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).

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). 

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

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. 

'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. 

Confirmed. And not only that, but French EAs are more likely to say that they are Left, rather than Center left.

I think this is responding to a comment by Larks, not me.

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
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies