I have no idea what box I fit into.

• I am generally anti-capitalism. The current system does not benefit human. We are constantly exploited in the name of profits
• vital industries and services need to be nationalized. Capitalism is a race to the bottom when it comes to providing the bare minumum, cutting corners etc.
• people should be free to do what they please as long as it doesn't hurt other people. To this end, I am pro-inclusion of all walks of life, except for bigots.
• we are rapidly running out of time to prevent an ecological apocalypse. Everything must be done to avoid it

Uhhh....

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I believe that the means of production should be owned by the workers and that the purpose of work is to produce things we all need to meet our collective needs.

Capitalism is a dead end ideology which leads to concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority by design, and this minority of oligarchs exploits the rest of the people to subsidize their lavish lifestyle.

Furthermore, any system based around constant growth and consumerism is fundamentally incompatible with our continual survival as a species. We need a system that strives for sustainable use of our resources.

Marxist-Leninist. Of the type that would probably unironically be referred to as a tankie.

I don't see capitalism as a sustainable model for the world, you cannot grow infinitely with finite resources, and there is no way effective way to "reform the system from the inside". Capitalists will actively sabotage such efforts as they go against their own best interests; they are dead set on convincing labor that it is also against their best interests, and have been depressingly effective at doing so.

I believe that humanity will naturally move towards a more communist world order as a unipolarity gives way to a multipolar world. Probably not within my lifetime, but either humans will get there eventually or we will die out trying.

In practice, I'm a common social democrat.

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

I'd like the GOP and right-wing media to be vaporized in its entirety, and I'd like the establishment/corporatist wing of the Democratic party to be smashed to pieces. Maybe then we can hurry up and get going on some stuff.

Marxist-Leninist unironically.

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

Social Democrat.

Lots of anti monopoly pro consumer regulations. But freedom to have private enterprise. High income and corporate tax. Free healthcare & education. Even rare diseases and university. Corporations can only lease and never own land. Govt ownership of essential industries like electricity, water, gas.

Just conservative not a republican because I feel they've lost their way as much as democrats did.

Elephants and asses, screwing the masses.

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

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

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

I am a Social Democrat in the European sense. There is nothing wrong with the free market per se, but it is the responsibility of the state to intervene with regulation where necessary (e.g. safety), and the responsibility of the state to provide a stable system of social services, e.g. health care, education, housing.

I’ll point to Austria as an example, where social housing is widespread and high quality and public health care is exceptional and pensions are reasonable. With this backdrop, the market economy is appropriate.

I don’t think the unregulated capitalism of countries like the US is sustainable nor would I want to live under that dysfunctional system.

I'm just gonna call myself a "leftist" and leave it at that

I don't belong to lemmy.ml, but I'll chime in anyway. I'm somewhere between a communist and an anarchist, which I think aligns well with my material interests as a worker. The communist in me believes that we need a dictatorship of the proletariat in order to subdue the bourgeoisie. The anarchist in me believes that workers need to organize themselves into strong labor unions to help the revolution along and then keep the subsequent worker state in check thereafter.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.

I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens' opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I'm neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.

I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.

Anarcho communism I think neither corporations nor the state works gor the people

I personally would say Liberal just to overly simplify things.

In reality, growing up in the rural midwest makes it more complex than that. I have a ton of left and right ideologies that contradict them selves, with no compromise in sight.

i'm a radical extremist voluntaryist anarchist. I believe that if it's not voluntary, it's slavery, thus government is slavery. I believe that all transactions between people should be consensual. I believe that people have a right to do what they want as long as they don't cause damage to anyone. I don't believe anyone has the right to attack anyone else, to force them to do something they don't want to do or force them to stop doing something that they want to do if it's harming no one. but I believe that it is every person's right and duty to protect themselves against aggression, to whatever extent is necessary to make the aggressor stop.

these principles are timeless and are so simple that even a child can understand them. if everyone started living this way, the world would be set free.

Some of my friends think I'm an idealist but I'd argue that's the point. I vote for whatever would allow us to get to the Star Trek: TNG version of earth. A Post Scarcity society where humans want to better themselves and their communities through each individuals pursuit of their interests unrestricted by any "system". To get there, I care about improving the lives of the entirety of humanity equally while doing away with the disparity inequality we see. It is undoubtedly true capitalism did raise the average QOL of many many people of the entire world, however, others it put into modern slavery.

I'm a libertarian, leftist, socialist, and I'm strongly against digital copyright, politics and patents. I believe in freedom and free competition, and government investment in education, technology, and quality of life.

Libertarian: People are overwhelmingly good, and freedom allows the good people to reliability outmenuver the bad. People should have every freedom in so far as they are not encroaching on the equal or greater freedoms of anyone else. No technology is inherently bad, tech in the hands all results in the victory of the good. A notable acception is weapons of mass destruction, as any use against any population is very bad morally. In general when tech is outlawed the good loose the ability to use it against the bad or for the betterment of humanity, and the bad maintain access and use it against the good. When only the bad guys have Drugs, Encryption, Guns, The internet, etc ... the society is much worse off for it.

Leftist: When governments invest tax money into the common good of the people, via things like education, technology, and quality of life, then societies are healther, wealthier, more innovative, and the people are happier for it. No one wants to be homeless, sick, or stupid, or to be surrounded by people who are. Government investment stimulates the economy, and if money is spent domestically it lands right back in the pockets of working tax payers.

Socialist: When workers own stake in the companiess they work for, companies act in the interest of the workers (socialism). When companies are owned by investors, they act in the interst of the investors, usually against the interest of workers (capitalism). When companies act in the interst of the workers, wages are higher, workers are more free, and cost of living is lower. The people are happier. Governments does not need to be so big to keep the peace like they do today.

Digital copyright: the belief in the lie that copying and or improving upon an ethereal digital resource constitutes theft, is a massive detriment to society. It is clearly false because no one looses anything. It is defended by perpetuating the fear that it it would be harder to profit if information was free. It would be a different world, but you can still make a profit through art on a physical medium, and in other ways. The lie is used to justify unjust control of software vendors over their customers, and to justify fake sales in which the physical computer hardware is sold but the ability to actually control it is not part of the sale. And sales where a book or movie is sold, but the user is never given the copy they purchased. It is also used to deprive the poor access to educational material, and to justify the destruction of cultural archives for future generations.

Politics: Politicians are lower quality than ordinary people, because they are the people who wanted to rule, not the people who understand the impact of positive and negative of every singe decision. A monarchy has better chances of honest leadership because the quality if the monarch is random, instead of picked by might of advertising dollars out of a list of the worst people. The way to make a real good government involves a little lotocracy and a little meritocracy. My vision in short: a console, selected at random from the population, chooses qualification criteria for voting on a proposition, and a console is selected at random from the qualified public to make a decision.

Pattents: A temporary government issued monopoly on a process or mechanism. Patents were the single worst lapse in logic of our society, they are anticompetitive and slow innovation (the incredibly successful free software community, operating on very little time and money, is a glimpse of what a patenless society could be). A free market cannot coexist with patents. Arguments for pattens boil down to, if i invest as though i have patent protection from competition and i don't have it, my investment won't pan out. In a society without patents, companies build and improve on each others work, making R&D cheaper and faster. Sure, billion dollar research investments would not pan out, but they would also be completely unnecessary, because starting from scratch or waiting a decade would not be required to participate in innovation.

I believe that a social democracy is the best compromise we can make. The market should be able to innovate but rules set in place to protect workers and the environment. Social safety nets so people do not fall into despair - happy people equals less sickness and more productivity.

I believe UBI can play a role but I'm still not sure how exactly, luckily I'm not a politician.

In the end I'll always vote more to the left, even though I'm well paid I think a society is healthier when there are less major differences in wealth.

I believe that the lives we all lead are the only thing that truly matters. As such:

• we should be free to do what we want where it doesn't negatively impact others
• we mustn't be enslaved. Not literally and not by the limitations of our birthright, exploitative employment practices, arbitrarily enforced laws, forced childbirth, etc.
• we need to stand up for those who cannot: minorities, future generations, nature...
• we should follow the population's consensus whereever possible
• states, corporations and any organisation in general should serve all the people and not just a select few.

I don't care what label you slap on this.

Vaguely progressive (I live in the USA, I think country is usually important when discussing ideology)

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

I think every person should have food, water, and shelter at the very least. Nobody should need to do anything for these basic necessities of life.

I always thought this was a common thought but no, this apparently is a far left radical ideology. People should starve on the street unless they provide value to a capitalist is actually the common thought.

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

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

Since idolizing Richard Stallman in high school but disagreeing with some Greens, I've been an ACLU member Libertarian who votes progressive Democrat so the poor don't starve.

Left wing market anarchist is the closest summary of my general views.

Left wing economically and socially. I believe strongly in workers rights, collective control over production and labor practices. All people have dignity and should be treated with a base level of care and concern, even if they have done horrific things. I am very supportive of LGBT+ folks and any marginalized or underprivileged groups.

Market because I am not against markets or money. I think they are tools that can greatly aid society if used correctly. I am strongly anti-capitalist, which is a economic and social philosophy that uses money and markets in ways that are inherently oppressive and exploitive.

Anarchist because I am anti-state. Monopolization of power and resources, especially in a capitalist society, only ever result in oppression, even if supposedly "of/for the people."

Republicans seem to want to turn back the clock to the 1950's and in one aspect I agree with them. The top tax rate back then was 90%. That should be returned for anyone making over $10 million.

Unlike Republicans, though, I think people should be free to be who they are - whether they're LGBTQ or straight/cisgender, black or white, Christian or Jewish or atheist, or any other group I didn't list. (I didn't list all groups only because I don't want this comment to be novel length.) Basically, as long as your actions affect only yourself and consenting adults, I'm fine with them.

I'm also fine with parents having some control over what their kids do. I'm a parent myself and know that as a parent you need to make judgement calls as to what's best for your child. I wouldn't want someone else questioning my parenting based on their beliefs. However, there are limits. If your child is LGBTQ and you try to force them to be straight/cisgender, you aren't acting in your child's best interests. If your 10 year old child is raped and their life is in danger, but you refuse to allow them to have an abortion because your religion doesn't allow it, then you're harming your child.

Also, a person's "parental rights" shouldn't mean that they get to decide that certain books are banned from everyone reading them. My son actually just finished reading a book because it had been banned and we laughed over how innocuous the "ban triggering passage" was compared to some stuff in the Bible.

Basically, I think I'd call myself a Pragmatic Progressive. I advocate for progressive causes, but I also realize that society can often be slower to adapt than we like. While we would love to be able to pass X and have it be widely adopted immediately, there's often a series of slow moving battles to get X passed and another slow march to get wide acceptance. We can't simply throw in the political towel at the first setback. Neither can we pass up 10% of our goal being within our grasp because we're holding out for 100%. We need to get whatever advancements we can while continually pushing for more.

Live your life the way you want to live and don't fuck it up for others. Be peaceful, respectful and considerate. If there is a political affiliation about this I'm in that party.

When I was first becoming an adult (in the USA), I got into politics from talk radio. I became staunchly libertarian, perhaps a bit conservative learning. Over the years, as I started to gain more life experience, started to actually think about certain issues some more, hear more opposing viewpoints, and actually see how stuff played out over time, I slowly began turning more liberal. These days, I would say that I am left of center and mostly align with the Democratic party for voting purposes.