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.
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.
That sounds more like the ancaps. Anarchists want to dismantle all hierarchy not just the state. With various different flavours of solutions of voluntary collectivism.
Agorism is not authoritarian because it doesn’t rely on coercion or centralized power. The goal is to undermine the state and oppressive hierarchies through voluntary counter-economics, not to seize or reverse the mechanisms of control like Soviet Democracy does. It’s about opting out of their system entirely, not “oppressing” the ruling class..any harm they face is the result of losing their ability to coerce others so I’m not sure why you think it’s authoritarian.
Marxist praxis depends on centralized authority, party structures, and coercion to achieve its goals. Historical Marxist revolutions institutionalized these mechanisms long after their revolutions, whereas anarchist praxis, even in Revolutionary Spain, aimed for decentralized power. The labor camps you mentioned were temporary measures during wartime, not inherent. But yeah it’s a spectrum not binary ‘auth or not’, some types of anarchists are more likely to resort to authoritarian measures during the transition. Agorism aims to side-step most of that by building parallel systems.
No, I mean Anarchists. The commune structure is individualist, not collectivist, it seeks absolute freedom of association and not full collectivization. I am not making a moral case here, this is the fundamental divide between Anachists and Marxists. In order to create such a system, authoritarian means are required, ie revolution regardless of how you coat it. No ruling class will give up authority voluntarily.
Marxists seek to create a fully centralized and democratic structure devoid of classes. This is more democratic than Anarchism, as Anarchists only have influence over their immediate sphere, not the whole globe. Anarchism however offers more direct control over their surroundings, usually.
Put another way, why are you an Anarchist, and not a Marxist?
Capitalism may not be prefect, but I don't like any of the proposed alternatives to capitalism:
Corporatism - I don't like power and money being centralized into corporations. They get wealthy and everyone else gets poor.
Communism (with centrally controlled economy) - I don't like power and money being centralized by party leaders and politicians. They have too much power, which results in abuses. Meanwhile, the elites at the top (unofficially) live rich lifestyles at the expense of the workers at the bottom.
Crony Capitalism (our current sociopolitical economic system) - I don't like the government and corporations colluding against the people. Works like corporatism except the government is helping them.
Laissez-faire Capitalism - Unregulated capitalism leads to abuse, so there needs to be some sort of regulations.
Anarchy - I don't like the strong ruling over the weak. It results in abuses and arrogance.
Dictator, King, Emperor, Single Party Rule, etc. - I don't like any system that gives a single person or group of people nearly unlimited power over everyone else. Any political minority gets stepped on. It also means that you may have a benevolent ruler now, but the next ruler may be malicious.
I'd rather see the break up of big business AND big government, and I would love to see more small private voluntary cooperatives and small businesses and small non-profits. Give the power back to the people, not to big business and big government. People should have choices.
I am not sure if there is a name for that.
The problem is that centralization is a natural process, you are asking to reset the clock every once in a while forever instead of moving on. Central planning doesn't mean unaccountability or no democracy.
Crony capitalism, Laissez-faire capitalism, and corporatism are all just synonyms for capitalism.
@BrainInABox Yes they are. And those are the bad kinds we all disapprove of.
There is also a kind called stakeholder capitalism, where all of the stakeholders (employees, vendors, consumers, investors, communities, environment, etc.) are all considered. In some countries, such as the U.S., you can even form a public benefit corporation (PBC) which requires you to, by law, to consider all of the stakeholders and also support a public benefit.
There is also cooperative capitalism, where people can form private cooperatives that are owned by the consumers and/or employees, without centralized control by the government or some central corporation. Basically communism, but without the centralized planning and single party rule.
There are many flavors of capitalism. Some of them are toxic. Some of them are not.
No, I mean they literally synonyms for the same thing, they aren't different "kinds"
Once again, this is just a synonym for capitalism.
No, there's only one flavor, and it's toxic.
Not what communism is.