You can be anti-capitalist without being a "tankie." It seems like your position is driven by your aversion to those you perceive as being to your right and to your left rather than on a consistent ideological framework.

I'm educated enough to know how the world actually works and that things can't be free and other people won't do stuff for free.

This is capitalist realism. Your education has not made you smart enough to see that capitalism is reality, it has made you so set in your constrained worldview that you've become incapable of imagining anything outside of the framework of capitalism. For the majority of time that humans have existed on earth they have organized themselves in a myriad of different ways without the need for private property and exploitation of others. I recommend reading some anthropology, I personally prefer David Graeber.

Even Adam Smith was pretty clear what happens when capitalism is unregulated:

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of...

The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards.

Ye, if you don't manage capitalism, the demon capital manages you.

I would like us to seriously try alternatives, but failing that, at least put the mad dog on a leash.

In our current system, no individual should be able to acquire enough influence that they can dictate anything about others lives.

Humans are fallible. Any council can be corrupted or dominated slowly, especially as long as currency and power corrupts and hierarchies can exist. Democratic socialism is a utopian idea of a fallible system, when what you are really asking for is the abolishment of corruption, prejudice and greed itself, the cancers that ruin otherwise harmonious societies.

Until a form of government arises that rewards the participant for seeking purpose rather than fame or reward, we'll just be replacing fractured systems, destined to fail, over and over and over again.

but, per my own personal bias, I don't believe people are inherently good enough to act that way. I believe we will destroy ourselves before we ever get there. The individuals that would dominate the next system of government will be the ones holding the pen to craft it, so it goes...

Your ideal society in the best case scenario is... 500 or so years away!

Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don't think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.

*Doesn't vote to enable fascism.

So you want billionaires hoisted up by their figgins as a warning to the rest of the bourgeoisie?? That's what I'm hearing here.

TERRORIST.

Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!

By "affordable" I'm assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.

I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.

Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I've just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.

That way I don't have to start thinking too much. It's really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I'm used to feeling, and since I don't like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.

Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is "turning into these days" when they slip through the privilege perimeter.

Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/

Like .. all people?

While I am totally in the "bind all and protect all" camp and really against the "in group protect, out group rules" and I think conservatism is often in practice "protect me and rule others", I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.

I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of "in group protect, out group bind".

Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don't like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. "progressive" capitalists to claim that they aren't conservative and therefore not "in group protect, out group bind".

a rare sighting on lemmy