43
Which instances have the most diverse points of view?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
43 points (72.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44616 readers
962 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A better question is which instances have dominant points of view that actually align with the material reality we inhabit. Difference of opinion is only valuable when the opinion is grounded in factual understanding of the real world. It's valuable to have different views and interpretation of the facts, but if a view is divorced from reality then it's just noise.
just like vanguardism
Can you elaborate?
I don't like the state and like the idea of a vanguard party even less and I belive that user to be vanguardist
thank you for providing an example of dialogue that's detached from reality
so you are not a vanguardist?
or am I wrong about vanguardism being bad?
please elaborate
It's detached from reality because you're just randomly chucking in some political terms you learned on reddit under an unrelated comment thinking it's some kind of slam-dunk.
no, I know what a vanguard party is and that I don't support it, now we're arguing about why I don't support it
You are wrong about vanguarism being bad because history clear shows that it is the most reliable method for actually combating capitalism. Anarchists refuse to accept this basic reality and continue advocating approaches that have failed time and again for over a century now. It's quite telling that this ideology exists primarily in the western imperial core.
no, I just think that freedom is more important than defeating capitalism
I'd rather take my hrt, guns and free speech over a vanguard, sorry
also see how it has worked in russia, how the soviet union has defeated capitalism and how capitalist western germany was almost economically stronger than the entire ussr (including eastern germany)
So, what you're actually saying you'd rather live under capitalism because it's not impacting your freedom, and you don't care about others. Meanwhile, claiming that western Germany was economically stronger than the USSR is another example of you being divorced from reality. It's the same sort of logic people applied to modern Russia comparing its GDP to Italy. Now, it turns out Russian industrial production is higher than all of the west combined. This is how capitalism rots people brains, they start thinking imaginary numbers are more important than material reality.
> So, what you're actually saying you'd rather live under capitalism because it's not impacting your freedom
that's wrong, I belive that I have more freedom in (unregulated) capitalism that's not state backed, than in a one party system without democratic principles
> and you don't care about others.
that's not true, I want others to be as free as I am
> Meanwhile, claiming that western Germany was economically stronger than the USSR is another example of you being divorced from reality.
you're literally making this up, I sayed that western germany was ALMOST as economicaly strong as the entire ussr, which is true
> It's the same sort of logic people applied to modern Russia comparing its GDP to Italy. Now, it turns out Russian industrial production is higher than all of the west combined.
first source I found: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Russia/United-States/Industry
this says something completely different
> This is how capitalism rots people brains, they start thinking imaginary numbers are more important than material reality.
so at first: you were wrong, but you also were double wrong, because even if russia did produce more than the US there's still the question of what to be made and for whom, russia probably produces more war assets rn, and that isn't necessarily a good thing, since they now can produce less of stuff the people actually need (that statement itself wouldn't be true if the russian economy was growing and they were exporting their war assets, but the opposite is the case, they produce the war assets to burn them on the battlefield and their economy also isn't looking good)
All capitalism is state backed, by definition.
uhm nope it isn't, in fact a lot of economists are against the state (eg: ludwig van mises)
also everything is bad when state backed imo, even communism
or as I tend to say:"I like my communism the same way I like my toilet: without the state watching over it"
I don't think using the guy who thought economic planning was impossible because there's no way an individual person can plan an entire economy by themselves is a good representation of a valid viewpoint. Like, Mises had a comedically awful conception of Socialist economics from square one.
As for Communism, the State can only be abolished fully when class antagonisms are abolished, and such a status can only occur when everyone across the globe equally owns all property across the globe (or as close to that as is possible). Until then, however, there will be classes, and thus a state, so you can't just get rid of the state outright unless you wish to return to hunter-gatherer style economics, or if you are okay with classes in your conception of Communism by turning everyone into petite bourgeoisie, equal owners but within their own communes exclusively.
Yet, you do not believe in effective ways of organizing and actually challenging the system. So, really you believe in perpetuating the system while paying lip service to the idea of change.
You clearly don't since you reject practical methods that have been proven that free people from capitalism.
It's not true, and never has been true in any meaningful sense.
and yet https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine/index.html
Meanwhile in the real world, Russian economy is booming, and the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/world-bank-country-classifications-by-income-level-for-2024-2025
The IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/17/russia-forecast-to-grow-faster-than-advanced-economies-in-2024-imf.html
Thanks for providing further evidence of you being utterly divorced from reality.
I think drawing a line between a vague notion of "freedom" and what existed in AES without doing any of the work to back that up makes little sense. Further, I think trying to say Western Germany, which was highly developed and already one of the most Imperialist countries on the planet at the turn of the 20th century was stronger economically than the USSR, which started the 20th century as a mostly undeveloped agrarian society just beginning Capitalism, is ridiculous.
That's like comparing someone who worked daily for what they accomplished for themselves with the Trust Fund kid who got a job at his father's investment firm.
Moreover, the USSR had constant and stable economic growth for its entire existence, and one of the highest rates of growth on the planet, while doing 80% of the combat in WWII and providing free education, healthcare, retirement, doubling life expectancies, and more.
Typical westerner living off the people of the global south's labor
Of course you dont want change with your fuck you got mine attitude
lol, china does the same imperialist shit in africa that the west does
Chinese investment in Africa has had ‘Significant And Persistently Positive’ long-term effects https://www.eurasiareview.com/01022021-chinese-investment-in-africa-has-had-significant-and-persistently-positive-long-term-effects-despite-controversy/
here, read the chapter criticism and tell me everything I'm wrong about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-African_relations
Study after study shows that China's involvement in Africa has measurable positive impact, but here you are with your wikipedia link acting like you have a clue
Cope
how's that a cope? I'm against the US and china
"Neither washington nor beijing, but washington"
that's because you're an ignoramus
ok, why did I expect an actual argunent?
Because you're a debate bro who wastes other people's time arguing about subjects you have no clue about. If you want people to take you seriously spend a bit time educating yourself instead of speaking out of ignorance.
Not at all correct. China doesn't use debt traps, nor does it focus on exporting Capital in order to produce outside its country lines at lower wages. Rather, it's the opposite, China frequently forgives loans (usually made through State entities and not private corporations and banks) and focuses on commodity exports. To say that China does the "same Imperialism" is factually wrong. There's much that can be correctly criticized about the PRC, but to put it on equal footing with the West with respect to whether it is ultimately playing a predatory or beneficial role is divorced from reality.
What do you think the "State" is? Marxists and Anarchists generally disagree on what constitutes the state, Marxists see it as a tool of class oppression and Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy. Neither Marxists nor Anarchists seek to perpetuate the State.
As for a Vanguard, all that means is the most politically advanced of the revolutionary class. Since political knowledge is unequal, there will always be more and less advanced among a class, whether you formalize it into a party or not. The consequences of refusing to formalize this difference means you can't democratize it or protect against bad actors, a problem elaborated on in The Tyranny of Structurelessness.
Furthermore, there is historical proof of the effectiveness of Vanguard parties in establishing Socialism and improving the lives of the Working classes, from the peasantry to the proletariat. Calling such a strategy "detached from reality" is wrong, there is clear theoretical and historical evidence for the practicality and effectiveness of Vanguard parties.
I actually belive the state in its current form to be a tool of economical, personal and class opression
and I belive no state can exist without at least 2 of the above, but I want none of the above
What's your proposed solution? You can't force everyone's political knowledge to being fully equal, so there will be a vanguard whether you formalize and democratize it or let it form naturally and behind closed doors. Further, you can't get rid of both class and hierarchy without returning to tribal forms of hunter-gatherer societies, large industry requires administration. A horizontal network of communes retains classes by turning everyone into petite bourgeoisie, so you either want to abolish hierarchy, class, or industry.
if I had to choose I'd rather end all hirarchy
Okay, so how are you doing that without a vanguard forming? Intentional or not, there will be differences in political knowledge and organizational skill. Do you formalize it? Let it form?