What about my original comment led you to believe I thought they were equivalent? As I said, Republicans are vile, hateful, and exploiting our political divisions for power. But the Democrats are just as responsible for the material conditions that have allowed facism to flourish, and demanding accountability and change for that isn’t nitpicking. If the Democrats don’t stop being corporate stooges, this doesn’t end if Trump is defeated; it ends when another fascist finally wins.
History didn’t start in 2016. The Democrats were happy to cozy up to the Silicone Valley tech giants, even as they developed into monopolies whose products gave users the very brain-poisoning that delivered Trump. They were happy to prioritize Wall Street bailouts over homeowners’ bailouts after the subprime mortgage crises, even if meant their constituents lost their homes. They’ve been happy to sideline or undermine anyone who dares run to their left, from Bernie Sanders to Rashida Tlaib.
The Democrats are not well-meaning, helpless progressives that just can’t get anything done because of America’s byzantine political structure. They have actively stopped any significant changes to the status quo in order to keep their donors happy. They’ve spent decades deluding themselves into thinking they could somehow improve conditions for the working class without demanding concessions from the billionaire class, even as the largest wealth transfer in history, from the lowest income Americans to the highest income Americans, was taking place. They may not be as vile or hateful as the Republicans, but they are just as responsible for America’s decay.
Oh, that’s easy; we don’t! Every four years, the fabric of our society frays and tears a little more, while our politicians either exploit our divisions or attempt to repair them without making any changes to the material conditions or systemic problems that create these fractures, because fixing these underlying issues would upset the handful of billionaires that actually control our government! But there’s a new Fast & Furious movie every two or three years, so it balances out.
Did you read this? This article is about the pro-Russian separatists’ conscription of Ukrainians to fight for Russia.
From your source:
The Guardian recently reported that men in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine are being forcibly conscripted into the armed forces of the self-declared Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Luhansk Peoples Republic (LPR).
From the Gaurdian article they’re referencing:
Pro-Russia separatist forces have stepped up the forced conscription of men – including Ukrainian passport holders – in occupied areas of the Donbas region, amid mounting evidence of the scale of losses on the Russian side.
According to credible evidence from the region, forced conscription – already a feature of the Russian-backed separatists’ rule before the Kremlin’s invasion on 24 February – appeared to have picked up again in June, with checkpoints and patrols, some reportedly involving Chechen fighters allied to the Kremlin, on the lookout for men to recruit.
From another article cited by your source:
Russia justifies its invasion of Ukraine arguing it is defending the “Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics.” Mere days before Russia launched its attack, when tens of thousands of Russian soldiers had been amassed on Ukraine’s border, these self-proclaimed “People’s Republics” beyond Kyiv’s control launched major mobilization drives. Men between the ages of 18 and 55 are no longer permitted to leave.
Even if Ukraine is using conscripted soldiers, you just proved that A) pro-Russian forces are doing the exact same thing and B) you don’t even look at the articles you’re sharing.
No, this is literally where the U.S. falls on a global political spectrum. The Democrats would be considered center-right in most other nations. Even by their own historical standards, they’re center right; if you took a Democrat from 1975 and transported them to 1995, they’d ask you why the party had adopted the Republicans’ fiscal policies.
I certainly hope so; I’m on Wolrd, and most of my favorite communities are located on World, but I often find the admins’ decision questionable, and I have just as many reservations about ml. I hope I could put together a good group of communities without either instance, but sometimes it feels like they’re necessary to a good Lemmy experience. But either way, I think you’re right, most instances won’t defederate.
Look, the question was, “Do you think Lemmy and other parts of the fediverse will eventually enshittify? I think this would be an interesting discussion to have.” I gave an answer explaining that I didn’t think Lemmy would enshittify, but pointing out another senerio where Lemmy could collapse. Sorry if you found it too pessimistic, but if you didn’t want to hear negativity, maybe this wasn’t the discussion for you. Also, if your solution is, “make multiple accounts to get around defederation, start your own instance, or GTFO,” that’s going to be a problem for growth, because most users will pick GTFO.
Also, I think hyper-specialized instances will only exacerbate any potential schisms. Tribalism isn’t necessarily political (although that is currently the central conflict on Lemmy). Admins could find divisions over rule enforcement, fediverse philosophy, or just get into good old-fashioned pissing contests. The admins on my instance recently created a real mess with the moderators of their own Vegan community, overriding their moderating decisions and then retroactively changing their own rules to justify it. Now imagine that conflict was between two instances, and you need to make a separate account just to talk about veganism. If anything, it seems like having an eclectic group of communities on each instance would be better than specializing, since admins would really have to consider whether it’s worth cutting their users off from multiple diverse groups over a conflict.
I don’t have the time or interest to do that, and it wouldn’t fix the underlying problem of tribalism that I’m concerned about.
Fair enough, but the point is that the instance would still be cut off from a large portion of most users’ content if it were to defederate from ml or world. And while tankies and centrists libs are the schism developing right now, it seems like that’s a symptom of tribalism people have around instances, which I think could undermine the entire principle of federation in the first place.
sh.itjust.works seems to be doing well, playing nice with world, ml, hexbear, and grad, I just worry that a culture cliqueish I’ve seen so far could keep fracturing Lemmy so it can’t develop a sustainable user base. But as I said, I haven’t been on the platform that long, and this is just my guess of what Lemmy’s version of enshittification might look like after being here a short time.
Right, and as long as I’m wrong about petty tribalism fracturing Lemmy, that’s good. But if your insurance winds up cut off from World or ml because of petty infighting, that will be a problem
Yeah, if I were ever to switch instances, that would probably be my next move. It’s still really small, though. Green Text seems like the only decently sized community.
I’ve only been on this platform for a little less than a year, but my guess is it will be brought down by petty infighting, not financial incentives. World and a few other instances have already decided to defederate from hexbear, and there’s enough tension between World and ml that defederation seems like a real possibility. While the goal may be a decentralized platform, the largest communities are on these two instances, and it they break apart their might not be enough content to keep new users’ interest.
Even if Lemmy gets past the infighting between the liberal Reddit refugees of World and the, “old Lemmy,”" communists of ml, users seem to tie their identity very heavily towards their instance. I’m worried that in the long term, that will drive people away from committing to cross-instance communities; even now, I hear people brag about how they’ve blocked entire instances because they’re full of, “centrists,” or, “tankies.” I think the downside of federation is that it leads to tribalism, and enough of it could kill the momentum Lemmy needs to grow.
I don’t mean to sound down on Lemmy; it’s the most interesting platform I’ve seen in years, and I’m curious to see how it develops. But at this point, I’ve abandoned Reddit, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and MySpace; I’ve learned that social media accounts are not permanent parts of your life. I’m having a lot of fun with Lemmy, but I don’t expect to be using it in 5 years.
You:
Wikipedia agrees with me
Wikipedia:
Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies…Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place…In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements, including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement and environmental movement as well as a wide range of political parties.
Anyway, we’re done here.
You are welcome to disagree with it, but your definition is not shared by Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica comes closest to agreeing with you by saying that, “Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world,” but it does not limit its definition of the political left to socialist and communist ideologies, and it certainly doesn’t say, “Left wing means ending Capitalism, not just 'reigning it in.” So maybe next time, before you jump into someone’s comments to tell them they’re using a word wrong, check if they’re actually using it wrong or simply using it in a way that doesn’t align with your personal beliefs.
I’ve run out of ways to say this, so I’ll just reiterate it one more time and be done with it; the meaning of left-wing is not that rigid and will vary based on context. It does not specifically mean revolutionary or anti-capitalist. It generally means a set of social or economic principles aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, but what that means in terms of policy will depend greatly based on the culture and system of government in place. Do I think it sucks ass that the American liberals are considered left-wing in the U.S.? Yeah. Do they meet my definition of left-wing? Fuck no. But I don’t get to define that broad term based on my personal standards.
Right. So, you want to take the term, “left-wing,” which has held different meanings in different contexts over more than two centuries and redefine as exclusively anti-capitalist, so you can tell liberals that they’re not actually left-wing. Now that’s an attempt to shift the Overton Window.
Left-wing has always had a loose, relative meaning, and arguing otherwise isn’t attempting to stop the Overton Window from shifting. It’s just an attempt to gatekeep who gets to be a, “real,” leftist.
…and Sanders himself defines Democratic Socialism as the completion of the New Deal reforms, not a gradual transition to a socialist economic system. There’s a difference between the Overton Window shifting and a gradual change in definition over generations, but if you want definitions to remain entirely static, then we’re both using left-wing incorrectly, as it’s, “real,” definition is opposing monarchy’s veto power over parliament.
“Left-wing,” is a very broad term. In the Weimar Republic, yes, the left-wing alternative to right-wing populism was communism. In America today, Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders are the left-wing alternative. If that doesn’t fall in line with your definition of, "left-wing,’ that’s fine, but it most people wouldn’t define it as exclusively anti-capitalist ideologies.
Yup. We gotta vote for them this election, but replace them in the next. Otherwise, we’re just hitting snooze on fascism for another 4 years.