NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your political ideology? Choose the ideology that fits your personal views best. If you are a night black anarchist still choose one of the libertarian choises near the center or something, sorry guys, wasn't able to make another option.

Also, don't pay attention to the Kerry thing up there, don't choose according to who you'll vote for, choose according to what comes closest to you (there are only two options in the US, here it's 10... :))

I adhere to no ideology - I think for myself about politics.

I adhere to no ideology - I think for myself about politics.

Thinking for oneself does not preclude having a political ideology.

Thinking for oneself does not preclude having a political ideology.

I would not blindly follow an ideology invented by someone else, and one I created myself would most likely be subject to continual alterations and refinements.

I guess I'd call myself libertarian-centrist.

Right-wing on economic issues, slightly Authoritarian on social issues.

Thinking for oneself does not preclude having a political ideology.

That's correct; in case you didn't understand Clonetopia: You can have completely different ideas than everyone else in the world, and still be able to define you ideology.


As for myself, I am a supporter of Direct Democracy and Communism. Don't ask if I'm a Marxist, that's the stupidest thing you can ask a Communist, the ones that think they can answer yes to that question fail to understand Communism is not of anyone's "invention" and following a particular person's view in it can be disastrous.

Added a poll! I'm a libertarian communist.

Now this is a poll I can vote in! Libertarian free-market capitalist.

Authoritarian Right (ex. Kerry)

Um, Kerry is left-wing. Not Right.

Um, Kerry is left-wing. Not Right.

Kerry at least closely approaches being left-wing, though I'm not sure if he's waffled his way there yet. ;) :D

There I must arrest you, buddy. Kerry is right wing. To U.S. values he might be considered somewhat left wing but to the rest of the wide world he is conservative. He almost has one foot in the center, but lately his been going a little right, concerning the Iraq issues discussing for the election. So he is moderately right actually.

I'm into the total-free market capitalism.

Mmmh... Nice poll: I'm a Libertarian Communist.

THose choices dont seem to fit me ...

"Doesn't fit you"? How? What's missing, please share.

I'm not for collectivism really, nor am I for free-market really. But I'm very libertarian on the social side.

What's your political ideology? Choose the ideology that fits your personal views best. If you are a night black anarchist still choose one of the libertarian choises near the center or something, sorry guys, wasn't able to make another option.

Also, don't pay attention to the Kerry thing up there, don't choose according to who you'll vote for, choose according to what comes closest to you (there are only two options in the US, here it's 10... :))

Just a note, I see you are from Europe..you should study more before you classify a nation's political system. Neither Bush nor Kerry are in the areas you placed them in the US. As well that our governmental system is not authoriarian, if it was many of the posters in these threads already would have been arrested:)(YES, we CAN find you)lol

Um, Kerry is left-wing. Not Right.

Actually both Kerry and Bush are to the right of the political spectrum, Bush is further right.. but Kerry is right as well.

Authoritarian total free market capitalism.

The only true form of government is the "Benign Dictatorship" which we all presently live under.

Even our "representative democracy" is an illusion allowed us by our present "benign dictator".

And Bush is NOT the dictator. No one group, or one nation, is the dictator.

"WE the people" are our own collective dictator. And the name of the dictator is "MONEY".

Capitalism is the great benign dictator. And it is a just, if sometimes severe, one.

It is merely the way of life. Not "A" way of life,.. "THE" way of life.

All other "forms of governement" are placative illusions to soothe the masses until the time comes when humanity is ready to accept the truth.

Old legends and illusions die hard.

:D

I voted Libertarian Socialism, but that's not really accurate. I' very liberal on social and political matters, but I am just slightly left of centre on economics. I support things like guaranteed education and healthcare for everyone, but I don't support overly generous unemployment benefit systems. I also don't see the harm in privatising the postal service, like they are doing in Japan.

[Stephistan #18]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossman
Um, Kerry is left-wing. Not Right.

Actually both Kerry and Bush are to the right of the political spectrum, Bush is further right.. but Kerry is right as well.

Utterly agree with you on this one Steph...! :D

Kerry at least closely approaches being left-wing, though I'm not sure if he's waffled his way there yet. ;) :D

No, he's left-wing. He's the most liberal senator.

But yes, lol

No, he's left-wing. He's the most liberal senator.

You don't have a left wing party in the United States.. at least not one that ever stands a chance of getting elected.. both the Democrats and republicans are right wing, the Republicans are further to the right.. but that doesn't change the fact that Kerry is on the right of the spectrum. Perhaps that means liberal to Americans, but it's not the correct "label" technically.

What exactly are the differences between

1) Authoritarian Right and Authoritarian Total Free-Market Capitalism?
2) Libertarian Right and Libertarian Total Free-Market Capitalism?

Bush is by no means a "Total Free-Market Capitalist." That's poppycock. If he were such a creature he would not support tariffs, business regulations, or subsidies.

Kerry is NOT Authoritarian Right (no matter what the idiot Europeans have to say about it). Kerry is a moderate socialist at best. His ever more compromising stance as the election draws nigh should not be interpreted as his actual political position, but rather as an attempt to broaden his electoral appeal (real politik!).

What exactly are the differences between

1) Authoritarian Right and Authoritarian Total Free-Market Capitalism?
2) Libertarian Right and Libertarian Total Free-Market Capitalism?

Bush is by no means a "Total Free-Market Capitalist." That's poppycock. If he were such a creature he would not support tariffs, business regulations, or subsidies.

Kerry is NOT Authoritarian Right (no matter what the idiot Europeans have to say about it). Kerry is a moderate socialist at best. His ever more compromising stance as the election draws nigh should not be interpreted as his actual political position, but rather as an attempt to broaden his electoral appeal (real politik!).

You said it..it has been an absolutely hilarious month for me reading totally uninformed Euro-ideas on American politics.

Come on, just the fact that americans actually vote for those guys says a lot... The fact that you think Kerry is left wing say A LOT more!!! It's not like we don't listen to their speeches and hear about their latest idiotic act. So in some ways of thinking Europeans has more to say about the ideologies of your leaders then you have, as you nothing to compare it with other than one other party. In europe we can compare for example Kerrys speech with one of our own politicians; it is right wing, for us. Here's a drawing which, including to the parties, shows how the population consider the parties as left or right, dropping the social scale:
|Left------------------------------Right|

US parties:
|Democrats--------------Republicans---|

For Ex. Norwegian parties:
|AKP-RV--SV--AP-SP-V--KRF-Høyre-FRP|

Most norwegians see US parties as*:
|------------------------Democ.----Rep|

* also works the opposite way, most US people would probably think most of the for ex. Norwegians parties are more left wing then the rest of the world thinks of it.

Yo all, I'm a democratic communist (very left on social issues and economics) although there's no real option for me :(
Is libertarian free market?

Yo all, I'm a democratic communist (very left on social issues and economics) although there's no real option for me :(
Is libertarian free market?

No my friend, "libertarian communist" is the one you should choose; hehe... how can communism and free market be together? :D

No my friend, "libertarian communist" is the one you should choose; hehe... how can communism and free market be together? :D
Whoops :) Must have got a little confused there...

[Communist Scandinavia #26]
Come on, just the fact that americans actually vote for those guys says a lot... The fact that you think Kerry is left wing say A LOT more!!! It's not like we don't listen to their speeches and hear about their latest idiotic act. So in some ways of thinking Europeans has more to say about the ideologies of your leaders then you have, as you nothing to compare it with other than one other party. In europe we can compare for example Kerrys speech with one of our own politicians; it is right wing, for us. Here's a drawing which, including to the parties, shows how the population consider the parties as left or right, dropping the social scale:
|Left------------------------------Right|

US parties:
|Democrats--------------Republicans---|

For Ex. Norwegian parties:
|AKP-RV--SV--AP-SP-V--KRF-Høyre-FRP|

Most norwegians see US parties as*:
|------------------------Democ.----Rep|

* also works the opposite way, most US people would probably think most of the for ex. Norwegians parties are more left wing then the rest of the world thinks of it.

Exactly..! America DOES NOT LIKE LEFTISTS..! Period.

Our two-party system, which suits the US perfectly, is specifically composed to constrain the government from becoming LEFTIST,.. or as the "founders" might say "from being expropriated by the mob".

This is the American sense:
*) Freedom lies in the ability to do, not to command.
*) The government should be as "un-free" as possible.
*) The populace should be as free as possible.

Leftist governments might work well enough for smallish, relatively homogenous populations like eupropean countries (used to be!), but Americans don't like mob rule, as we Americans ARE A MOB of massively diverse sub-populations.

We'll see how well these leftist governments hold together in the face of their own dis-homogenization.

(( I'm predicting not well at all,.. obviously. ))

Come on, just the fact that americans actually vote for those guys says a lot... The fact that you think Kerry is left wing say A LOT more!!!

I think it says more about Europeans than it does about Americans, but then it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

It's not like we don't listen to their speeches and hear about their latest idiotic act. So in some ways of thinking Europeans has more to say about the ideologies of your leaders then you have, as you nothing to compare it with other than one other party.

This only proves how little you know about American politics.

How is kerry right wing?

He supports guaranteed healthcare, state education, social security (old age pensions), the welfare state, racial preference quotas for minorities, income redistribution, restrictions on free trade, gun control and increased regulation of employment. That sounds leftish at least.

I think it says more about Europeans than it does about Americans, but then it's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

How does 'Americans voting for this guys [candidates from the Democrat and Republican parties]' say more about europeans than americans?

It's not like we don't listen to their speeches and hear about their latest idiotic act. So in some ways of thinking Europeans has more to say about the ideologies of your leaders then you have, as you nothing to compare it with other than one other party.
This only proves how little you know about American politics.

So... because he realizes that even if politicians from the same party act like they disagree on some issue, when it comes to their own interests they'll be equally corrupt and go along with things their idelogy suppousedly doesn't accept... that means he knows little.

It's not knowing about US politics, it's knowing about politics, period.

Exactly..! America DOES NOT LIKE LEFTISTS..! Period.

Our two-party system, which suits the US perfectly, is specifically composed to constrain the government from becoming LEFTIST,.. or as the "founders" might say "from being expropriated by the mob".

This is the American sense:
*) Freedom lies in the ability to do, not to command.
*) The government should be as "un-free" as possible.
*) The populace should be as free as possible.

that isn't how or why we have a two party system. we have a two party system because of consequences of the voting system we use that were unknown at the time the system was created. and the founders were not a monolithic group of superior beings, but rather individuals with radically different ideas - including the idea that even more power should rest with 'the mob'.

and if those statements are correct, how come all major parties act as if the american government should have more power (though they disagree slightly over what areas this power should be focused on) and the people should have only the freedom that the state allows them?

the founders were not a monolithic group of superior beings, but rather individuals with radically different ideas - including the idea that even more power should rest with 'the mob'.

Just a thought (I'm not from the USA so no one jump bashing towards my head please): Is that the original reason for the names of the Democrat and Republican parties?

Just a thought (I'm not from the USA so no one jump bashing towards my head please): Is that the original reason for the names of the Democrat and Republican parties?

in a sense, yes, though only sort of. oddly enough, the party that eventually became the democratic party was originally called the republican party. their oppnents started calling them the democratic-republican party, in order to attempt to link them to the radical democrats of the french revolution. in line with a fine american tradition they quickly adopted the name that was used to ridicule them as their official name. later the party split into the democratic party (the name was unofficial for a while though) and the national republican party. the national republicans collapsed and to some extent regrouped as the whigs. then the whigs collapsed and most of them jump over and join the new republican party. since then the democrats and republicans have existed and instead of splitting, merely switched their constituencies around.

[Free Soviets #34]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Exactly..! America DOES NOT LIKE LEFTISTS..! Period.

Our two-party system, which suits the US perfectly, is specifically composed to constrain the government from becoming LEFTIST,.. or as the "founders" might say "from being expropriated by the mob".

This is the American sense:
*) Freedom lies in the ability to do, not to command.
*) The government should be as "un-free" as possible.
*) The populace should be as free as possible.

that isn't how or why we have a two party system. we have a two party system because of consequences of the voting system we use that were unknown at the time the system was created. and the founders were not a monolithic group of superior beings, but rather individuals with radically different ideas - including the idea that even more power should rest with 'the mob'.

and if those statements are correct, how come all major parties act as if the american government should have more power (though they disagree slightly over what areas this power should be focused on) and the people should have only the freedom that the state allows them?

When did we change our voting system..?

Parties are not "government". Parties always want more power for themselves, and less for their opponents, within the amount that is available.

The society of America wants the government to have as little power over them as possible.

The whole point our society is that laws be used to TAKE AWAY our rights, not to GRANT (ALLOW) us rights.

[Bariloche #35]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Free Soviets
the founders were not a monolithic group of superior beings, but rather individuals with radically different ideas - including the idea that even more power should rest with 'the mob'.

Just a thought (I'm not from the USA so no one jump bashing towards my head please): Is that the original reason for the names of the Democrat and Republican parties?

You'd have to look that one up, but here's my conjecture:

Republicans: We live in a representative republic. A "smallish" body of chosen citizens elects officers (office holders).

Democrats: We live in a democracy. The citizenry at large choose officers.

Sounds simple enough.

Can anyone else elucidate...? :)

in a sense, yes, though only sort of. oddly enough, the party that eventually became the democratic party was originally called the republican party. their oppnents started calling them the democratic-republican party, in order to attempt to link them to the radical democrats of the french revolution. in line with a fine american tradition they quickly adopted the name that was used to ridicule them as their official name. later the party split into the democratic party (the name was unofficial for a while though) and the national republican party. the national republicans collapsed and to some extent regrouped as the whigs. then the whigs collapsed and most of them jump over and join the new republican party. since then the democrats and republicans have existed and instead of splitting, merely switched their constituencies around.

Thanks, I had always wandered and was too lazy to research :D

[Free Soviets #36]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bariloche
Just a thought (I'm not from the USA so no one jump bashing towards my head please): Is that the original reason for the names of the Democrat and Republican parties?

in a sense, yes, though only sort of. oddly enough, the party that eventually became the democratic party was originally called the republican party. their oppnents started calling them the democratic-republican party, in order to attempt to link them to the radical democrats of the french revolution. in line with a fine american tradition they quickly adopted the name that was used to ridicule them as their official name. later the party split into the democratic party (the name was unofficial for a while though) and the national republican party. the national republicans collapsed and to some extent regrouped as the whigs. then the whigs collapsed and most of them jump over and join the new republican party. since then the democrats and republicans have existed and instead of splitting, merely switched their constituencies around.

It's beginning to sound like the LABELS that people are using to describe themselves, and their opponents, are thoroughly arbitrary and mostly meaningless.

If everyone is their own party, why don't we simply dissolve all parties, and try pure democracy..?

Oh,.. that's right. What a messy mobocratic chaos that would be.

So what's the next best thing? How about a place where everyone has the most intimate contact with the largest number of other "parties" (viewpoints) while still maintaining a sense of "them vs. us" required to use the natural competitiveness of people to "do" things (aka: the confrontational system)...?

Hmmmm... that would be.... a two-party system, where each side contains the largest possible number of internally competing viewpoints..!

Amazing..! America is a miraculous place..! :D

If everyone is their own party, why don't we simply dissolve all parties, and try pure democracy..?

Oh,.. that's right. What a messy mobocratic chaos that would be.

So what's the next best thing? How about a place where everyone has the most intimate contact with the largest number of other "parties" (viewpoints) while still maintaining a sense of "them vs. us" required to use the natural competitiveness of people to "do" things (aka: the confrontational system)...?

Hmmmm... that would be.... a two-party system, where each side contains the largest possible number of internally competing viewpoints..!

first off, i think your first statement there is made up of a couple misconceptions. not everyone would be their own 'party'. even in the ridiculously sectarian stalinist 'left' where they split over just about anything, there are multiple people in any particular party. people's ideologies and beliefs tend to clump together. they clump in various ways based on the logic of the system they operate under, but they will always clump. secondly, nothing in pure democracy has much to do with the existence of parties, or their unofficial form - factions. pure democracy just means some form of democracy not based around representatives. i've got a dollar that says that you would still find groups of people voting together on most issues, representatives or not.

and why is that the next best thing? and what planet do you live on that the two party system has each side containing the largest possible number of competing veiwpoints. one of the basic arguments used in favor of the two party system is that is narrows the political debate and keeps uncommon/radical ideas out of the mainstream. or at least slows them down. nobody argues that two party systems can even pretend to truly be inclusive - they argue that it is good for governmental stability and driving parties towards the imaginary political median, which again is allegedly good for stability.

seriously, two party systems form not because they are good or even because people like them, but because a particular election system is used in a country which drives their creation and sustains them.

How does 'Americans voting for this guys [candidates from the Democrat and Republican parties]' say more about europeans than americans?

I was actually referring to his statement regarding us thinking that Kerry is left wing. Kerry IS left wing. He is not radically so, and since he's running for president, he'll try not to appear too far left of center. He's a moderate socialist. The fact that Europeans are astounded at this assessment of Kerry's political position says quite a bit about them.

So... because he realizes that even if politicians from the same party act like they disagree on some issue, when it comes to their own interests they'll be equally corrupt and go along with things their idelogy suppousedly doesn't accept... that means he knows little.

It's not knowing about US politics, it's knowing about politics, period.

Actually, it's not knowing that there are more than two parties from which to choose, and a good many Americans will be voting for someone other than the Democrat or the Republican come November (assuming they aren't all bullied into thinking that they're really giving votes to their least favorite candidate).

I was actually referring to his statement regarding us thinking that Kerry is left wing. Kerry IS left wing. He is not radically so, and since he's running for president, he'll try not to appear too far left of center. He's a moderate socialist. The fact that Europeans are astounded at this assessment of Kerry's political position says quite a bit about them.

Yes, it says that they actually know that being economically left-wing is being communist and politically is being partidary of Direct Democracy. You could say that in civil/social issues Kerry is left-wing, and I think even that is an overstatement. AND... before you say it: NO, I'm not european.

Actually, it's not knowing that there are more than two parties from which to choose, and a good many Americans will be voting for someone other than the Democrat or the Republican come November (assuming they aren't all bullied into thinking that they're really giving votes to their least favorite candidate).

Please enlighten us: What's the percentage of independent party's members in the US Congress? How many state governors are from independent parties? And how long has it been since an independent party got more than 10% of the votes in a presidential election (if that ever happened)?

Nice poll. It would have been interesting to see it as a public poll, though.

Libertarian Socialist here.

[Free Soviets #41]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If everyone is their own party, why don't we simply dissolve all parties, and try pure democracy..?

Oh,.. that's right. What a messy mobocratic chaos that would be.

So what's the next best thing? How about a place where everyone has the most intimate contact with the largest number of other "parties" (viewpoints) while still maintaining a sense of "them vs. us" required to use the natural competitiveness of people to "do" things (aka: the confrontational system)...?

Hmmmm... that would be.... a two-party system, where each side contains the largest possible number of internally competing viewpoints..!

first off, i think your first statement there is made up of a couple misconceptions. not everyone would be their own 'party'. even in the ridiculously sectarian stalinist 'left' where they split over just about anything, there are multiple people in any particular party. people's ideologies and beliefs tend to clump together. they clump in various ways based on the logic of the system they operate under, but they will always clump. secondly, nothing in pure democracy has much to do with the existence of parties, or their unofficial form - factions. pure democracy just means some form of democracy not based around representatives. i've got a dollar that says that you would still find groups of people voting together on most issues, representatives or not.

and why is that the next best thing? and what planet do you live on that the two party system has each side containing the largest possible number of competing veiwpoints. one of the basic arguments used in favor of the two party system is that is narrows the political debate and keeps uncommon/radical ideas out of the mainstream. or at least slows them down. nobody argues that two party systems can even pretend to truly be inclusive - they argue that it is good for governmental stability and driving parties towards the imaginary political median, which again is allegedly good for stability.

seriously, two party systems form not because they are good or even because people like them, but because a particular election system is used in a country which drives their creation and sustains them.

Yes,.. people clump. Very much agreed..!

Let's say there are 12 viewpoints (people).

With a 4 party system (A B C D):
A(1,2,3)-B(4,5,6)-C(7,8)-D(9,10,11,12)

With an 8 party system (A B C D E F G H):
A(1,2)-B(3)-C(4)-D(5)-E(6,7,8)-F(9,10)-G(11)-H(12)

With a 2 party system (A B):
A(1,2,3,4,5)-B(6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Which parties have more internal "debate"..?

Which system presents a "point of decision" for the overall electorate that has been "pre-digested" by interaction between more viewpoint-to-viewpoint interfaces..?

All electoral decisions are binary. Yes or no. By having those who's job it is do the digesting doing the digestion, the electorate is presented with more digested presentations.

One could easily argue that having two parties that work on viewpoint reconciliation is very similar to a plethora of parties working on viewpoint reconciliation in an "open forum", of course.

:D

Yes,.. people clump. Very much agreed..!

Let's say there are 12 viewpoints (people).

With a 4 party system (A B C D):
A(1,2,3)-B(4,5,6)-C(7,8)-D(9,10,11,12)

With an 8 party system (A B C D E F G H):
A(1,2)-B(3)-C(4)-D(5)-E(6,7,8)-F(9,10)-G(11)-H(12)

With a 2 party system (A B):
A(1,2,3,4,5)-B(6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Which parties have more internal "debate"..?

Which system presents a "point of decision" for the overall electorate that has been "pre-digested" by interaction between more viewpoint-to-viewpoint interfaces..?

All electoral decisions are binary. Yes or no. By having those who's job it is do the digesting doing the digestion, the electorate is presented with more digested presentations.

One could easily argue that having two parties that work on viewpoint reconciliation is very similar to a plethora of parties working on viewpoint reconciliation in an "open forum", of course.

:D

the thing that creates different clumping arangements isn't a thought out plan of how many parties we want to have, but the outcome of tactical voting and other systemic properties that a political system operates under. these 'digested opinions' are just the positions deemed electable under whatever system we are talking about. nothing at all to do with making things easier for the electorate or figuring out which positions have the most solid arguments behind them or reconciling the differences between them.

so while tactical voting in a two party system makes the clumping work something like that (gotta vote for the lesser evil, after all), the actual dynamics of a system based on winner-take-all single member districts mean that viewpoints 1-3 and 10-12 are effectively excluded from the process altogether. each party will focus on its largest group and the people on the other side who might switch over, the edges of their base being largely written off completely. there isn't any internal debate other than the debate about how best to steal their opponents support. which is what leads two party systems to develop towards a political consensus between the parties except on a few key devisive issues that the parties use to attract single-issue voters.