this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025

127 points (94.4% liked)

Asklemmy

45308 readers

1378 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

127

What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

483 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I'm mostly an anarchist. But.

I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I've been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is... Not good.

The problem is, I don't know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It's easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I'm also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. ...And once you start going down that path, it's really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.

I also don't know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 47 minutes ago (1 children)

My main argument in favour of totalitarianism is the tragedy of the commons. Particularly in these areas: environmentalism, violence, and existential risks (whatever you think those are).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

I don't think I've ever seen a self-identifying "totalitarian," plus the "tragedy of the commons" isn't really a thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago) (1 children)

Can you explain what you mean about tragedy of the commons not being a thing? It seems inherently obvious. Like do you think it's not applicable politically, or even in thought experiments like cows in a meadow it still doesn't apply? In my mind, tragedy of the commons perfectly explains why large corporations pollute instead of respect the environment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 39 minutes ago (1 children)

More often than not it's a thought-terminating cliché. Large corporations polluting isn't a "tragedy of the commons" issue either, the tragedy of the commons refers to everyone having unmanaged and unfettered access to a resource or tool. That's a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

"Totalitarianism" is not and never will be necessary. Authority is, as revolution, for example, is an authoritarian act against the bourgeoisie. However, the theory of "Totalitarianism" from Arendt is mostly liberal bogus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 31 minutes ago* (last edited 31 minutes ago) (1 children)

Okay fine fine. I'm more of a self-described authoritarian really.

That’s a private corporation taking the shortest path to profit.

Well for instance, if there was only one singular mega-corporation with no competition, I don't think it would destroy the environment, at least not in a way that would reduce its future profits. My observation is that corporations tend to be more forward-thinking about their own profits than I tend to expect from the way they're structured. But you can get an advantage over other corporations in the short-term if throw environmentalism to the wayside. In other words, the shortest path to profit and the tragedy of the commons are exactly linked.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago) (1 children)

I don't know what a "self-described authoritarian" is, either. That isn't a political stance.

If there was one singular megacorp, governing all of industry, there would be no competition as you said, and therefore Capitalism would die. The death of Capitalism is inevitable, but reaching such a point would see revolution immediately.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 minutes ago* (last edited 16 minutes ago) (1 children)

It sounds like you're basically saying competition is the problem. But competition has benefits and downsides; one of the downsides is tragedy of the commons, which I think is bad enough it warrants eliminating capitalism all by itself. You haven't really provided a good argument that tragedy of the commons isn't a real concern.

I don't believe the death of capitalism is inevitable -- that's why we need to work hard to end it. (Edit: I guess we essentially agree, the difference is fatalism?)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 38 seconds ago

I think the biggest issue here is that we aren't really speaking on common ground. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and can offer theory to show what that means but will put that aside for now.

The "tragedy of the commons" is not what you are using it to mean. You are referring to a lack of regulation as "tragedy of the commons," which is not the correct usage of it.

Secondly, Capitalism erases its own foundations, it naturally centralizes and erases profit and competition, ergo it inevitably produces crisis and its own erasure.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You might be interested in the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness, which goes over the same concept you speak of with requiring some degree of formalization of structure in order to prevent unaccountable structure from forming. I'm not an Anarchist, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 47 minutes ago

I'll give it a read.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed, mass displacements).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Agreed. Antisemitism != antizionism.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

permanent revolution;
that parties should be democratic institutions;
that burocratization leads to deformed proletarian states.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Are you saying you disagree with Trots on these matters, or that you agree with Trots despite their unique positions among Marxists in general?

I don't think anyone would disagree with you regarding parties needing to be democratic, so I assume you are referring to a specific type of democracy.

As for Permanent Revolution, I think that was kind of "debunked" when the peasantry showed itself to be a genuine ally of the proletariat. Abandoning building Socialism because a revolution in Germany never appeared and instead focusing your efforts on exporting revolution ultimately would have led to a lack of developed industry, and a loss in World War II for the Soviets. Communism still requires global revolution, but it makes more sense to build up Socialism domestically and use that to fuel revolution globally than it does to focus almost entirely on the idea of a global revolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 minutes ago (1 children)

i think that in most communist movements around the world, we fourthists are minority. hence i tend to disagree on some points with the majority (mostly m-l's). but we mostly agree on marx's method for analyzing society and economy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 minutes ago

Gotcha, I don't agree with you but your comment makes sense if you are comparing yourself to the broader Marxist movement, and not just within your tendency.

load more comments