|
Post by eastvillageshybie on Jul 11, 2005 0:40:17 GMT -5
Less of a libertarian than I used to be (actually, I registered as a libertarian). Now have a bit of socialism thrown into the mix. Perhaps I'm becoming more liberal as I age.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 11, 2005 19:05:37 GMT -5
I think i'm to the left of the Liberal Democrats This makes you a Communist!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 11, 2005 19:11:54 GMT -5
If i must use a term then I prefer 'collectivist anarchist', since communism is interpreted differently by so many people and anarchism implies ultra-libertarianism which I don't like. It's an ideal of course. In real world politics I'd have to go for a social democratic party. quote] Social Democrat? So your'e a Facist? Hmm, perhaps a different brand of social democrat than i'm used to, i don't know. Sure categorizing is bad, but that's the way our political systems are set up, i think. In a true democracy, everyone would participate in every little political transaction. Neither the British nor the American systems work this way. We elect others to speak for us, and ultimately they decide in favor of past or set agendas. They often vote with their political party's agenda. Ultimately, this results in polarization, with the Tories and Labor at each other's throats, and the Republicans and Democrats trying to shoot each other in the back. Political systems like tis truly suck, sure, but what other system could there be in a large country with millions of voters and citizens?
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 11, 2005 19:13:15 GMT -5
ok fess up...who voted anarchist and communist? ;D I have a pretty good idea.
|
|
|
Post by HybridMoment on Jul 12, 2005 0:45:58 GMT -5
I voted Republican conservative, which is what I usually vote because in local elections it's either Democrat or Republican; no one else runs. But I guess "conservative libertarian" would best describe me, especially on fiscal issues.
My ideal government is one with as little governing as possible without a total anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jul 12, 2005 3:27:46 GMT -5
I think you're confusing National Socialists (NAZI) and social democrats here. Both Hitler and Stalin would claim to be socialists of a sort, but neither were in reality. You can't advocate mass murder, persecution, intolerance etc and still be socialist. It's very sad though that many people around the world automatically associate 'socialism', 'communism' etc with dictatorship when it is the complete opposite.
Socialism, to me, is Liberalism (which does not mean left wing) with added features.
Social democracy is the combining of socialism and democracy to improve the rights, liberties and welfare of everyone in society, whilst reducing the influence and effects of capitalism.
That's the easy answer, but if politicians had backbones then they'd come up with their own opinions for once and not just follow party dogma or populist policies. You don't need true democracies or Roussean democratic city states in order to have greater variety of political parties and more unique and frank ideological standpoints. True democracy might well act to stiffle creative political thinking.
If the UK and US got better electoral systems in place (Proportional Representation) it would help hugely in making their political environment more varied rather than just Conservative and Labour or Republican or Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 12, 2005 4:12:41 GMT -5
If the UK and US got better electoral systems in place (Proportional Representation) it would help hugely in making their political environment more varied rather than just Conservative and Labour or Republican or Democrat. Dunno if you follow American politics much Tal, but early in the Clinton administration the president tried to instate a Penn Professor into his cabinet. She was merely an advocate of proportional representation, there probably wasn't even much of a chance that she'd get far with her ideas. But the powers that be attacked her relentlessly ridiculing her and calling her a quota queen (wrongly but effectively) until Clinton (perhaps gutlessly) backed down and took her name off the list. It was one of those disillusioning moments when I started to realize that true representation is not what this country is all about. A political scientist, Laurence Britt, found 14 characteristics common to fascist regimes: 1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. 3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. 4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. 5. Rampant sexism. 6. A controlled mass media. 7. Obsession with national security. 8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. 9. Power of corporations protected. 10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. 11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. 12. Obsession with crime and punishment. 13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. 14. Fraudulent elections. Depending on your POV, some of these may sound eerily familiar. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 12, 2005 5:59:07 GMT -5
This is the way I see the current state of American politics. There are two very pro big business parties. One is slightly more left wing than the other, basically a left wing to the conservative party. The current administration is very right wing. I'm no historian, but I get the sense that it is the most right wing administration in US history. I can't stand either party because I think our unrestrained corporatism is eroding our freedoms and destroying the environment as well as exploiting the poorer countries of the world. It also helped send us to war. I don't identify with any viable political party in the US. Its kindof scary.
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 12, 2005 16:31:45 GMT -5
This is the way I see the current state of American politics. There are two very pro big business parties. One is slightly more left wing than the other, basically a left wing to the conservative party. The current administration is very right wing. . It is, but because the head is very right wing. And no, the most right wing administration in American history was Andrew Jackson's two terms in office. Jackson eroded a lot of Jefferson's political system was meant to be, and he turned the Democratic party into nineteenthc century versions of facists. Banking failed in this period, and had to be resurected fifty years later. The country neither had the capital nor the legal safeguards for commercial devlopment.. In the north, small banks did survive, but only because they financed capital on surer ground. Also, AJ's policies were direct causes of the polarization that caused the American Civil War. Took the country a few decades to recover from it, and in some ways we still haven't. Racial problems still exist to a great degree here. Bush administration certainly is right wing, but it's not as bad AJ's was. Not quite anyway. By the way, the most liberal administration in US history was Abe Lincoln's. Parties sure have changed since then, haven't they Zaab?
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jul 12, 2005 16:37:29 GMT -5
[ I think you're confusing National Socialists (NAZI) and social democrats here. Both Hitler and Stalin would claim to be socialists of a sort, but neither were in reality. You can't advocate mass murder, persecution, intolerance etc and still be socialist. It's very sad though that many people around the world automatically associate 'socialism', 'communism' etc with dictatorship when it is the complete opposite. . You're correct, i am confusing them. Lots of little political crap there in that period to remember, especially of Europe. I'd also add that Number 3 here is of most importance. Supression of a targeted group, such as scapegoat meant to be eliminated. Such was the case with the Jews of Germany, and the Whites of Russia. Both had to go, according to the policies of those in power. I find interesting number 8, only in the reverse for the Soviet Union. Atheism was their state religion, along with extreme Leninism for a time. I've always found Russian history to be interesting, particularly now, what with Russian ecnomics eroding it seems. I'm truly afraid that eventually, the world will go to war with facists again, only this time in Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jul 17, 2005 8:23:02 GMT -5
Sorry for the late reply. I've not been around for a few days.
That's sad to hear, but quite common in politics. Good ideas often take a very long time to actually come into practice (PR itself isn't anything new). It's often difficult for those who extol their own brand of democracy as 'the best in the world' to accept that maybe they don't have the most democratic system in place.
However it could just give some majority groups too much influence, which is never good. PR works best when there's the desire to have a varied party system. That is the case in Britain, but perhaps not in the US. The current system there does at least allow for the regular change of power between both major parties.
I'd agree with that (from an outsider's perspective at least).
lol, there is.
This comparison is made or implied often. To be honest you could attribute this list to many, many countries around the world throughout history. It would be more accurate to say they are common to most dictatorships, with fascism being a form of dictatorship with an attached racialist ideology. In short fascism is describing very specific cases of dictatorship, so we shouldn't go around, as some people do, labelling every dictatorship as fascist, or every country that is moving away from democracy as 'becoming fascist'.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Jul 17, 2005 13:32:25 GMT -5
I specifically asked that British people not vote in this poll. I like that you are posting though cause it gives a foreign perspective. the issues are diferent since were diferent countrys and im not sure liberal and conservative have the same context in both countries. so if you did vote and are british thats ok , i do not think you are vile for that, this isnt a scientific poll anyways.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 17, 2005 17:45:23 GMT -5
There has been great efforts, Tal, by both parties to see that a viable third (fourth, fifth?) party doesn't take root. The attack against PR was just one small symptom of this. Therein lies the catch-22: not allowing ideas like PR to happen will supress alternative parties so the undue influence of two very similar parties will only become even more established.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 17, 2005 17:48:30 GMT -5
Interesting that in this very unscientific poll, the majority favor alternatives to the mainstream political parties. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true in the general populace as well.
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jul 17, 2005 17:52:22 GMT -5
This is the way I see the current state of American politics. There are two very pro big business parties. One is slightly more left wing than the other, basically a left wing to the conservative party. The current administration is very right wing. . It is, but because the head is very right wing. And no, the most right wing administration in American history was Andrew Jackson's two terms in office. Jackson eroded a lot of Jefferson's political system was meant to be, and he turned the Democratic party into nineteenthc century versions of facists. Banking failed in this period, and had to be resurected fifty years later. The country neither had the capital nor the legal safeguards for commercial devlopment.. In the north, small banks did survive, but only because they financed capital on surer ground. Also, AJ's policies were direct causes of the polarization that caused the American Civil War. Took the country a few decades to recover from it, and in some ways we still haven't. Racial problems still exist to a great degree here. Bush administration certainly is right wing, but it's not as bad AJ's was. Not quite anyway. By the way, the most liberal administration in US history was Abe Lincoln's. Parties sure have changed since then, haven't they Zaab? Thanks for the historical perspective, Russ.
|
|