[tristor]

> There are political trends on HN but they don't necessarily fit neatly into left/right, especially given that defining those terms is extremely problematic in the first place.

That’s because politics has two axises. HN is definitely left-leaning, but in support of social democracy. Hacker News is first and foremost populated by /hackers/ and we don’t go for authoritarianism. We know that as left-leaning as we are, the only good tankie is a dead tankie.

Some ideas are well worth discussing but never implementing, authleft schools of thought definitely fall in that bucket.

[user3939382]

> HN is definitely left-leaning

As I was saying, defining "left" is problematic, different people mean different things by that term. To me, left means anti-establishment, anti-censorship, pro free speech, anti war. I see tons of people on here defending censorship of social media ("they're private corporations"), pro Ukraine war. I see much less defense of the women's rights movement on HN than I traditionally associate with the left. I mean the comment I just responded to is a perfect example -- the guy is tearing someone down for pointing out imperialism from the Belgian government. "HN leans left" isn't something you can substantiate in my view.

[tristor]

Your definition of left is based on a set of issues, not on philosophy, which is not how such things are defined and thus is erroneous. There is two axes, so left/right is definitely oversimplification but it is very clearly defined.

Left/Right is split on economics, almost entirely, and specifically on the topic of private property vs public property and where the line is drawn, inclusive of many things besides real estate that count as “property”. Philosophically it is a split between Collectivism and Individualism, and almost all conflicts revolve around duty to self vs duty to society.

There are very left-wing political movements in history, including arguably the most “successful” and powerful that were pro-censorship, against free speech, and explicitly warmongering. “Anti-establishment” is a meaningless term, whoever is currently in power is the “establishment”, regardless of anything else.

HN is far more left than the typical viewpoint in the US, which is the country that dominates discussion here. The US has no true left-wing major party, but the closest thing we have (neoliberal globalists with collectivist views on social responsibility) is not only the party currently in power, but arguably put there by significant financial support from individuals and companies in tech.

You can take that or interpret that however you want, I’m agreeing with the GP to my original comment.

[user3939382]

> There is two axes

I’m sorry but this is just wrong, the issues are not that simple. The parties have huge internal divisions and so many Americans don’t vote precisely because that’s not true. The issues are based on philosophies, you’re drawing a distinction that has no significance to the point.

> Collectivism and Individualism

No that is not the only way all major issues are divided. And even where they are, there are policy nuances that may align with both and be rolled into a single solution.

I already explained how HN is on major issues not left. I’m not going to repeat it. To say “those are just issues” doesn’t make HN left when it’s advocating positions from the right.

[tristor]

> > There is two axes

> I’m sorry but this is just wrong, the issues are not that simple.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I wrote. I am very clearly acknowledging the complexity of political philosophy, which is why there are two axes, not a single line. There is not just Left/Right, but the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. Political philosophies can be identified as a coordinate on a two-dimensional plane in relation to one another. https://www.politicalcompass.org/ is one attempt to do so (however not necessarily conclusively correct).

> > Collectivism and Individualism

> No that is not the only way all major issues are divided.

All political philosophies fundamentally reduce to whether they derive primacy for the individual or for society. Of course, all strike some balance between the two, and there are significant nuances, but if you do not recognize this, I would argue you do not have the necessary base knowledge of political philosophy to engage in this conversation, certainly not to assert that I am incorrect.