Your Political ideology?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

well there is a socialist workers party who are marxist in nature. A national socialist workers party seems to indicate the 'Irish socialist workers party' but a 'nationalist socialist' party indicates a Nazi party. It's unclear what the poster means

Maybe he means Nazi?

Karl Hungus

The Corinthian wrote:

Maybe he means Nazi?

I think we have a winner.

Jackie laughlin

Sgt,
My mistake re the Socialist International. Yes, it was the 1st International. I was posting late at night but I've an awful memory anyway and therefore prone to such mistakes.

My routine point is the reduction of a body of written work to the status of a holy book. These days I find Marx on fractions of capital particularly useful in analysing, say, Irish reliance on investment in building.

Kaiser_Sma

Communisim is something you should grow out of in this day and age. Socialisim like the green parties is just another marginal democratic force to keep ruling parties in check.

Sgt. Sensible

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Sgt,
My mistake re the Socialist International. Yes, it was the 1st International. I was posting late at night but I've an awful memory anyway and therefore prone to such mistakes.

No worries at all.

My routine point is the reduction of a body of written work to the status of a holy book. These days I find Marx on fractions of capital particularly useful in analysing, say, Irish reliance on investment in building.

Fair nuff.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Capitalism isn't a political theory; it is an outcome of liberalism.

I really don't understand how being a capitalist isn't overtly poltical? I mean you can call it economic liberalism but is this the same its still an idealogy, a so common you hardly notice it one but it there...

democrates

Jackie laughlin wrote:

My routine point is the reduction of a body of written work to the status of a holy book. These days I find Marx on fractions of capital particularly useful in analysing, say, Irish reliance on investment in building.

I'd a similar experience with the communist manifesto. Poetic and incisive analysis of the ills of capitalism;

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

Much of it is more true today, but then we have varying degrees of the welfare state. In any event the communist answer to capitalism:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

While it may look good on paper from the distribution of wealth perspective, it fails utterly in practice from the production and individual freedom perspectives. Lenin soon realised that pure Marxism didn't work, hard to ignore famine, and introduced the new economic programme which allowed limited private enterprise once more which immediately began to bear fruit. We'll never know what it might have achieved if Stalin hadn't taken over and reversed it.

Ayn Rand was a private property extremist, while for me the solution is a balance between individual freedom and the common good. It amazes me that you still see people trying to establish rules of thumb, like "lowering taxes creates prosperity". If that were true make them zero, but then you have no money with which your national democracy can achieve anything on behalf of citizens and so becomes irrelevant, again, it's a question of balance, a middle way.

For me the world is off-balance, with excessive domination by private wealth. I think Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are exploring promising more equitable arrangements, though I find some of their diplomatic choices strategically questionable.

Jackie laughlin

Democrates,
I tend to agree with you. The problem of the age is gross over-simplification, a complete rejection of the entire body of socialist thought and a childlike faith in markets as if they didn't rely on state support and control.

New_Departure06

Usually a classical economic liberal but not always. Usually liberal on social issues but not always. Always a secularist. Nationalist too. Increasingly sceptical about taking Euro-integration further, but reasonably happy with what has happened so far regarding pooling sovereignty. Increasingly anti-war too. Not sure if you could give me an ideological label then but if you could maybe Moderate Liberal Nationalist would be the one.

samb

Its very hard to classify most thinking people because they will not conform to our traditional left-right spectrum or labels. From other threads I think I disagree NewDeparture on most things but I respect the fact that he thinks enough to be difficult to classify and open to the possibility of changing a view he may hold.
I think I am a bit of a Liberal, Socialist, Internationalist, Europhile, Moderate, Environmentalist, Pro-development, Capitalist.........

tunaman

There is no such thing as being politically left or right. All these labels are just a way of keeping people divided. Politics as we know it has failed.

The biggest problem is that any alternative is a complete unknown.

SeanW

My ideology: Left-wing liberatarian, moderate environmentalist and nuclear power supporter.

Liberatarian: I am liberatarian in that I view individuals as soverign, independent entities to higher degree than most Western governments, i.e. that it's never OK to "protect" an individual from their own decisions.

An example is drugs, like cannibis. I'd never touch the stuff or very rarely if it was legal (just like I don't smoke tobacco at all and not much alcahol), but just because it is illegal doesn't mean it bad, or that its illegal for the right reasons. If someone decides they want to enjoy themselves with a relatively safe drug like pot at home or with friends and can do so without transgressing the rights of others, I don't care because as far as I'm concerned it's none of my business.

I hold similar views on religion, free speech, consensual sexual practices etc. As long as they don't violate the rights of others, these are issues for the soveirgn individual alone. Not some overbearing bureaucrat in a Nanny State.

I also believe that competition in the marketplace works for the consumer but not in everything.

I also care about the environment, that's why I support the promotion of proper urban planning, public transport, biofuels, renewables, recycling, conservation AND nuclear power, which if anyone wants to do some research on, would find that its actually a very good idea. The only thing holding it back is ill-informed fear and the deliberate spread of mis-information.

I also believe that the technology to make plastic biodegradeable, which exists today, should be imposed on all manufacturers of plastic bottles, bags etc.

Cork

I surpose I believe in good social services while achieving value for money.
I don't believe in local government but I would see regional authorities as an alternative.

I believe that people on average incomes should pay low taxes but people with 2nd homes or selling their principle private residence should be taxed.

I believe our environment needs protecting.

I also believe that this country ultimatly will be unified. I would be a constitutional nationalist.

I could never see myself voting for FG or SF.

I have voted for Green, FF, independent and Labour.

Jackie laughlin

Tunaman,
Politics can't fail or be successful. Politics is quite simply what defines us as human. We are divided because we disagree.

SeanW,
You say that it is never OK to protect people rom their own decisions. Would you extend this to the obligation to wear a seat belt or crash helmet?

Húrin

Kaiser_Sma wrote:

Communisim is something you should grow out of in this day and age. Socialisim like the green parties is just another marginal democratic force to keep ruling parties in check.

I'm a member of the Green Party and we are not socialist!

esskay

Have any of you looked at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ You answer a few pages of questions and it gives you a score.

Here´s the info on the main page.

The Political Compass™
Welcome to The Political Compass™.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.
The test is entirely anonymous. None of your personal details are required, and nothing about your result is recorded or logged in any way. The answers are only used to calculate your reading, and cannot be accessed by anyone, ever.
The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.
So are you ready to take the test? Remember that there's no right, wrong or ideal response. It's simply a measure of attitudes and inevitable human contradictions to provide a more integrated definition of where people and parties are really at. Click here to start.

It might be a good way to get an overall view of peoples political and social views.

My scores were
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.18

democrates

Excellent link Esskay.
I came out at exactly the same point as the Dalai Lama!
Sure as hell didn't see that coming, where should I order my prayer wheel? Hmm, I'd be like Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child.
You're close to that position too I notice.

Of course that point representing the average can hide a lot, it would be good to see where ones position is for each question in relation to the distribution of all submissions, but I guess that would be giving away their booty.

esskay

It´s not a bad place to start when trying to judge peoples view on things. I found that most of the people I am good friends tend to have similar scores. Will be interesting to see other peoples scores and it might put a new slant on their posts.......
PS. I have some prayer flags I can sell ya :-P

InFront

Apparently I have the authoritarianism of the pope but am slightly more left wing. Im not sure Id want to be a lefty...

Stupid test, its broken I tell you!

Dirk Gently

I got

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

closest to Mandela / Gandhi / Dalai Lama

Wile I am a Looney lefty tree hugging hippy liberal I do think the test was loaded in favour of left wing / libertarian though. Some of the questions were designed to get lefty answers in the way they were posed.

Anyway, socialist if you want to put a broad label on me. I favour participatory democracy over representative democracy.

Agent Smith

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23

hmm, so i do lean slighly to the right....

Jackie laughlin

I don't buy this stuff about there being no political divide anymore. Moreover, I think left and right remain handy labels - despite the complications of modern history - for liberal/neo-liberal Vs socialist/social democracy.

Hurin,
I don't think that the Green Party is socialist. I don't think it is liberal or conservative either. It is a collection of people avoiding political choice by being in favour of "good things". However, on another thread you described yourself, if I recall, as "centrist or mildly socialist."

Cronus333

Economic left/right: 2.38
Social libertarian/authoritarian: -6.82

Strange stuff.

Aidan1

Really interesting thing is to put a note in your diary to do that test every 6 months (or whatever), see how much you change and in what direction. Over the last number of years I've oscillated around the low/right (Economic Right/Libertarian) corner, never going more than 3 points away from the centre point.

Currently:

Economic Left/Right .75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -1.23

So I suppose I'm pretty much a liberal with (somewhat of) a conscience.

The test is skewed towards an American perspective though. One need only be slightly pink in hue by European standards to come out as a dyed in the wool communist on this scale.

democrates

Aidan1 wrote:

The test is skewed towards an American perspective though. One need only be slightly pink in hue by European standards to come out as a dyed in the wool communist on this scale.

I have a theory that many Americans prefer not to think too hard on the occupation of native american lands through near-genocide, or segregation, and to support that comfort zone they must then scramble to dress up Darwinian predation as a value system fit for human society.

Aidan1

(Cue cheap shot Anti-american jibe)

Too many words Democrates!

This bit sums it up nicely;

"I have a theory that many Americans prefer not to think too hard"

There!

Sorry, it was too easy.

I don't think it has much to do with land theft, or slavery or whatever, just that their political culture has evolved in a way that establishes the primacy of the individual above all. After all, their system evolved from a quasi-Darwinian race for primacy, ours (as in much of Europe) evolved from a series of attempts by a patchwork of groups of people to break free of older, well structured and controlled empires/dynasties/churches. Hence our system is more premised on collective action, co-operation and, well, society. Not to say that American society is completely different, it just has a slightly different emphasis is all. Works for them, for the most part.

Cronus333

Aidan1 wrote:

(Cue cheap shot Anti-american jibe)

Too many words Democrates!

This bit sums it up nicely;

There!

Sorry, it was too easy.

I don't think it has much to do with land theft, or slavery or whatever, just that their political culture has evolved in a way that establishes the primacy of the individual above all. After all, their system evolved from a quasi-Darwinian race for primacy, ours (as in much of Europe) evolved from a series of attempts by a patchwork of groups of people to break free of older, well structured and controlled empires/dynasties/churches. Hence our system is more premised on collective action, co-operation and, well, society. Not to say that American society is completely different, it just has a slightly different emphasis is all. Works for them, for the most part.

Not to say that their system is even worse than ours.

SeanW

Jackie laughlin wrote:

SeanW,
You say that it is never OK to protect people rom their own decisions. Would you extend this to the obligation to wear a seat belt or crash helmet?

Yes. Absolutely. You can make a bunch of laws and tell people what to do but you can't really stop people from making bad decisions in the end.

People SHOULD wear seat belts, crash helmets etc. But many don't and they may have their own reasons for this omission: Perhaps for example they feel that they are slow, carful drivers and as such will probably never need the belts. Or they figure the airbag will cover them. Or they just never got into the habit of doing them. Or they behave recklessly and stupidly thoroughout all of life including the road, in which case there's a good chance some other bad decision will come back to bite them first.

It shouldn't be up to a policeman to chastise people on the roadside "now, now, now, I'm going to have to give you a reprimand/points/fine for not having whatever" to get people to make intellegent decisions. People should have the cop-on to make these decisions for themselves. Those who don't should be free to make, and accept the consequences for, their own bad decisions.

history_buff

Republican traditionalist.

oscarBravo

history_buff wrote:

Republican traditionalist.

What does that mean?

I have a horrible presentiment it isn't going to have anything to do with Plato.