different topic).
What about adoption? Well, as they say, adoption is the answer to a different question. Just to cover all cases though, let’s fund high-quality adoption services, including counseling for the birth mother for as long as she needs.
How do we pay for it all? Taxes. Taxes are good for society. Shut the fuck up and pony up your fair share. If you use our stuff, eat our food, drink our clean water, taxes are what you owe.
These are just off the top of my head. The real answers are probably way more complicated, but it’s going to take work to figure it all out. This is how you fix a problem though. Lots of hard work to understand the whole thing, soup to nuts, and then you fix it all.
Does that make me a leftist?
Does that make me a leftist?
Though I assume this is but one part of your political convictions, I would say yes. That being said I think your hot take is wrong and suggest thinking about it this way: Theory and applications are two incredibly important components of any discipline, ranging from mathematics to politics. In this case the theoretical part means more or less ideology (or the isms you refer to) while applications are the more pragmatic approach of thinking implementations and effects. Both are important to navigate and propose solutions to ever evolving problems in our societies.
Now, as to why this makes you more left is that the leftist parties are usually (but not always) more culturally progressive as opposed to being conservative/reactionary when faced with questions like gay marriage, abortion etc… I think the most coherent political view is that of being both culturally and economically leftist, though that is of course subject to debate. If you are both I think you should say you are leftist as well.
Culturally and economically leftist.
This is a big part of the problem tbh, left-right is the economic distinction, authoritarian or libertarian is the top to bottom axis which is more apt to apply to “culture.”
If you want to control people through force of government you’re on the authoritarian side, if you want people to be free to live their lives so long as they don’t actively harm others you’re on the libertarian side. If you prefer collectivist economics you’re on the left side, and if you prefer capitalism in some form you’re on the right side. Put those together to get a slightly more accurate picture of a person you’re interacting with.
So a guy who prefers individualist free market economy and is socially apathetic or progressive would be bottom right, a guy who prefers more market control but still capitalism and is socially conservative would be center right, a guy who prefers monarchy with much market control and very conservative socially is top right, stalinists would be top left as they’re authoritarian and not necessarily progressive and collectivist as all hell, liberals would be center left more progressive but still authoritarian and still collectivists, and left libertarians would be bottom left, collectivist and progressive but as long as you aren’t hurting people live and let live, like bottom right. Of course most people fall somewhere on the middle of the graph or their quadrant rather than in a corner of it, but it is still more helpful than only having one axis to base things on.
Well, this “political compass” you are referring to does have some merits, but any effort to reduce political stances into scales is of course a simplification. For that sake one could argue that adding arbitrary more dimensions to the representation makes it more accurate, but I think that ultimately defeats the purpose of the simplification. There is no canonical way to express these concepts, hence it depends on context which simplification (if any) is useful.
One particular issue I see with auth-lib is that it IMO has a bias in that most only consider the government as an authority in this setting. However if one say defines autority as
power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior (from Merriam-Webster)
it should be clear that under some economical systems there are definitely authorities besides the state. Personally I would argue that money translates to power and hence authority. If this power is unchecked and of great importance, which I think it largely is, I would also argue that it forms a basis of authoritarian rule.
I see money as more a necessary thing, as it is much easier to operate a society that way over no money. You could replace money with barter but that does complicate things.
I think you might have misunderstood the point I was making. What I implied was that for a society to be free from authoritarianism and under democratic control, there also has to be some limits to the power wielded by the rich. Of course one could try to limit the power of money, but I think the most important thing one should do is limit the mechanics of the economy that allow for unlimited accumulation of wealth (i.e. read taxes and worker collectives).
Well good luck with that. Anyone been convicted in connection with that whole Epstein Fiasco? Hell at least sometimes rich guys do get fucked like Madoff but not one government employee has had to answer for their involvement with Epstein, they won’t even release the log.
The wealth in essence isn’t the issue, one can be wealthy and a good person, it is theoretically possible, I’d be hard pressed to think of an example while I’m shitting rn but nonetheless it is something that can happen. The issue comes in with letting those people get away with crimes because of their wealth, if we just stopped doing that your issue would be solved.
Problem is, both of these things are equally likely to occur, which is to say not very. The ruling elite consists of both the government and the corporations propped up by them, but even the most ardent revolutionaries on both sides of the economic spectrum only hate 1/2 of this ruling elite, nothing will ever be solved because neither side can see this. You’re more likely to come back to this with “yeah it’s both but it is really the corpos” than you are to actually see the issue is both.
Just to be on the same page I am not from the US. Also, I think the US government is essentially composed of and works for the bourgeoisie class, hence there is no distinction of my critique of the capitalists and the people in government due to them being the same groups.
Furthermore, this makes the Epstein case a further demonstration of the corrupting effects of money. I am really sorry for the state of the US democracy and where I am from we use it as a staple of what we don’t want our society to look like.
Lastly, there is an issue with hoarding wealth and being a good person. This is twofold: First there is the issue of where the money is taken from and second there is the issue of how it could be better spent. I think a good person would not overcharge for their products nor underpay their workers. However that is essentially how you get rich, along with other scummy actions. Lastly, after hoarding exorbitant amounts of wealth, I think a good person would also use this for something good rather than themselves.
Even Donald Duck doesnt subscribe to the abortion ban
Reforms are great, but ultimately a doomed bandaid over real problems. Quoth Lenin:
"Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.
The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled.
And conversely, workers who have assimilated Marx’s theory, i.e., realised the inevitability of wage-slavery so long as capitalist rule remains, will not be fooled by any bourgeois reforms. Understanding that where capitalism continued to exist reforms cannot be either enduring or far-reaching, the workers fight for better conditions and use them to intensify the fight against wage-slavery. The reformists try to divide and deceive the workers, to divert them from the class struggle by petty concessions. But the workers, having seen through the falsity of reformism, utilise reforms to develop and broaden their class struggle."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm
Nobody cares what Lenin had to say. You’re not just talking to the lemmygrad lot.
Karl Marx was an idiot. Let me explain…no there’s too much. Let me sum up. Replacing a whole system just because some parts of it don’t work is stupid. How do you know the system you put in as a replacement won’t also be broken.
Some people tried to replace capitalism with a totally different system and it went real bad real fast. This wasn’t an isolated incident. They tried it in a bunch of places and in none of them did it work. Marxism has been debunked in the field.
Marxism is the idea that you can fix problems with an ism. Got poor people? Try communism or socialism or half-cocked-ism. If your solution to a problem can fit on a bumper sticker it’s wrong.
If you think Karl Marx was an idiot (not just wrong, but an idiot), you don’t understand the conversation well enough to participate.
Why do Marxists always assume people who disagree just aren’t smart enough to understand Marxism? It’s not difficult to understand the concept, it’s just dumb. Marx was old school I-am-very-smart.
Some people tried to replace capitalism with a totally different system and it went real bad real fast. This wasn’t an isolated incident. They tried it in a bunch of places and in none of them did it work.
What examples are you thinking of?
China, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba. Every single time, the state becomes authoritarian and repressive, ignoring human rights, starving and imprisoning huge populations. Eventually it either fails, or the state keeps the authoritarianism, but gets rid of the communism. Look at China and Vietnam. They’ve transitioned to a mostly market based economy, but kept the authoritarianism.
These are examples of everyone starving because centrally planned economies are a bad idea.
You’re being downvoted because you straw manned, not sure if intentionally or not.
If your solution to a problem can fit on a bumper sticker it’s wrong.
Like…really? Do you think that this community, or anyone worth talking to, thinks that it’s that easy?
Was it straw man, or ad hominem? Are you thinking that I shouldn’t have called Marx stupid, or that I misrepresented his concept?
You’re an engineer. There are absolutely scenarios where so much of a system is broken that you have to redesign the whole system. You can’t turn a steam engine into an electric motor piece by piece.
40% of the population is one missed paycheck away from poverty while a handful of people have rocket ships and megayachts and buy-a-few-politicians money. That is not a bug, that is the central operating principle, the Carnot cycle of capitalism. If you’re one of the millions who are in the “wage labor” part of the cycle instead of the “extract profit” part of the cycle, capitalism has already gotten real bad.
You’re an engineer. Don’t be so reductionist. You sound like a kid who invented a perpetual motion machine with an overbalanced wheel and magnets. You should know better.
I can absolutely draw you a line from the development of the steam engine to the electric motor to NASA. Every little thing that was wrong with steam engines led to better and better technology. Marxism is like saying, “the steam engine has problems, obviously mechanical engineering is doomed, lets breed better horses.”
Really? Please, what linear, incremental changes can you make to a pressurized piston driven engine that will turn it gradually into an induction motor? Certainly, they both turn a wheel eventually, but the fundamental principle of operation is totally different. The things that were wrong with steam engines led to incremental improvements up until a point, when a total redesign was necessary.
Your analogical thinking needs improvement. Capitalism isn’t like mechanical engineering, it’s like external combustion. Socialism is like replacing it with internal combustion, communism is like replacing that with electric induction.
Steam engines literally led to the development of electric motors. Steam engines led to steam turbines which led to dynamos which led to electric motors, each invention building off the knowledge gained at the previous step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo
Your analogy is doubly flawed. Each type of engine you mention has strengths and weaknesses that depend on external variables. Internal combustion isn’t better at producing electricity for instance, which is why we mostly use external combustion to do that. Electric motors aren’t better than internal combustion, except that internal combustion is causing climate change. It’s also flawed because history has shown that Socialism doesn’t work better than Capitalism. I could see, if this were purely theoretical, someone arguing the benefits of Marxist ideas, but it’s been tried. In several places around the world, people tried to put in place the kind of changes you’re advocating. In every case it led to authoritarianism, brutal repression, and starvation. Does it suck that poor kids don’t have enough to eat, while Bezos builds space yachts? Yeah it sucks, but it’s not millions-starving-to-death levels of suck like we actually, not theoretically, got every time we tried Communism or Socialism or any kind of take-their-stuff-and-give-it-to-me-ism.
Right, but you wanna keep using steam engines to power cars.
History shows that capitalism has one exemplary use case: siphoning value from workers to capitalists. Full stop. It’s an outright failure at other things, or at least worse than most alternatives.
There are, in fact, millions starving to death under capitalism, and have been every time it’s been tried. Sure, they’re brown people in countries capitalists call “shit holes” so you personally can’t see them, but they’re there. Lots of them are working in dangerous conditions for negligible wages in order to prop up capitalism, because capitalism boils down to one equation:
(Revenue) - (Expenses) = Profit
Guess where wages fall in that equation?
Poverty and exploitation aren’t coincidental, occasional consequences of capitalism. They are the mathematically inevitable conclusion every single time. It’s almost impossible to find a mass-market product that didn’t involve child or slave (or child slave) labor somewhere in the supply chain. After all, the fewer pennies you pay for labor, the more space yachts you can buy.
The only times capitalist economies do anything other than exploit and cause poverty are when armed revolt is imminent and the government steps in to take-the-capitalists’-stuff-and-give-it-to-everyone.
Social democratic economies are thriving around the world. Every unregulated capitalist economy has devolved into space yachts and starving millions almost immediately.
Sure, there have been authoritarian governments that said they were socialist for PR. You can call a hammer a socket wrench. The failure of the hammer to turn a nut doesn’t mean socket wrenches don’t work, it means you’re pretending a hammer is something it isn’t. No one has tried communism, or large scale socialism. They’ve tried authoritarian centrally planned economies, which isn’t what either of those things are. Hammers marketed as wrenches. No one you’re talking about has ever tried the wrench.
Except worker co-ops.
I once got dogpiled in r/lsd of all places for saying employers shouldn’t be allowed to drug test for thc. I got swarmed for “being a druggie” in a sub about lsd.
I quit reddit for good not too long after that. What a fucking shithole.
Anti-corporate platforms don’t generally appeal to people that built and uphold the existing corporate status quo.
The first wave here were anticapitalists, anarchists or communists. The second wave are the most anti-corporate “liberals”.
deleted by creator
I absolutely agree. I also think the irritating environment created by the current digital red scare trend will eventually subside once they move onto some new scare words because the existing ones are losing their edge.
deleted by creator
Can you define a liberal for me? I usually call myself a progressive, but from my limited understanding I know liberals are generally pro-capitalists that usually posture morality to uphold capitalism.
deleted by creator
"I’ve noticed that lemmy as a whole has much more moral, empathetic individuals than reddit (outside of political servers of course)
21st century politics in a nutshell, lmao
I see just as much if not more complaining about “tankies” as on subs like subredditdrama, it’s not that leftist
I literally saw a guy earlier today in that one large memes thread trying to convince people that Eastern European countries yearn for the USSR days.
Only tankies try to do that lol.
A lot of people there do yearn for the return of the USSR. You can argue about why, but the polling is quite clear that many people miss socialism
“Why don’t you ask people from Socialist countries what they thought”?
“Wait, not those people”.
Where can I see that polling?
https://lemmy.world/comment/1618443
Here’s a link to a comment with some polling
So really not a lot of people, mostly Russians and countries that have strong ties to Russia.
That’s what the first source says and as someone already pointed to a more recent polling showing that it’s no longer the case for eastern European countries.
Hungary source is an old article and the same recent polling shows otherwise.
Romania source link doesn’t even work.
Eastern Germany is a pretty complex and nuanced topic, one that I won’t get into so I’ll give that one the benefit of the doubt that they actually want soviet socialism back.
Czech source link also doesn’t work.
Serbia source literally has the article saying “the Serbian citizens primarily refer to better economic situation and standard of living, but the majority of them would not go back to that period.”
And then there’s the Russian part, which is completely understandable considering the USSR was just a form of Russian imperialism.
Tankies are a tiny subset of extreme far leftists which even far leftists have a right to despise, though.
if they truly are a “tiny subset” then why even spend the time to complain about them?
Because they’re very vocal online, are annoying, and also give actual leftists bad rep. If you’re promoting egalitarianism and distributing social power among everyone, you wouldn’t like people who support authoritarism to share a label with you.
every state in the world is authortarian
Are you saying this as a retort to me indirectly calling tankies authoritarians? If so, that’s pretty rich.
The Soviet Union suppressed people who used Marxist analysis to argue that the higher echelons of the party aparatus had constituted itself as a separate, dominant class that held the ultimate political power, which resulted in a tendency to exert that power undisputed and continued accumulation of privileges. Once enough time had passed, some of the people leading that aparatus decided they wanted an even larger share of the cake, so they decided to drop the pretense, drop the nominal communism and embrace privatisation. When working people tried to oppose that process, the authoritarian state used its repressive forces to protect the ruling class. What is most interesting about this is that you can see similar processes in almost every single country that followed the leninist vanguardist model, ultimately losing any political equality that was initially sought in its revolution, and any self-respecting Marxist should have taken the hint that this makes Leninism and its godchildren a failed avenue for socialism.
To connect this with your not too hidden assertion that “since every state is authoritarian, me supporting authoritarian states is ok”: any state and society is going to decide the margins outside of which behavior and politics are not acceptable, but that is absolutely no excuse to give free reign to any government to become as authoritarian as they aim to no matter the cost. When we do that, we come across disgusting situations such as the difficulties for working class Chinese people being unable to self-organize and protect their rights if the local party strongman arbitrarily decides they’re too much trouble. Any kind of emancipatory project soon turns crippled under those circumstances, which you could have easily noticed if you weren’t drown in liturgy.
https://redsails.org/western-marxism-and-christianity/
ML states are the only successful socialist states in history to hold out for a significant amount of time against the United States empire. I’m not super attached to the vanguard model myself, but can you show me a single other successful model? I think this quote is quite relevant here:
"This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated." - Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
Authoritarianism under the banner of socialism isn’t success. It’s just a different kind of failure.
Because some of the founders of Lemmy are the worst examples.
do you mean the devs or people using it? because the only 2 main devs are ML, not “some”
(also I’m a lemmygrad user, I’m a spooky scary tankie btw
)You’re a homophobic authoritarian?
cuba has the most progressive family code in the world, try again next time
I doubt he’s an American.
