Lemmy might, MIGHT have a small bias towards the left

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.

- Within the context of one person's career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people's relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you've all done too well and it's to "cut labor costs" while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you'd gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
  Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
  Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won't have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it's something much easier for liberals to stomach.
- Not saying I'm in favor of it, but there's still market socialism out there as a political stance
- The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.
  It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
  Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
  Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.
  Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.
- I think the better way would be a centrally planned economy for some goods (electricity, "normal" food, health, ...) and something more "free" for the rest of the market. Bread has a marked price but a PS5 doesn't.
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.
- Marxists do hate Markets though
  We love oversimplifying generalizations that make us look like absolute buffoons though.
  At least according to trustworthy sources, i.e. your gut feeling.
  /s
- labor vouchers
  Or as normal people call it, "money"
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.
- Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
  Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal
- Did... did I say they couldn't? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.
- Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
- The system actively discourages that. It was tried in the 70s. Banks wouldn't work with coops because they were diffrent. Other companies wouldn't work with them because they didn't being as high a ROI. They were more efficient and stable, but under capitalism none of that matters.
- Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like "there's nothing stopping someone who's born poor from becoming a millionaire". Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there's so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it's almost statistically impossible. It's so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
- Banks frequently do.
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.

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?

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

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.
- They (the trolling kind) definitely had a system going on Reddit, they haven’t figured it out yet here though.
  On reddit, they whined until the mods started protecting them and every "civility" rule became a "don't sass the nazis" rule.
  Hopefully lemmy's mods are better than that.
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.

- I am on hexbear because I like the memes. I consider myself a centrist, but I do agree with their general stance of a revolution that leads to the abolition of private property, there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the complete dedication to elevating our marginalized comrades. I just try not to get political there, and it's fine really.
- Everyone left of me is red fascist and everyone right of me is normal fascist
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...

"uncorrupt government"

😂😂😂

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

"Uncorrupt government"

This is as delusional as anyone can get.

A wise man said it all once: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

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 😌

Good, we could use it more left though

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.

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

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

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

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

sure, when the government looks like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism

The left has a bias toward truth, yeah.

Also in a free market, big business becomes your government. Famously uncorrupt, right?

I'm saying it again since this is still top of /all/.

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

I believe you are probably right. the problem is that capitalists only focus is profit. so if their profit is limited by this hypothetical non-corrupt government they will try their absolute best to make sure they get their way in the government, and since they have a lot of money they also have the power to do that.

also the ideology of endless growth for the sake of growth (how capitalism works) is literally impossible on a planet with limited recourses

Bias relative to what?

Good

I'm actually very centrist; I don't want to eat the rich.

After all, I'm a vegan and think that anyone involved in the meat industry should be put in jail.

So, dead center. That's me.

The problem is how do we get there? In a market there will always be actors powerful enough to corrupt the governmenta and influence regulation in an undemocratic way.

Even in a market dominated by socialist companies where workers have power. Workers having ownership isn't some panacea against corruption and willingness to dominate others. You can still end up with a company full of terrible people who have no qualms cornering a market and then committing to rent-extraction. They can even commit to those horrible practices in an internally democratic way!
- If the working population is deciding the laws democratically, then there's a good chance of laws against monopolies and trusts being more binding than they are under capitalists, not that I care as much about the co-op model of socialism.
It's impossible, as has been demonstrated throughout the last few centuries of history. Even in cases where a government makes a massive shift towards a pro-worker position (i.e. the New Deal), over time the country will fall back into regulatory capture and devolve to an oligarchy.

If money can make money that feedback loop will always break the system

Keyword being uncorrupt.

Governments are run by people, at the end of the day

The world was a better place when politicians had to worry about get tarred and feathered, quartered, or thrown out of windows.

I'm lower-left quadrant but always cop a fair amount of shit from others on 'the left' (nebulous term though it is) for my feelings on capitalism. The people I speak to have never seen anything but corruption, and have a combo of zero faith and utter hatred for it.

My personal feelings are that with strong, enforced checks & balances, capitalism can be combined with socialist policies to create a fantastic standard of living (see Norway), without it becoming cancerous. Unfortunately most of our western political systems (and capitalism is strongly influenced by political systems) seem to be run on a wink and a nudge, an assumed sense of 'fair play' which we all know has been shown to be worthless in recent years.

Strong unions; an educated populace; politicians who actually give a shit; this is what we need. But, capitalism has an absolute stranglehold on the populace of most western countries via print / tv media. The foxes are in charge of the henhouse and the hens are getting shit on.

You're getting shit from leftists because you're doing the "socialism is when the government does stuff" just from the other side.
- And referencing the "political compass" unironically.
- except our bad two party system.
  Well, and the corporate owned media with a hypercapitalist agenda, all the lobby organisations, the lack of proper public education for centuries, red-blue-whitewashed historytelling, the oppression of the black minority, a deeply flawed election system, the imprisonment crisis, and related the opiod crisis, gerrymandering, not enough unions, the fucked up healthcare situation itself...
- You can have socialist policies without being a socialist society. Our (UK) NHS is a socialist policy, free healthcare at the point of use. My country is decidedly not socialist!
- Yeah yeah two parties bad we fuckin know but talk to us when both sides start hard shoving for the removal of human rights. Talk to us when Republicans stop gerrymandering voting maps because they know it's the only way they'll get elected.
  It's not fucking both sides it's one side actively shitting all over the country while the other side gets blamed for it. Meanwhile half our citizens have been so dumbed down that they can't remember any Republican scandal longer than 5 god damn minutes.
  bUt HeR eMaIlS!!
  BuT hUnTeR bIdEn!!
  bUt TrUmPs DiCk Is So TaStEy!!!
- Nothing stops people from voting for these things in America either ~~except our bad two party system.~~
  Ftfy. Nothing stops anyone from voting for it right now. There's only one side even remotely fighting for it. It's just ignorance, laziness, and hate that keep it from happening.
You are not a leftist is probably why.
What matters is the ability the allocate resources according to the needs of us all and that people have confidence in future resources to be happy. Private ownership is contrary to the first; it helps with the second. That is any "capitalism" must be limited to pertonal needs.
- Who decides what constitutes a "need"? Will this proposed society be based purely on subsistence?
Socialism has many of the same benefits as capitalism. It's also compatible with other systems. A socialist country can trade with a capitalist. I have no issue with slowly moving toward socialist but I don't think there is much to be gained in protecting capitalism.
- This I think is a key part of misunderstandings... I'm not trying to protect capitalism, I'm trying to be realistic in how we go about modifying society towards more socialist goals. We're not going to upend the global capitalist systems in our lifetime, I don't think. And imo things are going to get worse before they get better, as wealth continues to be concentrated in fewer hands, as productivity increases due to further automation. I hope the tipping point isn't something that causes massive loss of life, like the collapse of civilisation.
  It's like... imagine you have a lake filled with crocodiles, sharks, and jellyfish. We need to get to the other side. Wanting to get there isn't enough, we need a solution. We can just keep endlessly pushing people in expecting them to somehow cross the lake (trying to 'destroy' capitalism), or we can build a bridge across (slowly modify capitalism to have strongs checks and balances). Anyway it's just my personal opinion, I stand by it

.ml? I always thought it was for Marxist lenninist.

But that could have been tongue in cheek

I'm not even sure what a government would look like in order to allow capitalism to function without corruption and exploitation. The regulations needed would be so overbearing that the markers surely would not thrive. Our entire society is based around the idea of abusing what is essentially slave labor to live far beyond our means. Without massive corruption, the US would just be another unremarkable country struggling to stay afloat.

I hadn't experienced hexbear (literally) shitting up the place yet, has a way to block entire instances been implemented or do I gotta find a new one that isn't federated with them?

yeah!! if MY party was in power, the government would not be corrupt!!! its definitely not the system that is flawed

What this planet needs is a Magna Carta of sorts that limits the power of all people, corporations or other entities or groups. Simple as that. We need limits! Extreme inequality will ALWAYS breed civil unrest.

where tho lol

Really depends on what you mean by market. Like a market has existed since humans have and probably will until post-scarcity. The market we have now with arcane rules that all end up enriching people with more money than any one human will ever need is something that has been in the making since industrialization. That market is pretty much at a point where salvaging it is not really possible even if there was any attempt made to do so. Control of how that market works seems to be at the hands of bad actors who just want to squeeze as much wealth out of it as they can, screwing over anyone else.

Like for example the power companies in my country stopped producing power on their own and bought power from neighboring countries just to sell it to locals at a higher rate. Basically just acting as middle men without providing anything of worth. That drove the price of power to hit 300% more than the year prior. The only reason they stopped was because our government started their own power plan with locally produced power forcing those companies to compete with it but the damage was done and power prices never went back to normal like they never do when companies inflate prices. A market regulated by people who only care about profit will never work.

I mean, it's hard to argue against that, because there is evidence that it works in Europe. Might need less corrupt governments in some places tho

That's an extremely narrow view point I'd say. In my country the government promotes the growth of existing big corporations so that there can be more jobs and infrastructure development - but this has in the end lead to a widening of gap and has essentially only made the rich even richer.

I genuinely believe promoting start ups is better for the middle class than big corporations, as usually startups pay a crazy amount of money if you ask for it compared to what a big rich corpo would give you (ironically).

Keep in mind, you are posting this to lemmy.ml, so I don't know what you expected... Maybe something like this would be better recieved on lemmy.world or on your account's instance.

All systems: Government, Market, etc, should be regulated assuming corruption already exists.

Because one way or another it will reach that point long after you're gone, if not before then.

Um, who regulates the government?
- The people, ideally.
  Also other branches of government.
  In a properly functioning government, the different branches provide checks on each others' powers, with the ultimate backstop being the power of the people via voting.

Why should some people be allowed to be rich but not most people?

Uncorrupt is good.

I know a lot of you are meming, but the amount of dogshit takes here is almost depressing.

There is no single answer to what a good government looks like, there is no "best one" and surely any single one that is based purely on ideals or idealized human behavior will fail, no matter how hard you believe in it.

One of the arguably most successful governments is the Chinese one and they are and were neither just, nor friendly, nor purely capitalist, communist or authoritarian. They are very China first and fuck everyone else and that works because of a lack of conscience and them adapting to everything without a second thought. Looking away and screwing people over as needed. You can be capitalist as long as it works for them. You can do whatever if it benefits them.

The US does this too, in different ways with similar effects.

Left are the goodies

Right are the baddies.

Simples.

Half?

I'm confused by something. Isn't this meme pretty far left compared to reality?

Just a tinsy tiny one.

But look, I will happily state my true opinions on here. Let them downvote me. My skin isn't paper thin.

Uncorrupt government. Lmao

Reality has a leftist bias.

The video below offers a nice exploration on left v right in terms of the conditions in a nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I think, personally and without solid justification, that our generation is a sacrificial one. If we accept our lives as being imperfect, but aim to reduce the imperfection of those that come after, we're on the best path. Planting trees whose shade we'll never sit in, with the caveat we're also helping people see that the shade is more valuable than the lumber, and that the world always needs more of both.

This meme is based on an impossible assumption, maybe that's the joke. But I ain't certain.

Capitalism has far and away provides the best and most benefits to the people the problem is when Capitalism is allowed to run with no safety rails

So does reality, strangely enough.

"Uncorupted Goverment" LoL when did that last happen under Capitalism?

The problem with that view is that it is idealistic in nature - government, by its very nature, will always become corrupt.

ok but how do you prevent the government from being influenced by the wealth of individuals. let me know when you find a way

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word 'bias'

And a very specific type of left, too. I'm a democratic socialist who doesn't believe in centrally planned economies and thinks market mechanisms can be useful in many cases (but can also be extremely harmful if done wrong or utilized wrong, eg healthcare is a terrible place for market mechanisms and profit motives), but I might as well be a reich-winger based on how many subs seem to look at democratic socialism (let alone market socialism)

That sounds like you aren't a socialist at all.
Just sounds like the majority of capitalist countries. Especially the ones in Europe.
- Sounds like you don't understand the difference between democratic socialism and social democracy. I suggest Wikipedia

Reality is not left leaning. Leftist politics are reality-leaning

except of course no government can regulate a Freed market.

If we truly Freed the market of government controls the workers could ownership of the fruits of their labor and the laws of supply and demand would regulate the market naturally

it's not left it's middle

It can. In theory.

The theoretical part is the "uncorrupt government" you speak of.

The only way to keep a govt "uncorrupt" as you put it is under pain of literal death. And even then its not foolproof. Some will still be tempted.

If you want a govt that will serve the people while being as incorruptible as possible you have to choose politicians by lottery instead of election. They get called, go serve, then go back to the life they had before. Like 4 years of Jury Duty. Political graspers, climbers, those will always trend towards corruption. Like that old addage, anyone actively seeking political office is unfit to serve in that capacity as their motivations are suspect. Power, authority, etc. All that is only intensified in a system as inconceivably corrupt and broken as ours is.

A bit late to the party

Your point is based on an idealistic and wishful "uncorruot government". You cannot have an uncorrupt government. What's needed is a different form of political decision making, one where the common folk participates in the political questions, not just some answers, where accountability is protected and a priority.

I don't know the exact blueprint for this, maybe it is as unattainable as an "uncorrupted government". What I know is that nobody really tried it yet, while so called "liberal democracy" has proven its failings to all and the fascist have been taking advantage of those failings since the start. The only way yo avoid this is to change our questions, not to all agree on the answers

It also has a very clear male bias, significantly more so than reddit used to.

Reddit was no different from 2005 ~ 2009/2010
Edit: and honestly. Still.
Maybe it's just because I am usually in LGBT and trans spaces, but I see a lot more women than I did on Reddit. They might not all be cis women but still.
- It may be because I'm in similar spaces, but I see way more trans women than cis women. In my experience, it seems like a good 80%-90% of the fediverse is "assigned male at birth."
- Tbh all i saw when i joined lemmy was baby trans spaces and i blocked all of those 😐
You need to be 2 times as nerdy to understand lemmy, so it’s obvious

That's why I'm here. All the corporate owned social media are blatantly far-right fascists. Everywhere else is just thick with Nazis and racists.

sami"\alert(document.cookie)\

sami"\loda\

The amount of left wing folks on some of the more extreme instances bashing the most left wing people in the American Democratic party because they're not complete socialist idiologes is just wild. Like I want to see a major shift towards some form of democratic socialism in America and think we definitely need real change in that direction, but the hatred for elected officials closest to your views just because they aren't extreme enough for you is silly.

I don't understand why they feel the need to attack the left win branch of the DNC when Joe Manchin equists. When the Republican party exists. Focus efforts on some positive change and getting people you want in office instead of trying to tear down what should be an ally. Make the people you think aren't extreme left enough the conservatives of a new wave. The defeatest attitude that just criticizes the closest thing they have to what they want is just silly.

Other than a violent change of the guard/revolution. It's not going to be an instant process. You have to accept small progress where you can get it.

Imagine talking about being a real leftist wanting real leftist stuff but calling the Democratic Party the furthest left thing in America. Jesus fucking Christ.
Hatred of allies: NO
Holding our allies' feet to the fire: YES
We should not meekly accept a few crumbs.
We should fight, unapologetically, for 100% of everything we want to see. When did the right wing tea party say "Thank you for meeting us half way, we are so grateful, we will now go along to get along." Never. The right wing get 80% of everything they want from an absolute minority position precisely because they fight for 100% of everything they want 100% of the time. The left needs to pay attention.
There are no long term allies, only long term interests.
- When did the right wing tea party say “Thank you for meeting us half way, we are so grateful, we will now go along to get along.”
  They also never said "we refuse to vote as some kind of moronic protest against politicians not far right enough for us".
  The Tea Party gained control of a significant fraction of the Republican party by voting in primary elections, something which we on the left are too stupid to do.
Folks don't realize real change can't happen drastically and realistically be expected to remain. It's going to be baby steps. Getting them to believe gradual change isn't worth fighting for is a great way to maintain the status quo. They don't raise they are their own worst enemies.
- Are you seriously arguing against the French Revolution right now? What the fuck is wrong with liberals I stg
- Gradual change sets the conditions for drastical change.
- Exactly. It sucks, but it's just the truth. I'd love to vote for an openly socialist presidential candidate, but we have to slowly shift the political views for a long while before that's viable.
"You talk clean and bomb hospitals So I speak with the foulest mouth possible"
RTJ
And I think we're aware things won't happen quickly, but that doesn't mean we have to be uncritical of capitalist politicians who are also actively hostile to leftism.
Also every inherently flawed, means tested, half measure liberal policy that gets confused for leftism (like Obamacare, which was based on Heritage Foundation ideas) just makes it harder to get support on the left.

Who could ever want anything else?

sami

sami'\loda\

The SEC ??

What a system is capable of doing initially for a lucky fraction of the populace and where its inevitable and terrible end leads for the vast majority are two entirely different things.

When properly regulated, capitalism does raise standard of living for the vast majority.
- The problem in the US is it's so lightly regulated that we we living under an oligarchy in the name of "freedom."
- You got downvoted but you are correct. It raises it higher for some more than others but it does improve for everyone.

The problem there is the same as that of idealised communism, you're relying on humans to do what they typically don't do. Humans will take for themselves at the cost of communities if they feel they can get away with it, including the ones in government.

Almost 1000 likes says is not such an heavy bias i would say.

That's just what happens when you actually ban pedo-nazis and racists instead of passively protect them like reddit does.

This is the only place i see where auth left is represented and i love it

the rich poor disparity problem is unsolvable unless the solution is total control of the market and complete socialism.

Because for example I wanna take the risk and invest my money to start a buisness only if I can get a equally rewarding return in profit. Why else should I take that much risk and effort? It's not like already established buisnesses starting a new one from scratch is incredibly risky until and if it grows big enough.

So in any economy where there won't be having the incentive, no one will care enough to start any buisness. That makes it the govt's job to literally run all the buisnesses to make every single product for every niche community, whetger it's essential, luxury, hobbyist etc. And the govt can only manage so much. This is why socialist economy crumble in comparison to capitalist ones. Because in capitalist economy you MAY be rewarded for taking the risk, so people come up with all sorts of innovative stuff to become big. The downside, some of them become so successful that they become too big.

It will be a while before weird gringo ideologies become less prevalent.

With very few exceptions this entire thread is pure amateur hour bullshit.

In This Thread: politically illiterate takes

You are all just closeted leftists if you understood a bit more political theory. Go out and be the non-annoying, non-smug leftist that you dream of.

Aw shit, anarchists and tankies inbound.

and
I'm an anarchist and I agree with this. The main reason I am an anarchist is because I don't believe it's actually possible for a government to be uncorruptible, so I'd rather not have one.
It's like saying "the world would be better if it was a utopia." No shit. But how likely is it to happen?

Implying the other half agrees with you, right?

Sounds about like every other wedge issue we're divided (lol auto correct decided that should be"focused"and 8 don't know that I disagree) with.

The problem with Lemmy isn't that there are too many leftists around, it's that most of them are of the annoying kind.

Most users here are either college students or antiwork-style semi-employed NEET-adjacent individuals whose entire worldview is based on Tumblr and TikTok memes. They really think that some online pundit/influencer with the "correct beliefs" on the "current thing" is closer to them and more of their ally than actual working-class proletarians who may for various reasons, have problematic attitudes and beliefs.

That's of course, without getting into what the latest crop of online leftists even considers problematic. For whatever reason, while the planet is dying, while people are still hungry, while homelessness is rising in the West, they've decided that the right of fat gay men who like to wear make up and dresses and straight women who are not satisfied to be low on the oppression totem-pole to call themselves a gender category beyond any human comprehension (non-binary) is the single most important issue affecting global society.

If one should disagree with gender ideology, they need to be killed because they're a fucking Nazi and definitely not a good fucking human being.

Got bombarded with hate when I said a solution to Nazis isnt to kill Nazis lol the left are just as unhinged as the right. Most Americans are mentally ill because they can't afford to see a therapist.

Finally, a capitalist on Lemmy! I’ve been looking for you. I need another like-minded Lemmy user.

*Small bias? Just try mentioning Trump in a positive light and see.