I simultaneously miss and don’t miss reading posts by Trump Supporters on Reddit.
It’s nice to read comments from the other side, even if those comments are batshit insane.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, so yes. I think you’ll find most people on Lemmy in general fall into the major categories of “Liberal,” as in the US Democrat style, Anarchists, and Marxists. Different instances lean in different directions on this, with overall few outright conservatives.
The actual left wing, the something socialists something are partly on hexbear.org and lemmygrad.ml. And they are called tankies and blocked on lemmy.world. So how left wing can most people here be? The thing is that “left” has become synonymous with (neo)liberal values. Like there doesn’t have to be a free, independent press or social media and them being owned by capitalists is just fine.
Some of us are simply europeans.
A right wing European is still a little bit too liberal for MAGA
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
Need to count the number of “fascists” per posts to get an accurate determination
I’m just hungry dude
Last time I took the political compass test, I was center-right, firmly in the libertarian quadrant, exactly in the sub-section labeled “libertarian”.
That means my political stances align 100% against the Republican party and authoritarianism in general.
Lefty Lemmy righty reddit
Slashers slashdot
I’d call myself a liberal but not left wing
Yes.
I’m Independent, but cannot support Republicans anymore … so I guess I’m a Democrat that hates gun control.
if you go far enough left, you get your guns back. :)
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
Man you really have to do some gymnastics to keep believing this dumb ass shit.
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.”
It doesn’t work.
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.
-
Yes, this site is very left-leaning. I have seem plenty of moderate opinions downvoted because they are centrist or centre-right, and the anti-Trump, anti-Elon and anti-USA sentiment is deservedly heavy right now.
Keep that in mind when reading comments, this place is a bit of an echo chamber at the moment.
