Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Where can I find a (much more) left-wing community similar to The Motte? /r/slatestarcodex is close but obviously intentionally tries to avoid Culture War topics (spurring the creation of this place in the first place).
By left-wing, I solely mean on social issues ("progressive liberalism"), like immigration, race, sex, gender, gender identity, democracy, rule of law (which I guess is now a pro-left position in 2026 or something). On economics stuff a range of views would be fine. I'm a pro-free market pro-capitalist person, myself rather than a socialist. There's /leftypol/ but those are essentially all communists who are pro-authoritarianism and all of that and who are often even right-wing on social issues.
There are tons of Twitter clusters full of very smart center-left people who agree with me on everything but it's not quite what I'm looking for.
Community-wise? No idea. I tried Lemmy once and initially they loved me because I argued effectively on their behalf on points we mutually agreed on. Once they found me on the opposite side of them on social issues, I was swiftly banned from that place.
Only on ‘very’ few issues would I be considered left-wing. Years ago I took the political compass test and it placed me on the “authoritarian left-wing,” spectrum. On some issues sure. It’s survey of my views I felt weren’t asking me the right questions though. A single [and slight] word difference would’ve placed me from a moderate to the far right end of the spectrum.
If you’re a lefty though, why object to socialism? The core of socialism is just workers control of production (i.e. industrial democracy). Authoritarianism was always a reluctant ideological instrument of the early communists, when faced with external pressure and mounting enemies against their revolutionary attempts. These regimes of course were authoritarian. They unfortunately had to be. Otherwise counter-revolutionaries come in and undo all the progress you’ve made. These systems weren’t regularly allowed to fail or succeed on their own merits but were always being fucked with by outside actors.
I find that the "authoritarian" axis in political alignment tests is basically meaningless. We have a contested environment where there are four, if not more, obvious potential power centers (government; "the rabble"; the financial elite (business); the social elite (academics/journalists), possibly further pillarised into tribes so you have the Alex Joneses/Charlie Kirks and the NYT journalists), each having framed bringing at least some of the others to heel as a precondition to their own ability to exercise their natural right to live freely.
In this setting, being "libertarian" just ends up meaning "wants more power for the power centers the labeller likes" and being "authoritarian" means "wants more power for the power centers the labeller dislikes". The "tankie left" wants power for the rabble, and a hypothetical government of them, over the others; "yellow lib-right" wants power for the financial elite; traditional auth right wants power for government; "liberals" want power for their social elite, and the Ivermectin circuit essentially forms a sort of shadow liberal set that is excited over Robert Kennedy and probably also vaguely pining for an era when microchurch pastors with weird idiosyncratic beliefs commanded respect in their communities. Each of these groups thinks that it is natural if their respective elites rule, and unjust oppression if they are prevented from doing so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link