Could you please define exactly what you mean by “left-wing”?
Some of us are simply europeans.
A right wing European is still a little bit too liberal for MAGA
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
I believe all life have value, no matter what.
I am also vegan.
I am unfortunately not. It was more meant as a way to say that for instance criminals (yes, even the worst ones) have value. That they deserve to live and have a decent life, no matter what.
That immigrants and asylum seekers should be treated with respect and given the help they need.
But also that animals have value. The way a lot of animals are treated is in no way acceptable.
I have tried being a vegetarian in the past, but have failed every time.
Sorry to disappoint. I wish I was better.
The ole’ carnist blind spot. It is extremely fatiguing to hold contradictory beliefs as you do, and to have to constantly edit your thoughts to protect yourself from the profound psychological effects of such contradictions. Having inconsistent beliefs means never being able to act according to your beliefs, never being genuine, never having integrity. It sucks to live like that and you’ll never know just how much it sucks until you stop. You think it’s harder to have integrity. It’s actually so much easier.
Its one of many contradictory ways I live my life. I am well aware of many of them, and change them gradually to align myself more with my beliefs. I find that I manage OK, but sometimes wish I was better.
I’ll probably become ovo lacto flexitarian in the future. That was what I managed to be for the longest. And it has 80% of the same effect or more. The rule was that I never bought meat or made food with meat. When I was served meat at family or friends, I would just eat it then. It reduced all the social friction, and made it so much easier. I lasted for a year or two.
Pure vegan is unrealistic short term for me. Maybe I’ll try in the future, or flexitarian vegan instead of ovo lacto flexitarian. Not sure.
if by left-wing you mean i think more than 3 months ahead, then yes.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so yes. I think you’ll find most people on Lemmy in general fall into the major categories of “Liberal,” as in the US Democrat style, Anarchists, and Marxists. Different instances lean in different directions on this, with overall few outright conservatives.
My priorities in politics is:
- Don’t wreck the economy.
- Uphold the rule of law.
In my country that makes me right leaning. In the US with the current president that apparently makes me a leftist.
You communist!
Oh dear, here come the tankies!
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. :)
Do you advocate seizing the means of production and are a worker? If not, then you are not a leftist.
You can be “left wing” without being a “leftist”. I wouldn’t classify them as the same, personally. Left wing really includes anyone left of center
Sounds like a liberal to me. Centrists always think they are leftists because of the guilt of supporting capitalism. You support social programs. You do not support any form of removing capitalism. You are not a leftist, you are a centrist.
Lefty Lemmy righty reddit
Ehhh. Eh?
Lefty Lemmy. Liberal Reddit.
Seems more the take. Reddit has a small vocal conservative minority.
Slashers slashdot
Anti-Conservative
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.
- Frank Wilhoit
Thanks, Frank! Very eloquently put!
I’d consider myself liberal, but I embrace some traits considered leftist in some areas (universal healthcare, free education) and right in others (restrict immigration based on key economic and educational indicators, deport criminals).
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.
Hexbear isn’t socialist. It’s a group of assholes defending China and Russia, denying the Uyghur genocide and the aggression of Ukraine
The problem is that over the last decade any nuanced opinions on those topics has become less and less “politically correct”. And that is the correct term, anyone who isn’t politically correct and in line with the liberal mainstream opinion (= imperialist propaganda by the US state department and think tanks) must by definition by a paid shills of Putin, China or Trump. There are those people of course, but the dynamic has become more and more polarized and steeped in conspiratorial thinking. And that is by “design”. It’s profitable and it serves the US imperial agenda and it’s easier to avoids the frustration of talking to trolls and fascists - just paint everyone of a different opinion with the same brush.
I mean you can’t even talk about talking about it, like not seeing those people as anything but “assholes”. The range of allowable opinions has drastically narrowed. It’s not even liberal in the modern sense of the word. People are too scared to be liberal any more.
…saying china is a democracy, or good, the kind of thing I hear these types saying is just as propagandized a take. That’s the issue…
This comes a bit down to utilitarianism vs ethics based on principles. But that’s a lie, it’s really about who has power.
I’m just watching a video by Majority Report where he talks about the question “Why is democracy is good” which the Democrats sort of fucked up in the election. And he makes a pretty painful point that it’s a “show me, don’t tell me” question. If you live in a democracy and constantly exploited, overworked, fucked over, in terror of economic hardship or terror attacks, harassed by police, then what is the point? What is the benefit? I’m not making the point that democracy is bad, but that a shell of a democracy, a fake, is leading especially the “dirtbag left” to adopt a pretty hostile posture.
So what is the actual quality of life in China vs the USA? What are the actual material benefits looking at living in an apartment, working, raising children and living a peaceful life?
How do YOU know that life in China isn’t actually better and people more happy than in the USA? I don’t believe that is true but it’s a valid question. Of course China has massive problems and corruption and abuses. But there are a billion people there that were on a medieval level after WWII. The CCP has massively invested in e.g. education and healthcare and infrastructure.
Or compare quality of life in China vs democratic India. Similar can be said about Iran, 55% of University graduates were women. But it’s painted as black and white.
Sure you have freedom of speech with the means of communication owned and controlled by the oligarchs. And you can say whatever you want on reddit and get downvoted to hell - which goes to my previous point, that the propaganda is so internalized and polarized now that you don’t need threats of state violence to keep the population in check.
So those opinions are not just for fun. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an aphorism that is leading the west inevitably towards fascism. So all the “posturing” about how superior our principles and freedums are is just… well it’s a delusion. It’s happening right now. They are stealing your future right now and there is nothing you can do because they control the media.
But still the socialists are completely rejected and banned from the largest lemmy instances.
This comes a bit down to utilitarianism vs ethics based on principles
No, it doesn’t. Either one, democracy is still better… Science does best with freedom from suppression.
I’m not making the point that democracy is bad
You are, in fact, making that point
which goes to my previous point, that the propaganda is so internalized and polarized now that you don’t need threats of state violence to keep the population in check
Social suppression is a world apart from state suppression, and downvotes on reddit are not an example of keeping people in check. that’s a terminally online viewpoint.
Of course China has massive problems and corruption and abuses
They are literally a dictatorship. That’s an incredible understatement.
How do YOU know that life in China isn’t actually better and people more happy than in the USA?
They are actively commiting genocide.
Sure you have freedom of speech with the means of communication owned and controlled by the oligarchs
There’s plenty of options for uncontrolled communication. Corp suppression is still wholly different from gov suppression;they can’t toss you in jail.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an aphorism that is leading the west inevitably towards fascism.
That’s your opinion, and does not reflect reality.
Your response to a trend toward fascism(which is happening, but not inevitable), is to say we should embrace it like china does?
They are stealing your future right now and there is nothing you can do because they control the media.
Are you intentionally being obtuse about the fact that china has massive censorship. I’m not here to say the usa is good. You’re ignoring European reality, favoring the usa in your arguments because it’s closer to supporting them.
So all the “posturing” about how superior our principles and freedums are is just… well it’s a delusion
We objectively speaking have more freedom of speech than china does at the present moment.
But still the socialists are completely rejected and banned from the largest lemmy instances.
Tankies. Not socialists. Socialists are often speaking and getting upvoted.
No, it doesn’t. Either one, democracy is still better… Science does best with freedom from suppression.
U.S. science no longer leads the world. Here’s how top advisers say the nation should respond
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 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.
But you are not part of their movement, at most are a supporter. You get excluded from being part of it if you try. You need labels to be included. No labels no representation. That’s why we see people collecting more and more labels each day, because without a label you are nothing in the movement.
And you may support, but you are not part of the decision making, you are not considered when decisions are being made. Solidarity is expected from you, but you should not expect nothing in return.
This may suffice for you. You may need nothing for your selfless support. But most people are not like that. More people when they feel that kind of exclusion just move out ot the movement and do their own thing. Because everyone wants their voice to be heard. This explain a lot on what has happened with politics in the later years. Thus why I advocate for the end of identity politics, and return to class politics, include everyone as equals, without some being “more equals than others” if you catch my drift.
Majorities might or might not make better or worse decisions that minorities. But democracy is the best system we know for a reason, and without including everyone, truly including them, minorities could not rule for long, and then other minority would take place and undo all that the previous minority did (as shown by recent events).
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
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:
- Externalities are handled at the level of their impact.
- More power locally, less power centrally. City governments are more like micro-nations bound by a sort of EU.
- Cities largely have a lot of direct democracy with some representatives. Critically, city governments wield lots of power over the businesses that operate in the city. This is critical to check corporate power.
- Federal government exists as a backstop to safeguard fundamental rights and for truly national concerns.
Thank you for this. It seems more in keeping with the original idea of the US, a federation of states.
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.
-
It doesn’t work.
