if by left-wing you mean i think more than 3 months ahead, then yes.
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
Most people are progressives.
The only disconnect is messaging and image.
Most people are progressives where? Im really not sure this is the case when what constitutes a “progressive” view changes from place to place.
Literally every state and community
So then the answer to my question would be “The USA”. You should note the USA is not “most people”.
My follow up question is if most people are progressive why have we never had a progressive POTUS in the last 75 years?
Electoral college, propaganda, tribalism, stupid people.
Which suggests we aren’t that progressive
I’m just hungry dude
Some of us are simply europeans.
A right wing European is still a little bit too liberal for MAGA
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
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,
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.
This is a fediverse is 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.
Just say yes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s not true. I’m pretty sure most people don’t 100% agree with The strictest definition of their chosen label.
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)
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?
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.
People that cry they are being silenced will say yes.
Yeah right wing opinions will just get you banned on most instances
The rules are usually really quite simple. Don’t be a dick and don’t spread hate. If “right wing opinions” can’t stay out of those simple rules, they’re not right wing opinions, they’re bigots and that has never and will never be okay.
Listen, there are assholes everywhere, and even mild centrists can be dicks and break the rules. We can speak about tendencies and generalizations if you like, but there are plenty of people who aren’t bigots who are giant flaming assholes on social media.
Apart from the Tankie Triad, i’d doubt right wing opinions would get you banned (i’m not against believe it if i saw some examples though).
Hate speech and promotion of oppressions that right wingers tend to consider as simple ‘opinions’ might though.
Maybe in certain communities? Some power tripping mods do exist. Likely they could be reported to the instance admins and possibly removed for such a scenario. It’s happened before in some extremely high profile cases.
Downvoting the admin of Midwest.social would get you banned though.
Fortunately there are communities such as !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com that help spread knowledge of such information across the Threadiverse.
I align more to the right, but in Turkey political leaning doesn’t really matter, the thing that matters is whether you’re siding with Erdogan or not. Like, Imamoglu is a president candidate supported by the left leaning party CHP, but I would absolutely vote for him against our current dictator.
CHP are Kemalists. idk how anyone worshipping that genocider could be called left-leaning (maybe if you’re an ethno-nationalist?). I’d say the real left wing in Turkey would be the Kurdish people fighting for autonomy, the feminists and queers fighting the cops in the streets and the union movements.
Mustafa Kemal has absolutely nothing to do with any genocide when the whole thing occured under Ottoman Empire (specifically, under Enver Pasha’s command), CHP is one of the parties that rallied the protests against Erdogan, and want better laws for all sorts of people like lgbtq, immigrants and kurds.
I personally disagree with giving more rights to immigrants and don’t like the idea of negotiations with terrorist organizations to divide the country, but am in favor of improving any citizen’s life overall regardless of their sex, religion or ethnicity.
Mustafa Kemal has absolutely nothing to do with any genocide
I’d suggest you open a history book not written by Turkish nationalists for once. I found this NPR episode on his involvement in the Armenian and Kurdish genocides enlightening: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/26/1198908163/the-three-faces-of-ataturk
I personally disagree with giving more rights to immigrants and don’t like the idea of negotiations with terrorist organizations to divide the country
if you disagree with immigrants having human rights, that’s just fascism my friend.
also you calling Kurds terrorists says a lot about how you’re actually just a genocide denier cosplaying as “just an average person without a political position”
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.
I’m left handed. I don’t have wings.
Right wingers have, or cause, trouble in open forums, so most social media that isn’t operated as a walled garden, tends to be more left leaning.
Depends on what kinda right wingers your talking about Ik a few people who believe in more laissez-faire free market economic policies, and they’re pretty chill
