So I get you are making a distributed reddit alternative. I read that most of you are left politically. You also view reddit as right politically. Which is interesting because I view reddit as left politically in fact extreme left but not as extreme as you are here. Given that reddit has purged many right people and those people have now attempted to also make reddit alternatives like ruqqus, saidit, .win, I get from their perspective they want more freedom which is to basically not have their speech deleted. Then on the left there seems an obsession to silence anyone or thing they don’t like, which I feel I am running that risk just typing this. So if lemmy feels reddit is not left enough as in the words of your comrade nutomic “reddit is far right”, to which i completely disagree but lets play with it, if reddit is not left enough I take it you mean it is not deleting and censoring enough? To which if lemmy is being created as a solution to that then I think the point of lemmy is to allow and enable even more censorship? I have to say if this is the point of lemmy that is both scary and stupid, scary that people think more censorship is in fact needed and stupid in that people would think more censorship is in fact needed, no well I just wanted to type that but stupid in that they need to make a new platform to enable more censorship, like wow.
I am sorry but I disagree as the Nazis were most definitely socialists. One it was in their name and 2 it is documented in history through their actions. It is most certainly an uncomfortable truth because the left loves socialism so much but detests the Nazis.
Me personally I think socialism is a disease but think some aspects of it can be good. I dislike both the Nazis and Communists. My politics are a mix of left and right, but generally I am libertarian and so free speech is a main concern of mine. Protecting speech I dislike is actually not really an issue because there is not really any speech I dislike, it is all just words on a screen to me, some I agree some I disagree. There is speech that solely seeks to disrupt like spam or some very bad faith conversation, like low on the pyramid of debate. I wouldn’t delete it still and just hide it under some optional filter :-)
On communism I could probably know more but I know they by far killed the most people in history, they won the war against Hitler and where responsible for pushing human progress with the cold war. I am a fan of Oliver Stone by the way :-)
I will seek to read up on the links you provided I don’t have time now sorry, I am enjoying talking to you.
It’s a system built on exploitation of others for your own gain, that’s literally the point of it. For someone to rise up in capitalism they need to push others down. It’s also why we’re in a massive environmental crisis.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this. Capitalism is a system of exchange and mutual benefit, yes it can seem people are exploited and in some cases they are but overall capitalism is a very efficient and beneficial system. The most stark example of this is the switch of China from communism to mainly capitalism and the resounding progress they made after.
All of the bad sides of capitalism are because of flawed implementations of it. The costs of the environment not accounted for, the exponential benefits of accrued wealth not penalized, shields from liability like with vaccines and environmental damage, no liability for share holders, too many rights given, like IP rights given for too long or given at all, I am against IP at all :-)! The list is many but the fundamental cause of these problems is a broken political system. To say it in short we do not have democracy and never have. I can go into this with you in depth when I have time, but no problem we have will be fixed unless we can fix our government and free speech is absolutely crucial for that to happen.
I’m afraid your opinion is simply ignorant. The Nazis were funded by capitalists to break up labor organizations and worker unions, and have always worked with big business to suppress the workers. There are literally books written on this subject.
In Nazi Germany, racism and anti-Semitism served to misdirect legitimate grievances toward convenient scapegoats. Anti-Semitic propaganda was cleverly tailored to appeal to different audiences. Superpatriots were told that the Jew was an alien internationalist. Unemployed workers were told that their nemesis was the Jewish capitalist and Jewish banker. For debtor farmers, it was the Jewish usurer. For the middle class, it was the Jewish union leader and Jewish communist. Here again we have a consciously rational use of irrational images. The Nazis might have been crazy but they were not stupid. What distinguishes fascism from ordinary right-wing patriarchal autocracies is the way it attempts to cultivate a revolutionary aura. Fascism offers a beguiling mix of revolutionary-sounding mass appeals and reactionary class politics. The Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party, a left-sounding name. As already noted, the SA storm troopers had a militant share-the wealth strain in their ranks that was suppressed by Hitler after he took state power. Both the Italian fascists and the Nazis made a conscious effort to steal the Left’s thunder. There were mass mobilizations, youth organizations, work brigades, rallies, parades, banners, symbols, and slogans. There was much talk about a “Nazi revolution” that would revitalize society, sweeping away the old order and building the new. For this reason, mainstream writers feel free to treat fascism and communism as totalitarian twins. It is a case of reducing essence to form. The similarity in form is taken as reason enough to blur the vast difference in actual class content.
I don’t know both the nazi and commies had gulags. There is too many similarities to me but I guess much of it stems from authoritarianism. I should probably read more on it because if Trump is setting off red flags as a Hitler we have a problem.
Authoritarianism is not inherent in either socialist or communist ideologies, and it’s a result of the need to organize a militant organization to overthrow an existing regime as well as to be able to hold power afterwards. I very much recommend reading that book if you’d like to know more about the rise of Trump because there are many parallels with the rise of fascists in both Germany and Italy in the 30s.
Thanks I will try read it. Authoritarianism does to me seem a big problem
Did you even read the article I linked? They did not implement socialist ideals.
And I can call myself “Mr. Nice Guy” but be an asshole in real life. What’s your point on the name thing?
don’t waste your time trying to reason with people like this. either ban or ignore them.
You prove my point, seeking to ban me because I disagree with you. This line of thought is very communist and at the heart of why communism failed. Let my quickly archive this though so it’s more evidence to the problem L-)
You aren’t arguing in good faith. This isn’t a discussion or a debate. This isn’t a disagreement. This is you being a contrarian on the internet in a place you knew you’d disagree with everyone and then when everyone is annoyed by you, you go “look, the left loves censorship!” even though you never had a single intention of changing any views you had.
The truth of the matter is, why would we want to interact with someone like you who is just constantly insisting we’re all wrong? You’ve got plenty of other places you could be, I’m not even sure why you’d want to be here.
This right here is the most succinct outline of OP’s initial intent.
As the OP I disagree L-) but hey what would I know about my own opinions and beliefs? Couldn’t be more than you? /s
I think I am arguing in reasonable faith. No it was the call to ban me that sad hey look theres censorship. I have changes views, have you?
The point to interact with people you disagree with is to change minds. If I had not intent to have mine changed I would not be here. I found the anticapitalist aspect of the definition of the left quite enlightening.
No I haven’t read it I said I didn’t have time, I will try now.
So if I look at the conclusion “While their name did include the word “socialist”, their policies and treatment of left-wing opponents show they were not socialists in any meaningful sense.” The treatment of “left wing” people does not define socialism. Socialism is in part a state organized economy and more, which is what the Nazis had but also in general things done with a view to the society as a whole which the nazis did a lot of, their conquering of Europe is evidence of that. Maybe they were not as socialist as Russia but they were still quite socialist. You can have varying degrees of socialism like all things.
Next point of notice is “Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology”. Hitlers eugenics program is a perfect example of a socialist ideology.
Overall that article is weak, the talk of the Nazis banning parties and other groups is to me also an aspect of socialism, communism behaved the same but worse. Communism and Nazism are both socialist they both require authoritarian power to be enabled. The reason for the lefts dislike of this association is the critical player behind socialism and communism and antifa, the jew, is hated and persecuted in Nazism. The funny thing is this bias is not for some greater good because under socialism far more people and groups are more hated and persecuted and the general outcomes for society far worse. In fact even in socialism the Jew too is hated and persecuted but he must be rich lol. To me it is all insanity stemming from group programming in all of us. You should listen to Bret Weinstein (a jew :-) on it. And if using the word jew makes you uncomfortable well that is the distinct problem of the left. Things do need a label to be discussed and if we can’t categorize and discuss things well we are dead as a society. Which maybe that is the goal of the left to handicap our speech and so destroy us through it.
Oh as for the famines in China, they are very very clearly the result of the policies of Mao. Maybe you can say it is was not socialism, but communism that did that and more particularly the dictatorial part of communism after all we have socialist democracies too. But the fact remains China was well stuck in a hole until they most though-roughly abandoned much of socialism…
Nice talking