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.
Cuba is in a rough patch right now, but it isn’t about to collapse, and the ruling class is the working people.
As for the PRC, they have a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and have been working through Socialism. I think you have a different idea of what a class is, I am working off of the Marxist definitions and things like “oligarch class” aren’t a thing, same with “manager class.”
Classless society only existed in tribal society, but that doesn’t mean we can’t get to a fully collectivized global economy and eliminate classes.
Well thats a hot take that ignores how things actually work in order to fit into “Marxist” narrative.
Marx is foundational text but it is also a old AF and doesn’t address complexity of modern regime power structure IMHO.
Which part is the “hot take?” How does Marxism not address the complexity of modern power structures?
You are denying that China and Cuba have a ruling class aka daddies who actually run shit and make decisions just like every westoid regime. China’s system is essentially carbon copy of it too besides CCP being top dog.
With respect to Marx, while working class label is effective tool to build consensus and consciousness, proles ain’t all the same, gonna need to build consensus and negotiate a new social contract etc
Modern society requires the PM class to run the civilization. Traditional working class will need to convince this people to side with them v the oligarchy and the state they control.
Sure we can kill them off but thay would set us back 50 years. The rich fucking them over now enough to most of them starting to see that sucking daddy’s dick don’t get you paid, got to start asking questions where that money is going…
There’s a difference between having officials and “daddies” that make up a “ruling class.” Marxism has always understood the necessity for administrators and managers, though these too aren’t a “class.” I think you’re using class as any category, but classes are tied to ownership relations to the Means of Production. Officials and managers don’t necessarily own the Means of Production to any greater or lesser degree than a worker.