Please help me understand my political beliefs

One More Toy

Hello first time poster

I'm having a bit of a crisis in my life at the moment

A few years back, I had a near death illness, ever since then I have viewed the world in a different light.

I believe that inequality has gotten worse and that capitalism protects the elite (I alos believe life is meaningless although this is probably moot)

I am trying to come to terms with this way of thinking. Where do I fit I the political spectrum? Am I a communist without knowing?

Many thanks for your help

Dermo

What are your thoughts on how to solve these problems?
In my opinion, that's an easier way to find out where your political beliefs are

One More Toy

Dermo wrote: »

What are your thoughts on how to solve these problems?
In my opinion, that's an easier way to find out where your political beliefs are

Thank you for your reply

I'm not quite sure, I think a shift towards equal distribution of wealth perhaps?

My therapist said to find like minded people rather than brand my thinking is wrong

Dermo

So can I say, for argument's sake, that inequality is your primary concern?
The goal of equal distribution of wealth to solve inequality is common across a number of political beliefs.
For this issue you could argue with opinionated individuals for ages about the definition of wealth. Is it money? Happiness? Fulfillment?
Or even how to frame inequality. What factors do you take into account?

To begin with, think about what your current understanding of inequality is and do some reading up/googling on other people's opinions on how to solve the problem. You will most probably find ideas that you agree with, and lots more that you don't. The ones you agree with will be your like minded people

--
You don't have to be sure about how you solve the problem, or even stick to just one solution on how to do it. You don't even have to be pigeonholed for your personal political beliefs. It would be amazing for all your beliefs to be on par with any 1 political party. If you want to know where you currently fit within the current Irish political party spectrum there are a number of online quizes that can try place you into defined categories.

What I'm trying to say is don't feel like you have to stick to just one set of political beliefs or have a very strict definition, be open to people's opinions on how to solve the issues that are relevant to you or that you would like to be involved/knowledgable about.

ahlookit

see where you stand here:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Brian?

ahlookit wrote: »

see where you stand here:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Is that the one that tells everyone they're libertarian? Which subtly guides people towards anarcho-capitalism.

OP, it doesn't sound like you have a political ideology but a loose set of beliefs. I'd recommend you do some reading. As I'm a socialist I'd say read Marx. Someone can counter that with a capitalist recommendation and you should read both.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Earthhorse

I agree with the idea that you needn't be in any hurry to label or pigeon hole your political belief system. It's rarely satisfying or meaningful anyway.

My suggestion would be to do some reading. A great resource is https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/, which, although it is not devoted exclusively to politics often features articles on that subject and from a variety of sources. Following Brexit and with US election entering the campaigning stage there are a lot of articles on politics.

Inequality is a huge are of concern and you aren't the first person to be concerned about it either. A topical issue, much written about in the last few weeks, is how globalisation has meant many traditional working and middle class jobs in manufacturing have left the US, increasing inequality there, and gone to countries with lower wages, reducing inequality there. These communities in the States feel abandoned by the body politic and are swelling the ranks of Trump's campaign. So it's a real and relevant issue and will likely continue to be for a long time.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

She destroys nothing in that video. She just shouts over the opposition with. Interesting that you hold this as proof of something.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Is that the one that tells everyone they're libertarian? Which subtly guides people towards anarcho-capitalism.

OP, it doesn't sound like you have a political ideology but a loose set of beliefs. I'd recommend you do some reading. As I'm a socialist I'd say read Marx. Someone can counter that with a capitalist recommendation and you should read both.

No, it's the one with loaded questions and a bias to placing people on the left.

OP don't waste your time reading Marx. It's outdated nonsense that's completely irrelevant to modern society. If you want to learn more about politics you could do no wrong in trying to get involved in discussions here or starting threads on topics you find interesting.

BalcombeSt4

ahlookit wrote: »

see where you stand here:

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I got

Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.13

Which makes me further left than the Scottish Socialist Party & more Green than the Greens.

Realt Dearg Sec

Suryavarman wrote: »

No, it's the one with loaded questions and a bias to placing people on the left.

OP don't waste your time reading Marx. It's outdated nonsense that's completely irrelevant to modern society. If you want to learn more about politics you could do no wrong in trying to get involved in discussions here or starting threads on topics you find interesting.

OP be wary of anyone who tells you NOT to read something.

BalcombeSt4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then watch Mr. Benn tell the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsafVd78ADQ

LionelNashe

Brian? wrote: »

She destroys nothing in that video. She just shouts over the opposition with. Interesting that you hold this as proof of something.

She says that all income brackets are better off than in 1979. i.e. the poorest 10% in 1990 are better off than the poorest 10% in 1979. I don't know whether that was true or not, but if it was true, isn't that a good thing? People often talk about the gap between rich and poor but I've never heard it explained why there should be such focus on the size of the gap.

Realt Dearg Sec

LionelNashe wrote: »

She says that all income brackets are better off than in 1979. i.e. the poorest 10% in 1990 are better off than the poorest 10% in 1979. I don't know whether that was true or not, but if it was true, isn't that a good thing? People often talk about the gap between rich and poor but I've never heard it explained why there should be such focus on the size of the gap.

Because the wider the inequality gap the worse off a society is on a variety of metrics like crime, suicide, etc etc, regardless of overall wealth.

Peregrinus

This. It's important not to confuse wealth and welfare. The country would be richer if we all worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, but would we be better off?

So, the poorest 10% were better off in 1990 than they were in 1979? As far as it goes, that's good. But if they are relatively poorer than the typical member of society than they were in 1979, they they are more alienated, more excluded, more marginalised, and almost certainly worse off in terms of welfare, happiness, opportunity, etc. And, if that's so, then you should expect higher crime rates, higher suicide rates, and other indications of societal failure.

Suryavarman

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

OP be wary of anyone who tells you NOT to read something.

Marx's writings are 150 years old and filled with discredited theories that led to immense poverty and the deaths of tens of millions people. Considering the length of the various volumes of Capital, why should anyone waste their time reading them in this day and age?

Even if you did think that North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela were your ideal society why would you read Marx? Were his writings really that perfect that nobody has advanced on them in 150 years? Was the industrialising economy he was writing about comparable to a modern day service led economy? Reading Marx's work might lead someone to believing that the labour theory of value was correct even though it was completely discredited a couple of decades later.

Many ideas put forward by Keynes in the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money are still widely used today in economics but you would never recommend that someone read as an introduction to economics. Doing so would cause the reader to miss out on the enormous advances the economics profession has made in the 80 years following that.

OP be wary of anyone that tells you to read a discredited 150 year old book as an introduction to any topic. If you did want to ignore the many failings of socialism and learn more about it then you should check out Jacobin magazine. If you want to read a credible publication then you could read Vox which does many evidence backed pieces on politics. You could also check out the highly respected think tank, Brookings Institute, which has a number of blogs that go into the details on public policy and can be very informative.

Realt Dearg Sec

Suryavarman wrote: »

Marx's
OP be wary of anyone that tells you to read a discredited 150 year old book as an introduction to any topic. .

I didn't tell anyone read anything. You told him not to read something. I think that's very suspicious thinking. Argue against Marx, sure, but just saying don't read the single most influential philosopher in modern human history? That's bananas tbh.

Suryavarman

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I didn't tell anyone read anything. You told him not to read something. I think that's very suspicious thinking. Argue against Marx, sure, but just saying don't read the single most influential philosopher in modern human history? That's bananas tbh.

We're talking about politics not philosophy. He isn't the most influential philosopher by any stretch of the imagination.

Realt Dearg Sec

Suryavarman wrote: »

We're talking about politics not philosophy. He isn't the most influential philosopher by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you joking? His ideas have shaped the fates of half the world (for better or more often worse). No other philosopher has inspired revolutions, governments, like he has, his work is still fundamental to virtually every humanities discipline. Who has been more influential in the last five hundred years?

Suryavarman

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Are you joking? His ideas have shaped the fates of half the world (for better or more often worse). No other philosopher has inspired revolutions, governments, like he has, his work is still fundamental to virtually every humanities discipline. Who has been more influential in the last five hundred years?

I didn't realise we were discussing influence in terms of the number of people murdered and consigned to grinding poverty and misery in the name of one philosopher's ideas. In that case then Marx is the most influential. In terms of philosophers that are still have an impact on the world then Marx is pretty much irrelevant outside of Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

Brian?

Suryavarman wrote: »

I didn't realise we were discussing influence in terms of the number of people murdered and consigned to grinding poverty and misery in the name of one philosopher's ideas. In that case then Marx is the most influential. In terms of philosophers that are still have an impact on the world then Marx is pretty much irrelevant outside of Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

Do you honestly believe that Marx is only relevant in "communist" countries + Venezuela?

The influence Marxist theory has had over the labour movement and social democrats is immeasurable.

Realt Dearg Sec

Suryavarman wrote: »

I didn't realise we were discussing influence in terms of the number of people murdered and consigned to grinding poverty and misery in the name of one philosopher's ideas. In that case then Marx is the most influential. In terms of philosophers that are still have an impact on the world then Marx is pretty much irrelevant outside of Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

Aside from the fact that the last comment is obviously nonsense (the trade union movement? The labour party of virtually every western country? Academia?) who would you regard as more influential?

One More Toy

Too late lads - I read marx and now I'm a communist :-(

One More Toy

In all seriousness, I have previously read marx's communist manifesto - an interesting short enough read.

Could anyone recommend any more literature please?

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that Marx is only relevant in "communist" countries + Venezuela?

The influence Marxist theory has had over the labour movement and social democrats is immeasurable.

Point taken.

Suryavarman

One More Toy wrote: »

In all seriousness, I have previously read marx's communist manifesto - an interesting short enough read.

Could anyone recommend any more literature please?

If you want to read political philosophy then Rawls's Theory of Justice might appeal. I haven't read it myself but it is a well regarded book that would seem up your alley.

One More Toy

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you want to read political philosophy then Rawls's Theory of Justice might appeal. I haven't read it myself but it is a well regarded book that would seem up your alley.

Thank you i will have a look and see!

Peregrinus

Brian? wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that Marx is only relevant in "communist" countries + Venezuela?

The influence Marxist theory has had over the labour movement and social democrats is immeasurable.

And more than this; other major political philosophies that influence us - Christian democracy, neoliberalism - are a reaction to Marxist thought. If you want to engage with them, you need to understand what they are reacting to.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One of the corner stones of Locke's philosophical is that a man earns rights over the fruits of labour when he contributes to said labour.

He is not the father of your "libertarianism". Like most enlightenment thinkers. Your anarcho capitalist philosophy would horify Locke.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He can legitimately be claimed as an influence. My point is that what you and other modern libertarians call libertarianism is so far skewed from Locke's philosophical ideas, I don't think he'd be happy about it.

We've been back and forth on this before. So I'll leave it there.