Okay, you're not wrong... so I'll modify my statement and say that Lemmy is about as democratic as social media gets at this stage - which, I'll concede, isn't saying much.
This is making me despondent - well, more despondent than usual.
Yes, Lemmy is pretty democratic - there is literally a "create community" button right at the top, see?
I guess what you mean is that Lemmy doesn't do "liberal democracy" (which is just a whole lot of liberalism and very little democracy) - but democracy has never been about electoralist spectacles.
demanding absolute purity and claiming anything else isnt socialist doesn’t result in socialism.
Pretending that socialism is "when the gubment does stuff" hasn't resulted in socialism, either.
Quite frankly the entire world would become fascist before a single nation
Yes, that's what political elites do when the power and privilege of the class they serve is threatened - and that includes the ones pretending to be "socialist."
We've known this since forever - and your solution to this is to render an enduring political concept so impotent and hollow that it ceases to have any meaning to the very people it is supposed to liberate?
Mangione's grievance with Big Healthcare was seen as personal - ie, he didn't make any attempt to justify it with an overtly political narrative that could only be seen as abstract by the general public.
Leftists forget that the general public does not conflate the personal with the political. That is why the general public lionised Luigi Mangione and completely ignored Aaron Bushnell.
yet history has shown dramatic political progress after assassinations.
History shows that poorly-thought out assassination attempts backfire far more than they succeed at achieving anything good. I can point at assassinations like Dmitri Tsafendas (an anarchist) stabbing Hendrik Verwoerd as an attempt that achieved absolutely nothing, and at Alexander Berkman (another anarchist) shooting Henry Clay Frick as an attempt that backfired disasterously on anarchists at the time.
Brian Thompson's assassination should be an important case study for radicals when it comes to the use of targeted lethal force. For one, Thompson was an unknown - not a well-known personality like (for instance) Charlie Kirk. Second, Mangione's motives was not overtly political - a very important factor in his subsequent lionisation. This is why Thompson's demise could not be used as political theatre by liberals and fascists in the way that they used Kirk's.
(I am aware that Kirk wasn't assassinated by a leftist, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this question)
I will always maintain that assassinating well-known or infamous figureheads is a worthless strategem. At best, it's merely symbolic, at worst it's likely to backfire spectacularly - and it achieves very little in reality because you're not actually doing any structural damage to the hierarchy involved.
Their right-hand henchmen, the people these figureheads rely on to get anything done and usually remain hidden in the shadows, on the other hand...
Okay, you're not wrong... so I'll modify my statement and say that Lemmy is about as democratic as social media gets at this stage - which, I'll concede, isn't saying much.
This is making me despondent - well, more despondent than usual.