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.
Economically rightwing or socially?
Liberalism as an economic ideology. It seems fairly progressive socially.
Ah shit, want to hear my economic hot takes? Haha
Sure, why not
I want to have private schooling preserved
Oof, why?!
It provides alternative opportunities for advancing beyond traditional schooling which would've been a slow burn if it was only public schooling that was present
It also leads to more competitive practices whether it's studying or teaching alternative sectors to children earlier than public schools would
In nations with limited budgets it also means it's the only option for studying opportunities, where if removed it would essentially mean that education would be worse than subpar
But, taken to an extreme, this would lead to places like USA which gave too much power to private institutions
What I want is a mix, give and take, force those who take the money to actually use it well and give my children, my nephew's or those brought in with scholarships to prosper, but also allow for public institutions to benefit by having them adopt practices, make better use of funds and also incentivise cooperation
All that ends up doing is reinforcing class distinctions, though.
Like true however private schooling that's privately funded can't be banned over this imho
Why not? My goal is to end class distinctions and classes in general.
I don't like to use ban hammer as general policy as it creates issues in of itself.
Classism is a huge issue I would posit that solution is giving people freedom to make their own life is an important of existence. So if they want to pay out of their ass for private school so be it.
Focus on good public schooling would serve the goal of less classism IMHO
That doesn't really sound like a solution, just a justification for not tackling the problem though. Good public schooling is good, period, and limits social stratification that Private schooling entrenches.
I don't think banning public schooling is even legally possible in most of oecd countries.
Right to determine your child's education is a constitutional right.
Reinforcing classism is of course the goal of most Western governments.
Which government doesn't function as top down hierarchy with daddies owning and ruling the pedons?
No idea what you're actually trying to ask here
You stated western regimes... Which non western regime functions differently
Different in what manner? Having daddies?
Correct.
No country runs on "daddies."
By*
Then who runs them?
Different structures exist in different countries, I am not sure what you mean by a "daddy" from a political economy POV.
Give me an example where a small group of mostly men or all men don't control the country
Some countries are better than others, sexism is a global issue.
Classism and patriarchy are similar but distinct issues.
So which country doesn't operate with them at the core of the regime?
Socialist countries are working towards the end of classes, like Cuba, the PRC, etc.
Cuba is about to collapse due to US blockade despite this there is still a ruling class but yeah sure everyone else is essentially poverty class.
Chinese society historically has very strong class divisions and it is still true today. What makes you say they are working to end class? over last 40 years they created a rather large oligarch class along with professional managerial class which is ptetty much the same class structure the "west" has only difference from the west is that their ultimate authority is the Communist party vs western regime where oligarch clans call the shots depending on who got better access to the regime regimes whote in executive and legislative branches.
My point being is that we have yet to see an example of a classless society or if it is even feasible.
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.
Are you advocating for vouchers?