Memes @lemmy.ml

1y ago

Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left

1.7K comments

Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
- They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
  There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
- I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
  
  Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
  
  I, a socialist don't. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
  Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we're slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
  
  So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?
  If this isn't true, why do think markets serve no purpose?
- The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that it has a boss
- So every company remodeled after REI, got it.
- How would that even work.
  It's very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren't on about that.
  You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don't want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
  Then Japan's comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
  
  Under capitalism automation benefits the owners (on a small timescale, they worsen the totroptf) under socialism time saving just means the population has more time.
  That is why workers currently push against automation under capitalism.
  Not a market socialist though, just a socialist.
  
  Are people investing in new automation currently because I've been using the same crappy tools for over 10 years now and they keep getting crappier.
  Oh yeah we automate creative work now, the one thing that could still be a cheap hobby.
  
  If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.
- Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
  
  I trust my average coworker much more than the average CEO.
  
  Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
  This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I'm sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they'd be better elployees
  
  Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks
  I guess you haven't met many CEOs, then.
  
  You must need a better job. I've had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.
  You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?
  
  if you dont raise your children to be adults, they won't act like adults when they grow up. A revolution would mean people learning entirely new skills, like making decisions in the workplace. Most workers have no agency, theyre treated like machines, so I dont expect people raised in that society to know how to run a completely different one from scratch. Revolution is a process, it has to be built. Keep shitting on your coworkers tho, im sure its a productive activity
  
  yes
  
  Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
  Your coworkers aren't incompetent. Your coworkers are just half-assing at work because they correctly realize they're not going to get paid more if they actually tried.
  
  Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don't own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they're not considered the "superior" of any other workers.
  
  Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
  Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
  
  ඞ
  
  @lightnsfw @dingus
  You really think the people currently running your company are any different from those other coworkers?
  
  You must be a joy to work with.
  
  Every single job I've had was made worse by management. Not just worse for us, but worse for customers/clients as well. I have zero faith in management, I have complete faith in the people actually working on the floor knowing what would be best to do on the floor.
  Now you ask about "not making it fail immediately" which to me gives me an impression of thinking it is still a business that needs to be grown.
  I imagine a lot of shop floors would agree their time and resources were better spent elsewhere. No one needs Funko pops, I don't doubt those workers would find something better to do

You literally left Reddit because of what capitalism did to it.

The bias is justified. The left is correct. Markets don't create wealth without necessarily simultaneously creating poverty

Wtf is an uncorrupt government?
- All types of governance and economic systems are susceptible to despotism.
  It takes a constantly educated and involved population to fight it.
  
  Serious question. Is it possible to do this with very large populations? It seems like it might get inherently more complicated with several tiers of government (federal, state, county, city, etc...)
- Exactly. We could also eliminate carbon emissions by moving everything via unicorns and fairy dust.
- A contradiction in terms? Fantasy?
- "Military Intelligence"
  Two words combined that can't make sense 🎵
  
  based megadeth
- Never older than like 12 hours
  
  Bold assumption that it'd take that long
- Honestly I believe this to be a way more important issue to discuss than the whole capitalism vs socialism vs communism vs whatever else argument. If your ideas can easily be perverted by corruption then it won't work.
  I have some ideas but I'm just some idiot on the internet. I think you need checks and balances. Have at least two groups with similar power at odds with one another. One example is corporation vs government. But I don't think just 2 groups is good enough. Ideally you probably want 3 groups at the very least. I know many governments around the world already uses this sort of structure internally (eg different branches of government), but I don't think these solutions take into account the existence of mega corporations that can act across country borders.
  
  you mean for example germanys separated power of the legislative, executive and judicative powers? yeah, that works out pretty shit.

To paraphrase this cool guy named Ernesto: Its not our fault reality is marxist

I think you will find any place thats well moderated and cracks down on bigotry and hatespeech will skew left.
Weird how that is, huh?

You'll be happy to know there's a social media site just like lemmy run by capitalists. It has all the benefits that capitalist ownership provides.

middle class between what class and what class? the rich class and the having a great time class?

Do conservatives on lemmy ever do anything but whine that they're not immediately worshiped for their opinions?
- Conservatives seem to do that everywhere, no matter where they are. Just look at the website formerly known as Twitter... All it has is right wing shitheels and they've turned on each other for not worshipping each others opinions. Hell Musk just blocked Catturd2.
  
  Hey,… blocking “is” disabled.
- Conservatives? I read this as a SocDem post
  
  That’s the problem with this website. It’s full of morons that call anyone that’s to the right of Marx either a conservative or a fascist, never mind the fact that a lot of them defend the fascist invasion of Ukraine.
  Fact is, the only system that actually improved the lives of the majority of people when put into practice was the free market social democracy that used to exist in the west before the rise of neoliberalism. But that’s too complex for these simpletons, who can’t comprehend the fact that public ownership can exist alongside private enterprise competing in a market kept free by government regulation. So they just keep shouting about the means of production and hope something will happen.
- Do conservatives ~~on lemmy~~ ever do anything but whine ~~that they’re not immediately worshiped for their opinions~~?
  Fixed

I know Hexbear skews very, very liberal. I haven't spent much time in other lemmy places.
- liberal
- LOL
- Haha we were owned.
- It's basically a mayor Pete fan club over there
  
  I mailed him my dog, but he says he hasn't received it and that's why I can't have it back
- I hate those hexbear shit libs.
  
  me too man fr fr
- Hexbear also has a large number of Putin and CCP apologists. Authoritarian bootlicking isn't liberalism.
  
  if supporting a project that lifts 800M out of extreme poverty is wrong, I don't wanna be right
  
  All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have "HUMAN RIGHTS" written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
  
  Define 'Authoritarian'
  
  It's CPC you sound like a yokel
  
  Liberalism is bad, hope that helps clarify
  
  I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they're currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine's army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
  They don't necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
  They're more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
  Not saying you have to agree with it. I'm more of a centrist myself, but it's really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
  
  Show me the apologia.
  Edit: incredible how asking libs for any proof is like a magic spell to make them disappear
  
  Authoritarian bootlicking isn't liberalism.
  It's the core of liberalism.
- Liberal? They’re as extreme as conservatives who call communism everything they don’t like (cause they call everything they don’t like “fascist”)
  
  the leftism understander has logged on
  
  (cause they call everything they don’t like “fascist”)
  Maybe you don't understand what fascism is.
  Or maybe you do, and you're a supporter of it.
  
  I believe the comrade is making a joke about our politics. Not everything we don't like is fascism, some of it is liberalism. But of course, we all know what bleeds when a liberal gets scratched.
  
  Haven't liberals been the ones calling us fascists ever since we federated?
  
  This is essentially what I used to think as well, until I spent more time there. There's some stock phrases busted out, and some users probably leave it at that and don't engage beyond it. However, they genuinely have a deeper framework for an analysis of the world than what you're going to see from conservatives.
  Basically as part of their extremely liberal ideology, they analyze things through a materialist lens, even the non-marxist liberals there, and through that there is a lot of seeking out of what material causes and contradictions have lead to where we are which can be really neat.
  There is probably some disagreement over what is fascist, what's not, blah blah. But it's really not as simple as "what I don't like is fascism".
  
  conservatives are liberals
  
  Eh, it's a lot like reddit.
  Two thirds of the rabid ones here are keyboard socialists. They type a good game, know all the stock phrases, but when it comes to actually doing shit, well, touching grass is scary.
  They stay inside and rant and rave about how things SHOULD be while we are out there actually making the incremental changes to try to bring it about.
  Then they post and pat themselves on the back for saying we're not doing enough.
  It's very clear that this is every bit the senseless, thoughtless, reactionary, pathetic echo chamber that t_d was, just with red flags instead of red hats.
  Thank you all for helping me to realize that so quickly.

"Me saying that if I had a genie in a bottle I could marginally improve the world"

"wealth for many" yeah but not the majority, and oh whoops what happened to the rest? Oh boy would you look at that they're all destitute because capital needs a reserve army of labour in order to function.
Oh whoops would you look at that the market has a tendency to create a monopoly, that's weird.
Oh wait would you look at that the regulations are ineffective because the capitalists hold outsized influence in literally every capitalist "democracy" due to them holding the means of production, them having more resources available, which then gives them more time and ability to influence elections. Oh whoops media is a market and media shapes perception how did that happen?
Corruption isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Reality has a Marxist bias

My experience has been the opposite. I've found that the majority of users tend to lean towards neoliberal and center-right ideologies. I guess most of them are probably American, so their warped worldview has them considering these ideologies as 'left-wing' instead 🙃

uncorrupt government
I think you meant "free real estate for the CIA and their a puppet dictators".
It's what happens every time another country doesn't want to sell their natural resources for pennies.

Most would agree with your point - right up until you suggest that having an "uncorrupt government" is remotely possible.
Pretty much the same level of unrealistic idealism as folks who think it's remotely possible to transition a state to communism without it turning into authoritarianism.
There, now I've pissed off everyone lol
Edit: Except, I guess for the hardcore capitalists, but I assume those guys are all too dumb to read, so no point, really 🤷

It sure is
in here

Markets don't "create wealth". People's work creates wealth. Banks don't create wealth, they create debt and allow more money to go into circulation than actually exists.
Regulation isn't only desired, it's crucial for any market economy to work, lest they devolve into corrupt, abusive monopolies and oligopolies. Granted, bad regulation can be equally abusive and real cases are plentiful.
Just as important as regulation is taxing who has more money, because generating wealth won't automagically distribute it in any ideal manner. The worst problem nowadays is just how easy it is for rich assholes to legally evade taxes no matter which country they're from.

Oh, like China?

Boot-flavored capitalist Kool-Aid must be so refreshing during such a torrid summer

There is not such thing as middle class, pure sophistic. There are ~~only~~ 2 classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie.

Libs talking about stuff they obviously don't understand? Check.
An incredibly high number of comments politely explaining things? Check.
Libs being snarky and then being surprised when they get the same uncivil attitude right back? Check.
Uh yeah it's hexbear time

What goes beneath the middle class? It's the implication Mac...

So what you’re basically saying is that real capitalism has never been tried, right

This was posted as a meme? Lmao tragic.

*Me saying a fairy tale scenario that will not exist under capitalism.
*Reality standing behind me.
You can't and wont deliver a long term solution for "middle class" people by working within that system. The goal of capital is ultimately to have as few as people as possible, with as much power as possible. Any middle class you are talking about will become lower class and poverty class with enough time. It absurd that you can look at the current system and believe that it would ever deliver on your promise. Believing that it would work with an uncorrupt government is trying to say that there is an "ideal" version of capitalism out there and we just need to do that.
You are looking at the only version of capitalism that exists. Any regulations, safeguards, and safety nets will be corrupted and withered away eventually because the people and institutions that supposedly uphold these ideals will be rewarded for doing so. You create a competitive class system and you are shocked and outraged when people cash it out to gain, or maintain their social class to avoid becoming lower class.

Meme aside, addressing the title, no shit Sherlock,
Lemmy was created by a Marxist Leninist, nicknamed "Dessalines", after a revolutionary Haitian leader who even went so far as to slaughter the remaining French colonists, to destroy any remnants of colonialism
If you're reading this, search up his Github account and you will find upon many essays on Socialism...

Maybe reality just has a leftist bias. Why should the truth be dead at the center?

Why do you want a middle class? So you have a class to aspire to and a class to denigrate? Why do you want classes?!
- Profoundly internalized hierarchy all over this thread.
- Classes will always exist if there are limited resources. Which there currently is and always will be for the foreseeable future. The gaps, size, number of, and mobility between them can vary though. But scarcity will always create at least two classes.
  
  Did you know we throw away more food than it would take to feed the hungry? That there are more empty homes than homeless people? Capitalism incentivizes scarcity, so it is artificially created. The only thing stopping us from achieving post scarcity immediately is working out the logistics, but those in power don't want that to happen, as they are currently high up in society.
  
  People are always going to have vision problems, so it's wrong to wear glasses.
- Class will always exist but it's been proven that a strong middle class is a sign of a bountiful economy that actually works for it's workers.
  The shrink of the American middle class is exactly what's caused most of the economic issues in America.
  We allowed our middle class to be destroyed in an attempt to raise a few of those people to the top. Because upper middle class people were duped into believing they were closer to being rich than they were to being poor
  
  Class should absolutely be something we strive to abolish. The idea that some people deserve to benefit disproportionally from the workings of our society is nonsense.
  
  I want a middle class so strong everyone is in it. In fact let’s get rid of the upper and lower classes
  
  Class will always exist
  A good reminder that liberalism is based around unfounded assumptions and charlatan, unimaginative predictions of the future. Everyone used to think kings were inevitable, too.

"uncorrupt government"
😂😂😂

Lemmy has had a huge bias towards seize-the-means-of-production socialism from day 1, which is very important in understanding why it's different from other reddit clones, and why it has unique features and anti-features. The political orientation is not incidental, it's vital, and I'm glad to see it hasn't completely died from the sudden influx of reddit-natives when the API thing happened.

Honestly, I think capitalism wouldn't be so bad if it was limited to what it's good at. Fashion, tech, entertainment, snacks, ect.
But essential food, housing, water, healthcare, even electricity and internet access, the idea that these things that will always have infinite demand is haphazardly controlled through profit motive is disgusting.
Infrastructures should be government controlled and free. Essential resources should have some sort of universal basic "food stamps" system. Then actual money just becomes the luxury "fun bucks" that you don't lose out on if you don't have a lot. For example pet owners would be given a credits for pet food and free vet care, but a silly pet costume would use money.
Disclaimer: This is just a personal idea I've been mulling over, I'm sure there's a million holes in it.

Capitalism is not "when you have markets." I totally agree that it's important to have well regulated markets. But capitalism perverts democracy with bribery and lobbying. Democratic Socialism is when you have a democratic government and a democratic economy.

I agree! Let me know when you find an uncorrupt government or uncorrupt corporation.

The existence of the middle class with many wealthy means you have to have a lot of people in poverty. If not liking that makes me left wing then so be it

The statement in the image is just loaded with terminology that comes with a lot of baggae. It's no surprise people tear into it. Can't speak to whether that makes them leftist or just poly sci students.
"Uncorrupt" misunderstands the nature of corruption. How do you envision resolving the interests of the forces that give validity to said government while still keeping a capitalist structure?
"Generate wealth" presupposes a specific kind of wealth created by the government and given validity by the capitalist structure. You win at the rules of the game you made up. "Middle class" has a similar problem. "Prosperity" to a nation starving under the global capitalist regime might look quite different. Why use one benchmark over the other? Because of the game you want to choose.

Me saying a market regulated by an uncorrupt government can generate wealth for many and generate a middle class.
Okay I know people might hate me for saying this, but isn't this just modern day China? Think about it:
While the government is definitely not uncorrupt and has many problems with corruption, Xi has introduced many corruption purges, and billionaires in China have actually faced legal consequences up to the death penalty. When is the last time a billionaire in the west actually faced legal consequences? (Just to be clear I am not pro death penalty, just illustrating a point).
China introduced markets with Deng and they are regulated by the government. Though this one is controversial among the left (quite a few Maoists think China could have achieved the same or even better results without the introduction of markets to the point it was done in the 80s and 90s).
China has generated wealth for many to the point they likely have the largest middle class on the planet in terms of sheer numbers, and in quality of life indicators such as average life expectancy, China has overtaken the US. They also achieved the largest poverty alleviation campaign in modern history.
This is not to say that China is a perfect country with a spotless human rights record or anything like that, it's to say that we can learn from what they've achieved and take our blinders off. And it's pretty ironic that your meme lines up with that in certain aspects.

It's weird. It's almost like educated people skew left. So very weird...

Not biased enough, way too many liberals running around here

There are hardcore liberals around here too. That's what you get when there isn't an algorithm to promote fascists.

Market != Capitalism. You can have a free market without capitalism, and capitalism without a free market.
The hexbears will attack me for saying that a regulated free market is good and a planned economy is bad. The others will attack me for saying that capitalism is bad and that we should have market socialism instead. But if we can't have that, a capitalist free market has proven much less bad than any planned economy, as long as it's regulated enough that it stays free.

middle class is an illusion

I thought left also meant protection against unregulated markets? Without regulations it is just going to be capitalismplusplus.

All great social media does. The secret is that reality favors the progressive left

Quick, genuine question because I don't know: What does the "ml" in memes@lemmy.ml stand for? I thought it was for Marxist-Leninist but I'm actually not sure about that
- It's the TLD for the country of Mali
  
  .ml domains were "free" until recently, so many used them for their small scale projects. I did as well.
- Malding Liberals
- As the others said.
  Though the admins/devs ARE Marxist-Leninists, to be fair.
- It is the designation for the US military
  
  The US military has the .mil extension, not .ml
- Mali.
- It marxist-leninist
  
  It's actually the top level domain for the country of Mali, but it was probably chosen as a tongue in cheek reference to marxist-leninism.
- I totally thought it was for Marxist-Leninist back when I first signed up 😌

I just really dislike the whole left/right tribalism. Politics is a lot more complex than left/right and just marking someone as either just increases polarisation...

Good, we could use it more left though

"Uncorrupt government"
This is as delusional as anyone can get.
A wise man said it all once: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Markets are inherently problematic and lead to wealth being centralized in the hands of the few owners. A well regulated market ignores the problem which must be addressed; the dichotomy of workers and owners. Class struggle won't be fixed if not addressed. Neo-liberalism markets can't be fixed with more neo-liberalism.

That's why I am here tbh

Pity, you have to defend your ideas in a free market of thought.
- Market ain’t correctly regulated. Monopolistic practices are being used to suppress non conforming thoughts. :P
  
  Reform VS revolution is basically always the debate in a movement.
  Yes there is evidence that welfare for the people was able to provide the middle class in the US with wealth. And democratic socialism seems to be working well in Europe.
  But the threat of the rich coming back and taking it is very really. Reagan in the 80s. Brexit. Other "populist" movements in other countries.
  Half hearted reform barely works for the poor and we're always an election or two away from shit.
  So I kind of get both sides.
  
  Who's the monopoly here on Lemmy? The collective group of individuals that disagree with you? Because that's almost the literal opposite of a monopoly.

I wish it was just "towards the left".
I'm very much on the left socially and left of center economically, but even I feel like every other comments section on here reads like some insane tankie commune.

maybe a market run by leprechauns could also do that

But 'we'd be better off in a world free of corruption' isn't a right-leaning position.

In today's skewed political spectrum, "Left" is what would be considered moderate in a reasonable perspective.

1706 comments