It’s so fucking weird. I’m accustomed enough to people on Lemmy SWEARING that they aren’t allowed to talk about [thing which is only controversial to Fox News boomers] and “they” will delete it if you even try, that I assumed this was crap too, but it seems like it’s true.
From the community rules:
R5: No posts about Democratic Socialists or Third Parties
- No posts about Democratic socialists
Apparently these use this to delete Bernie stuff.
WTF, why would people subject themselves to this
This is why Mamdani is so important. Average progressives are going to finally see what socialists have been saying for decades. If you want to move left on anything economical. If you just want to raise the minimum wage $1. The democratic establishment will treat you as the enemy. They will come at you harder than they do the GOP because they can and because you are a threat to them personally.
Corporatist running the 90’s playbook is how we ended up where we are.
I’m praying Katie wins in Seattle so it’s not just a one off with Mamdani.
That entire cesspool is astroturfed to the gills for shitbag establishment Democrats, I hear the Gavin 🤢 Newsom 🤢 posts have been wall-to-wall over there for a while now
They love defending that corporate shill.
Gavin is a fucking cancer he represents the same old guard dressed up in new language.
Just like how they appropriated social justice they’ll try to appropriate democratic socialism.
America seriously needs new options for political parties. Or at least a coalition that goes against the “5 corporations in a trench coat pretending it’s two political parties.” they currently have.
I think they should have strong unions as the basic political organizational units, and deal with political parties minimally if at all. I think this whole thing of delegating governance to a particular class of people who are designated as the power-brokers and then choosing which power broker to put in charge is always doomed to failure.
IDK, I’m not an expert on any of this stuff, I have just observed that every new party that comes along to be the insurgent reformist movement that will fix the rot of the previous parties inevitably starts to get rotted itself. The problem is that having a populace that strongly organized and puts effort into making sure things stay on the rails requires that people put that effort in, and they generally won’t do that for as long as things are basically comfortable and okay…
A Marxist perspective would be that mass movements and unionization are the real mechanisms by which ordinary people can wield power. The main reason to engage in electoral politics is because it’s what people are invested in and pay attention to, and so it can serve as an avenue to promote a message, but one should not expect to actually produce significant results through bourgeois elections.
Unions in the US are (like the other user said) rare, weak, and often lack solidarity and clarity of vision. But there are new ones popping up and they are gradually gaining in strength. New unions like the ones at Amazon and Starbucks seem to have younger, more energized leadership.
A lot of the problems unions have go back to red scares. Things like, representing newer members and not just seniority, standing together and cooperating with other unions across different industries, trying to make sure the union is welcoming and accommodating to everyone - those sorts of things would get you branded as a communist, whether it was true or not. Way back in the New Deal era, unions got carrots as well as sticks to go in that direction, and then as they became weaker, by the 80’s, carrots got a lot more scarce. And so over the past century they were dismantled.
But young people find themselves in this capitalist hellscape and are recognizing the need to organize and stick together and leaving a lot of that baggage behind and starting from scratch. At the same time, it’s important to learn from the mistakes of the past, like kicking the commies out of the AFL/CIO in the hopes that the government would see it as a sign of good faith and protect the union’s interests. At the end of the day, they’re going to pursue their own interests and appeasement doesn’t work, especially when it undermines the union’s own strength. A new, more inclusive and clear-sighted wave of unionization is our best chance of getting anywhere.
Unions are weak here and they are impossible corrupt. I worked with the operating engineers and ibew. Both had the dumbest people I have ever worked with. The job was not difficult but the bitch ass whining, back stabbing, negativity, and gossip were intolerable nonsense. People have no lives in that environment. The only thing that matters is no sticking out, and always showing up no matter how bad things are. It does not matter if it will kill you or everyone else by showing up for work or doing some job. March to your death or get fired and blacklisted by the union hall.
Just want everyone to know that in fact there’s a lot of variety in how unions are run everywhere, including the USA, and an anecdote shouldn’t be universalized.
Big industrial unions seem to be the worst.
I was running a series of interviews with early auto worker union organizers from USA and Canada (they were united at first), and the particular form of corruption that infected the UAW was a kind of takeover by industry management in the late ‘50s, and the old timers I talked to maintained the UAW hadn’t recovered. The CAW, on the other hand, was criticized by members as lacking solidarity with other industries and being too mainstream, though I heard few accusations of corruption.
Divide and conquer has been a long running capitalist strategy.
Don’t forget being addicted to pills and constantly having your physical health being wrecked and complete disdain for anyone who doesn’t want that
Yes I completely agree. A lot of these things need to societal foundations to exist for them in a form that they simply do not in America right now
This is one reason why people decide to become tankies.
Honestly, to me it reads as a reason why Reddit and Lemmy both have a broken moderation model.
If I feel like posting a politics things where politics people can read it, and I am not (in the majority view of the readers) being a twatface about it, there is no earthly reason why some greasy-fingered negative Nelly should be empowered to control my ability to do so. Let alone set “rules” for what is or isn’t allowed systematically. The whole thing is fuckin’ stupid. It makes no difference from my point of view whether it be Tankies or establishment Democrats or whoever else privileged to put their thumb on the scales.
As with most things, the model breaks down at scale
I miss Slashdot moderating. Sensible.
there is no earthly reason why some greasy-fingered negative Nelly should be empowered to control my ability to do so. Let alone set “rules” for what is or isn’t allowed systematically.
That sounds like you have a general problem with the concept of a moderation irrespective of where it is.
I see you’re a moderator on a handful of Lemmy Communities. Do you enforce no rules? Do you let anyone post anything they want irrespective of how off topic or inflammatory it is?
It’s not the off topic or the inflammatory stuff I’m talking about, that stuff I think everyone can agree on. I am saying that the model that Reddit and Lemmy enforce encourages people to create rules like “no democratic socialists” or “no electoralism” or “you can’t criticize Russia” that are widely seen by the populace as ridiculous and oppressive.
For example, Slashdot used to parcel out duties pretty similar to moderation to random members of the community after they’d been around for a while and participating and getting upvotes (sort of). That worked fine. It kept out the crap without encouraging people to start to wield their power to try to craft the narrative and create these little echo chambers that Lemmy seems to be beset with here and there.
And yes, I allow people to post stuff that doesn’t fit my narrative. I think all moderators should do the same.
Another advantage of slashdot mod rules is how fine-grained it is, as a mod vote is accompanied by a multiple choice explanation, or evaluation of the comment.
It allows the reader to filter out all the goofball stuff, for instance.
It’s not the off topic or the inflammatory stuff I’m talking about, that stuff I think everyone can agree on.
The more I experience humanity the fewer I find of things “everyone can agree on”.
I am saying that the model that Reddit and Lemmy enforce encourages people to create rules like “no democratic socialists” or “no electoralism” or “you can’t criticize Russia” that are widely seen by the populace as ridiculous and oppressive.
You’ll never find me defending Reddit. I left it for many reasons and Lemmy is now my home. You give a few examples of rules you don’t like (which I appreciate for context of understanding). However, one rule I’d have is “no white supremacists” and while I think that would be a pretty standard rule, audiences today are finding that objectionable, which is insane to me.
Just stop going to reddit, and maybe keep this reddit drama in reddit drama focused places.
What a shitty platform and a shitty sub.
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
Not surprising, glad I left that bitch a long time ago
Mods and Admin censorship is retarded, fucking ruined reddit.
Thanks for that super helpful arrow, I had no clue where to look
Send them our way
Any idea when those screenshots were taken? I suppose I’m not going to go on reddit to see what it’s at now, but always curious
No idea. It’s still at 307k right now.
How many people do you see now
Edit: someone pointed it is way higher, which is concerning as well … -7k +24k in a day… If someone said they were deleting bots, it shows massive investment in accounts after the election loss
