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…
It really is. So much of conservatism involves pissing into the wind, and trying to argue against objective truth.
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.
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.
Thank you for taking the time to explain! I appreciate you!
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.
I appreciate your break down on this, I feel like I get so confused with auth/fasc terms
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.
Thinks Stalin was cool and Lenin was correct to break the short lived democracy of the USSR. The rest is details.
Basically authoritarian leftists that are caricaturized as worshipping the Soviet Union
People who cheer when others point out flaws in USA but start screaming when flaws in Russia or China are pointed out.
deleted by creator
Thanks! I thought it was Lemmy specific slang.
Nah it’s been going on for probably more than a decade
Makes sense. I may have heard the term once or twice before, but here, I come across it almost daily.
I gotcha
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.
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.
Just cause I’m a nerd dusnt mean I can spell correctly
deleted by creator
Theres a difference. While nerds are often book smart, we often have social difficulties.
“tens”
“You can tell by the grammar, the spelling”
deleted by creator
Lol! I am totally a nerd
Removed by mod
lol when was it apolitical? As far back as 2010 it was getting mentioned on TV by liberal media for starting the Restoring Truthiness movement.
Your memory is awful, or you haven’t been on it that long and are just making up its history to suit yourself. The earlier days of reddit’s politics were mostly liberal. Although liberals were significantly more awful on social issues back then than they are today.
Do you realise how dehumanising and ignorant you’re being? You’re just using stereotypes of your specific country to generalise everyone you disagree with.
Underestimating your “rivals” never goes well, as reality is often more complex than “we empathetic genuises they dumb psychos”
If anyone is basing their morals specifically just to go against their “rivals”, I would seriously question that person’s ethics, empathy, and reasoning skills. I’m absolutely serious about that. I would not trust that person in real life.
I would also have little sympathy for anyone who makes their own life worse just to get one in on their “rivals”. You should always think how a new law might expand in 5-10 years, and not just focus on the current emotions.
If someone who you considered to be a truly terrible person got into power next, would you feel comfortable with those groundwork protections being seen as changeable? Would you be ok with that terrible person having that level of say over your life, knowing that they would get away with it?
If you hypothetically start messing with things like your country’s ground-level human rights, it’s likely to only be a matter of time until everyone is effected by it in unpleasant ways. Everyone thinks these changes will magically stop before it hits them, but I would strongly recommend for these people to brush up on history again. How has that gone in the past?
Politics shouldn’t be some lame “gotcha” game because politics effect the real lives of many people. If anyone wants to do “gotcha” games, there are many places for those that won’t possibly end with someone dead. That “someone” may be a stranger today, but it could be your child, spouse, or best friend next time.
Ah, I forgot you’re probably American.
Then forget about what I said, you’re ruled by a party with two colors, two letters and stupid followers
Not even close. Do you project this anger on complete strangers all the time?
I was referring to things like labor law changes. It’s fine when it’s someone else to a lot of people, but those people are silly to think that their jobs would be the one exclusion.
Not even close? Bro Biden is at most a little more center-leaning than Trump
I’m not in the US haha.
I don’t vote based on parties or teams. I vote for the changes that I want to see.
deleted by creator
…I am not funding the right wing. I am building a better world one line of code and one circuit at a time.
deleted by creator
Well first off software isn’t just flowing rectangles connected to internet tubes. Many of us work in Industrial/Chemical/Civil control systems. Like me. There is a lot of thought that goes into making sure what you flush doesn’t just pour on the ground. I made a decision early in my career that it was more important to me that we don’t drown in our own waste vs making sure slack integrated well with outlook.
As for how I would go about changing stuff the answer is I do it everyday. Can do it a lot faster if the rest of you people stayed the hell out of my way.
deleted by creator
Praise after attacking me means nothing.
deleted by creator
Get off the wrong internet spaces and you’ll start meeting the right kinds of nerds.
deleted by creator
If it smells like shit everywhere you go, change your shoes.
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
Just very, very rightist.
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.
In some ways yes but it can have the opposite effect too. I know lots of left leaning people who grew up in super religious/conservative families and hate everything about their beliefs.
What top comment chain? They’re all talking about Reddit censoring leftists, not talking about the intelligence of any faction. The most I’ve seen are people making fun of the right, but that’s to be expected.
This is the thread’s first reply chain if you sort by top:
https://lemmy.world/comment/1614009
Federation may make things wonky I guess.
Okay. I read that post, nowhere did it come off as patronizing at all, and it holds people accountable foe having basic knowledge which is an expectation of most adults in society, so I don’t see how the anti-intellectualist garbage is in any wa valid here.
If you take in account that they’re raised in their parents’ household it’s not ridiculous
Is that controversial? Look around…
The thing about that is, if they’re ignorant, their kids will be ignorant too. And what that adds up to is just the same thing we’ve got: a large group of people who are subject to whatever momentary persuasion happens to reach them on any given day, and a political/ruling class that can work with that just fine, so they are taking steps to hamper education sufficiently that this can endure for an indeterminate amount of time before we all burn.
What those large populations do react to, is missing a meal or three. And so far, these aristocrats seem to understand that whatever else they try to pull, they must always service the fundamentals: bread and circuses.
See you at the coliseum.
I don’t know. I think it depends more on where they grow up and who/what they’re exposed to (in person and online). At the high school I work at, we have a bunch of lgbtq+ teens whose conservative parents have no idea they’re queer or go by a different name. But I also don’t live somewhere like Wyoming with a much higher conservative population. I live in a college town in a (barely) blue county surrounded by red counties in an ultimately very blue state.
I hope we find a way to kill the online radical right pipeline and continue to expose more teens to other ideas, other cultures, and other ways of life, and maybe it won’t matter so much who their parents are.
A blue county surrounded by red counties in an ultimately very blue state
Tell me you live in California without telling me you live in California
;)
Speaking of Reddit, here’s an overused response that needs to be left behind with all the other unoriginal crap responses.
Only if we can kill the online radical left pipeline too. Too many tankies
But if that logic held wouldn’t religion tend to increase instead of decrease?
Yeah it probably will. We’ll see in the next few decades. Aging population and low birthrates are much bigger problems that most people realize. Increasingly small amount of workers has to cover the living costs of the increasing numbers of retirees.
Well by definition right?
Progressive outlook means your open to new ideas, exploring new territory, open to concept that challenge what you think and know, and gives you the ability to push boundaries, make new discoveries and try new things.Conservative outlook on the other hand means you are content and safe with the familiar, doing things the way they have always been done because its tried and true, however this means if they feel unconfortable or threatened by ideas which are going to change the way the live and how things work which makes them dig their heels in and get defensive.
The progressive/conservative axis has nothing to do with the economical left/right, it was only forcefully merged in the USA because they have only two parties.
I find it so ironic that the comment above you is literally saying that being progressive means challenging what you [think you] know, but you are being downvoted by (I assume) people who call themselves progressive, without any discussion.
Reality has a well known left leaning bias.
Conservatives and their politics do not have equal status. In this climate, “both sides” is toxic and suggest each is equally supported and viable. They are not. The right is an incredibly hateful minority end should be treated as such.
This actually makes a lot of sense. A lot of people are using Lemmy either because they prefer federated web platforms to centralized, which makes it antithetical to corporate interests, or because they’re opposed to Reddit’s API policy, which was a blatant move to squeeze more money out of their users. Either way, Lemmy’s appeal is very anti-capitalist, and since opposition to capitalism is a generally left-wing philosophy, I can totally see why most Lemmy users would be left-wing.
This is my thought as well. Lemmy isn’t what everyone is looking for. It’s a free open source software project for creating a decentralized federated network of content aggregators. For most people that sentence doesn’t make any sense nor do they really care. They just want a site they can doom scroll for hours.
The people who choose to use Lemmy are people who care about open source projects, care about decentralization of online platforms, or both. These types of people by their very nature support groups of people coming together collectively to do something big.
A collection of people working together towards a common goal without a strict hierarchy. You could say these people are community focused. Maybe we could call that communityism or something. Where people make rules as a group, or a union you could say. So yeah, no idea where the left lean is coming from.
“communityism” was somewhat the goal of reddit by having subreddits but still site owners has all the control over you. Lemmy is a free software and many free software projects interact with the userbase with such a community. Before this reddit thing, Free software enthusiasts used lemmy. Same goes with mastodon users before twitter was bought by elon. Now i can see when whatsapp does something shit(maybe) and people porting over to federated and decentralised E2EE matrix for instant messaging.(or maybe they just switch to telegram)
Honestly I came here just a few days ago, right after Reddit admins removed that r/place guillotine. I wouldn’t say that I am very far to the left, but I do enjoy living in something close to a social democracy. I wouldn’t be happy in a place like the United States for example.
Perfectly understandable
Maybe Lemmy was like this at the very start and is what helped Lemmy kick off, but I think a lot of people are looking for an alternative to Reddit. I think you’re going to see a lot more people coming here for the content, not the politics of it all.
Hey, I’m on TV!
This has been my running theory as well. Wonderful to read all of the input on this thread.
Well, I don’t oppose capitalism and here I am, trying to evade echo chambers and reading everyone’s points
To be sure, you don’t have to be anti-capitalist to want to use Lemmy. I’m just saying that it’s very appealing to anti-capitalists.
"I’ve noticed that lemmy as a whole has much more moral, empathetic individuals than reddit (outside of political servers of course)
I think you’ll find a lot more leftists interested in platforms that are not powered solely by money and profit. Lemmy, much like Mastodon and other federated platforms, only need instances to run to be usable. It doesn’t require millions of dollars to keep it afloat.
Generally speaking centrist and right wingers, especially in Western countries, tend to be very capitalist. They only understand the value in terms of money.
deleted by creator
It’s in the name really.
And no, I witnessed this with the internet itself post 2000. Get off my lawn 😜
That’s not really true. The right created Gab, and Ruqqus, and Voat. And they managed to hijack the U.S. legal system which the left can barely understand, let alone influence in any appreciable way.
A good chunk of the left (not the Dems, the actual left) understands the US legal system. It’s just that it’s hard to win in a pay-to-play system when everyone who can pay is against you.
deleted by creator
Maybe because on reddit you have an absolute fuck ton of right wing propaganda bots.
Thankk you. The Overton window has been forcibly molded to what would’ve been the mid- Right when I was a kid growing up (90s-00s). This is because of Fox News. And then social media propagandists have tried ripping it to the extreme right, aka alt-right.
I imagine a lot of what younger people think of as left/liberal was very much a moderate view point just a generation ago.
So when you move to a new medium not propagandized yet (or at least a new venue like Lemmy) you might find that organic discourse is a lot more sane, tempered, and moderate.
Remember during COVID, some people thought washing your hands is being left.
Remember when people thought that a virus sweeping through the human race was politically affiliated?
While this is hilarious and I want it to be true, can you pass any source on it?
Uhh, I don’t have a direct source , I think it was a German from the afd on twitter or a festival(Corona Demo), I don’t have an X account anymore and don’t want to create a new one to search it.
A president fomented a rebellion in the capitol of the United States to hold power. In the current landscape that statement alone makes me a leftist.
The words them selves have been so changed and loaded that it’s nearly impossible to even write a post about what I want to say. The political discourse around the ‘right’ has driven conservative politics right out of the conversation.
What passes for conservative politics is literally insane to me. There used to be some kind of agreement that there were problems and what the problems were. The main discourse was on how to solve the problems facing the America people.
The main effort of the ‘conservative’ discourse is no longer around solving shared issues. It seems to be centered around the idea of legislating ‘solutions.’ The idea seems to be to weaken all of the government checks and balances so that this can be achieved.
For an ‘classic’ conservative this is when I walk to keep checks , balances, voting rights, governmental oversight and freedom of religion. No conservative leaders are standing for this.
The voices in the Gop that had that kind of sanity focus have been sidelined and are all of the much older generations. That last semi-effective voice I heard from the right was Arnold Schwarzenegger speaking out against Trump,nazis and anti-antisemitism.
This is the actual Republican platform. They don’t care a whit about what we consider to be ‘problems’. The only thing they think is problematic is that they might not have power, and that we might have power. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
It seems as though the only “problem” that the modern American right are concerned about is how to ensure they have unquestioned power and authority and that noone ever oppose them.
You are absolutely correct. For Republicans, in the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
That is quite true as well. Lemmy gets Russian shills on Ukraine coverage worse than Reddit though. I don’t know if that would be tankies or Russian trolls.
I’ve noticed several pro-china shill accounts as well. Fortunately their attempts at astroturfing are made in China, very obvious and poorly done.
You have to appreciate their stupid confidence though. It’s entertaining.
Yeah, but I have to block it just to save my sanity. Saw one of them denying genocide and when called out I got a pretty collage of economic statistics about why the US sucks balls and China rules…I’m not even American.
I’ve blocked a few as well. No sense wasting your time with fantasy posters who conveniently ignore the issues of their own country. As if we don’t get videos of people being sealed inside apartment buildings, live meat markets, and other insanities. I’m American and, while some states want to erode history because they’re just as thin skinned as these Chinese propagandists, at least we can talk about slavery, trail of tears, Tulsa riot, and other negatives without threat of prison and hopes of social progress. Tiananmen Square though? Ha.
I didn’t see any specific “propaganda bots”, just bots regurgitating anything that was posted
Because they are meant to seem like you’re talking to a human. Bot/troll farms are a thing.
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”.
Probably because this migration may be related to the anti-corpo sentiment, which is more common in leftist circles
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
Lemmy is exactly as left leaning as Reddit was before the wave of propaganda and bots emboldened the right wing crazies to think they were the majority or welcome. I remember the falsely inflated upvotes that made those morons think they were the “silent majority”.
reddit had given into the “work the refs” strategy of the American right wing. That artificially elevated the voices of the right and suppressed the voices of the left. It’s actually the case when you look at surveys and voting behaviors that right wing ideas are abysmally unpopular.
So when we’re on an actually free platform that doesn’t have an “engagement” based algorithm driving anger and division, with no one putting their thumb on the scale (or people who try getting defederated), “leftist” ideas come up.
The confusion reflected in the OP is the obvious outcome of the post Fairness Doctrine “both sides” media landscape. There really aren’t as many right wing people as left wing. We are legion.
Left wingers: “The right is full of neo-fascists who want to exploit natural resources, subjugate minorities, project their own pedophilia habits onto us, roll back the clock on women’s rights, and are willing to lie, cheat, beg, borrow, and steal to get it all done!”
Right wingers: “The left is ANNOYING!”
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?
You just described steps that would actually reduce abortion by quite a lot, without making it illegal at all. The sex ed and contraception stuff is basically exactly how it’s done in other western countries that don’t have nearly the issue with teen pregnancies we do. What you’re proposing is practical and effective.
And in the eyes of the MAGA crowd, you’re not just a leftist, you’re a baby-murdering, Satan-worshipping communist America-hater.
You are detailing exactly what would reduce abortion. Republicans/conservatives would probably call you a socialist (while meaning it negatively) and say that you are encouraging teens to have sex by offering contraceptives and encouraging people to be lazy by offering free child care. These are the things that would really help. It feels to me like they don’t care about actually helping, just punishing people and creating wedge issues.
There’s nothing wrong with what you’re saying on a vacuum. The problem is deciding what is actually a problem, and once it’s been decided, which one solution out of many possible ones we’re actually going to pick.
Is unequality a problem? If it is, up to which degree? Is it a problem that the richest person has four times as much wealth as the poorest person? Is it a problem that the richest person has x100000 times as much wealth as the poorest person? Are we going to solve that through redistribution? Through better public, accessible education? By empowering worker unions? By socializing the means of production in order to prevent capital accumulation?
Once you’re perfectly aware of what values you’re defending, you can find the most efficient way to let society advance forward according to them. But since not everyone shares the same values, even if everyone was perfectly rational and had access to all information, different people would still defend different solutions. Of course, people’s values evolve all the time and everyone is irrational up to some degree, even if we put effort into perfecting our epistemology and use the scientific method to approach as many issues as possibles (which we should nonetheless do), so even that ideal state of things is very, very far away.
Apply the scientifc method. Look at places and times with wide economic disparity. Were/are those good stable places with happy healthy populations, or was it bad. If you decide it’s a problem based on evidence, then look at solutions. If you don’t have examples, try things out and record the data. What worked and what didn’t. Don’t let your values bias you. I think that welath inequality is a problem, but I’m willing to listen to thoroughly researched, peer reviewed, data backed conclusions.
You have two distributions of populations:
Distribution A has 50% of the population scoring 10 happiness, and the remaining 50% scoring 0.
Distribution B has 100% of the population scoring 5 happiness.
Your research has shown that these two distributions are the two options that allow for maximization of happiness, and you can achieve any of them at the same cost with exactly the same externalities. This data is confirmed with perfect mathematical precision to a point currently unavailable to our scientific institutions for the sake of this thought experiment.
There is no objective reason to choose one over the other; if none is chosen, a suboptimal distribution will be chosen for you.
The problem is deciding what is actually a problem, and once it’s been decided, which one solution out of many possible ones we’re actually going to pick.
I find that often once both sides have decided that there is a problem and it should be solved but start arguing about mutually exclusive solutions to that issue, one of the sides (and it does switch) is focusing on addressing the output of the problem and the other is focusing on addressing the cause of the problem!
“Ow, my foot hurts!”
Side A: “let’s give you some painkillers to stop the pain” Side B: “forget about the painkillers, stop standing on their feet!” Side A: “I’ve already stood on their foot, there’s nothing I can do to undo it. Do you want me to rewind time or something? Why don’t you care about treating their pain‽” Side B: “If you keep standing on their feet they’re going to stay in pain no matter what!” Side A: “how can I get this person painkillers for their pain without standing here? Why are you so blind to this person’s suffering‽”
Etc etc forever while we achieve nothing and let everything turn to rust and ashes to the backdrop of everyone silently screaming inside of their heads.
Not sure I agree that an engineering mindset wouldn’t be an improvement on that tbh. There really aren’t normally multiple equally valid solutions to big problems. Just people with a more or less complete understanding of the issue arguing that their understanding and subsequent solution is the best rather that just fucking listening and thinking competently to arrive at the right answers together.
Problem solving should be every politician’s goal. The only difference is what “problems” they are trying to solve. That’s what separates left and right, the problems. And frankly, they are radically different problems to the same situations.
Yes. That makes you a leftist. Center-leftist, but in this political climate…good enough.
That doesn’t make you a leftist at all lol
First, left and right are relative terms. We are currently in a fight for survival. If you want to die on the hill of your purity test, you’re welcome to. I’ll collect allies, people who may have the right values but incomplete information, and do what I can, and we’ll see which approach is more effective for the people, the workers.
I am the people you’re talking about. I am not a leftist. I like capitalism and single payer healthcare. The government is just better at doing some things. I like mailmen too.
Sounds like you’re just scared of the term leftist and what you believe it would imply about you.
deleted by creator
I’m not afraid of people who are wrong. I just know they’re wrong.
Leftists, flat-earthers, Young Earth Creationists, none of them scare me.
Would you mind clarifying your standpoint on what should be done in case a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? You kind of glossed over that part of it. I understand that you want to prevent the number of pregnancies due to rape, but what exactly do you propose when that happens? Same for pregnancies due to incest.
It seems you already know most of what will actually help this issue, and it does include social programs. Does this make you a leftist? No, it makes you a realist. That is, unless you ask this question to most conservatives who will instantly label you as one. How dare you actually suggest something progressive!
A person’s body is their own. From the skin in, it’s yours to do with as you please. You can’t make somebody wreck their body or risk their lives to satisfy your morality. I’m willing to debate this issue with someone who has done everything I’m their power to mitigate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. If not, I assume they’re just trying to control women’s bodies in order to secure their place in heaven, because the rest of christianity is hard.
Does this make you a leftist? No, it makes you a realist. That is, unless you ask this question to most conservatives who will instantly label you as one.
Reality has a left-wing bias.
In that case, as well as the medical one, abortion counts as self-defence.
Now you might be saying “but the baby isn’t at fault, self-defence is only valid against the assailant” but, well:
Assume you and some other guy are kidnapped by a psychopath, who puts you two into a contraption that forces the both of you to either kill the other to survive, or both die after say half a day. Is morally and legally justified to kill that random stranger who did you no wrong to save your own life?
See it’s much easier in that case where the stakes are higher and, yes, in any (sane) legal system self-defence is valid also against people who did you no wrong: You do not have to tolerate suffering an (any) injustice just because the assailant is being creative. If you want to convict someone of homicide in that case how about the rapist.
Lol you just glaringly leave off the option of having an abortion for a woman who just plain old doesn’t want to have a kid. If she just doesn’t want to have a kid (no medical issue going on for either the mother or fetus), and it’s been say, 3 months since inception, can she have an abortion? You seem to really only be mentioning abortion when it comes to threatening the life of the mother or if the fetus is deformed. What about just a purely elective abortion, less than 12 weeks let’s say? Would you want to see that illegal?
Edit: Nevermind, read your response below to a similar question.
She doesn’t want to be pregnant or she doesn’t want to have a kid? Two different problems with two different solutions.
I think we should prevent as many abortions as we can, while preserving everyone’s right to body autonomy.
How did your hypothetical woman get pregnant? In my hypothetical, ideal world that scenario should be exceedingly rare.
What is your answer to a scenario in which a woman using birth control properly in a loving monogamous relationship becomes pregnant when neither party wants a child? The most common form of birth control (the pill), when taken properly only has a 97% effective rate. Pair that with a second form of birth control (i.e. the pullout method) and it will go up but it will never be 100% effective.
And she doesn’t want to put the child up for adoption? That’s valid. Pregnancy has long term negative health impacts. Morally, I’m not opposed to abortion. I know some people are. I feel like I’m unwilling to debate the morality while all the practical steps to mitigate the risk haven’t been taken.
I would add, free, easily accessible sterilization should be the norm. I don’t want more kids, so I got sterilized.
I feel like I’m unwilling to debate the morality while all the practical steps to mitigate the risk haven’t been taken.
That might actually be a very very good strategy in US politics. The “we can talk morality when you stopped being a bigot and support sex ed and child welfare” kind of line. Put the rabid conservatives on the moral defensive.
We shall call in Huckleberryism. Subscribed!
They don’t care if you’re a leftist or not, they care that you’re telling them what to do, precisely because they don’t want to be told what to do, even if it’s good for them, because if they’re being told what to do, it means they aren’t in power, and they want power at any cost. In the pursuit of the ‘right’ people telling the ‘wrong’ people what to do, and in the pursuit of keeping the ‘wrong’ people from telling the ‘right’ people what to do, anything goes. Hypocrisy, lies, crime, election fraud, subverting courts, coups, false patriotism, false piety, terrorism, even outright murder… anything goes.
Know the enemy, spread the word to your friends and family (and maybe further).
You missed one thing: Some women just want to abort regardless, and also have all through history, including prehistory. All those policies you listed there are in place in Germany as the constitutional court ruled that the state has a duty to protect life (also the unborn) and thus has to take steps to minimise the number of abortions, and social means are to be preferred over prison sentences because a) more effective and b) proportionality, but: You don’t catch every case with those social means.
Now, if you penalise abortions that fall through those cracks you get backstreet abortions – which you have no control over. You can’t convince people at the last moment, you can’t drown them in flyers explaining all the social services they’re going to receive and smother them with support. That’s why at-will abortion in Germany is decriminalised if you’re willing to sit through what’s called pregnancy conflict counselling, there’s no notes taken or result given in those you get a piece of paper that says that you were there, then there’s a three-day cooldown and you can bring the notice to a doctor who now can perform the abortion legally. If you’re poor, the state is going to cover the costs (not your health insurance because pregnancy is not an illness).
In a nutshell: For the state to be maximally effective at minimising the number of abortions it has to tolerate abortions being carried out legally, and even pay for them to be performed.
And this, btw, to many an American’s surprise, comes from a rather firm “human dignity starts with insemination, the right to live starts with nidation as that’s when nature decides to bring a particular life to fruit” type of doctrine. (The human dignity stuff comes into play e.g. during preimplantation diagnostics: You can be tossed out of the pool for carrying a genetic disease, but not for your sex, hair colour, or whatnot).
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.
You can have no money AND not barter. See: gift economy. People just giving each other stuff all the time.
What dimension do you live in? I’ve been looking for a new one to move to.
You also just listed all the reasons that rape is allowed in most countries (rape, death risk, severe deformation, etc). You didn’t touch on the “abort for any reason at any time” issue which is the flagship of leftist movement
You are not a leftist, just a centrist living in the US
stAhp tUrLIng mE wAt tUr dOO!
Even Donald Duck doesnt subscribe to the abortion ban
deleted by creator
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.
Lol, if I link you to an author you don’t recognize will you be able to engage with the argument? Let’s try: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch05.htm
If you want to link me to an author I don’t recognise, you’ll have to try harder than Luxemburg!
Okay so you still failed to refute the argument at all. Do you realize you’re embarrassing yourself? Give me a counterpoint.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The communist manifesto doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker, and even that’s just an introduction to his theories
