Your Political ideology?

Cronus333 · 06-08-2006 8:01pm #1

I just want to see what everyone here would classify themselves as. Personally I would classify myself, depending on my mood, as one of the following: Liberal, Classical Liberal or Libertarian.
Since I'm reading Rand at the minute Libertarian it is! (I know she hated them but it really is quite similar theory).
So.... what would ye be?

Húrin · 06-08-2006 8:14pm

Cronus333 wrote:

I just want to see what everyone here would classify themselves as. Personally I would classify myself, depending on my mood, as one of the following: Liberal, Classical Liberal or Libertarian.
Since I'm reading Rand at the minute Libertarian it is! (I know she hated them but it really is quite similar theory).
So.... what would ye be?

Democratic socialist/environmentalist and member of Comhaontas Glas (Green Party).

Akrasia · 06-08-2006 8:38pm

Cronus333 wrote:

I just want to see what everyone here would classify themselves as. Personally I would classify myself, depending on my mood, as one of the following: Liberal, Classical Liberal or Libertarian.
Since I'm reading Rand at the minute Libertarian it is! (I know she hated them but it really is quite similar theory).
So.... what would ye be?

before you decide to become a lbertarian you should do a bit of extra research.
There is a good website here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

and for a more satirical expose of the flaws in standard Libertarian arguments, there is this website here http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html

#

* Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
* Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
* Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
* Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
* Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
* Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
* Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
* Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
* Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

# Regulation

* The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
* Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
* All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
* If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
* Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

Cronus333 · 06-08-2006 8:51pm

I have read that before just so you know. And keep in mind that I did say depending on my mood at the time, which puts me in actuality somewhere between the three. Just out of curiosity, could you name your exact ideology? I already have a feeling, I just want confirmation.....

Akrasia · 06-08-2006 9:05pm

Cronus333 wrote:

I have read that before just so you know. And keep in mind that I did say depending on my mood at the time, which puts me in actuality somewhere between the three. Just out of curiosity, could you name your exact ideology? I already have a feeling, I just want confirmation.....

I don't have an exact ideology, 'Libertarian socialist' or Anarchist would describe me best. I am opposed to the state, but i am more opposed to capitalism. As long as we have capitalism we need a strong state to regulate it, but only if that state is democratic in nature.

I believe very strongly in democracy from the bottom up, and not the top down.

What did you think i believed in before I replied?

Cronus333 · 06-08-2006 9:08pm

Actually something along those lines, with an outside chance of revolutionary socialism.

mike65 · 06-08-2006 9:09pm

Facist libertarian ecologist with socialist leanings on "society" issues.

Okay I lied.

Its not that interesting.

Mike.

lostexpectation · 06-08-2006 9:16pm

democratic capitalist

Akrasia · 06-08-2006 9:21pm

I think marxism is destined to result in state communism because the 'Vanguard party' will never give up control of the revolution and you'll end up with a one party state like in Communist Russia, China or Cuba. Marx believed that the Vanguard was necessary to achieve the revolution, and that it would melt away once capitalism was crushed, but that's unlikely to happen due to the nature of power and it's effect on individuals. Also, 'Democratic Centralism', which is also a part of Marxist philosophy leads to a centrally planned economy and we end up with disasters like Mao's cultural revolution or Stalin's 5 Year Plans.

Kojak · 06-08-2006 10:23pm

lostexpectation wrote:

democratic capitalist

I'd probably be much like that myself. Although I would also class myself as a conservative.

InFront · 06-08-2006 10:42pm

I suppose a few democratic prinicples, with reservations on neoliberalism yet communitarianist/ with religious conservatism. I dont know if theres one term for that. Confused man, maybe:)

I mean, its all rubbish really. There are no two people with the same political opinions. These academic-sounding names are simply boring, general labels... they dont mean much in real life.

democrates · 07-08-2006 2:00am

I've read Ayn Rand too "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and studied Cato Institute papers among others, and I'm no Libertarian.

I understand where she's coming from in response to the communist regime she experienced, you get a similar flavour from Igor Schwezoff in his book Borzoi (a great read). What they suffered was terrible, but I think her analysis was defective.

She witnessed the state oppress individual freedom, fine. But her answer was for everyone to engage in oppressing each other. That's the key error in Libertarianism, it ostensibly seeks to protect individual freedom, but that includes the freedom for predation on others. That predator-prey model, the capitalist model, is just a distributed version of communist oppression.

Their attacks on 'statism' are attacks on democracy itself. One vote per person is replaced by one vote per dollar.

Personally I'm in favour of direct democracy, sustainable living, democratic workers co-operatives without share capital, and democratic international co-operation on tackling population growth, ensuring fair trade, and reducing consumption, pollution, and war as part of a roadmap for global socio-economic cohesion. That's off the top of my head, it's hard to summarise views of what constitutes a just future.

bonkey · 07-08-2006 9:09am

Cronus333 wrote:

I just want to see what everyone here would classify themselves as.
...
So.... what would ye be?

I'd be me. I classify myself similarly.

I don't believe in trying to find or construct a label that encompasses my political beliefs. In my experience, labels are more-often used to deride someone for implications the label has rather than implications of what that person has said.

In a huge number of threads here, you'll see someone deriding something for being lefty/righty/liberal/conservative/communist/fascist/whatever. That seems to be the major purpose of labelling. If my stance on one issue is liberal, then my stance on that issue is liberal. However, I'm then more likely to be attacked for being a liberal than for my idea to be challenged on its own merits. The worth of the idea is no longer whats in question, but rather what else we can infer about the people who support said idea. And how do we infer such things? By looking at what label we can slap on them and then attacking that far broader ideology.

Karl Hungus · 07-08-2006 9:15am

National Socialist Worker's Party tbh.

Akrasia · 07-08-2006 12:13pm

Karl Hungus wrote:

National Socialist Worker's Party tbh.

you should be very careful putting the words national and socialist beside each other when talking about politics because it looks too much like 'Nationalist socialist' aka the Nazi Party and NeoNazism

lostexpectation · 07-08-2006 12:48pm

why isn't capitalist, on the politcal compass, you have socialist and libertarian, democrats etc, but not capitalist?? and then people talk about centrists, well centrist these days are capitalist democrats.

Karl Hungus · 07-08-2006 1:06pm

Akrasia wrote:

you should be very careful putting the words national and socialist beside each other when talking about politics because it looks too much like 'Nationalist socialist' aka the Nazi Party and NeoNazism

National Socialist Worker's Party is the Nazi Party. I'd be fairly certain the extra 'ist' doesn't make a difference.

bonkey · 07-08-2006 1:38pm

lostexpectation wrote:

why isn't capitalist, on the politcal compass.

At a guess because capitalism isn't overtly political.

spooiirt!! · 07-08-2006 5:09pm

Neo-Liberal all the way.

lostexpectation · 07-08-2006 5:16pm

bonkey wrote:

At a guess because capitalism isn't overtly political.

just because its the status quo?

then what is it, surely if fits in the social/economc axis of the political compass...

Jackie laughlin · 07-08-2006 5:47pm

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

I disagree strongly with those who dismiss classification by damning it as "labelling". If we don't classify, we will find political argument next to impossible. There is, moreover, a darker anti-politics side to this. There are those who think that there is virtue in claiming to be in some sense "above politics". At its best this is someone who hides their politics (perhaps in shame). It might be be boring cynicism but, remembering that "man is a political animal", it's probably just someone who doesn't want to participate on a fully human level. Their motto is "whatever!"

Me? Socialist.

Don't forget that Marx at the Socialist International became irritated at people turning his thoughts into dogma and insisted that at least HE wasn't a Marxist!

Any party can have environmental policies but how a socialist could join the Green Party is beyond me. Greens are fundamentally about small state, small business and self sufficiency. Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds like a Progressive Democrat in sandals!

spooiirt!! · 07-08-2006 5:50pm

Akrasia wrote:

Central planning cannot work.

Thats true though. A centrally planned Economy doesnt work.

Jackie laughlin · 07-08-2006 6:02pm

Are you talking about the economy in general or certain parts of the economy or are you seriously suggesting the abandonment of ALL planning?

spooiirt!! · 07-08-2006 6:41pm

"Are you talking about the economy in general "

I mean a control economy ala Soviet Union, a central planning commitee trying to regulate things such as supply and demand, the state having control of ALL factories, farms, supermarkets etc.

BlitzKrieg · 07-08-2006 6:59pm

socialist classical conservative.

Húrin · 07-08-2006 7:01pm

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Any party can have environmental policies but how a socialist could join the Green Party is beyond me. Greens are fundamentally about small state, small business and self sufficiency. Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds like a Progressive Democrat in sandals!

We favour increased spending on public transport, and free health for children and ultimately adults.

We're capitalists really, but we support many programmes and regulations that centrist-socialist parties like Labour support.

Kaiser_Sma · 07-08-2006 7:29pm

Liberal Imperialist (much like Niall Ferguson), although my views often verge on centrist and sometimes even right wing. But whos doesn't. I'm outside of real politics professionally so i can afford to be flexible.

Jackie laughlin · 08-08-2006 1:13am

Hurin,
There's nothing remotely Green there.

Spooiirt,
Short of control over ALL production, do you favour state intervention? If so, to what extent?

arbeitsscheuer · 08-08-2006 3:12am

Armchair Socialist, Idler, Lib-Dem and Anti-Capitalist.

Passionate believer in my own political outlook, but relatively poor in articulating, explaining and justifying them to other as-yet-unconvinced people on the fence. Thus, I remain inactive, almost never demonstrating or labouring to win over people to the Socialist cause, on the basis that my attempts would, in all likelihood, do more harm than good to that cause.:D

Note that this is not because Socialism or Communism is inherently inexplicable or unjustifiable - it is, in fact, the only system which can redeem the human race - but because I am fúcking useless at arguing and defining things.

*shrugs*

This was actually why I resigned from the SWP. That and the fact that they're bonkers...

Sgt. Sensible · 08-08-2006 9:25am

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Don't forget that Marx at the Socialist International became irritated at people turning his thoughts into dogma and insisted that at least HE wasn't a Marxist!

For a start, Marx was dead well before the formation of the Socialist International. You're probably thinking of the IWMA and the First International which Marx, being an authoritarian bureaucratic anti-democratic kind of chap, did his best to subvert and control for the benefit of communists alone, as he believed his followers to be the natural vanguard of the workers' movement. He dismissed Bakunin's idea of "free organisation of the labouring masses from the bottom up" as "foolishness" and when he found himself outmanouvered by the Blanquists who were even more into centralising power than he was, he transferred the IWMA general council to New York, as far away from Europe as possible.

Nearly fifty years before the Bolshevik coup effectively ended the Russian Revolution, Bakunin predicted that once in power, Marxists would be every bit as despotic as the ruling class whose place they had taken and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" would in fact be a dictatorship over the proletariat. Right about that one was he not.

Akrasia · 08-08-2006 9:54am

Karl Hungus wrote:

National Socialist Worker's Party is the Nazi Party. I'd be fairly certain the extra 'ist' doesn't make a difference.

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

The Corinthian · 08-08-2006 10:04am

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 · 08-08-2006 11:13am

The Corinthian wrote:

Maybe he means Nazi?

I think we have a winner.

Jackie laughlin · 08-08-2006 11:23am

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 · 08-08-2006 1:10pm

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 · 08-08-2006 1:31pm

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 · 08-08-2006 2:03pm

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 · 08-08-2006 3:08pm

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 · 09-08-2006 12:59am

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 · 09-08-2006 6:37pm

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 · 13-08-2006 1:37am

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 · 13-08-2006 1:57am

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 · 13-08-2006 4:26am

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 · 13-08-2006 10:43am

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 · 14-08-2006 2:20pm

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 · 14-08-2006 11:26pm

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 · 14-08-2006 11:34pm

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 · 15-08-2006 12:31am

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 · 15-08-2006 12:44am

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 · 15-08-2006 1:29am

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 · 15-08-2006 1:58am

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.

Your Political ideology?

Comments