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.
I think the problem is in the opposite direction. Society is too ideologically homogeneous in being against socialism. The major narratives are controlled by nation-states and corporations, social media are infested with political advertisement and propaganda.
So, as others say, I believe it is sorta uninformed and middle-of-the-road fallacy to find a corner of the internet where you can speak your mind without being harassed by white supremacist trolls, and say we need more diverse views.
Right wingers have (had) Parlel, Gap, TruthSocial, now they have X, and Facebook, where they were also dominating and harassing in the past. No leftists and/or genderqueer person would survive a day at these platforms.
But Lemmy being primarily/explicitly leftist is the problem, and you suddenly are alarmed for echo chambers. This is not quite fair, now is it.
As for Lemmy per se, I don’t think it is too homogeneous. I debate centrists and liberals every other day. And recent discussions showed that the amount of latent transphobia in the site is shocking, with people knowing next to nothing apart from 4chan/MAGA talking points.
How can this happen after all these years of activism and outreach. It is because of the ecosystem of echo chambers in the broader communications and media landscape. This discourse never reached those people.
Considering it was the position of major medical and professional organizations, it shows that the pathology lies with the existing social media and broader media enterprizes, with a prominently selective messaging.
Do I need to say that this led to widespread science-denialism for which mainstream platforms are clearly to blame?
If your inquiry is honest, then the only explanation is that the propaganda apparatus works so well, that the (relative) absence of the dominating narratives makes you anxious that you entered an echo chamber, when in fact you probably have been in an echo chamber so far.
If your inquiry is honest
They claim to be communist but wants more centrists and rightwingers here. It’s a clear clue they are not honest.
Is it so strange to entertain the thought of talking with people outside your bubble? Not everyone enjoys day after day of single-opinion threads and enjoy having well-intentioned discussions with other people. Political movements would never go anywhere if they never left a basement.
I only know a single other Communist IRL and they’re my fiancé. Existence forces me to grapple with liberalism and fascism on a daily basis, maybe an Anarchist here or there. It is only here that I can talk to comrades.
I like science. Science has shown that communism (for proletariat) and neoliberalism (for bourgies) are most effective and I dont see a lot of bourgies here.
Liberalism and stuff are like miasma theory or newton physics, outdated and incorrect.
(I think the left-right stuff is a distraction. Where is communism? On the left with the radlibs? No. On the right with the monarchists? No. There is no sliding scale between liberalism and communism as they are completely incompatible with each other.)
Communism as the praxis (marixism, etc) it’s auth-left whereas the end goal is lib-left (stateless).
Liberalism is auth-centre-right.
They are incompatible because leftism is anti capitalist.
This is actually misleading, you’re getting how statelessness functions for Marxists and inserting the Anarchist goal. That’s why you see a misalignment between theory and practice.
The foundations of the Marxist analysis of Capitalism are in its centralizing and socializing character over time through competition. The Marxists want to take this to a higher level, public ownership and central planning. This is not supposed to go away, but continue developing.
The State, for Marxists, is separate from governance. The State are elements of Class Oppression, like “special bodies of armed men” and things like Private Property rights. When all classes are gone, and they will all be gone when all property is in the public sector, the state ceases to have a reason to exist and withers away. This is a global process, you can have socialism in one country but Communism is global.
Marxism in practice operates on these ideas.
Anarchists have a similar critique of capitalism but see it being solved through horizontal and voluntary means so I’m not sure how it’s misleading.
It’s misleading because you call the “end goal” of Communism “lib-left,” when it would have full public ownership among the entire world and economic planning. The means of Marxism isn’t to get more “authoritarian,” but to turn the balance of power on its head so that the Working Class is on top. In this manner, the means are not “authoritarian” either, compared to Capitalism. Authoritarianism and Libertarianism are misleading at best and distractions at worst, which is why it’s important to judge based on actual policies and ideological frameworks.
Goal is to get less authoritarian over time though?
See, this is why the political compass is ruining your own perception of ideology. The goal is not to get “less authoritarian.” The goal is to collectivize all Private Property globally, this is the purpose. By folding all property into the public sector, there is the abolition of classes, and the state as a special mechanism of class oppression withers away, ie no private property rights because of no more private property.
Communism, a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, is a fully centralized system where everything is controlled by a democratic administration. This is the most centralized possible, yet also the most democratic. It doesn’t fit on the political compass. The goal isn’t to abolish authoritarianism, but classes.
Well goal is maybe the wrong word but objectively it does get less authoritarian over time if it goes as planned.
