What’s the point of the sidebar’s rules if the mods are going to bury their heads in the sand about the lemmy.world-lib bot-farm
I thought this was lefty memes not “vague and incredibly specific brand of leftwing politics” memes
For a minute I was hung up on the apparent oxymoron of vague and specific, but I think I see now: vague re: what leftism is allowed, yet hyper specific re: what is not. Agreed.
I imagine that these very specific titles to very specific political flavors is what throws some people of. Imo they’ve first given the overall value system that they don’t want to see here (i.e. liberalism, reactionaries and revisionism) and then give some specific examples what that could mean.
exactly that is the point
I think the problem is that there are many people who would describe themselves as “leftwing” but then propagate neoliberal, conservative or reactionary politics. I’m not 100% aware of all the terms dropped in the post, but in my mind a leftwing community should definitely not include liberals, capitalists or conservatives (these are filtered out above via e.g. liberalism, social democrats, anarcho-capitalists, etc). Imo this rule makes perfect sense.
yeah this rule sounds very specific and very vague at the same time. and needlessly sectarian. i get pushing out libs but some of the people mentioned seem to imply china isnt on the road to socialism? or that socdems or dengists are right wing? i get disagreeing with them, because i mostly do, but like cmon.
socialism and the process to achieve it will be different on each place according to its particularities. its not a perfect dogma to be applied like a cake recipe to every country to make it socialist.
My general understanding of socialism is A) “seize the means of production, comrade” B) capitalism assumes the one with the money benefits the economy the most, socialism assumes the one who does work benefits the economy the most, C) because of B, capitalism projects power down the hierarchy, while socialism projects power upwards.
What am I missing?
What a neatly succinct way to put your understanding, well phrased.
It’s unfortunately conflating economic policy with social policy, and is quite divorced from anything happening since 1917. Most of Europe lives in democratic socialism, which combines none of A), with none of B).
From the power perspective you’re mostly right though, in socialism it’s the citizen that has rights, in capitalism it’s capital. Meaning that voting and influence stems from different fundamental perspectives, sometimes different enough that they aren’t opposed (like in most western DemSoc).
Economic socialism typically means that the purpose of the economy is to raise the standard of living for the citizens, this typically means providing healthcare, infrastructure like roads, housing and clean water, and affordable goods. And usually leads to equalising tax structures, with progressive taxation of the affluent, and higher tax burden in the things that exploit/hinder the societal good, like companies, damaging luxuries (like alcohol, sugar) and pollution.
Ideologically it typically means that every citizen has the right to a comfortable and fulfilling life, where emphasis and understanding differs across the world. And it typically translates to citizens having equal, unalienable rights, with support structures in place for the more vulnerable. That could be that official documents are made available in multiple languages, more flexible voting arrangements, advocacy and support for infirm, elderly and marginalised groups. I’d simplify it as: every citizen is entitled to a comfortable and fulfilling life, and all the support they need to live it.
Politically the focus is on common good, with as little individual impingement as possible. Universal healthcare and education are great investments in the national economy, so is child and elder care, which frees up the workforce from other chores. Support for the arts, hobbies, and recreational spaces is common, as is public beautification, public forums, parks/nature preserves.
But none of this is in necessary opposition to capitalism, which isn’t a political system of governance more than economic anarchy. Capitalism doesn’t by itself have any aims, ideology, or principles about voting rights, it simply wants capital to produce more capital, and would in the extreme not have any voting rights beyond what you can create with your capital.
In the US it translates through liberalism to policy, where small governance leaves more room for individually powerful citizens, of which capital is increasingly the dominant party.
I see, so it’s actually a lot closer to my personal beliefs than I was expecting. I think my beliefs could best be summed up by, “people shouldn’t be earning a living, they should be earning a luxury”. They’re a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it.
Interesting.
What you’re saying is well aligned, but from a fundamentally different viewpoint. Socialism doesn’t (by itself) address any of the things in your summation. The closest I can explain it in terms that could make sense to you is just the first part: “people shouldn’t be earning a living”.
I think ideological socialism just axiomatically starts from a different perspective. A person (traditionally a citizen) shouldn’t have to earn their right to live, rather it’s our shared interest that all of us can live our best lives. From that perspective work is only relevant as a way to create wellbeing (sense of purpose, creating things, being helpful, etc), economy comes only in the implementation and how we fund the society that allows the ideal.
And that’s where different groups have tried different things, planned economy has had mixed success, capitalism within the social framework is the current fashion in most of Europe/World, but you also have kibbutzes/communes, homesteading, and multigenerational and/or sectarian communes.
All these are different implementations of socialism, and none of them are founded on the idea of work, salary or expenses. They typically start from other ideals, where the economic policy simply becomes a tool.
I like that sentence and I will steal it from you thank you very much
What in the love of Marx is this? Europe living in democratic socialism? In what world? Socialism is specifically the public ownership of the means of production (aka. economy), which is not in place anywhere in Europe atm. All of the stuff you mentioned are remnants of a withering Keynesian welfare state, funded by (neo-)colonialism/imperialism
And no, economy and politics are not seperable. Economics is inherently political and politics is inherently economical. Just as material and social conditions are inseparable
And then democratic socialism happened in the 1980s and onward.
I mean, as one of the lemmy.world “lib-bots” what do you want? I’ll tell you that unless there’s some skynet level AI in the lemmyverse we have much less of a problem with bots than Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, etc. If you don’t want us in your community then you’re allowed to defederate from us. You’re basically just arguing the “no true Scotsman fallacy”. We barely have enough users in the entire lemmyverse to have daily content and you want to hamstring it further because the most left leaning site most people have ever been on isn’t far enough left for you? Help me help you
I think this is a joke about political infighting, but I’m not 100% sure.
Calls out tankies, but allows “actual MLs”? The hell is the difference? I’ve never seen anyone identifying as explicitly ml that wasn’t a tankie
Presumably they’d be referring to the espoused ideal proposed by Lenin?
IIRC the dude stated he believed the ideal system was something like a representative democracy and a syndicalist labor union run government.
MList is often used as a PC way to refer to Maoists and Stalinists so it can get confusing
Out of curiosity, what’s wrong with Dengism? I thought China largely benefited economically from it. It’s been years though since I’ve looked at any of this though.
I’ve never heard of dengism before (just read through the Wikipedia page now), but that it is banned here doesn’t contradict that China may have benefitted from it economically. Many countries may have benefitted economically from colonialism or from capitalism. That does not make them good politics for the people.
Yes, the capitalist road has benefited the bourgeois state of a new time.
With the “communist” party bureaucracy partially taking up the role of capitalists. Deng Xiaoping did what Gorbachev couldn’t, he saved the party bureaucracy
I understand and partially share your concern, although I would harshly disagree with calling ppl “bots”.
tbh I neither have the time nor capacity in the free time that I have, to manage this batch of communities. I should probably invite some additional moderators, but I have never done that before and imagine that the vetting process will be tedious. Thus far I have just been procrastinating on this
deleted by creator
Genuinely what even is the difference between socialism and democratic socialism. I don’t get how one is leftist and the other is liberal.
Pretty sure it comes down to do you think we can bandaid capitalism enough to suck not so hard, or do we need to amputate. The former is democratic socialism.
Nah that’s social democracy,
Democratic socialism is just the idea that the ideal route to socialism is through democratic revolution, and that socialism can exist in a democratic system without having to wipe out other doctrines
