Hide table of contents

Updates

Dec 22, 2023 (Link updated January 2025)
I created a Slack workspace!
Here's the invite link: EA Left/Progressive Wing Slack (name not final)

Jan 10, 2025
The Slack workspace hasn't gained much traction yet, some members are slowly trickling in. I think a community-building effort is needed, so we can do activities/discussions to keep the workspace a bit livelier.

 

Notes

It seems like a Facebook group could be created for specific topics in left-wing thought (like economics and forms of government)

I feel like some people would also prefer a Discord server or something that's just not a Slack workspace.  I bet it would depend on the preference of the people who would be a part of this group, considering the amount of inactive groups out there, I don't think there is a consensus on where to go.

15

1
0

Reactions

1
0
New Answer
New Comment


6 Answers sorted by

Garrison Lovely's podcast comes to mind as a starting point on overlap and disagreements between the two communities: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6NnnPvzCzxWpWzAb8/podcast-the-left-and-effective-altruism-with-habiba-islam

Idk of any online communities explicitly focused on this intersection, but would be interested in participating in one! Facebook groups historically have been good for this sort of thing (especially bc of the mod approval questions you could include), but I've basically stopped using FB entirely, as have lots of others I know. A Slack channel within the larger EA Slack may work (eagreconnect.slack.com), but I just experimented with this and there doesn't seem to be a native feature like the FB mod approval questions. You could have channel admins that add ... (read more)

Thank you for sharing! I wrote to Garrison, to see if they know of any such community.

There is a Facebook group on EA + diversity and inclusion: https://www.facebook.com/groups/diversityEA

 I've sometimes been interested in making a group on EA+ 'economic left' thought (socialism, anarchism, anti-capitalism and such) - I'll let you know if I ever do!

If you ever end up making such a group, I'd love to be notified. :)

Kindly notify me if you eventually make such a group

Hi Amber! That intersection is one I'm interested in. I'm writing to a few people to see if they already know of a community I join, and I will be updating the post and letting anyone interested know so they can join.

There are also Facebook groups for people with specific marginalised identities, which might also have some of that sort of content: e.g. there is one for LGBTQ people, and one for women and non-binary people. There may also be groups related to other identities: there are a bunch of "EA+X" related groups on FB so I'd say search there

I don't have the answer, but I'm eager to join the discussion, especially on whether it's possible to implement the principle of real impartiality in national politics. Our left-wing parties (speaking about Poland), no matter how progressive, never go so far as to include in their main programmatic demands regarding people with no connection to Poland (unless they at least fall into the category of EU migrants). Perhaps it is logically impossible for it to be otherwise. However, if it's any weaker kind of impossibility, it would be good to explore the area.

There used to be discord group with a lot of left wing EAs but it has since fizzled. https://discord.com/invite/vbXEkDwa

Let me know if you get a new group up and running.

Update for Dec 22, 2023
I created a Slack workspace!
Here's the invite link: EA Left/Progressive Wing Slack (name not final)

I guess there's a difference between EAs calling themselves 'center-left' and that apparently make 80% of EA according to Rethink Priorities surveys, which are probably EAs broadly open to ideas such as passively giving rights to minorities and encouraging a market economy that does a bit of redistribution, 

and those who call actively themselves 'leftists, who are in favor of structural change, breaking down patriarchy and are feminists, loath wealth-hoarding and tend to be extremely skeptical towards extreme rationalists who have no qualms discussing abortion without mentioning women's rights. 

I reckon the second kind will be much harder to find, but they exist!

... EAs calling themselves 'center-left' and that apparently make 80% of EA according to Rethink Priorities surveys

 

Roughly 80% (76.6%) consider themselves left or center left, of which 36.8% consider themselves "Left", while 39.8% consider themselves "Center left" (so quite similar).

3
Vaipan
Thanks David, I was thinking about this survey. I guess my point still stands--a leftist EA in Scandinavia doesn't mean the same thing as a leftist in the US, and my guess is that the majority of what these EAs call 'left' would be seen as center-left or even moderate right-wing in other countries (such as France or Sweden). 
7
David_Moss
It's worth noting that: * Results don't vary so dramatically across most countries in our data, with none of the countries with the largest number of EAs showing less than ~35% identifying as "Left". * The majority of EAs and the majority of EA left/center-leftists are outside the US
1
Larks
David can presumably answer this with the cross-tabs. My guess is that French and Scandinavian EAs also say they are left wing more frequently than right wing.  Also, while you're right there are geographical differences between countries along the left-right axis, I don't think you can summarize it as 'Americans are more right wing'. On many issues US leftists are much more extreme than europeans. 
2
David Mathers🔸
'On many issues US leftists are much more extreme than europeans. '  Do you have data for this?  I recall, but can't find a Financial Times article from year or two ago which gave polling showing that Dem voters in the US appear to be slightly more left-wing on social issues (other than abortion) than Labour voters in the UK. That supports "left is left-er in the US on social issues." But this was outweighed by conservatives voters in the UK being FAR to the left of Republicans on social issues, so it also supports "US more right-wing overall. And the cliché is that the UK is a right-wing outlier by Western European standards (though I haven't seen hard data backing that up, and I suspect that insofar as it is true, we're talking economic left rather than social).  I think left-leaning Americans are often keener on a specific set of taboos around talking in a sufficiently "politically correct/woke"* way. But that is not really the same thing as being more left-wing on substantive issues, not even social issues. (I'm not very keen on that way of talking, but I do believe in trans inclusion, except maybe in some sport,  probably support open borders and less restrictive drug laws, probably reject retributivism about punishment, am pro-choice, at least neutral to mildly favourable on deliberately trying to employ more women and people of colour in positions of influence etc.)  *I hate these terms, but there is no non-pejorative equivalent and everyone knows roughly what I mean. 
2
David_Moss
Confirmed. And not only that, but French EAs are more likely to say that they are Left, rather than Center left.
2
David Mathers🔸
2
David_Moss
I think this is responding to a comment by Larks, not me.
2
David Mathers🔸
You're right sorry. Will move it! 

I'm curious why this post got -3 worth of downvotes (at time of writing). It seems like a pretty straightforward statement of our results.

I didn't downvote you, but I would guess those who did were probably objecting to this

"Center left" (so quite similar)

Self-identified leftists, myself included, generally see modern liberalism as a qualitatively different ideology. Imagine someone at Charity Navigator[1] offhandedly describing EA as "basically the same as us". Now imagine that the longtermism discourse had gotten so bad that basically every successful EA organization could expect to experience periodic coup attempts, and "they're basically Charity Navigator" was the canonical way to insult people on the other side. That's what "left = very liberal" looks like from here. 

  1. ^

    before they started doing impact ratings

It sounds like you are reading my comment as saying that "center left" is very similar to "left". But I think it's pretty clear from the full quote that that's not what I'm saying.

The OP says that EA is 80% "center-left". I correct them, and say that EA is 36.8% left and 39.8% "Center left." 

The "(so quite similar)" here refers to the percentages 36.8% and 39.8% (indeed, these are likely not even statistically significant differences). 

I can see how, completely in the abstract, one could read the claim as being that "Left" and "Center left" are similar ideologies. But, in context, it only makes sense for me to be making the observation that the percentages of "Left" and "Center left" are quite similar (challenging OP's claim that EA is all Center left). If I were asserting that "Left" and "Center left" are "quite similar", then I'd be minimising my own claim (many EAs are "Left" not merely "Center left").


That said, I'm not sure that mistake is the reason for the downvote, since my other comment also got downvoted. And that one just:

  • Shows the breakdown by countries
  • Confirms Larks' guess that "French and Scandinavian EAs also say they are left wing more frequently than right wing."
  • Adds that French EAs are more likely to say they are "Left" than "Center left".

Now that you point it out I agree that's the more plausible reading, but it genuinely wasn't the one that occurred to me first. 

Curated and popular this week
LewisBollard
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > They’re imperfect agents of change The world’s three largest animal welfare groups are under attack. Their antagonists are not factory farmers, but other animal groups. And the ASPCA, HSUS, and RSPCA stand accused not of hurting farmers, but of hurting animals, through their work with GAP and RSPCA Assured, which certify animal products as being less cruelly produced. The attacks began last summer when the UK animal rights group Animal Rising released a report and footage showing abuses on RSPCA Assured farms. They’ve since forced the RSPCA to cancel its 200th year celebrations, plastered portraits of RSPCA patron King Charles, and persuaded the ceremonial president and two vice-presidents of the RSPCA to resign in protest. (To understand their perspective, I recommend this interview with Animal Rising co-director Ben Newman.) A few months ago, PETA launched a new front in the war, taking out full-page ads in the The New York Times and The Washington Post slamming the ASPCA and HSUS for associating with GAP. (Ingrid Newkirk laid out PETA’s case here.) PETA activists have since picketed the homes of the CEOs of both groups, disrupted the organizations’ fundraising events, and persuaded actor James Cromwell to throw away an HSUS award. “It has to stop” is how I feel about PETA’s campaign against the ASPCA and HSUS. Image: PETA’s full-page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post. Source: PETA. With friends like these I originally planned to write a newsletter about infighting. I would have argued that our movement lacks the resources to spare some to attack one another. And I would have cited a 2023 survey by the Social Change Lab, in which 120 social movement academics rated “internal conflict or movement inf
rai, NunoSempere
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
We’re developing an AI-enabled wargaming-tool, grim, to significantly scale up the number of catastrophic scenarios that concerned organizations can explore and to improve emergency response capabilities of, at least, Sentinel. Table of Contents 1. How AI Improves on the State of the Art 2. Implementation Details, Limitations, and Improvements 3. Learnings So Far 4. Get Involved! How AI Improves on the State of the Art In a wargame, a group dives deep into a specific scenario in the hopes of understanding the dynamics of a complex system and understanding weaknesses in responding to hazards in the system. Reality has a surprising amount of detail, so thinking abstractly about the general shapes of issues is insufficient. However, wargames are quite resource intensive to run precisely because they require detail and coordination. Eli Lifland shared with us some limitations about the exercises his team has run, like at The Curve conference: 1. It took about a month of total person-hours to iterate of iterating on the rules, printouts, etc. 2. They don’t have experts to play important roles like the Chinese government and occasionally don’t have experts to play technical roles or the US government. 3. Players forget about important possibilities or don’t know what actions would be reasonable. 4. There are a bunch of background variables which would be nice to keep track of more systematically, such as what the best publicly deployed AIs from each company are, how big private deployments are and for what purpose they are deployed, compute usage at each AGI project, etc. For simplicity, at the moment they only make a graph of best internal AI at each project (and rogue AIs if they exist). 5. It's effortful for them to vary things like the starting situation of the game, distribution of alignment outcomes, takeoff speeds, etc. AI can significantly improve on all the limitations above, such that more people can go through more scenarios faster at the same q
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
> It seems to me that we have ended up in a strange equilibrium. With one hand, the Western developed nations are taking actions that have obvious deleterious effects on developing countries... With the other hand, we are trying (or at least purport to be trying) to help developing countries through foreign aid... Probably the strategy that we as the West could be doing, is to not take these actions that are causing harm. That is, we don't need to "fix" anything, but we could stop harming developing countries. —Nathan Nunn, Rethinking Economic Development EAs typically think about development policy through the lens of “interventions that we can implement in poor countries.” The economist Nathan Nunn argues for a different approach: advocating for pro-development policy in rich countries. Rather than just asking for more and better foreign aid from rich countries, this long-distance development policy[1] goes beyond normal aid-based development policy, and focuses on changing the trade, immigration and financial policies adopted by rich countries.  What would EA look like if we seriously pursued long-distance development policy as a complementary strategy to doing good? The argument Do less harm Nunn points out that rich countries take many actions that harm poor countries. He identifies three main kinds of policies that harm poor countries: 1. International trade restrictions. Tariffs are systematically higher against developing countries, slowing down their industrialization and increasing poverty. 2. International migration restrictions. By restricting citizens of poor countries from travelling to and working in rich countries, rich countries deny large income-generation opportunities to those people, along with the pro-development effects of their remittances. 3. Foreign aid. This sounds counterintuitive—surely foreign aid is one of the helpful actions?–-but there's sizable evidence that foreign aid can fuel civil conflict, especially when given with