I've noticed that lemmy as a whole is much more leftist than reddit (outside of political servers of course)

I can't really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by "both" sides of the spectrum. It's just something I find interesting.

940

You're viewing a single thread.

940 comments

Funny, just a few hours ago I was telling a friend that I noticed the opposite. This conversation started because while r/antiwork and r/work_reform had mostly incompatible ideologies, with antiwork being more radical, Lemmy suggested to me a community titled "Antiwork/Work reform" which is noticeably more status quo compacent. Additionally, the rate of posts going "capitalism isn't that bad, actually" and "fuck tankies" in my TL is higher than in Reddit.

I think this has to do with the amount of active users. If, say, 2% of active users are very vocal about abolishing wage slavery, if there are like 1000 users, that 2% is just 20 people, which wouldn't make a very active community, whereas if it's 100 000 users, then that makes 2000 people who can already make a sort of "echo chamber" where they can openly and actively discuss their ideas.

Also, not to forget that Reddit, like all mass social media, has algorithms meant to maximize your session lengths and that usually involves exposing you to more extremist ideas, both left and right.
- I mean, do you have a genuinely better alternative than a free market with some rules to prevent monopolies and protect worker rights?
  
  Yes, worker owned means of production.
  
  I'm pretty sure no disputes will ever occur in wonderland
  
  Our current model is driving the world off an ecological cliff. The externalities of free market capitalism are fast approaching and it should be clear as day to any rational person that it is a massive failure.
  
  Lmao capitalism I literally the innovation engine behind all green and sustainable development.
  
  Fun fact: socialists also burned coal and oil
  
  Human ingenuity is the innovation engine behind all technological advancements. Capitalism stifled green tech for years, and still does, by putting way too much money in the hands of O and G companies who have had every motivation to do so to protect their business.
  
  Lol capital is shifting non-green companies to be more sustainable, not the other way around.
  
  Government subsidy is the driving force behind green technology. Capital has done everything in it's power to fight it to protect its O and G investments. Capitalism is an anti-innovation machine.
  
  Someone should tell capital that: https://www.gsam.com/content/gsam/global/en/market-insights/gsam-connect/2022/Green_Capex_Capturing_the_Opportunities.html
  
  https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/10/10/Blog-connecting-the-dots-between-sustainable-finance-and-financial-stability
  
  But what do I know I only work in an industry with a fuckload of green capital investment
  
  An industry which sucks up government subsidy. An industry which would have never got off the ground without that subsidy. I guess you're the real socialist considering your industry wouldn't exist without all those government dollars, lol.
  
  So your response to why would workers have no disputes is because pollution?
  
  Well the idea that no workers would ever have any disputes was your contribution to the discussion, not a claim I ever made. Of course they would have disputes, and those disputes would be dealt with democratically. You like democracy, I assume?
  
  My point in bringing up climate change is that people like to bring up the current system as a working model. But it doesn't work at all. If we continue doing things the way we are we are cooked.
  
  How many times has diplomacy ever solved a dispute? Munich 1938 is a great example on why they usually only delay the inevitable
  
  Presumably it works some of the time. My country doesn't descend into war every time there's an election.
  
  Those are not the disputes I'm talking about
  
  Diplomacy is like an oxygen supply: You only notice it when it fails. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t generally work.
  
  Like when?
  
  You mean besides the decades the US and USSR didn’t blow the entire world to pieces or even enter direct conflict, which would likely have killed millions more than the proxy wars that occurred with diplomatic intervention? I’m sorry, I just can’t take anyone who truly thinks that diplomacy is always useless seriously. It strongly suggests they’ve never read a history book.
  
  I mean, do you have a genuinely better alternative than a democracy with some rules to prevent ogliarchys and protect citizens rights?
  
  That's definitely not the same as having no private property
  
  If someone hates what you said they're just stupid

You've viewed 940 comments.