2y ago

What would you consider your political ideology to be?

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.

213 comments

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
- 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.
  
  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.
- I'm with Track_Shovel on this. No particular political orientation, but I agree on all the issues listed.
- 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.
- This is me too
- 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.
- Welcome, marxist!

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.
  
  I'm not the person you replied to and this isn't well thought out. Just trying to think this through myself.
  How would something like an electric company offer competitive cost or quality? There'd have to be at least two options serving an area in order for there to be some kind of competition. So do each of those companies build their own infrastructure, power stations, power lines, etc? So a neighborhood would have two sets of power lines? That seems wasteful and would get pretty ugly as more competitors came in. So maybe instead the government builds the infrastructure and the competing companies lease the usage of the infrastructure. But then what are the companies going to offer as a competitive advantage? I don't know. They need to make some kind of profit in order to justify their existence. And they have to pay for the usage of the infrastructure. And they don't want to lose money. And let's assume the government doesn't pick favorites and charges each of them the same. So we end up paying them more than what it costs them to lease the infrastructure. So why can't we just cut them out, i.e. cut out the middle man, and pay the government directly. I guess this all just assumes that there's nothing extra an electric company can offer on top of the electricity being supplied.

In practice, I'm a common social democrat.
At heart, I'm an Anarchist. I don't have enough knowledge and confidence to believe it would work but I believe it would be beneficial for us to try to make it work, even if it ends up failing

Uhhh....
- Uhhh....

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!

Anticapitalist and socialist, but not straightup communist. Everyone deserves free healthcare, mental healthcare, water, food, electricity, internet, education and housing

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I believe that the means of production should be owned by the workers and that the purpose of work is to produce things we all need to meet our collective needs.
Capitalism is a dead end ideology which leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority by design, and this minority of oligarchs exploits the rest of the people to subsidize their lavish lifestyle.
Furthermore, any system based around constant growth and consumerism is fundamentally incompatible with our continual survival as a species. We need a system that strives for sustainable use of our resources.

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.

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.

Anarcho communism I think neither corporations nor the state works gor the people
- Bloody peasant!

Syndicalist. A federation of industrial unions could run society as a whole in a way that benefits all.

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.

Marxist-Leninist unironically.

I personally would say Liberal just to overly simplify things.
In reality, growing up in the rural midwest makes it more complex than that. I have a ton of left and right ideologies that contradict them selves, with no compromise in sight.
- This is one of the big pitfalls of the two party system in the US. If you fall in the middle, you don’t have an obvious choice of party, or you have a few issues where your party of choice doesn’t represent you.
  An example- in Oregon you’ll find many people who are generally very liberal, socially progressive and such, but who don’t support blanket gun restrictions due to the traditions of hunting, trapping and outdoorsy stuff that Northwesterners are into. In a parliamentary democracy, you may have been able to find the “smoke pot and have a hunting rifle” party, but in our model, you have to pick one or the other.

I think every person should have food, water, and shelter at the very least. Nobody should need to do anything for these basic necessities of life.
I always thought this was a common thought but no, this apparently is a far left radical ideology. People should starve on the street unless they provide value to a capitalist is actually the common thought.

I'm progressive on economic policy, and libertarian on social values. I support things like universal healthcare and ubi. I also support decriminalizing all drugs and legal prostitution.

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?"
- 💀

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 like this. It's the epitome of not letting perfect be the enemy of good.

I'm a moderate, but in America they'd probably call me a LefTiSt because things have shifted so far to the right here we've reached the point of absurdity. Basically, I think that democratic republics with a strong social safety net, meaningful regulation, and personal freedoms are the least terrible system we've come up with so far. Unregulated capitalism is a danger to humanity, as are totalitarian governments.

When I was first becoming an adult (in the USA), I got into politics from talk radio. I became staunchly libertarian, perhaps a bit conservative learning. Over the years, as I started to gain more life experience, started to actually think about certain issues some more, hear more opposing viewpoints, and actually see how stuff played out over time, I slowly began turning more liberal. These days, I would say that I am left of center and mostly align with the Democratic party for voting purposes.
- This is precisely my experience. I am a recovering big L Libertarian (in the USA sense). Now I'd say I'm liberal, slowly moving more left.
- That’s interesting. I kinda did the opposite. Was raised in a fairly liberal house and went to college.
  But as I got older and gained experience have drifted more towards some almagamation of a libertarian mindset. Libertarians suffer severely from a “no true Scott’s man “ thing. So i politically don’t really have a home and it depends on a candidate. And if you ask many they may write me off as an opponent or undesirable based on a single policy stance.
  Overall I feel the government means well but often doesn’t DO well or implement well as thus I am more hesistant for social programs as I get older. Like I’m not one of those races are theft people but just that government should keep to very specific and targeted programs and not try and be a regulation solution for everything. Only regulate when it’s clear a market can’t do so itself and negatively affects the people, like in banking.
  But when it gets huge and unwieldy things go south quick. Like healthcare for all would be awesome, but then you look at how Medicare is ran or the VA and I get big time squirrly feelings.
  Similarly with things like gun control. The theres no legislation that will solve the cultural issues that lead to all types of gun deaths. And what legislation is out there, even at the state level is often totally based on false premises and thus doesn’t solve the issues they intend to.
  So just like I feel abortion is a deeply personal choice and if someone is self aware enough to know they won’t be a good parent they should make that call, especially if the alternative is the government having to raise kids (cause foster care is a mess). I feel similarly about gun control.
  In most things I probs lean left on the American spectrum. But honestly there are few in our current political system that I can point to an be like “them, I really like them!”
  
  Yeah, I can see how you might arrive at some of those things. I think in general a lot of people want mostly the same things, but by looking at a problem from a slightly different angle, you can arrive at largely different conclusions. Just as one of the things you stated, you think the government often doesn't do a good job at the things it does. I can agree with that to a certain extent. However, I don't believe that it is just intrinsically because the government is crappy at doing their job. I constantly see opponents fighting against these very institutions, trying to defund them, trying to make them ineffective. So yeah, its kind of hard for stuff to be done properly when certain people are trying to dismantle you every step of the way. But to that point, maybe the very fact that this is possible is proof that the American government doesn't work well? I'd still think a functioning government is something worth working towards though.

I'm socially liberal and economically on the left (as in I like democracy, I accept capitalism, but I want a lot more socialist policies). Downtrodden people should be given assistance, but everyone else should be free to live out their power and ambition unless it gets in other people's way. I'm against most right wing political and social positions. But I'm even more against defederation and mass blocking. I don't want a safe space. There are too many things we need to process with conversation.

I'm more or less a milquetoast anarcho-communist.

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).

I have many things to say, but I just can't bring myself to discuss it in a public forum anymore. It's not that I expect that I'd be on the opposite side of a lot of people so I'd be flamed and shut down. In truth I find myself fairly middle of the road, but politics has become so polarized and hate filled that I'm more saddened for the future than anything else. I worry for what world my kids will inherit from my generation. I have hope though for genZ they seem to fully get behind the concept of FAFO. I just want them to start voting before it's too late.

Communist, everything else still worships money.

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.
- What's your opinion on regulations for companies?
  
  I don't follow the 100% libertarian approach, which basically says, companies can do whatever the hell they want. (And, consumers vote with their pockets.. etc....)
  If- that is what you were hinting at.
- I view freedom more about living without fear rather than doing what you want, which often leads down the don't give a rats ass as long as you aren't terrifying others over it.
  Maybe someday libertarians will increase in the upcoming decades 🙂
  
  That would be nice.
  BUT... everyone is all too busy picking sides (between the left, and the right, ie, liberal / conservative)... despite both sides eroding away freedoms, and blaming the other side for all of their problems.
- I appreciate your point of view, where you didn't do the common thing of strawmanning the left, especially on gun rights, in an effort to put yourself "in the middle".
  I believe in all those things you do (for a certain definition of "less government"), as well as gun ownership, but I consider myself a Marxist. There's something really admirable about "old-school libertarians".
  I think things like Right to Repair and Net Neutrality are the line between Libertarians who are good at heart, and the nut jobs. To an Anarcho-Capitalist, a company has the right to license their products under whatever conditions they want; an ISP can give preferential bandwidth to big companies. But a real Libertarian believes that not even companies and contracts can limit a person's freedoms.
  
  strawmanning the left, especially on gun rights
  When you look at it from an external point of view- neither side is actually helping the gun rights segment.
  Both repubs and democrats are slowly whittling away rights and freedoms, including gun rights.

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 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'm a libertarian, leftist, socialist, and I'm strongly against digital copyright, politics and patents. I believe in freedom and free competition, and government investment in education, technology, and quality of life.
Libertarian: People are overwhelmingly good, and freedom allows the good people to reliability outmenuver the bad. People should have every freedom in so far as they are not encroaching on the equal or greater freedoms of anyone else. No technology is inherently bad, tech in the hands all results in the victory of the good. A notable acception is weapons of mass destruction, as any use against any population is very bad morally. In general when tech is outlawed the good loose the ability to use it against the bad or for the betterment of humanity, and the bad maintain access and use it against the good. When only the bad guys have Drugs, Encryption, Guns, The internet, etc ... the society is much worse off for it.
Leftist: When governments invest tax money into the common good of the people, via things like education, technology, and quality of life, then societies are healther, wealthier, more innovative, and the people are happier for it. No one wants to be homeless, sick, or stupid, or to be surrounded by people who are. Government investment stimulates the economy, and if money is spent domestically it lands right back in the pockets of working tax payers.
Socialist: When workers own stake in the companiess they work for, companies act in the interest of the workers (socialism). When companies are owned by investors, they act in the interst of the investors, usually against the interest of workers (capitalism). When companies act in the interst of the workers, wages are higher, workers are more free, and cost of living is lower. The people are happier. Governments does not need to be so big to keep the peace like they do today.
Digital copyright: the belief in the lie that copying and or improving upon an ethereal digital resource constitutes theft, is a massive detriment to society. It is clearly false because no one looses anything. It is defended by perpetuating the fear that it it would be harder to profit if information was free. It would be a different world, but you can still make a profit through art on a physical medium, and in other ways. The lie is used to justify unjust control of software vendors over their customers, and to justify fake sales in which the physical computer hardware is sold but the ability to actually control it is not part of the sale. And sales where a book or movie is sold, but the user is never given the copy they purchased. It is also used to deprive the poor access to educational material, and to justify the destruction of cultural archives for future generations.
Politics: Politicians are lower quality than ordinary people, because they are the people who wanted to rule, not the people who understand the impact of positive and negative of every singe decision. A monarchy has better chances of honest leadership because the quality if the monarch is random, instead of picked by might of advertising dollars out of a list of the worst people. The way to make a real good government involves a little lotocracy and a little meritocracy. My vision in short: a console, selected at random from the population, chooses qualification criteria for voting on a proposition, and a console is selected at random from the qualified public to make a decision.
Pattents: A temporary government issued monopoly on a process or mechanism. Patents were the single worst lapse in logic of our society, they are anticompetitive and slow innovation (the incredibly successful free software community, operating on very little time and money, is a glimpse of what a patenless society could be). A free market cannot coexist with patents. Arguments for pattens boil down to, if i invest as though i have patent protection from competition and i don't have it, my investment won't pan out. In a society without patents, companies build and improve on each others work, making R&D cheaper and faster. Sure, billion dollar research investments would not pan out, but they would also be completely unnecessary, because starting from scratch or waiting a decade would not be required to participate in innovation.
- A while ago I watched a great video on Youtube explaining how a system without copyright could work for commercial software development (specifically for games), advocating for a "pay for production" model instead of "pay for access". Unfortunately I can't find the video anymore.
- Whats the solution to the issue small startups would face w.o patents when the mega-corps just take their innovation and package it differently?
  
  Don't detail exactly what the innovation is before its ready to sell, it takes time to get something into a product and to get that product into production. Name recognition is everything, for some time the small starup is the name of the innovation, and that recognition does not just vanish. Other companies have built comparable or beter electric cars by now, but you know who im talking about when i say that electric car company.
  Alternateivly copy something a large corporation is doing, or better yet, build on something they are doing.
  Also employee owned companies tend not to aggressively expand. And governments need to break up the kind of company that is large enough to destroy all competition. That leads me to another opinion, buying another company should not be allowed in a capitalist economy, because that only ever makes the market less free.

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.

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.

Vaguely progressive (I live in the USA, I think country is usually important when discussing ideology)
I believe in crushing the Christian theocrats, building back up social safety nets including universal healthcare, wealth taxes, gun control but not an outright gun ban (some people from other countries, often Canadians and Finns, think they have a gun ban when they do not,) active efforts to improve relations with Mexico and Canada, I think the government doesn't do enough to prepare for a post-US hegemony world, I think we should de-escalate with China, we should reduce the need for personal car usage, and...I don't have anything that even resembles a policy proposal here but we need to combat enshittification (it is embarrassing that the most effective regulatory body against US tech companies is the European Union.) Also Mark Zuckerberg should be on death row.

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 use libertarian socialist for myself and others 9 times out of 10, but if I really need to get a little deeper, I will drop the "A" word paired with the "C" word to describe my ideology.
- I also like air conditioning

ML. Authleft enough that Libs will call me a Tankie.

Left wing market anarchist is the closest summary of my general views.
Left wing economically and socially. I believe strongly in workers rights, collective control over production and labor practices. All people have dignity and should be treated with a base level of care and concern, even if they have done horrific things. I am very supportive of LGBT+ folks and any marginalized or underprivileged groups.
Market because I am not against markets or money. I think they are tools that can greatly aid society if used correctly. I am strongly anti-capitalist, which is a economic and social philosophy that uses money and markets in ways that are inherently oppressive and exploitive.
Anarchist because I am anti-state. Monopolization of power and resources, especially in a capitalist society, only ever result in oppression, even if supposedly "of/for the people."

Live your life the way you want to live and don't fuck it up for others. Be peaceful, respectful and considerate. If there is a political affiliation about this I'm in that party.
- Aka "Don't be a dick" I'm right there with you friend. Donuts unite!

more progressive than the mainstream parties in the us but too stupid / lazy / timid to actually find and use a specific label / ideology

I'm in reality probably center left. I find that I tend to have nuanced views about a variety of things but I probably wouldn't hard commit to a particular political stripe. I tend to vote Democrat but I often disagree with them on certain things as well. Sometimes I think they are not doing enough on social and environmental issues and sometimes I think they have gone too far on other issues. There are some republican theories I don't mind but I don't generally see this current party actually focused on anything I agree with.

“Old men. Running the world. A new age!”
Jk 🤣 it’s more like “I, for one, welcome our AGI-robot overlord(s).”

I'm some kind of lefty social anarcho-pacifist.
$capitalism != $freedom.

Edit: Removing this because I feel I over shared a bit.
- Saying that makes me want to know what the comment was! "What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?"

Liberal: Especially socially I'm very liberal. Everyone should have the same rights, opportunities and be treated equally no matter their race, sexual orientation, gender, religion etc. It should matter how you life your life as long as it doesn't negatively effect others. The government should only provide laws that limit this to protect those who cannot do that themselves (like kids growing up). Economically as well, like the free market, but regulation is important imo. Only if regulation wouldn't work or something is so vitally important to everyone or the economy that you can't do without it, is nationalisation an option for me. Keep the government as small as possible, but don't overdo it for the sake of making it smaller.
Progressive: this is mostly true for climate and social aspects. I welcome almost any regulation to make sure global heating slows down as much and fast as possible. Socially because society changes all the time and just because we treated people a certain way 50 years ago doesn't mean we should forever do that. On government spending and on defense I'm more conservative. Peace requires a strong military and the government should make sure its debt doesn't go out of control. Doesn't waste money on stuff the market can handle or on benefits that people don't really need. It annoyed me when I got hundreds of euros last year in compensation from the government for higher electricity and natural gas prices. I, and many others, didn't need it and it was better spend on more useful things.
Center wing: Help those who really need it, like the homeless, immigrants, people with bad illnesses or PTSD, but if someone makes (a lot) more than me then that's fine with me. I'm not expecting anyone who makes more than me to solve all the worlds issues while I can keep doing and buying what I do now. I'm in favor of many tougher regulations that will hit me financially, but will he better for the future.
At the same time I do expect everyone to pay their fair share in taxes and see taxes as a good thing.
- I do believe in taxes, but I don't like where the money goes. I wish there was more federalisation so that individual counties had more control over what they want to spend their money on.
  Got a county of right-wing wackos that want to give all their money to their king? Let them, its their choice and it hurts only them.
  Also, I do tend to believe that anyone earning less than 50k probably shouldn't need to pay taxes or be tightly regulated. The poor should be allowed to spin up businesses in a hovel without having to pay through the nose for it.
  Those with more power and wealth should be more tightly scrutinised, given the magnitude of the effects of any of their actions (whether good or bad).
  Essentially I'm a socialist with a streak of "libertarianism for the poor".

I don't put myself into a political ideology. And I'm not confident enough in the labeling to make a reasonable guess I'd feel comfortable with.

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.

Libertarian-ish, I guess.
Watching the US and other governments going on a power trip has sure been pushing me that way.
I mostly don't want government involved in anybody's lives unless they're harming others. It drives me mad when bureaucracy, police, etc. show up to harass, jail, or kill people that were minding their own business. Plus mass surveillance without a warrant.
On the other hand, I recognize the need for appropriate regulations (to avoid harming people on a broader scale). It also makes sense for them to direct large scale projects like infrastructure and certain services.
So, I guess, make life better for people. Otherwise, mind your own business

Libertarian Socialist, though I might be a bit further left than that considering some of the ideas I have. I just find myself agreeing with Kyle Kulinski a lot since he seems to be the most agreeable and honest political commentator I know, and I've found other good channels through word of mouth from him.

Yeah, some good points there. I totally agree about the problems with meaningful political discourse. I honestly believe most people don't want to have a discussion on things, they just want to post their take and then feel validated by people up voting them. Add in bots and trolls, and political discussion just generally doesn't work on platforms like this (or most of the internet at large).

somewhere between soc dem and communist
i have a list of issues i care about, whether those issues are fixed by properly regulated capitalism or communist utopia isnt that important to me

I used to be an active socialist, but it felt quite hopeless when protests are ignored and democracy scarcely exists (you just vote for the least bad option once every 5 years). Now I moved countries and can't even vote so am much more apolitical. I also didn't like the shift of those groups into identity politics, and often focussing on treating symptoms rather than the cause - e.g. the push in many places to decriminalise theft under ~$300 instead of actually ensuring people have jobs and opportunities, or unfair rent control rather than building more housing and dealing with the distribution of employment.
But in general I just want a functional, meritocratic society with easy opportunities for education, wide use of technology and as little bureaucracy as possible. No monarchy or religion, etc.
I also think there should be much stricter punishments for violent crime, and better use of technology to investigate it. Ideally everywhere would be like Singapore with almost no crime due to excellent enforcement, and also good provision of education, housing, etc. to make it less attractive overall.
- I really like the Singapore model and Singapore in general but I feel like it's mostly successful because it exports a lot of its negative externalities to Malaysia. I'm not sure if it would be a sustainable model without its neighbour.

213 comments