Last time I took the political compass test, I was center-right, firmly in the libertarian quadrant, exactly in the sub-section labeled "libertarian".
That means my political stances align 100% against the Republican party and authoritarianism in general.
The actual left wing, the something socialists something are partly on hexbear.org and lemmygrad.ml. And they are called tankies and blocked on lemmy.world. So how left wing can most people here be? The thing is that "left" has become synonymous with (neo)liberal values. Like there doesn't have to be a free, independent press or social media and them being owned by capitalists is just fine.
I'm in the lower left quadrant of the political compass. Does this automatically make me left-wing on the one-dimensional left/right spectrum too, or is there some online test I can do to find out where I am? Don't really understand the left/right thing since I grew up with the compass system.
I'd call myself a liberal but not left wing
Yes.
Some of us are simply europeans.
A right wing European is still a little bit too liberal for MAGA
I'm just hungry dude
I believe all life have value, no matter what.
I believe in justice and equality.
I believe in the rule if law.
I believe in democracy.
I believe in the freedom of speech.
I believe in religious freedom.
I believe no one should go hungry.
I believe no one should freeze.
I believe no one should die from preventable diseases.
I believe everyone has a right to education.
I believe everyone has a right to healthcare.
I believe everyone has a right to participate in society and the internet.
I believe everyone should contribute if they can, because that is fair.
I believe people should be able to retire.
I believe most people are good, and want to do good.
I believe in cooperation, and working towards a common goal.
I believe that all people should have a minimum set of rights, that are non-negotiable.
I trust my neighbours, my family and strangers.
Based on these values I could be placed anywhere from center-right to far-left in Europe.
In the US I am a filthy commie
if by left-wing you mean i think more than 3 months ahead, then yes.
Lefty Lemmy righty reddit
Ehhh. Eh?
Lefty Lemmy. Liberal Reddit.
Seems more the take. Reddit has a small vocal conservative minority.
Slashers slashdot
I'm Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore ... so I guess I'm a Democrat that hates gun control.
if you go far enough left, you get your guns back. :)
Yes, this site is very left-leaning. I have seem plenty of moderate opinions downvoted because they are centrist or centre-right, and the anti-Trump, anti-Elon and anti-USA sentiment is deservedly heavy right now.
Keep that in mind when reading comments, this place is a bit of an echo chamber at the moment.
I've been on Lemmy for about two months and there is a good amount of left-leaning folks here. I definitely consider myself in the left-wing category. I hover somewhere between a bit liberal, a bit socialist, and a bit of a commie, but absolutely no authoritarianism.
Funny you had to put a disclaimer for authoritarianism. The world's history and propaganda have made it synonymous with the far left, where that ideology was never about absolute power, but quite the opposite.
For sure, left wing are most of what I see here, except for trolls and bots
If I needed a label, probably Progressive. I liked Biden’s platform and agreed we needed to try a centrist like him to see if it was possible to start working together again. I also believed he did at least as well as anyone could, and if his legacy hadn’t been torn to bits by turnip would have positioned the US well for decades to come. He could have shifted that Overton window, sowed the seeds that a more Progressive candidate could reap.
But if I try to articulate a common theme for my current beliefs, it is to invest in the future. I’m a strong believer in a good education for all as the foundation of our future. I’m inspired by the possibilities of science and technology. We need people to have the opportunity to strive, improve, and to dare, knowing we will catch them if they fall
Earlier in life I thought I was much more Conservative but the twisted thing is I now say the same things from a very different perspective.
I'm a left libertarian. I embrace decentralization, collectivism, freedom from corporate and central government tyranny, and want to maximize individual liberty and progressive values as we ideally move towards a society like the Culture series by Ian M. Banks.
I'm not Anarchist because it's too chaotic and unrealistic, and I'm not ML because I don't like State authoritarianism and central planning.
Can you give some examples of how that works? Like, who pays for roads, who handles environmental regulations (or are there any), who establishes education standards (or are there any), etc. I'm not trying to argue, it just seems like on the internet people referring to "state authoritarianism" and "central government tyranny" ranges from "adults can't be transgender" to "I have to pay taxes and the government won't let me own slaves."
There's a few ways to handle, but for example:
Roads: large towns and cities would mostly handle their own road maintenance. Roads connecting towns would probably be joint ventures. Projects would be funded and contracted by the towns and financed by town income tax. Rural areas would be underfunded, but that's partly intentional - dense population centers are more sustainable.
Environmental regulations: handled at the level of impact. for example, water quality standards for a river bind everyone who accesses the river. restrictions (e.g. standards for heavy metal levels) would be passed by minority vote - if 40% want a standard, that's enough. carbon credits would be administered at the Federal or World levels, by a combination of central government and treaties.
Education: probably pretty devolved, mostly a choice by municipalities in what they offer/teach. there'd likely be standardized tests that most places agree on for transferability (e.g. how the SAT works today.) religious schools could exist in religious communities, or you could have a Montessori program in your secular socialist Kibbutz.
Slavery: illegal at the Federal/World level. same with indentured servitude and coercive contracts. one of the most important functions of the central government is to protect the civil liberties of individuals.
So the principles are mostly:
i like what you are saying, just a few modifications I would make:
-Water control and regulation should be based on watersheds. all organizations operating in a given watershed are beholden to the laws of that watersheds own regulator. this would allow for actual management of the resource and protection from exploitation.
-there would need to be a strong incentive to work together with other municipalities and not be antagonistic. I am unsure what that would look like, but when you reduce central power, smaller powers can attempt to oppress others more easily.
Yes, seemingly every commenter
When asked, I usually tell people that I vote Dem because it's as close to my anarchist ideals as I can get. I would consider myself a social-anarchist, in that I feel laws shouldn't be written around societal structures and ideals. Society and culture changes, and I shouldn't be punished because some dude generations ago decided that something was inappropriate back then. It isn't now, and shouldn't be codified that way,
Progressive who's been here for a bit. The fediverse has definitely swung more left-wing recently - when I first started up two years ago there was a fair amount of conservative bs, libertarian tech-bros and russian bots - it was about a 50/50 split depending on what instance you were on.
The bot problem seems to have been largely dealt with now, and conservative voices have been more or less drowned out by the new influx of users fleeing twitter and Reddit crackdowns. Many are agreeing that the current administration is bad for everyone. There are a number of hard auth-left moral purity testers that kind of a pain in the ass that pop up from time to time.
I like to consider myself leftist. But it's true that I don't agree in all that most current left wing political parties stand for.
I think all human are born equal, and should have a good life. That politics should be used to improve everyone's life.
But in the what does this mean or how to do it I feel more and more differences lately.
To give an example, I cannot really stand identity politics. I think that the best course of action is to dissolve identitarian (is that word real?) groups instead of exacerbating their differences. I feel like people should be getting rid of labels instead of having more and more labels every day.
That's just a personal opinion, based on the idea that if you define different groups the chance of conflict between groups is bigger than if you define only one group. And I do get the idea behind identity politics within the left wing spectrum. I just don't agree that's the best course of action.
Minority groups didn't make up identity politics, majority groups did, when they engaged in oppression of minorities.
Queer people don't have that much in common. Straight people forced us to band together for our rights.
Gay people don't have much in common with trans people, but straight people can't tell us apart/treat us the same so we band together.
Disabled people, people of color, it's similar stories.
I don't see it that way. Speaking as non conforming gender bisexual.
I think I can properly defend my rights without making groups that exclude others from it.
Again, just my opinion, and something that I do not agree not in the final goal (everyone being happy and free) but in the how to achieve it.
Also as an European I think identity politics (in this context) were mostly born in USA and imported here later. But we had achieved way more liberties before identity politics than after. We were one of the first countries in the world that legalized gay marriage for instance, and we didn't need the kind of identity politics that exist today to achieve it. And since identity politics took over I feel like we haven't be able to achieve much more, because we take a conflicting approach that meets much more resistance from excluded identities than the previous approach.
At least that's my humble opinion and perception of reality.
That sounds like you are agreeing with my premise.
When rights were being extended to (sexual) minorities identity politics was not needed. Did progress slow down because of identity politics or did identity politics form because expansion of rights slowed down?
I don't know your country, and I certainly know less about it's politics than I do about my own in the US.
I do think progress slow down because identity politics indeed. And progress became more fragile, being easily erased by all the people who got pissed off by identity politics.
Each year I see less and less people willing to support minority issues because identity politics let them out. Without that supposed the minority, by definition, is left in a minority position. And the only way it can change things is from a minority rule, which is not the best as it pisses off a lot of people this way.
The thing about identity politics is that it's useful for majorities. I don't see the point in using identity politics for minorities, by definition they are doomed to lose. Wider interclass politics are needed for minorities to get rights in a sustainable way.
I do think that identity politics got dominant not because of their usefulness to minorities. But because their usefulness to a few politicians (politicians as a wider term not only elected officials), which allowed them to gain short term power and privileged using them. But they doesn't seem to do much to help the minorities. Isolating them from wider support to get a short lived iron claw over them feels not right to me.
I might be wrong here. Once again, this is just my particular perception, and I do not have strong evidences for this claims, just feelings and personal experiences.
"wider inter-class politics" we call that intersectionality. I support the interests of POC and the disabled and the neurodivergent and the working class because it's the right thing to do and I hope they will do the same for me. Solidarity.
You have more faith in majorities to do the right thing than I do. My country was founded on genocide and slavery. Some European countries were too but maybe farther back in history.
I also have a hard time with ID politics and the like, but I'm also a privileged white dude so my primary gripe will always be focused around economic disparity. The BLM protests helped me see it this way: There is not war but the class war, but there are multiple fronts. If we don't at least try a little to protect minority groups, we won't have any progressives left
While I don’t understand gender politics, alternate pronouns and labels, I long since realized that it doesn’t matter. I’m all for everyone living their lives their way with equal respect. You do you, and be the best you you can, whatever you that may be, and I’ll be happy to call you friend
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
My priorities in politics is:
In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.
Oh dear, here come the tankies!
You communist!
Yes. They are fanatics too. Like Twitter but instead of wanting to kill people for profit, IRS wanting to kill people for not being left.
Come on, that's not true. We just want to "re-educate" you guys
Yes. Signing up is not easy. Most people here can understand written instructions and have some basic technical knowledge. People who are not stupid tend to lean left.
I don't consider myself left leaning. Both left and right are corrupt and neither actually practice what they preach. The left is the US is currently the lesser of two evils though. I do consider myself a socialist-libertarian. I think government should be there to keep the populace safe, and provide basic human necessities to all, and no more. The govt should not be able to execute capital punishment nor declare war. Retalitory strikes, defense and supporting allies defending themselves are all fine, but we could get rid of most of the military and funnel that money back to socialist programs and be a MUCH wealthier and happier country.
By LEFT do you infer compassion, empathy, and class solidarity? In contrast, by RIGHT do you infer me-first, only my rights matter and only those in my clan deserve to be cared about?
Then, yes.
Spoken like a true liberal.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!