What do you think Lemmy is most biased about? Which opinions do you think differ most from the general internet?
(Excluding US politics, due to community rules)
Commonly mentioned biases:
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Pro-Privacy | 2 |
| Left-Wing | 9 |
| Anti-Capitalism | 5 |
| American | 5 |
| Older | 2 |
| Pro-Linux | 3 |
| Tech people | 5 |
| Anti-Ai | 4 |
| Pro-LBTQ+ | 3 |
| Anti religion | 3 |
| Pro-Communism | 3 |
Bonus: Gaming Biases
| Subject | Mentions |
|---|---|
| Nintendo hate | 3 |
| Pro-SteamDeck | 1 |
| Anti-GOG | 1 |
| PC over console | 1 |
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your comment. I’m not going to bother with them, because that’s honestly your job to handle.
I don’t equate communism with (democratic) socialism. I consider myself a democratic socialist, and that’s part of the reason I consider myself progressive. The main difference is that democratic socialism makes room for multiple political parties, while communism accommodates only one. This is the essence of tyranny. No progressive should advocate for communism, because communism is another form of authoritarianism: subjugation to state rule.
I have my problems with “woke” culture, just as I do with conservative culture. But most of my problems with woke culture have to do with their rhetoric and means of achieving their goals, rather than the goals themselves. A racially mixed workplace is something I highly value; achieving it by means of affirmative action is not something I support, because I think 50+ years of it have shown that it doesn’t really work. Yes, it has been shown to improve interracial relations in the workplace, but it has also been shown to cause workers to question the competency of coworkers that benefit from it, and make those who don’t feel discriminated against. This is not what it was intended for. It was supposed to counter inherent racist biases in corporate hiring systems. Instead, it’s become a system that is the very least viewed as a loophole for non-white employees. Obviously, not every case is an example of a non-white employee gaining an unfair advantage over a white employee, probably only a small fraction qualify as such, but as a system it has created the perception that Whites are being discriminated against. And its proponents have done virtually nothing to address that. That needs to change. I’m not saying the spirit of affirmative action needs to end, but its implementation need to change.
If and when you respond, I would encourage you to not make assumptions about my stance. I don’t fit into the political boxes neatly.
It seems to me that the problem stems from you thinking communism necessitates authoritarianism. Communism is an economic system. You say you consider yourself a democratic socialist, while there is obviously a bit more nuance, in the absolute basics, that is saying the economic system you believe in is socialism, and the system of governance you believe is a democracy. Someone saying they are a communist would be the same situation as you saying you are a socialist, it’s true but it doesn’t state your full political beliefs. I obviously don’t speak for the person you are responding to, nor can I assume that they have the same belief about this subject as I do, this is simply my interpretation of the disagreement, and my stance on it.
Additionally, I would like to respond to your earlier mention of asking a communist to give you an example of a communist country that worked out in the end. The reason many people respond negatively to this is because of the history of communism, especially in relation to the US which is where much of Lemmy is from. The US has a history of intentionally destabilizing communist(and socialist) countries, as communism is inherently a threat to a country so heavily built on massive corporations. Because the US and other countries make such a point of preventing communism from succeeding, it can be frustrating when a lack of successful large scale communism is used as proof that communism can’t work. Additionally, because this same argument is used so often, it can really begin to grate on someone’s nerves after being asked it over and over again.
I have tried my very best to not make any assumptions about you, other than the political ideology you stated you had, but if I accidentally did, please tell me. I do not wish to offend you, and rather just want to provide my input on what you have said.
It doesn’t technically necessitate it, it just makes it very likely to happen, due to its insistence on there being only one political party. Communism isn’t just an economic system, it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.
If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’ Most people understand this to mean that you’re for things like free education, medical care, etc. When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP. I understand what you’re saying about there being some overlap in the terms, but the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.
While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded. I would argue that the communist states that do exist demonstrate its main problem quite clearly: a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.
No, you didn’t make assumptions, and I appreciate your cordiality.
I unfortunately don’t know how to do the fancy qoute thing, so this won’t look as organized as yours.
“due to its insistence on there being only one political party.” Firstly, I disagree about communism needing to have only 1 political party, and to be honest don’t really why that would even have to much of an effect on it. Sure, it makes sense that communism would begin with 1 party in many cases, as it pretty much always requires a revolution of some kind, but if left time, that party would likely split over other issues. The other reason I could see this, is if the country is in a 2 party, or similar system, where 1 party is the communist party, and the other is an anti-communist party of some kind.
“it’s predicated on a government-run economy in a way that most other economic systems aren’t.” I would also disagree about it requiring a government run economy, though that has more to do with my personal political beliefs, than communism. What I more so disagree with is the bit about other economic systems requiring a government run economy. I feel that if there is a government, and an economy, one will be run by the other.
“If they mean socialist, they should say ‘socialist.’” Really, I was more so using this as an example of the difference between an economic system and a government system, not saying they were the same.
“When you say you’re a communist, at least in the West, you’re signifying to others that you either like or support governments like the USSR and CCP.” I do agree that this is a common perception in the west, it just isn’t true. I am a communist, I don’t like or support the USSR or the CCP, I have never met another communist in person that supports either. These people obviously do exist, they just aren’t nearly as common as most people assume.
“the main distinction to me is that communists believe in a single political party system of government, whereas socialists don’t.” I already said why I disagree with this, but I should probably say that to me, and I believe most other communists, the difference is that communism has no money or similar system, and socialism, like you said, has government funded systems such as health care, education, etc.
“While the U.S. has certainly put a lot into preventing communism from spreading, it hasn’t always succeeded.” I agree that the US hasen’t always fully succeeded in stopping communism, but it(or another government) has always succeeded in greatly harming communist countries.
“a single political party system puts a government on the fast track to authoritarianism. Multiple political parties mean there is always an opposition to a government that becomes authoritarian; it’s not a fool-proof defense against it, but way better than with only one party.” I fully agree with you here.
To do the quote thing, just put a ‘>’ before every paragraph you want to quote.
I mean, it’s pretty integral to communism. This is how it’s always been done. If you’re going to have the means of production controlled by the state, you can’t have multiple states vying for control of it. Again, point me to a communist state that doesn’t do this.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about when you refer to “communism” then. Communism is defined by the fact that the government runs the economy. In Capitalism, private entities control the means of production; in Communism, the government does. That’s the whole point.
I think you’re falsely assuming there’s a barrier between a governmental system and an economic system. These are always linked. Capitalism and Communism describe the relationship governments and economies should have with one another.
Then can you point to an actual example of a stable Communist nation that you support? Again, I argue that those that exist have all become dictatorships. You have the burden of bridging theory to real-world example. Communism sounds great on paper; it just consistently fails in implementation.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Communism absolutely has a monetary system. The difference is that Socialism is a transition system between Capitalism and a true “stateless” Communist country, which is a flat-out fantasy. Socialism is a mediation ground, in which the government funds certain public institutions that are deemed essential for everyone. Real Communist countries never move past this model; and the most they achieve is an authoritarian state that controls it in limbo. The end goal of Communism has never (and will never) be achieved.
So what? Communist countries have clearly overcome U.S. interference. The USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, etc, have all survived U.S. interference and achieved their aims as far as establishing a Communist state is concerned. And look at the results.
Then it would seem our main point of disagreement is that Communism necessitates a single-party system. Again, I ask you to cite me an example wherein this has not occurred. To me, it seems inherent to the system. If you’re going to have a state-run economy, you can’t tolerate multiple political parties, because then who controls the means of production? Multiple political parties wound introduce a level of chaos into the economic system that would simply be intolerable. Suddenly, in a swing election, every industry in the country is controlled by a government that has an entirely different agenda than the last? There’s no way any business could run under such ephemeral rules.