I’m just curious for the new or existing people? Lemmy.ml has taken a hard turn to the right since the reddit exodus. There’s been a lot of pro-imperialist propaganda being posted on world news, and a lot less diversity of opinion. It feels more neoliberal and neo-con to me.
Does anyone want to share what their political leanings are?
I’ll start; I’m anti-imperialist pro-state regulated capitalism. I believe we should have usage based taxes (toll roads, carbon tax) and luxury taxes, and I disagree with wealth taxes for people with less than $250 million. The state should spend more money on consumer protection in all industries (environment, health, finance, etc.) I believe in multipolarity vs. US hegemony.
Uhhh…
Uhhh…
I’d like the GOP and right-wing media to be vaporized in its entirety, and I’d like the establishment/corporatist wing of the Democratic party to be smashed to pieces. Maybe then we can hurry up and get going on some stuff.
I have no idea what box I fit into.
- I am generally anti-capitalism. The current system does not benefit human. We are constantly exploited in the name of profits
- vital industries and services need to be nationalized. Capitalism is a race to the bottom when it comes to providing the bare minumum, cutting corners etc.
- people should be free to do what they please as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. To this end, I am pro-inclusion of all walks of life, except for bigots.
- we are rapidly running out of time to prevent an ecological apocalypse. Everything must be done to avoid it
Welcome, marxist!
we are rapidly running out of time to prevent an ecological apocalypse. Everything must be done to avoid it
I think we more or less are either too late to stop it or are unable to stop it. I think we should instead be focused on planning mitigations for the future. I expect at some point in the next century or two there will be large migrations of people from the equator going to the north (places like Russia or Canada).
While I think your right, mama didn’t raise no quitter.
Depending on if you think Capitalism should be totally abolished or not, you could be a Social Democrat all the way to a
Libertarian Socialist.Edit: gotta have a state to nationalize things. So could be Dem Soc/Market Socialist to as far left as ML. But MLs typically are a little less pro-individual liberties, so probably not ML.
I’m with Track_Shovel on this. No particular political orientation, but I agree on all the issues listed.
I agree with this. I tend to be more of a “California hippy” as my far more conservative friends tell me.
Necessities need to be taken away from people who profit from them. At the very least. Realistically, probably less things should fall under capitalism, but if we start with transportation, medical, housing, education, fuels, electricity, etc we would be doing much better.
I agree that people should be able to do as they please, with a caveat. As long as it doesn’t affect other people. Guns are a pretty good example here (I’ll get back to this).
The environment is screwed, and I truly don’t think we can stop the spiral, but agree we need to try.
I’m waiting for all the angry replies to this one. Guns need to go away. Not completely, but we need to move to where they are only kept and used by highly licensed and highly insured people, or at highly regulated and insured clubs/establishments. Everyone having guns doesn’t work. Just look around.
And while I’m at it get all money out of politics. Bye bye lobbying. Close loopholes for all government officials that use their insider info to benefit their bank account.
Marxist-Leninist. Of the type that would probably unironically be referred to as a tankie.
I don’t see capitalism as a sustainable model for the world, you cannot grow infinitely with finite resources, and there is no way effective way to “reform the system from the inside”. Capitalists will actively sabotage such efforts as they go against their own best interests; they are dead set on convincing labor that it is also against their best interests, and have been depressingly effective at doing so.
I believe that humanity will naturally move towards a more communist world order as a unipolarity gives way to a multipolar world. Probably not within my lifetime, but either humans will get there eventually or we will die out trying.
Syndicalist. A federation of industrial unions could run society as a whole in a way that benefits all.
I believe that the lives we all lead are the only thing that truly matters. As such:
- we should be free to do what we want where it doesn’t negatively impact others
- we mustn’t be enslaved. Not literally and not by the limitations of our birthright, exploitative employment practices, arbitrarily enforced laws, forced childbirth, etc.
- we need to stand up for those who cannot: minorities, future generations, nature…
- we should follow the population’s consensus whereever possible
- states, corporations and any organisation in general should serve all the people and not just a select few.
I don’t care what label you slap on this.
I believe that a social democracy is the best compromise we can make. The market should be able to innovate but rules set in place to protect workers and the environment. Social safety nets so people do not fall into despair - happy people equals less sickness and more productivity.
I believe UBI can play a role but I’m still not sure how exactly, luckily I’m not a politician.
In the end I’ll always vote more to the left, even though I’m well paid I think a society is healthier when there are less major differences in wealth.
With more automation showing up in all different fields, I’m warming up to the idea of UBI or something like it.
Theoretically, more production is happening per human being, so everybody should have a higher standard of living. But (among other issues) people at the top are hoarding an unfair portion of the profits, and UBI seems like a straightforward way to help offset that.
It’s tricky because yeah in theory more production should be happening. I listened to a podcast recently that talked about how kitchens changed during the years. That the initial idea for stuff like washing machines and ironing boards was that women (in that time) would have to spend less time on chores and could be more free (it was argued from a feminist point of view). The reality was that the expectations just went up. Suddenly people expected the towels to be ironed etc.
What podcast? I like a good podcast.
Yeah, I feel like that phenomenon happens elsewhere too. I read the book B.S. Jobs last year, and it talked about is all the (debatably) useless positions popping up at companies - extra layers of management, assistants to make the managers feel important, corporate lawyers that are only there to cause trouble for the other team’s corporate lawyers. Just a whole lot of man-hours spent not making products/services/whatever.
(I wouldn’t say I’m 100% on board with all the book’s arguments, but it sure made me think)
Sorry for the late reply! It was an episode from 99% invisible: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-frankfurt-kitchen/
i dont think our house had a hot iron even
Just conservative not a republican because I feel they’ve lost their way as much as democrats did.
Elephants and asses, screwing the masses.
💀
As I’ve gotten older I find myself being more of a conservative in the true definition of the term: a preference for slow and steady change, caution towards new ideas, and some amount of reverence for tradition.
The issue is that the Republican party is not a Conservative Party. Joe Biden is a Conservative. The Republican party is a party for Reaction and Neoliberalism.
Yeah, very much this. As a scientist, my place on the political spectrum ought to be looking at a proposed change that is supposed to help and demanding “prove it” (and providing said proof when possible within my field). The hard part is then being ready to accept proof when given and swap my stance accordingly from opposition to agreement. This is where conservatives have failed. (People also need to accept that in the real world it’ll probably be imperfect proof and come up with reasonable expectations for what counts as adequate proof, ideally based on expert review.)
But at this point there are many good ideas (like housing-first approaches to homelessness) that are well supported by data but are being held back because of “common sense” and emotions (we can’t just give people free housing!). So instead my place is sitting with the Progressives and saying “holy shit, how can we get conservatives to listen to reason?”
As funny as it seems to say, I feel that “Conservativism” is unfairly maligned. Most of the bad things about what is called “Conservativism” are not really parts of Conservativism at all but are ideologies associated with Conservativism - “Rugged Individualism”, Neoliberalism in general, religious fundamentalism.
We’ll probably disagree on this point (and that’s okay), but you can look at China. China is a very conservative country, with strong cultural values regarding family, social conformism, and civic nationalism. It is Conservativism without Capitalism, Individualism, or Religion.
Social Democrat.
Lots of anti monopoly pro consumer regulations. But freedom to have private enterprise. High income and corporate tax. Free healthcare & education. Even rare diseases and university. Corporations can only lease and never own land. Govt ownership of essential industries like electricity, water, gas.
I get the reasons for most of your points from a perspective of moderate “leftist”. But why “Govt ownership of essential industries like electricity, water, gas”?
You seem to somewhat believe in private enterprise, so why prevent it from providing those services at competitive cost/quality?
Markets work best when there are a number of firms that must compete with one another. For some goods and services, that level of competition is impractical or impossible because of the high amount of infrastructure required. It wouldn’t make much sense for each company to build a completely separate set of water purification and distribution systems—it would be very expensive and take up a lot of space.
In many areas of the US we have a bizarre setup where there is a government enforced monopoly where a single company can reap all of the profits. This often leads to poor service because the company has very little incentive to provide value to its customers. Government owned services can be flawed as well but at least they are directly accountable to their citizens instead of a board or shareholders.
As I said in reply to other person, in my country there’s private businesses providing those services for cheaper price than the government alternative. Infrastructure for the most part is provided by 3rd party.
Also I keep hearing this talk about “government accountability”, but what mechanism of accountability does government have? Private firms at least can go out of business or sued. Government in worst case will just pay you some of its “tax money”
What specific services are you referring to? If there are multiple firms and the government competing then that really doesn’t sound like the situation I was describing.
Governments can also be sued though they sometimes grant themselves immunity. But utilities really can’t go out of business, can they? Generally they are providing what are considered essential services, so if they fail, the government will generally bail them out because they are the only provider and the loss of those services would be catastrophic. So there really is very little accountability. Just ask PG&E customers how much say they have in that company’s practices.
As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for. Do you not have those in your country?
Governments can also be sued
My point is they don’t lose hard earned money, they just pay you money they collect forcefully from people. Basically it’s not a deterrent, but simple restitution
As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for.
It’s quite rare for any candidate to talk about utilities in their campaign at all.
People here tend to not associate govt owned corporations with the government itself. And when someone brings it up, they just make some kind of excuse about what terrible person you are for accusing such a benevolent government of incompetence when they don’t fix their stuff, and increase price 2
And besides, chances of reelection are so slim I doubt any politician actually going for it. It’s much more profitable to simply lie about your promises
But utilities really can’t go out of business
They should declare bankruptcy and be sold to someone
loss of those services would be catastrophic
Government failed to consistently provide power — no catastrophe. Government failed to provide any water at all — no catastrophe (some people just started to pump and sell underground water)
So why private buisness not providing just one of those services for the period before it’s bought, must result in catastrophe? (Just for time reference, the absence of water I described earlier already lasts longer than a year)
That sounds like a pretty insane situation that would not be tolerated in most developed countries. Generally lapse of service for essential utilities is considered a major problem that would absolutely be relevant to local elections in my area. It sounds like your government is very poorly run and needs dramatic changes—such changes could be implemented through elections. In the meantime it’s good that private entities are filling the gap but I doubt they are able to provide the same level of service as most people expect from utilities.
Governments can also be sued
My point is they don’t lose hard earned money, they just pay you money they collect forcefully from people. Basically it’s not a deterrent, but simple restitution
As far as government accountability, that’s what elections are for.
It’s quite rare for any candidate to talk about utilities in their campaign at all.
People here tend to not associate govt owned corporations with the government itself. And when someone brings it up, they just make some kind of excuse about what terrible person you are for accusing such a benevolent government of incompetence when they don’t fix their stuff, and increase price 2
And besides, chances of reelection are so slim I doubt any politician actually going for it. It’s much more profitable to simply lie about your promises
But utilities really can’t go out of business
They should declare bankruptcy and be sold to someone
loss of those services would be catastrophic
Government failed to consistently provide power — no catastrophe. Government failed to provide any water at all — no catastrophe (some people just started to pump and sell underground water)
So why private buisness not providing just one of those services for the period before it’s bought, must result in catastrophe? (Just for time reference, the absence of water I described earlier already lasts longer than a year)
I’m just gonna call myself a “leftist” and leave it at that
i’m a radical extremist voluntaryist anarchist. I believe that if it’s not voluntary, it’s slavery, thus government is slavery. I believe that all transactions between people should be consensual. I believe that people have a right to do what they want as long as they don’t cause damage to anyone. I don’t believe anyone has the right to attack anyone else, to force them to do something they don’t want to do or force them to stop doing something that they want to do if it’s harming no one. but I believe that it is every person’s right and duty to protect themselves against aggression, to whatever extent is necessary to make the aggressor stop.
these principles are timeless and are so simple that even a child can understand them. if everyone started living this way, the world would be set free.
Heyyyy me as well.
I am a Social Democrat in the European sense. There is nothing wrong with the free market per se, but it is the responsibility of the state to intervene with regulation where necessary (e.g. safety), and the responsibility of the state to provide a stable system of social services, e.g. health care, education, housing.
I’ll point to Austria as an example, where social housing is widespread and high quality and public health care is exceptional and pensions are reasonable. With this backdrop, the market economy is appropriate.
I don’t think the unregulated capitalism of countries like the US is sustainable nor would I want to live under that dysfunctional system.
Be glad that you don’t. It’s as bad as you think. Also, same (regarding ideology).
Since idolizing Richard Stallman in high school but disagreeing with some Greens, I’ve been an ACLU member Libertarian who votes progressive Democrat so the poor don’t starve.
I don’t belong to lemmy.ml, but I’ll chime in anyway. I’m somewhere between a communist and an anarchist, which I think aligns well with my material interests as a worker. The communist in me believes that we need a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to subdue the bourgeoisie. The anarchist in me believes that workers need to organize themselves into strong labor unions to help the revolution along and then keep the subsequent worker state in check thereafter.
Me two
I’m a good old fashioned NAP following libertarian/anarchist.
I don’t really care about the left or right paradigm - what I care about is how badly you and your cronies are going to buttfuck us.
I’ve never really understood how this ideology can work. Who enforces NAP in an anarchist society? Or is it up to each individual to enforce it for themself? (i.e. defend themselves physically if needed)
Really good question, and it’s one of several potential problems with Libertarianism.
So, at face value, you’re right - you do. But then, you can also form organisations within your community to do the same. So then your whole village or street enforces the NAP.
Besides which, it’s not really about other people, it’s about you.
I won’t hurt you or nick your stuff.
Hmm, isn’t this basically what LA gangs are?
