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.
Syndicalist. A federation of industrial unions could run society as a whole in a way that benefits all.
fluid is good except that it also means easy for politicians to manipulate. and zero loyalty for longterm goals that require patience and sacrifice.
Just conservative not a republican because I feel they’ve lost their way as much as democrats did.
Elephants and asses, screwing the masses.
💀
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
I’m with Track_Shovel on this. No particular political orientation, but I agree on all the issues listed.
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).
Both will be necessary but it’s worth noting that the more we’ve emitted, the more damaging each additional unit of emissions becomes. So arguably it’s even more important to focus on emissions reductions because it’s too late to completely stop warming at this point. Even a small reduction in emissions may have cause a meaningful reduction in human suffering.
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.
Pretty much somewhere between a centrist and a libertarian. I think government has a bit too much overreach in people’s lives and they screw with people who aren’t harming anyone or just minding their own business.
I won’t go full libertarian or anarchist, because I do recognize the need for government funded services in some areas.
In terms of economics, yeah pretty much a centrist. I think capitalism is the best way of giving everyone an equal opportunity, but also it needs to be regulated here and there with government intervention.
TL;DR Centrist who is a bit more libertarian than others.
I am libertarian.
Less government. Less rules. Less restrictions.
I don’t give a rats ass if you want to smoke pot, get abortions. etc. I support individual rights and freedoms.
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.
Uhhh…
Uhhh…
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.
Some of my friends think I’m an idealist but I’d argue that’s the point. I vote for whatever would allow us to get to the Star Trek: TNG version of earth. A Post Scarcity society where humans want to better themselves and their communities through each individuals pursuit of their interests unrestricted by any “system”. To get there, I care about improving the lives of the entirety of humanity equally while doing away with the disparity inequality we see. It is undoubtedly true capitalism did raise the average QOL of many many people of the entire world, however, others it put into modern slavery.
I like this idea, but I disagree with the last sentence. The improvement in the average quality of life does not come from the capitalist system, but from technological and scientific progress.
But was that also spurred at least in part often times for the pursuit of profit? I don’t disagree, you have a good point!
Consider how quickly USSR developed after the revolution. It went from an agrarian society to being the first in space while doing most of the work in WW2. USSR accomplished a century’s worth of capitalist development in a few decades.
deleted by creator
Do you want to discuss some things? I don’t want to just come rushing in with a political post :tm: but I’m interested in the abortion part.
Of course! What do you wanna know/talk about?
Why are you against abortion?
Remember when the compromise was safe, legal, and rare? Now people practically use abortion as birth control.
Hey, go out and speak to people with uterus, because they aren’t using it as birth control.
Really. No “hard facts” out of that. Your worldview is so distant from mine we can’t hold a dialogue.
Just go out and speak to them.
Looking at the stats from the CDC about 16% of pregnancies are aborted. All I want is for there to be less people proud of having had an abortion, or at least for less people to find that stance appropriate.
What happened on lemmy.ml? That place is moderated by tankies with their finger on the ban trigger, so I am skeptical if you mean “hard turn to the right” or “normal people calling out the propaganda that my echo chamber used to shield me from.”
To answer the question, I’m a radical anarchist, no state, no money, no bosses, no landlords, no compromises.
World News is hosted on Lemmy.ml and since you use the term Tankie I suppose you’re biased and may not see the shift in what articles are upvoted the most on that sub.
(Be kind, not trying to start a flame war) I keep seeing this thrown around, what is a “tankie” and what’s it got to do with that Lemmy instance?
A great summary of what tankies are https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LcJ5NrJtQ8g
Republicans seem to want to turn back the clock to the 1950’s and in one aspect I agree with them. The top tax rate back then was 90%. That should be returned for anyone making over $10 million.
Unlike Republicans, though, I think people should be free to be who they are - whether they’re LGBTQ or straight/cisgender, black or white, Christian or Jewish or atheist, or any other group I didn’t list. (I didn’t list all groups only because I don’t want this comment to be novel length.) Basically, as long as your actions affect only yourself and consenting adults, I’m fine with them.
I’m also fine with parents having some control over what their kids do. I’m a parent myself and know that as a parent you need to make judgement calls as to what’s best for your child. I wouldn’t want someone else questioning my parenting based on their beliefs. However, there are limits. If your child is LGBTQ and you try to force them to be straight/cisgender, you aren’t acting in your child’s best interests. If your 10 year old child is raped and their life is in danger, but you refuse to allow them to have an abortion because your religion doesn’t allow it, then you’re harming your child.
Also, a person’s “parental rights” shouldn’t mean that they get to decide that certain books are banned from everyone reading them. My son actually just finished reading a book because it had been banned and we laughed over how innocuous the “ban triggering passage” was compared to some stuff in the Bible.
Basically, I think I’d call myself a Pragmatic Progressive. I advocate for progressive causes, but I also realize that society can often be slower to adapt than we like. While we would love to be able to pass X and have it be widely adopted immediately, there’s often a series of slow moving battles to get X passed and another slow march to get wide acceptance. We can’t simply throw in the political towel at the first setback. Neither can we pass up 10% of our goal being within our grasp because we’re holding out for 100%. We need to get whatever advancements we can while continually pushing for more.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.
I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens’ opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I’m neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.
I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.
