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.
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.
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!
yes
This is the fediverse it’s full of new people, adventurers, change makers. The majority of people who would be interested in this platform will have a more progressive bent. So the majority of people here will be more accepting of liberal policies.
Quibble: Many here are explicitly leftist, in the a leftist-not-liberal sense, and will even use “liberal” derogatorily. So, progressive, yes, but liberal, not necessarily.
From my perspective I think that that is very silly. I don’t care for purity tests, but what would I know? I’m just a dirty libertarian.
It isn’t a purity test, it’s a necessary accommodation of the fact that people in the US (and I say this as an American) think that the left ends at progressive liberalism, while everyone else in the world sees progressive liberalism as center-left at best because they acknowledge that ‘the left’ extends quite far past the bounds of Liberalism (the philosophy, not the political leaning), because Liberalism is about individualism and property rights but most people to the left of that are collectivist in some way shape or form.
Liberal policies are an actual thing, a thing that leftists frequently disagree with.
Libertarians are often placed on the right part of the left-right divide. The fact you’ve chosen the label libertarian instead of conservative is animated by the exact same “purity test” that you find so silly.
I would like to throw out there that the ACLU is a libertarian organization that would likely line up with the majority of the beliefs of Lemmy users. With that said I understand most people aren’t using libertarian in its ‘correct’ meaning as the ACLU does.
Yea I tend to think than when someone identifies as a Libertarian they almost certainly don’t mean a civil libertarian, which is how the aclu actually identifies themselves.
We have grown from a roomful of civil libertarians to more than 4 million members, activists, and supporters across the country. The ACLU is now a nationwide organization with a 50-state network of staffed affiliate offices filing cases in both state and federal courts. We appear before the Supreme Court more than any other organization except the Department of Justice.
This is literally the only time the word libertarian appears in their own history https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history
I only know because I interned there and it’s something they talked about. Maybe it was always preceded with ‘civil’ I just don’t remember that as well. The big issue amongst the workers when I was there was that in principle they supported Citizens United, and most of the employees did not support it in practice.
Just adding my experience to the topic, not sure why I got down voted for it. I’m not trying to push anyone to be libertarian just pointing out other ways the definition can be used.
You were downvoted because you dared to question the group think. Bad terrible actions irredeemable actions. How could you dare to bring your face here again?. Shame unending unyielding shame. Feel it understand it. You deserve it. /S
Authoritarians are often exceedingly fragile.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler is an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
You realize that libertarianism is not a left right spectrum of the political orientation, correct?
For example Stalin was an authoritarian based in leftist ideology. Hitler was an authoritarian based in right-wing ideology.
Notice that while their economic goals are at complete odds with one another, they are both authoritarians.
I’m libertarian because I believe in freedom of choice. I’m not a conservative because the only things I care about conserving are the oceans and the forests.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
You can’t be both a libertarian and pretend to care about parks and forests. Pick one.
It wouldn’t kill you to read
But based on your username, that may not be in your skill set
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
You’re about one “and I think healthcare is a human right” from being a progressive/dem soc.
I like the Democratic socialists. I don’t like it when they seize power that will be upsurped by the next administration in powerand used to oppress people.
you forgot to switch alts to argue with yourself
You seem very confused I edited a comment and it posted to itself. It’s the same fucking comment should I have deleted the tree and collapsed the thread?
Libertarian as the USA mean or the rest of the world mean?
As in the traditional meaning of the word
Thanks. I look forward to learning about libertarianism with and from you. Not saying I’ll agree, but that I look forward to learning more.
Personally myself, I’m a bit of a geoist and a bit of a minarchist. I would advise that if you are interested you should start reading, John Lock and David Henry Thoreaus essays on governent and from there branch out.
Good point, many think left = liberal = US democrats who are centrists at best from the international perspective. So no, most people on here probably aren’t actual leftists, but I’m guessing when they say they ‘lean left’ they mean US-liberal-not-conservative, not socialist or whatever.
to make matters more fun, many ‘explicitly leftist’ lemmings are tankies (blind supporters of russia, china, north korea, etc), who are explicitly not leftist but authoritarians masquerading in the skinsuit of the people’s revolution.
it’s full of new people,
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m not a new people. I’ve been a people for almost my whole life. I bet most of us have.
Not me, I’ve only been a person for the past couple years. Prior to that I was a caffeine-powered AI.
Just say yes
People that cry they are being silenced will say yes.
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 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.
The only reason the left is the lesser of the 2 evils right now is because they aren’t in power.
“I’m 15 and this is deep”
Lol
deleted by creator
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 all for the better man (or woman, or whatever). If we see eye to eye on all the important stuff then I’ll vote for you if I’m legally allowed. I don’t care about your affiliations as much as your history and your record as a public servant. Hence, why I always vote Dem because there’s absolutely NOTHING but pussy ass nazi bitches in the GOP.
I think most people feel this way, right? Like you are left-leaning if you like the policies in left-wing platforms put forth by left-wing parties, so you vote for the left-wing candidates who advocate for them. Likewise, candidates are left-wing because they are members of such parties and advocate for such policies. So saying ‘I only vote for people on the basis of their policies and voting record’ is like saying ‘I only drink water when it’s wet’—technically true, but it misses the point that you chose it because it was wet.
deleted by creator
I am extremely left-wing, so probably skew the average all by myself. :P
deleted by creator
Well we know where you stand without doubt
Spoken like a true liberal.
I don’t adopt views wholesale - I evaluate each issue on an individual basis, so my views tend to be a mixed bag. From a political standpoint, most people would probably see me as an unreliable ally as my views can be hard to predict. While I agree with many, if not most, “left-wing” ideas, there are still plenty of others that would get me labeled as a Nazi MAGA Republican.
That said, on Lemmy I’m definitely in the minority when it comes to holding certain beliefs that many would label “right-wing,” even though on other issues I can out–left-wing even most leftists.
