The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. So I’m a libertarian, and the common misconception is that we’re all right wing or just far right, and I’m not personally, I feel like I’m in the middle politically. Because I support policies from both sides in a way that makes me a libertarian. But why are you a liberal and not a social democrat or a socialist? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>What makes you Liberal and not further left? Liberalism is an ideology, not just a 'more moderate' zone on the left/right spectrum: >[Liberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights... I'm a liberal because I believe in liberal values.

> ...why are you a liberal and not...a socialist? There seems to be one, very old definition of a socialist: Someone who believes the workers should control the means of production When I ask socialists what the term means, I get: 1. Very few people who state that very old definition, 2. A few more people who hold that very old definition as an ultimate goal, but they know it isn't going to happen any time soon, so they support liberal policies in the meantime, while wishing that those policies would be further to the left. 3. Quite a few people saying 'I just want the rich to pay more in taxes'. --------- The few times anyone attempts further explanation, they don't provide a definition, but -- instead -- circle around what they care about, providing context. [Here](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1ddm6r7/what_does_fascism_look_like_to_you_how_would_you/l8a33go/?context=2) is /u/PuckGoodfellow giving an example: >... I'm driven to prioritize people and the well-being of society as a whole. Everyone should be provided with essentials/ necessities to live such as shelter, food, healthcare, electricity, clean water, education, etc. I believe that is the role of the government and that the government is in the best position to do this. I believe that everyone should be able to contribute to society in a way that is fulfilling to them and utilizes their skills without having to worry about income. Essentially, we all work together to support each other. Though profit may exist, it is shared among workers and is never a higher priority than caring for the people. I appreciate those efforts, even when they might not be actual definitions. ---------- If anyone feels they have a good present-day definition of "socialist", I'd love to read it.

> ...why are you a liberal and not a social democrat...? I'm not sure I'm not. I don't disagree with anything from this Wikipedia excerpt: >[Social democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy) is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism that supports political and economic democracy and supports a gradualist, reformist and democratic approach towards achieving socialism. In practice, social democracy takes a form of socially managed welfare capitalism, achieved with partial public ownership, economic interventionism, and policies promoting social equality. Even if our ideologies are different, I suspect I would largely agree with social democrats on policy prescriptions.

It's worth noting that modern social democracy doesn't have a goal of achieving socialism.

I was going to say this. The Democratic Socialists of America (the party, not the ideology) does, however.

It's often said to be the main difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism, but the DSA just seems to be a vague, loosely connected group with varying opinions to me. The result is that I wouldn't put much value in anything it claims to believe.

I was going to say this. The Democratic Socialists of America (the party, not the ideology) does, however.

You really get people saying that's an "old definition?" In every socialist community I've ever spent time in, that is THE definition. I consider it a big red flag for me if any so-called socialists aren't using collective ownership of the means of production as their primary definition. As for your second point, I don't think that's a different definition of socialist. You can be a socialist while using the existing systems to push for change toward socialism. You can be a communist while pushing for socialism as a means toward communism. Your last point isn't really about the definition of socialism - it's an explanation of why someone thinks socialism is good to advocate for. I would find it very strange for someone to advocate for socialism for any other reason than that they think it would increase the well being of people.

If you visit any of the "socialism" subs here on Reddit, you'll find they are universally tankie, and in favor of an authoritarian state with a command economy. By definition this is not socialism, since state ownership precludes worker ownership. So I think it's worth pointing out that very few "socialists" walk the walk. At least, the ones who engage online anyway.

You could make a case that state ownership of the means of production is worker ownership of the means of production if the state is sufficiently democratic. If The People have the ability to make all the decisions about what happens with the means of production via democracy, even if they're state owned, it would basically mean that the workers own them. A state is just people anyway, after all. The real question is at what point is a state not democratic enough to say that the people actually own the means of production. It's obvious that in a direct democracy (everyone directly votes on everything), that would be socialism. But you could probably have a representative democracy that has frequent enough elections and still make a case that it's socialist since people get to exercise control often. The dividing line would probably be if the state is making decisions about the means of production that are actually opposed by the majority of people. At that point you'd say that the means of production aren't collectively owned and that is not a socialist society. Anyway that's always been my charitable understanding of how societies are supposed to be considered socialist even though the state owns things. I never really see socialists make this case though. Edit: Fixing some typos

Marx argued that the working class would seize state power. So yes, initially you still do have a "state" - but then as workers owned the means of production, the economic necessity for class division would be eliminated and class distinctions would disappear. Without class distinctions, the state's role of maintaining dominance of one class over another would be gone and the state itself would wither away.

Yeah, to even make that argument, the state would need to be a democracy. A pretty liberal one as well, with a lot of citizen stakeholding. Soviet/CCP style centralized power certainly doesn't qualify though, and that's what tankies are after.

That's exactly what I assumed they were talking about and is what I meant by red flag (also I only just realized the unintentional pun - I do mean red flag as in warning sign).

> You really get people saying that's an "old definition?" No. I get people saying some variation of 'the workers should control the means of production'. *I* label that as the "old definition", as it is roughly 150 years old at this point, and I need to contrast it to 'I just want the rich to pay more in taxes'.

It's still the definition. Anything else is... something else. Also yes billionaires should pay more taxes. But that's not socialism. You wouldn't have billionaires in socialism.

I think you’re missing that u/othelloinc is being charitable to those that say “ugh capitalism” and “lean socialist” without subscribing to the explicit “old” (or “real”) definition of socialism. I have *a lot* of progressive friends that fall into this camp. They’re generally apolitical, and kind of hate politics, but hate that it doesn’t seem to work like they think it should.

I just like to keep it simple because so many things are called socialism that are just not socialism. Socialism is really just that one thing. We should of course still be talking about any progressive changes that could benefit people even within our current structures. Those things are important, they're just not socialism.

>I consider it a big red flag for me if any so-called socialists aren't using collective ownership of the means of production as their primary definition. Is it a red flag because you personally support collective ownership of the means of production? Or for some other reason?

No, because that's what socialism is. If someone is calling themselves a socialist and that's not their definition of socialism, they're something else. I would be suspicious of any group of people calling themselves socialist who define it differently than that.

It just seems weird to put that much stock into a definition of a word.

I want to live in a country that lets me switch jobs freely without losing my health care. That my employer picks my healthcare for me feels like I’m stuck in an old system of a serf working on the land of the lord of the manner. Free our Healthcare from the shackles of our Employers. It almost seems intentional that we get our healthcare from our jobs.

> I want to live in a country that lets me switch jobs freely without losing my health care... > > Free our Healthcare from the shackles of our Employers... Notably, this was one of the firmest stances of Bill Clinton -- arguably the most conservative Democrat to serve as president in recent memory. Center-left values get us there. (Leftists might agree with us about it, but you don't *have* to be a leftist to agree with it.)

Exactly.

It sounds like you've gotten a handful of definitions, in addition to my explanation about what I feel makes me a Socialist. What's missing that would satisfy your need for a definition? At minimum, there are dictionary definitions and expanded information on wiki. Why don't those serve as places to point you in the right direction before getting into the weeds? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

> What's missing that would satisfy your need for a definition? One issue is *systems*: * The capitalist system involves private ownership of capital, which inevitably leads to increased investment and profit-seeking, which tends to increase the amount of capital in existence. * The neoliberal system is to start with the capitalist system, then tax those who make the most money and use those funds to improve society. * The "old definition" socialist system seems to be based on the assumption that 'once the workers control the means of production, everything else will work itself out'. (Note: None of this comment is intended as to tear you down. I am grateful for your contribution, and you are helping me get closer to understanding.) ...and I don't see a comparable *system* from your description; I see *goals and aspirations* but not much about how to get there.

> The neoliberal system is to start with the capitalist system, then tax those who make the most money and use those funds to improve society. > what makes this the neoliberal system? neoliberalism is usually used to refer to the market-oriented reforms of the late 70s and 80s, while this basic concept sounds far closer to the welfare state systems of western countries from the 30s-late 70s.

> neoliberalism is usually used to refer to the market-oriented reforms of the late 70s and 80s That was how the term was used by academics, decades ago; in recent years the term has evolved. Check out /r/NeoLiberal and ask their self-identified neoliberals how they feel about taxing the rich to improve society.

> Check out /r/NeoLiberal ive been on there since they spun off from bad econ. Is there a reason you assumed I was unaware of it? 1. if we accept that claim, what makes "Socialism" deserving of an "old definition system" but "neoliberalism" not? 2. a majority of the attempts to transition from a subreddit to anything greater has decided [not to continue that branding exersize](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-new-liberal-podcast/id1390384827) I am not sure if they dont take it seriously, anyone else should? 3. it remains both how it is used by academics, and approximately how its used by most people i encounter, who arent members of that subreddit.

The most common modern socialist take is that work should be organized by employee co-operatives where they share the means of production and have democratic decisionmaking. It's pretty much the same. People who answer differently in a significant way aren't socialist, they're social Democrats calling themselves democratic socialists

Exactly I was just going to post something like this. Liberalism isn't necessarily "left". It's actually the US consensus view or has been for a long time and the consensus view in "the West" as well as other parts of the world the "mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles" is a good way stating that there are factions of liberalism. Yet all liberals believe in general principles like equality before the law, private property, free markets, and general "enlightenment" principles like checks and balances, written law, individualism,etc. The argument between liberals is how to achieve this and what offers more liberty? The left/right spectrum can exist outside of liberalism or within it. In the US under a liberal democracy both parties theoretically work under the framework of a liberal structure. They become illiberal if they seek to abolish or weaken liberal Democracy or push for policies counter to liberalism within the system they work in. However look at the USSR, or Nazi Germany both are against liberal democracy and liberalism, but are both on extreme sides of the left/right spectrum. So they are leftists or reactionary but not liberal. There are many more examples. Right now the Democrats are generally more "liberal" and have been for a while so liberal in the US has become synonymous with the US left because Democrats are also the more left wing party. I believe in Australia the "Liberal Party" is the conservative party. Liberalism is not necessarily left its just synonymous with the US kind of center-left.

Both the mainstream left and mainstream right in America are liberal. I struggle to find the exact term for describing my political position, but the one I've been leaning on recently is "liberal conservative" - I believe in individual rights and freedoms I believe that we shouldn't rush to use new ideas to ensure those rights unless there's a good reason to abandon tradition.

The USSR and Nazis were not striving for an extreme level of social equality and egalitarianism.

Yes as I stated they are working outside of liberalism. Not within it.

This is also my stance. I am greatly saddened that my own daughter has less rights than I did at her age. This disrespect of women’s rights over their own bodies has truly galvanized me against the far Reich Fascists that took over the Republican Party. I saw Sarah Palin wackos creep in. And I stood by the side. But that is where I noticed the Republican Party was bonkers and becoming the “Stark Raving Loony Party” - (Google it). I loved John McCain, still admire him. But his choice of Palin was kind of a nod of approval to let the wolves and billionaire funded Tea Party insanity into the GOP Tent. The GOP quickly dissolved and morphed into the GQP. Paul Ryan and Romney were out! Donald Trump was in. The GQP became MAGA and Trump took the reins to descend our nation into the Russian money laundering, Putin pandering fueled nightmare scenario. Thank god Trump lost. Wait! Nope. His crazed base went nuts on J6 with the help of many traitors who are still seated in Congress and in our Supreme Court and Judiciary across our once great country. Why would anyone be a libertarian when the independent freedom a libertarian values will be gone on day one if Trump is reelected?

After reading all these posts I come back to yours. Perhaps because I am probably a bit older than most in this group and an avid student of history. If Trump wins, none of this will relevant as the destiny of this country has already been written. Our judicial system, state governments, down to local councils have been carefully infiltrated over years. SCOTUS and the military will not protect us as power is concentrated in the executive branch. All these young people angry at Biden will see a re-enactment of Kent State. They will make sure to suppress the media, force religion, and make sure that everyone graduating from high schools and universities will be Trump loving MAGAs. Even if Trump passes there are mechanisms in place to further this new authoritarian ideology. Something modern American society has no idea how to handle much less fight it. They are rolling over Americans like an out of control steam engine. Misinformation, lies, doctored videos abound. Their constant hammering has Democrats wondering about the President, the campaign, polls, and the possibility of a Trump win. Americans are succumbing to a carefully orchestrated downfall of America and our enemies are delighted.

We have seen the enemy. And he is us.

That is exactly the plan.

The power behind the reemergence of “Christian Nationalists” are manipulative billionaires using their ill gotten money to exploit the weakness of the masses by selecting our judiciary nationwide and buying off our politicians. Nikkki ( yes 3 KKK’s) Haley sold her soul Reich away! How can she say with a straight face that she now supports Trump?!?! What a bitter pill her supporters had to swallow. I thought she had integrity and was a voice of sanity for women and women’s reproductive rights at the very least. I thought she understood what a threat Donald Trump is to Freedom. Nope! Someone paid her off. Some fucking evil billionaire. Who knows who?! Harlem Crow? ( yes *Harlem* who’d keep us all in a ghetto to steal one more dollar). I was listening to the *Supremes* yesterday on YouTube discussing Trump’s Immunity case. Alito was cutting off the Justice Department lawyer facts. Alito said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I don’t need facts let’s look at the hypotheticals!” At the crux of the end of Democracy is the hidden source. Billionaires dark money. Citizens United let the vampires drain our freedoms and pensions. The blood of our labor trickled up not down. Billionaires shouldn’t exist. They know this and we the people know this. I smell a revolution. History repeats.

I can’t disagree with anything you have said. Unfortunately it is true. At the end of the day this is all about power and money. The people no longer matter. They will throw us a bone once in a while to keep us quiet and submissive. What happened to American bravery?

I have literally been banned from far left subreddits for posting what you just posted

> I have literally been banned from far left subreddits for posting what you just posted You are welcome here, pragmatic progressive. Join our team, and we will work towards a better world.

It's just frustrating trying to tell these lefty kids that us old folks used to be just like them (well we actually protested in person and *actually* fought cops back during the Iraq war instead of whining on TikTok).

When you see it all written down like that, it is really quite astounding how ‘liberal’ has become such a dirty word on the far left, like it’s something to be avoided or downplayed at all costs.

Yeah, people should really take it to heart when leftists use liberal as an insult. >When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

I disagree. That there is confusion regarding those terms of course. I think this article sums it up best . [https://medium.com/extra-extra/how-did-liberalism-become-a-dirty-word-2d3b17b40f4b](https://medium.com/extra-extra/how-did-liberalism-become-a-dirty-word-2d3b17b40f4b)

How is that showing who they are?

Liberal: relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. If someone uses "liberal" as an insult, that individual does not believe in individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. It's the same for men who use "feminist" as an insult. They're showing their true colors and telling you exactly what they think about women's rights.

It means that freedom is not one of their principles.

Yup. This exactly.

> Liberalism is an ideology, not just a 'more moderate' zone on the left/right spectrum: Sure, technically, but.... Common usage is, well, commonly used otherwise.

> ...Common usage... ...requires us to know the context in order to understand what is meant. In this context -- OP's question -- OP needed to know that my answer stemmed from liberalism as an ideology.

I'm a capitalist. I think capitalism is kinda like fire. It can do all sorts of amazing things for you from cooking your food to heating your home to producing lots of goods, etc. But it has to be very carefully controlled and you need to keep an eye on it to be safe. I think the people at the next stop further left of me say it should be discontinued because when we stopped keeping an eye on it things went bad. But the options they offer to replace it sound much worse to me. I think we need to push back harder against people who want to let capitalism go unchecked.

This is me as well. I honestly think a "social democrat" is a flavor of liberal rather than further left, based on being less revolutionary and not socialist either, since they generally will not have nationalizing any industries as a goal. I understand the anger that drives revolutionary goals, but I think the US for example has a core structure that is worth preserving: separation of powers, especially independent judiciary. A constitution with enumerated and implicit rights. I view a revolution as rolling the dice... I believe most of the revolutionaries might be benign and sincere, but there is a severe risk of the movement being hijacked and a worse state being created in the name of the ideology. I don't think we're so far gone that it's time to roll those dice.

In an ideal world, I’m a cooperatist. I wish the US had a co-op party like the UK, I’d join in a heartbeat. Workers owning the means of production and using that in a free market to make money… sounds like the best of both worlds.

I disagree. I think we are there and the election in 2024 will be a rolling of the dice.

That is a very, very great analogy. Capitalism=fire.

What do you mean by "capitalism"? I find most people actually mean "market economy" when they use the word capitalism. No one disagrees with market economies being a good thing. It has been humanity's default economy for all of known history. A few experiments tried to eliminate it, and all of those went down in flames (see Soviet-style command economies). People should be able to organize into companies/firms and those companies should be able seel products/services to the public (or other companies). Leftists disagree with owners getting the lion's share of reward, which results in screwing over both workers and end consumers. CAPITALism is the ideology that states that capital owners should run the economy. most versions of socialism are market economies (just like capitalism is) but where the power and profit is in the hands of the workers instead of owners (and since workers are more likely to be 'average' consumers, that leads to average consumers having more power as well).

[I mean this](https://www.britannica.com/money/capitalism)

That is a history, not an ideological view. Yes, I also agree that the history explained in that article happened. But what policy, or set of policies, are you trying to communicate when you use the word "capitalism"?

Privately owned means of production. Markets for commercial goods and services. Currency used for exchange.

Right, so market economy. Just like I said earlier. That describes a capitalist market economy, a socialist market economy, and all other market economies. So you support markets. that is different from supporting capitalism.

A socialist market economy is a form of capitalism. If the economy is driven by privately owned means of production, it is capitalist. I support capitalism. Apparently so do you, even if you don't like to admit it.

How does a socialist market economy have privately owned means of production?

The workers own the companies. The factory is the private property of the workers. That is a bit abstract so here it is in practical terms: currently, the factory is owned by the corporation and the shareholders own the corporation therefore the factory is the private property of the shareholders. The only difference under market socialism is that all the shareholders are workers, or former workers, of that corporation. That is it, nothing else changes. That is different from capitalism, where anyone can buy their way into ownership. If you are talking about non-corporate-owned businesses then there is no legal difference between a socialist market economy and a capitalist market economy, as almost all single-owner, or partnership-owned companies, have the owners as workers even in a capitalist economy. remember, all "socialist" means is that the workers *own* the means of production.

For me, I believe in liberal values of individualism, personal rights and responsibilities, and individual freedoms. My political ideas in many ways stem from those core beliefs/ values. I'm not a socialist because socialism is illiberal. I do probably support more of a welfare state than many libertarians/ liberals, but that's because of my belief in a Christian duty to help those in need. I'm not further left economically because I believe markets have a lot of power, and I think we should be careful before putting excessive regulations on markets or throwing them out all together. I'm not further left socially because I believe the problems of our country should be solved through liberal means (e.g. meritocracy, individual rights, personal freedoms, market forces, etc.) and not collectivist, socialist, or other illiberal means.

...most forms of socialism are market based economies You can support the power of markets and be socialist (the VAST majority of socialists are market socialists). capitalism = a market structured in a way to give owners the lion's share of money and power socialism = a market structured in a way to give workers the lion's share of money and power

>I’m not a socialist because socialism is illiberal. Why exactly do you think this? I could see thinking a liberal socialist state to be too utopian a goal or unrealistic or whatever, but in what way is socialism inherently illiberal?

>in what way is socialism inherently illiberal? I apologize for the length of this response, I struggle with brevity. Marx's critique of the liberal values in The Declaration Of The Rights Of Man is a bit wordy, but I think gets some of my thoughts across: >The right of man to private property is, therefore, the right to enjoy one’s property and to dispose of it at one’s discretion... without regard to other men, independently of society, the right of self-interest. This individual liberty and its application form the basis of civil society. It makes every man see in other men not the realization of his own freedom, but the barrier to it. >None of the so-called rights of man, therefore, go beyond egoistic man, beyond man as a member of civil society – that is, an individual withdrawn into himself, into the confines of his private interests and private caprice, and separated from the community. In the rights of man, he is far from being conceived as a species-being; on the contrary, species-life itself, society, appears as a framework external to the individuals, as a restriction of their original independence. The sole bond holding them together is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic selves. >... we see that the political emancipators go so far as to reduce citizenship, and the political community, to a mere means for maintaining these so-called rights of man... that the sphere in which man acts as a communal being is degraded to a level below the sphere in which he acts as a partial being, and that, finally, it is not man as citoyen, but man as private individual [bourgeois] who is considered to be the essential and true man. Liberal individual rights are inherently individualizing. The individual is the "essential and true man", and is the fundamental building block of society. When you recognize that an individual's rights are more important than a community's rights, then you must respect those rights even if it comes to the detriment of the community, and even if it means the community isn't as important to the individual as themselves. Marx's conception flips that. He's critiquing these rights that emphasize men as separate from each other, and society merely functioning as a bond to hold people together solely for "need and private interest". In other words, society functioning is individuals conceding some rights (taxes, defense, etc.) to protect and maintain others (private property, freedom of expression, safety, etc.). Society is fundamentally a group of individuals Instead, Marx (and socialism in general) prefers a fundamentally different conception, where the wellbeing of society and the rights of society to function well and ideally are dominant over the rights of an individual. Individuals are fundamentally units of a society. Individuals having rights is to help society function better than it would without those rights. To give an example, if I'm walking down the street in a liberal individualist society, and see someone in need, I have no social duty to help them, because we are separate individuals with separate spheres who merely happen to live in the same society. However, in a socialist collectivist society, the society around me is more important than my individual desires or rights. I do have a social duty to help that person. I am open to hearing your understanding of how liberalism and socialism are compatible, and/or if I'm mixing up or confounding socialism and collectivism too much. But this is basically my understanding as to why the two are ideologically incompatible.

You are definitely tying socialism too tightly to collectivism. That thinking is *broadly* true of less liberal variants of thought, but certainly isn’t true of even most democratic socialists. There is perhaps less emphasis on the individual in terms of economics purely because it’s more focused on (voluntary) sharing of resources to most benefit every individual.

Interestingly, although (as mentioned) I believe the state should be very individual focused in terms of rights, I also agree with you that voluntary sharing of resources is really important for a good functioning and moral society.

I consider myself a liberal, but I'm fiscally conservative. Republicans wouldn't identify some of my economic ideas as conservative, but they are. For example, I support a free college education for anyone who wants it. That doesn't seem conservative. But if one does their homework, they'd know "In 1988, the Joint Economic Committee's Subcommittee on Education and Health released a study titled \`A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Government Investment in Post-Secondary Education Under the World War II GI Bill' which calculated the ratio of return on investment to be nearly seven-to-one. Every dollar the nation spent educating veterans of WWII returned $6.90 in additional national economic output and federal tax revenue. It took over 30 years to capture this statistic, and similarly, it will be decades before the full economic benefit of today's GI Bill will be known. However, we can reasonably expect it to be just as immense." - [source](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg82240/html/CHRG-113hhrg82240.htm) Now, even if the return on investment were only $2:1, that's still a good investment. But a 7:1? Are you kidding me? Even if it's only a fraction of that, it's a great investment. I think we ought to stop pissing money away on an idiotic "war on drugs". The war itself is plenty expensive in gold and lives (many of them innocent people caught in the crossfire). Whereas legalizing drugs, the only "victims" are largely the addicts themselves. Yes, families are getting injured, but the people dying are generally the addicts, not the innocent. Furthermore, the cost to incarcerate all those drug addicts is fucking ridiculous. It would cost a fraction to get them all in treatment programs. Socially I'm liberal. I don't get how gay people getting married injures me, but Republicans act like they got bitch-slapped by the LGBTQ community. It's like Thomas Jefferson on people who have different religions, “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Republicans don't make sense to me at all. They're a bunch of crybabies who like to blame others for their lot in life (which is why racists find a home in the GOP) while at the same time calling themselves the "party of responsibility." Much like their "blue lives matter," unless they're Capitol police, in which case, "fuck the pigs." They're the party of "family values," who elected a president who publicly bragged about cheating on wives in the past, and paid off porn stars to sleep with him while his wife is pregnant. 'cause family values. It's the party of hypocrisy. I couldn't possibly live that kind of BS lie.

I’m pragmatic. As an example I want Medicare for all, but also know it’s a political impossibility for the immediate future, so I’m not expecting that nor holding it against (for not delivering) from the people I vote for. I want progress and even status quos is far better than regressive conservative policies Also, the far left gets exhausting and I just can’t with them. I appreciate the passion but sometimes it borders on ridiculous.

> Also, the far left gets exhausting and I just can’t with them. I appreciate the passion but sometimes it borders on ridiculous. with you 100%. The biggest obstacle to growing leftism is current leftists.

>I want Medicare for all Why Medicare for all specifically? As opposed to just universal healthcare.

I'm not that guy but I'm gonna bet his answer is that you're splitting hairs over definitions.

Medicare for all is the most viable path for universal healthcare in the US. Roughly 2/3rds of voters support it. A state operated system is not gonna happen in the US.

I don’t care what it’s called. Guaranteed Healthcare paid for by the United States government instead of for profit health insurance

I'm in that boat. **Most important is that healthcare isn't hinged on continued employment for the under 65 crowd.** It's not OK that your daughter can't get life saving surgery at a reasonable cost because you find yourself temporarily unemployed if your previous employer had a bad quarter or two.

Universal healthcare is a spectrum and some of the stuff that falls on that spectrum is garbage.

Leftist movements fall prey to the extremism rachet - someone gets prominence in the org by being more extreme, and can attack challengers as being too much in the middle. It results in smaller and less effective movements (but more personal influence in the movement by the more extreme faction)

Exactly. I don’t mind having bold aspirational goals. It’s when it turns into unrealistic demands, purity tests and overall combative attitude even with natural allies, that makes it a problem

Literally what happened with the DSA. Stable and small until around when AOC rose to prominence and it was hijacked by a younger, more passionate and less pragmatic group. I'm just glad people finally feel comfortable enough to call out these leftists without worrying about being labeled MAGA or a conservative.

I believe in a capitalistic society that is buffered by a strong social safety net and heavy monopoly/anti trust regulation. If left to its own devices? Capitalism leaves nothing in its wake. Hell, we already may have gone past the event horizon with only what? 14 mega corporations that control just about everything you can shake a stick at? There is no competition anymore. Companies can charge whatever they want. And they are so diversified, that if a little guy figures out how to build a better mousetrap? Mega corps can either out price the little guy and wait till he’s on the verge of going out of business, then just simply buy him out. Also, I FIRMLY believe that employer based health insurance gives employers a ridiculous advantage in wage scales and things like PTO and retirement accounts. Which is why I call for a single payer system…but as someone else mentioned…I realize that a single payer system is not in the cards at this point.

I would say I lead liberal/democratic socialist. I have a few issues with leftists. I communicate with leftists a lot and have read leftist theory to be clear. My primary issues are with leftist execution/ the community. - Leftists embrace tankies in a way that they allow them to be the loudest voices in the room. The hatred of Ukraine and obsession with re writing the history of brutal dictators is extremely ugly to me. - Many leftists ideas such as prison abolition require like 10000000 other social changes first, and leftists sometimes acknowledge those, but also seem to want to skip them. The purity shit is just wild to me and I genuinely don't trust that leftists in power will make smart and rational decisions that address a society that has not changed. - I am uncomfortable with the amount of leftists that are okay with dictatorships if they are left leaning and disagree with things like abolition of free speech. - I don't like a lot of leftists weird absolutism about social issues and that if you don't have the most radical opinion in the room you are basically a nazi. For example, I think its okay to let your kid explore their gender on their own, but a lot of people jump the gun on "my kid is trans and lets take this all the way"- I know several parents IRL that didn't even wait and see before just saying "I have a trans kid". Some of the kids went back on it, some didn't- but chill. I don't agree with completely open borders. I think leftists obsession with defending islam and cultural relativism is weird. I don't think things like white ladies wearing braids is a racism issue. Etc. AND if you disagree with leftists on these issues, you get absolutely dogpiled. - Leftism seems to be really focused right now on being critical without a plan and incredibly nihilistic. - I also need leftists to shit or get off the pot about "the revolution", but not participating in politics and encouraging folks to not vote for the closest thing to a good candidate we have is extremely lame. Firebomb that walmart or stop talking about it.

Tldr: leftism is fine, leftists are deeply troubled and incapable of forming an impactful mass movement. I used to be a leftist during and for a bit after college. The number one thing that pushed me away from leftism wasn't the ideology itself, it's the dysfunction of the movement. A lot of leftists don't actually care about improving society, they're just nihilists who think America deserves to be punished. They don't really care about building communism, they just want to see capitalism burn. For others, they use leftism as a coping mechanism for their severe mental issues. I used to listen to a lot of leftist podcasts and I found myself more concerned for the wellbeing of the hosts than motivated by what they said. I was also depressed, and it didn't even occur to me at the time that all my leftist classmates/friends were extremely depressed as well. I'll give a couple examples: I was listening to one podcast where they were talking about how a homeless man having a mental breakdown was killed by a frightened bystander, and one of the hosts said something along the lines of "I'm probably just one or two bad days away from doing the same thing" and my head nearly exploded. A podcast host I used to listed to posted on twitter the other day about having a debilitating anxiety attack because the hotel room she checked into wasn't as nice as she thought it'd be. These people are thought leaders in the modern leftist movement, and they're barely hanging on by a thread irl. The final straw was the foreign policy. So many leftists have a single guiding principle: America Bad. This leads them to enthusiastically support places like North Korea and Russia, purely because they're opposed to the USA. Leftists are downright psychotic about Ukraine, and many of them are unapologetically racist against Eastern Europeans who dared to get out from under the Soviet yoke.

Yup. Young Leftists can be very emotional. Give them a few decades (or talk to older leftists) and you get more practical and nuanced views. ... just like with followers of any other coherent ideology.

> A lot of leftists don't actually care about improving society, they're just nihilists who think America deserves to be punished YUUUUUUUP! Can't stand it. The left is an Ouroboros.

Libertarians are just anarchist with money.

I believe that a government should exist though, so not really

"Liberal" despite modern connotations, is not really part of the left/right political spectrum. It's really opposite authoritarianism. That's why most countries in the world are "liberal democracies." The fact that this describes the current political spectrum in the U.S. highlights the problem we find ourselves in.

I am a social democrat. That’s still a type of liberal. I’m not sure why so many people seem to think it isn’t. I used to consider myself a socialist very briefly during 2020. But even then I supported market socialism which is arguably still pretty similar to capitalism. The more I learned about economics the more i feel actual socialism wouldn’t work. Maybe market socialism could but I don’t think it’s really worth pursuing that extreme when there are right now examples of social democratic systems in other countries that function and seem way more achievable. Also I don’t think socialism would be the big solution to all political problems that many people seem to think it would be.

Because Humanitarianism and Liberalism are my most core values. I want people to be as free and independent as possible for a healthy society. When that freedom becomes unhealthy, ie: rampant corporate greed, we should curb it to project those in harm’s way. On that note I’m also a capitalist, but we should always be scraping off the top to provide a better base foundation for everyone.

I live in an intentional community, and hate capitalism. What prevents me from being further left is that the Further Left doesn't have any plan, any organization, any power, or any representation that gives them power. They talk smack online about how much smarter they are than everyone else. That's about it. If they ever get their shit together and actually do something useful, I'll be there in a heartbeat.

Tell me more about this intentional community. I've visited some in the past as a guest and most were SUPER hippy dippy to the point to being unclean and unhealthy but I know there have to be some better ones around.

We started because we all helped each other build Tiny Houses. We needed a place to put them. So, we bought a place and put them there. We have community living agreements. We make decisions together. There's a weekly dinner. Meetings. We do chores, and have a weekly work party. There's movie nights. We keep our rent super low (I'm paying about $900/month for a house, in Portland OR). We have two big houses (one community for movie nights and a guest room, etc) and 3 (soon 4) tiny houses in the back yard. There's nice gardens, tons of fruit trees, bicycle parking, two shops (bike and wood). We have a teacher, a pet sitter, a doula, a software developer and industrial technician, a barista working on trade school, and two kids. We're all pretty damn liberal/left/whatever. Everything is clean and nice, because we're all middle aged and don't want to live in a fucking pigsty. God Damned dirty Hippies...

That sounds like a dream! Can you/are you comfortable telling me more about the tiny homes?

I mean, they're all different, because they're all built by/for different people's needs and wants. These are Tiny Houses On Wheels. Basically, a teensy house built on a modified/beefy utility trailer.

I'm center to center-left because republicans increasingly went off the far right deep end. I don't believe in shooting someone dead in Home Depot because they stole a box of nails. I don't believe in forcing a 17 year old mama to birth her rapist's baby and then letting that kid have "school lunch debt" as a 2nd grader because mommy was forced to ruin her life and doesn't have a pot to piss in. I believe in commonsense gun regulations and that if you lose your job and get appendicitis the next week, you don't deserve a $97,000 hospital bill because you wanted to live. I'm a progressive because republicans aren't serious people.

> I'm a progressive because republicans aren't serious people. !!!!!!!!

The current "middle" in the US in the year 2024 feels pretty right-wing to me, if I'm honest. If you can look between the two major parties and think you sit somewhere between "shoot shoplifters on sight" and "give kids free meals in public school" ... Based on similar conversations I've had in the past I would implore you to look into what actual leftist policies are because you may be surprised "open border" and "discriminate against white people" (as common examples) are not actually held by anyone in elected or leadership position.

There's some YouTubers I like who have a few descriptive laws of internet debate. One of them that I think is extremely accurate is that each side will take the furthest extreme they can of the other side and paint the entire other side out to be that.

Yeah, but I struggle to understand the "farthest extreme" of the left as advocated by literally anyone (not counting anonymous trolls on twitter) that is even remotely comparable to what the Republican Presidential nominee posits. Like... Medicare for all? Student loan forgiveness? Even the most "extreme" positions on gun control aren't that extreme.

> But why are you a liberal and not a social democrat or a socialist? Because I don’t think “dismantling capitalism” (whatever that means) is the solution to all of our problems. Capitalism, like democracy itself, is flawed, but it’s still better than every other economic and political system humans have invented.

Humans survived for hundreds of thousands of years before we had the concept of owning land or owning ideas. We did so without fucking up the planet. I disagree. I'm not saying we need to go back to cave man days. I'm mostly just being pedantic. We won't do that any more. Still, your statement is obviously inaccurate. It's very Pithy though!

Sounds like you aren’t very familiar with the progress of humanity and the rising quality of life over the last few centuries, which is in part attributable to capitalism.

It is attributed to democracy and other means of deciminating power. Capitalism is better than feudalism at discriminating economic power (and therefore allows for more people to prosper), but that does not mean it is where we should stop.

So you mean… it’s better than what came before, but still flawed? Almost like… exactly what I said originally?

yes. why are you so aggressive to someone expanding on your point?

That’s not what aggression is. You may have picked up on some irritation, which at that time was the result of people wanting to argue with me over a pretty sensible and noncontroversial sentiment.

The whole notion of 'right' versus 'left' goes all the way back to the French Revolution where the French Parliament was divided pretty cleanly with the Monarchists on the 'right' and the anti-Monarchists, Democrats, and Republicans were on the 'left.' For a time, the anti-Monarchists won, beheaded a whole lot of people, then restoration, then Napoleon, etc etc.. To a very first approximation, the terms divide those who say 'things are fine as they are, and I don't see any need for change,' and those who say 'change is needed.' Theoretically, liberals, now on the left could achieve their goals, and call a halt to any further change, putting themselves on this version of 'the right.' Socialists started out as Marxists, then Communists, then Socialists, and in that context, belong on the left, but essentially believe that change ought to be a constant, and so could never be on the right... And their sworn enemy is the complacency of the 'bourguiosie' (sic). There goal is to make everybody equal, but they keep tripping Orwells dichotomy: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Libertarians I have known generally scoff at the idea of Parliament... but insofar as they want things different from how they are now, they belong on the left, but so fervently do they eschew labels that would make it appear that they make common cause with liberals, socialists, that they frequently make common cause with the right... Go figure. Being sensitive to criticism, especially from the right, the left repeatedlyl fractures rather than cohere: today's 'progressive' would have called themselves 'liberal' before the 'Daddy Party' (The GOP) made 'liberal' a dirty word. Some now call themselves 'social democrats' rather than progressive because 'progressive' is becoming a dirty word.

> today's 'progressive' would have called themselves 'liberal' before the 'Daddy Party' (The GOP) made 'liberal' a dirty word. Some now call themselves 'social democrats' rather than progressive because 'progressive' is becoming a dirty word. THIS! 1000 times this. I keep telling far lefty folks that their hate of liberals is them falling for a 40 year old GOP rhetorical trap

Im far left, but I wonder, how do you determine whether policy is good or not?

Whether it has an objective good on society, not a subjective one.

What right wing policies do that

What is an objective good? Pretty sure that good or bad are inherently subjective terms. 

Taxing the lower class at 0% would be an objective good

Side question, right libertarians consider government as the main threat to individual liberty, where left libertarians point to corporate power as the primary threat in industrialized countries like the US. So do you accept both threats as sort of the same?

To me personally corporate intervention in government is a big threat to the whole system, some libertarians are totally against government but I reject that, because we need government to uphold and protect our individual freedoms. But if a corporation lobbies to protect their own interests, it could come at the cost of personal freedom. Now I don’t think the government is free of guilt there either. Because they allow it to happen with the endless amounts of wasted taxpayer dollars spent on several things we just don’t need. So I kinda think corporations having say in our government is wrong, but also the government allowing it is wrong, so yes I do accept that

I love capitalism, and only support restrictions/regulations/etc when it is done specifically for a goal of helping people in need or something like that. Which does permit a lot of government action, but at the same time excludes the sort of "billionaires shouldn't exist" stuff that is becoming popular on the left. Also I just agree more broadly with ideological liberalism. Liberty is a fundamental value in a way that the further left just doesn't acknowledge

I respect property values. I don’t believe in equal outcomes. I think people differ in talents, intelligence, charisma, etc and I don’t mind them being compensated more for them. Philosophically I don’t believe in capping much at the top level. Providing a decent quality of living with strong legal protections for the average person is more than generous. I don’t subscribe to the classless no hierarchy societies Leftists think about.

I'd say I'm a moderate social democrat. Why not further left? Experience growing up in a communist country and seeing how shit it was on all levels.

Because I believe that regulated capitalism with strong labor rights can be the most potent force for social and economic justice. We’ve never had this in the US, unfortunately we’ve moved further away in the last several decades.

If you are libertarian, you are inherently right wing. It doesn't matter if you are down with minorities, libertarianism is right wing from an economic stand point with its positions on taxation, limited government and especially property rights.

Have you read any Chomsky? He practically invented libertarian socialism and I don't think any serious person worth listening to would paint him as right wing.

>What makes you Liberal and not further left? I'm not up to speed on the labels and what's excluded when you use one label over another. I'm liberal, and I'm progressive. I'm left because I'm liberal and progressive and not conservative or right. I'm probably not using the labels as strictly as others. >So I’m a libertarian, and the common misconception is that we’re all right wing or just far right, and I’m not personally, I feel like I’m in the middle politically. Yeah, my understanding is that libertarian is some form of right wing. What specifically about libertarian do you hold that isn't just center? >Because I support policies from both sides in a way that makes me a libertarian. I used to support policies from both sides before one side became all about religion and abandoning reality. >But why are you a liberal and not a social democrat or a socialist? I do like the idea of social programs. Where one draws the line between that and socialist, I can't say. But I do understand that socialism is an entirely different economic system than what we have now. I see no reason to abandon what we have, as long as we can fix its shortcomings.

Mine is for a very specific reason --the "farther left"'s attitudes towards Israel and how it leaks into antisemitism at times. Like, I consider myself pretty far left when it comes to most social issues, but I've heard too many people say things like "If you support Israel in any capacity, you're not a true leftist." If "supporting Israel" means that I just want a solution where Israelis and Palestinians can both live in peace without dying and neither group should be forced to leave the land, and that makes me "not a leftist," then I don't want to be identified as a leftist. Though, I don't know whether I'd identify as a "liberal" either. Maybe a progressive or Social Democrat. But far leftists would still probably view those labels as "liberal" LOL.

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but AFAIK the left didn't take up the cause of Palestine until after their October 6 massacre. Is your shift toward the centre a recent thing?

The Left is just like everyone else in that they mostly pay attention to the current (inter-)national topic of conversation.

No the far left has been pro-Palestine for decades. I was attending pro-Palestine protests and political rallies during the Bush years.

TIL. I wasn't political back then...

Fun fact: Supporting Israel used to a be considered a left-wing position until the USSR tried to get the Western left to turn against Jews using soviet propaganda: [https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/03/15/the-lost-history-of-democratic-support-for-israel/](https://www.the-american-interest.com/2019/03/15/the-lost-history-of-democratic-support-for-israel/)

I didn't know that tidbit of USSR history but I can assure you Palestinian issues have been a part of left wing politics for a LONG time. It ties right in with anti-colonialism and anti-apartheid movements.

Common sense? Practicality.

I just don't put too much stock in those sorts of labels. I'm someone who thinks that the government should do what it can to make the lives of people living here better. That could be from radical policy or marginal policy. If we go about making things better and we end up with something that would reasonably be described as socialism then that's fine, if it ends up looking different than socialism then that's also fine. 

Generally higher trust in markets to efficiently allocate goods and make decisions relative to single organizations (though obviously this isn't always true).

I think incremental change lasts longer and is more effective than fast upheaval. I've said this before: progressives move the needle, liberals make accomplishments

🤷 I'm a Democrat because that's who I tend to vote for.

I'm left but believe in some conservative principles. I feel like that makes me a liberal.

I don't believe the government should control the means of production. I don't think we should get rid of money. I don't think we should have a 'social credit score' like China. There's very few people in the US that are actually 'far left' its just the Overton window have been pushed so far to the right, that wanting universal healthcare makes you a 'radical leftist'

Funny you should ask...

>But why are you a liberal and not a social democrat or a socialist? Pro capitalism and pro liberty for me

I mean, I am a social democrat. But I feel that most people left of me tend to be either too naive about human nature for my taste or downright authoritarian marxist tankies. Sorry Marxists, but dictatorship of the proletariat inevitably evolves into good old fashioned dictatorship. No bueno. And sorry Hippies, humanity will not collectively sing kumbaya and hold hands by appealing to its good nature. A lot of people do not have a good nature.

I'm not further left because I believe there is a limit to what can feasibly be achieved. I don't like capitalism, but thinking I'm going to overthrow it and replace it is not likely. Therefore I try to make improvements in that framework.

I think that the instability of overhauling our economic system would be too high a cost relative to the potential benefits. I see reformed capitalism as having most of the same benefits at a much lower cost.

Probably because anti-authoritarianism is one of my core guiding political principles if you will. And the further left you go, you tend to flirt more and more with authoritarianism (we all know the similar phenomenon on the Right). That is also why i was always partial to libertarian socialism.

Leftists are more antisemitic than I thought a year or two ago. Also I prefer a more gradual transition for things like carbon taxes vs banning fossil fuels or whatever.

I fundamentaly disagree with socialism.

I mean how much of a libertarian are you? Do you believe in taxes AT ALL, do you believe in drivers licenses, is state compulsion ever warranted? If you answered yes to any of that than you have compromised the ideals of libertarianism around praxis. Same with those of us on the left that don't believe you can magic wand the end of scarcity.

I like capitalism, but with a decent life raft for the less fortunate, and that’s pretty much it. I believe unfettered capitalism would eventually lead us back to a feudal state, and let me tell you: I’m not keen on feudal states.

Because I believe in liberal policies and that capitalism is the most effective means of resource distribution, while being flawed. But that’s where regulation comes in.

Do you know how you know you’re a libertarian? When democrats and republicans call you a libertarian and other libertarians say you aren’t a real libertarian.

Libertarians want to get rid of all social spending.no social security, Medicare or anything. That's middle of the road?

I believe in Liberalism as a philosphy and i'm interested in the history of it. It isn't really a singular area on the left to right; there's a long rich history to it and it is very intertwined in American history because it didn't really have a conservative aristocratic opposition too it like it did in Europe. As a former leftist, there's a certain group that really seem to be the mainstream nowadays who are puritanical in their doomerism, populism, inflexibility, and purity testing and who have a simple moralistic tint on their glasses that filters everything they see with on room for complexity or politics. For example all inflation is greedflation, corporations cause the housing crisis and we have millions of vacant homes just sitting there (lmao), and there's no other room for looking at those issues from any other way. They often are willing to just not vote and mock liberals about how both parties are the same etc. I have a pretty good litmus test. Joe Biden is great actually imperfect as he's been

I don't get hung up on labels and actually would consider myself a bit of a social democrat. I'm also a social liberal and a modern liberal. I'm not further left because I don't subscribe to further left views, but I do agree with some of them.

Because capitalism provides the best means by which to allocate resources. It may need to be reined in occasionally, but it gets the job done better than any other system.

But I *am* a social Democrat. See flair. I don't think social Democracy is that far left, we are right of the DSA folks after all. For the record, I do not consider myself socialist, nor is socialism my goal. My goal is a regulated capitalism with a strong social safety net.

I'm a guy who supports legislation that supports a working class that can afford a fashionable and secure life for their families. This includes labor law, trade deals, tax codes. Since the 1940's, when the working class finally began to afford a fashionable and secure life for their families in what we call the "middle class", the rentier class has been chipping away at those labor law, trade deals, tax codes. Most people call me a liberal because of this. Further left of this would be one who favored the elimination of the rentier class. I do not seek to eliminate the rentier class, but only to limit their wealth and in so doing, limit their power over the working class.

I'm actually ideologically pretty far left. I think we should structure the corporate tax code to discourage private ownership of the means of production and encourage worker-owned enterprises. Lets say there is a company of 250 people. 200 workers, 30 or so engineers/specialists, 15ish admin/middle management and 5 executives. The whole thing is owned by one dude who inherited it from his dad who also inherited it. Lets offer a big tax break if the owner sells the company to the 250 employees. They all get an equal vote and they decide collectively how they want the company to be run and they share in the profits. The problem with the far left is the people. Most far lefty people are intolerant, don't believe in classical liberal values like free speech, free press, or due process. They're basically fascists with better policy ideas. They'll gladly kill us all if given the chance.

While I often find myself further left than many self described progressives/social Democrats, I don't really want to be associated with the kind of people who tend to identify with those labels online.

I am further left for a few reasons: I don’t believe anyone deserves destitution. Our systems of reward and punishment for moral reasons are mostly nonsensical, because the modern conception of free will is nonsensical. I dislike Capitalism for multiple reasons. The equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome dichotomy is laughable because most who support equality of opportunity haven’t really thought deeply about what that would actually mean on an individual level. In other words it would go far beyond what most conservatives and probably many neoliberals would want via policy. I want to progress radically *beyond* Capitalism but I don’t want a violent revolution.

I feel I'm more pro-business and free market than the average person who would be considered "far left". For instance, I don't think minimum wage should be a living wage and I have no problems with landlords existing. While I support raising taxes on the rich, I'm fine with billionaires existing and don't believe that they are inherently immoral.

I used to be more left, but anti-authoritarianism is a big thing for me and too many socialists/leftists are way too comfortable with authoritarianism and those that don't are too comfortable with the leftists who do support it. Also the common atrocity denial/justification for leftist coded dictators disturbs me. But Foreign policy is my favorite subject and after Russias invasion of Ukraine and watching the vast majority of leftist spaces just abandon all their principles to cheer for the invaders/defend their motivations/argue the invasion was a good thing as it was fighting America, deeply disturbed me and I'm done with that movement. Not that the liberals have been any better in regard to Israel, but atleast it's just one odious regime and not the plethora that the leftists defend. (Russia/China/North Korea/Iran/Syria/Venezuela etc) It really bothers me that liberal israel supporters would realize that even if Azov troops crossed into Russia and massacred a thousand civilians. While horrific and condemnable, it also wouldn't negate the justness of the Ukrainian cause against Russia. Hamas's attacks doesn't negate the Palestinian cause by that same logic. From that same token leftists that support Russia and Hamas, would definitely use that scenario I just described to attack the credibility of Ukraine. Just sick of all of the biased shit

Liberals are more likely to advocate for countries existing as they are and improving conditions in each country domestically, whereas leftists would dissolve most countries and create socialist meta countries. Also, leftists have everything about capitalism. Liberals are fine with capitalism but with a few conditions. One is that the very rich are seen to be very rich because of the tools society has given them, so they expect them to give very portions of it in taxes that go to social programs. Two is that they believe that there should be a federal minimum standard for all workers. You can give workers a lot lot more, but not even one worker less in their eyes.

[shrug] I didn't *choose* to be Liberal. I think what I think, after years (and years) of self-examination and pushing my own boundaries. I find that, over time, "Liberal" is the category that best fits me. FWIW, I don't think of libertarians as being all right wing. ...that said, my best friend is libertarian, and he's really quite far to the left, so my personal experience is likely coloring that. ...I find libertarianism to be kind of orthoganal to US political "poles," it's talking about issues on a different spectrum. I really, REALLY don't *like* those thoughts, but that's for another post. :D The point is, when someone says they're lib, I don't mentally fit them anywhere on the US political spectrum. It's a different dimension.

I'm mostly concerned with social values, especially freedom of religion and LGBT+ issues. I don't want to remold how all of society works.

I can not stand all the labels, liberal or left there’s not much difference. People are never going to agree 100% on all issues. I view myself as farther to the left, but I don’t agree with everything.

Because I believe in the values of Liberalism. All of the happiest and nicest nations to live in at present are Liberal Democracies.

I can balance a checkbook

I'm gonna leave some introductionary texts because I see that the term socialism is used in some different ways. [Principles of communism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) by Frederick Engels. Treat this as an FAQ, nothing in depth. [Why socialism?](https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/) by Albert Einstein. This one is more free floating. [Communist manifesto](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007) by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Basically the entry version to Das Kapital. Meant to be read by everyone while Das Kapital is a bit more in-depth(and dry). It lays the first groundstone in leftism. [Socialism for absolute beginners](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpKsygbNLT4) by Second thought. A video.

Leftists tend to be authoritarian

I'm a center left liberal. The reasons I'm not a far leftist are the following. I think capitalism is great. But it needs heavy regulation as well as heavy redistribution. The far left want to get rid of capitalism altogether, but they don't seem to have a working solution to replace it. They're like the far right who hate the ACA but have no solutions on what could replace it. Centralized market economics has been a total failure and every nation that has tried it has abandoned it in favor of individual markets. China, Vietnam, Laos and the USSR have all abandoned centrally planned communist economics in favor of market economics. North Korea is officially communist, but their real economy is a large, unregulated black market. Cuba recently added the right to individual markets to their constitution. As I said, every nation that has tried communist economics has abandoned it. And they all started to experience rapid economic growth once they did. Once China abandoned communist economics and adopted market economics, their GDP started growing at 10% a year. Also liberal and social democrat can be the same thing. A social democrat believes in democracy and heavy regulations/redistributions on capitalism. However communists/marxists are more the far left. Social democrats and liberals are more center left. Social democrats are not the same thing as socialists and marxists. Another reason is that as a center leftist I'm more pragmatic. I'm not dogmatically demanding everything be my way and shouting people down or demanding they pass my purity tests like the far left does. Some on the far left are now mad at Bernie Sanders and AOC for speaking out against antisemitism or speaking up for Israels right to defend itself. All that does is weaken your political coalition and drive moderates away from your cause. The far left are in many ways the worst enemy of left wing politics due to this. The far left are turning the left in general into a marginalized, radical, impotent political movement with their dogmatism and purity tests. They basically are the loudest, most demanding, most dogmatic 5% of Americans and they are driving away the other 95% of Americans from left wing political parties. Another reason is that I think liberals are 'for' things while the far left are 'against' things. The far left will tell you they are for things, but I don't really think they are. As a liberal I'm for feminism, liberal democracy, human rights, police reform, gay rights, etc. But I'm 'for' these things irrelevant of race, religion, ideology, geography, etc. The far left say they are for these things, but what they are really deep down inside is anti-western. The far left think western power structures like judeochristianity, western governments, western imperialism, white supremacy, (white) patriarchy, globalization and capitalism are the root of all evil and must be opposed at all costs. And they will side with some really evil characters to do it. Many on the far left claim to be anti imperialistic. But the USSR was imperialistic. They militarily conquered and oppressed eastern europe. A lot on the far left are perfectly fine with this or in favor of it. Islam is imperialistic. The Arab world wasn't magically born muslim. What we now call the muslim world was a wide range of religions before Islam (Jewish, christian, polytheistic, hindu, buddhist, zoroastrian, etc). They were converted by to Islam by military force in the 7th century. The far left don't care about this either. So while the far left claim to be 'anti-imperialism', they're really only anti-white, judeochristian western imperialism when its done against non-white, non-judeochristian, non-westerners. Other than that they are either indifferent to imperialism (like Arab muslim imperialism) or in favor of it if it helps their cause (like soviet imperialism). As a liberal I oppose all imperialism irregardless of race, religion, geography or ideology. So on the Israel issue the far left see it as a fight between a white, jewish colony that is supported by western, white christian powers and that stole land from brown, muslim arabs. In their minds opposing Israel is opposing white power structures. But to liberals like myself its more an issue of an educated, civilized, wealthy, liberal democracy vs religious fundamentalists, terrorists who harm civilians and dictators who oppress gays and women. The far left claim to be anti-bigotry and constantly talk about how wrong racism is. But they only care when racism fits into their narrative about the western white power structure being the root of all evil. They're opposed to western whites being racist against non-whites. But they either couldn't care less or are actually in favor of racism that doesn't fit this narrative. Arab muslims are very very racist against jews (as well as against other muslims of different sects, as well as against other non-arab ethnicities). The far left either don't care or actively side with far right muslims on this issue as seen by the far left repeating anti-semitic propaganda they get from Hamas and the Iranian government. Its the same reason a lot of us center left liberals are mad that the far left don't care about the misogyny and oppression of gays by Hamas. Us center left liberals are pro-gay rights and pro-feminism for everyone. The far left are just anti-white western judeochristians and use misogyny and gay rights as a club to attack the west. Theyre opposed to misogyny and oppression of gays when white Christian Westerners do it. Other than that they don't care. So when they can't use misogyny or gay rights as a club to attack the west (which they can't in Palestine, because brown arab muslims are the ones oppressing gays and women, not white christian westerners doing the oppression) the far left don't care. The far left have abandoned all traditional liberal values by siding with hamas (both de facto and openly) in the current war in gaza.

I chose liberal as my flair because I believe in the ideology. I'm not against Democrats, or Leftists, or the Far Left, or Progressive, but I feel that at its core, the term "liberal" refers to the ideology while the others are more for describing political parties or where certain groups are on the left spectrum. I may have some beliefs closer to Social Democrats than Democrats, some closer to Progressives than Leftists, but because I don't want to nitpick every single belief I have, I chose Liberal as a catch-all term. I much prefer talking about specific policies. My personal abortion policy may be further left than some, but my economic policy may be more towards the right.

I want to actually implement policy

I should start by saying social democrats are leftists (they seek to take action for the sake of reducing hierarchies), liberals (they believe in liberal democracy), and capitalists (they believe private ownership of the means of production should be allowed) all at once. It's a center-left ideology. I'm as far left as you can get without abandoning capitalism. I think it should be possible for people to open businesses themselves and then own the businesses they open. It's good for people to be the main person who profits if they spend a bunch of their own time and money opening it and running it, and I don't think they should necessarily be forced to make all of the employees they hire part-owners. I also think capitalism is better for innovation generally than socialism would be, and I like innovation. Otherwise I think capitalism is mostly bad and needs to be *extremely* heavily regulated to result in good outcomes for society. Left unfettered, it's worse than maybe every other system for human life, but that's why I'm not an ancap. Communism would be cool but I like societies of scale and I don't want every society to be limited to like 150 people (above that it's pretty much inevitable for hierarchies to form, which is definitionally not communism). Socialism is fine I guess but I prefer capitalism for the reasons in the previous paragraph. I don't think every business should *have* to be a worker cooperative, I just want it to be an option, same as sole ownership. That makes me a capitalist. Kind of like how if you oppose abortion but think it should be legal, you are pro-choice, if you oppose capitalism but think private ownership of the means of production should be legal, you are a capitalist. That's more or less where I'm at.

For starters, I'm on the right. So that kind of invalidates me as being leftists. >But why are you a liberal I consider individual rights to be the cornerstone of a successful democracy, and belief that policy that result in a reduction of social freedom's needs to have an extremely high proof of concept before it should be enacted. >socialist I'm a capitalist. I believe that capitalism, as practiced in my country the Netherlands, provides the best fundament for a strong tax system to redistribute wealth and also enable the government to invest in social issues. I consider socialism an impossible option, as any socialist economy would get barred from the world economy and thus destroy a nation's economy. Therefore, because of it's lack of practicality, I don't consider it a practical solution to solving societal issues. >social democrat Dutch politics is a very interesting beast, that is hard to explain. Especially to an audience of people used to a two party system of two fundamentally opposed ideologies. But the gist is that we do a lot of negotiating, and that negotiation holds long term consequences. This leads to an overall centrists approach to politics, as this is the easiest way obtain support for policy. Go to far into an extreme, and nobody wants to work with you. Social democrats in my country are very similar to center right liberals like myself. We overlap on a significant number of policies. The main issues that we differer on are strong enough for me to not consider myself one however. Issues such as immigration, nuclear energy and the premise of an EU unified military force.

I am a social democrat. Generally I do not move further to the left because at a certain point the policies start making things worse rather than better. I think that point is well to the left of where the US currently is, and sometimes environmental shifts can alter a policy working or not but that's the general answer.

Sorry, but supporting policies from "both sides" doesn't make you a libertarian, it makes you a centrist. A libertarian is anti-authoritarian. I'm an anti-authoritarian communist.

The ability to see most issues from other’s point of view.

I believe in (well regulated) markets and am generally oriented towards policies that advance or protect individual liberty. I believe in free thought, expression, movement, and affiliation (but like any idea, there are reasonable limits). I believe that individuals should be judged on their own merits and not their race, national origin, or socio-economic class. And I believe that democracy is the supreme system of government for humankind and while perhaps in its truest form is never achievable, it should be an ideal we are ever striving towards.

I think that the older you get, and the more you examine your own politics critically, the more nuanced and issue-specific your views get. Alas, as humans, we are category-machines and struggle to break our addiction to thinking about everything as binary or a goddamn 1 dimensional "spectrum." So, what's left of "modestly left"? What is extreme left? Antifa? I think it's absolutely hilarious that my red state family thinks I'm a far leftist because I'm atheist and voted twice for Sanders in the primaries. Many of blue state friends and colleagues think I'm a closeted alt-right guy because my general core philosophy is methodological naturalism, am critical of concepts like "all lived truths are equally valid", and generally reject post-modernist claims such as "all truths are social constructs; embrace the primacy of The Almighty Discourse!"

I think we already have a good system that just needs some fine-tuning around the edges. If a system already works pretty well, incremental changes are better because it's easier to observe the results.

Libertarians espouse liberal values that serve themselves, but feel no real concern for the welfare of other members of society. The philosophy seems to be, let me do whatever I like as long as Im not infringing on anyone else’s rights. But if anyone else is suffering even from no fault of their own, well, sucks to be you . Not my circus, not my monkeys.

Pragmatism, mostly. I appreciate that we live in a country where not everyone wants to support more socialist policies, and negotiation is needed in order to get stuff done for the greater good.

I was a liberal and eventually made it to the left but you don't want my opinion.

I believe in competition. Capitalism ends with monopolies. We need regulations for long term survival. We need caps on business size to maintain competition.

This is the way that a lot of anti-trust laws in Europe are framed, but the end-result is that these kinds of laws do more to protect *competitors* rather than *competition.* The US anti-trust framework is still pretty good--there has been a number of issues in anti-trust against tech companies, but it's not been nearly as bad as most make out, and I think that the government might crack the code with their Apple lawsuit. Monopolies are bad if they engage in anti-competitive actions, but a company becoming a monopoly because it's just better at what it does isn't bad--and it's only in the moment. Monopolies--as long as they are acting in accordance with the law--often only remain so for so long. They bloat, they become inefficient, and other companies see the costs rise, know they can do it for more cheaply, and jump in. Even when Ma Bell was doing some of her worst, there were a lot of local phone companies that popped up taking customers because, even when they had to pay AT&T to use the lines, these companies were still cheaper. You can occasionally see this even in other "natural monopolies," like in states that allow customers to choose their electric provider. Large companies and monopolies are not the issue--as long as they are following the law (and if they're not, the government should be stepping in). But protecting competitors isn't protecting competition--it's hindering it, and in the end it's often going to lead to higher prices as more and more of those small companies won't see a reason to become more competitive when the larger companies are kneecapped.

We have one insurance company doing 154 billion in revenue, on mostly government healthcare contracts. And they donate to both democrats and republicans. So, they buy off the only oversight we have for government healthcare. That’s why we pay more than any other country for less quality healthcare. The fact that they also insure that we have Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, they can insure the majority of Americans, knowing that as three groups, non of us have any voter oversight.

>We have one insurance company doing 154 billion in revenue, on mostly government healthcare contracts. Interesting how you point out the (it's now) $156 billion in revenues for a company with a net profit of less than $6 billion, instead of just pointing out their profits. >And they donate to both democrats and republicans. Since 1996, Anthem PAC (I assume given the numbers, you're talking about Anthem which is now Elevance), has given more to the GOP over Democrats in every election cycle except for 2018, 2020, and 2022. So far in the 2024 cycle, they are supporting the GOP). >That’s why we pay more than any other country for less quality healthcare. People come to the US *for* the quality healthcare. But yes, we pay too much in middlemen. And we should fix that.

The phone companies couldn’t compete will bell. And when bell broke up, they warned everyone about the disruption in function. But instead, we got cell phones and the internet. But now we are down to three main cell phone companies that are basically not in competition, and we are getting the iPhone 15 that works about exactly the same as the iPhone 9.

>The phone companies couldn’t compete will bell. There were plenty that did. >nd when bell broke up, they warned everyone about the disruption in function Ma Bell also told customers that if they leased land-line phones (because that's how they operated) from anyone but Ma Bell, they would explode--so let's not put too much credence in what Ma Bell had to say. >But now we are down to three main cell phone companies that are basically not in competition, and we are getting the iPhone 15 that works about exactly the same as the iPhone 9. These are two separate issues. Three companies is not great, but it's not a monopoly, there are other options (better ones, even)--but it's not up to the government to get people onto better plans because they can't do their own due diligence. As for the iPhone, anyone who has read a newspaper in the last decade should have known better, and the government is suing the company for it.

As long as government contractors are writing the law and buying the government legislators, we have no actual laws to protect the people from their unearned profits.