NationStates Jolt Archive

This poll is to satisfy my curiosity about the exact make up of the self-described socialist population on NSG. If you would indulge me, answer as what best describes you.

And to people who don't consider themselves socialists, please don't respond to the poll. It'll mess up the percentages.

EDIT: On second thought, perhaps the category "democratic socialist" is a little to large to be meaningful.

I'm just good old fashion Canadian socialist... though I've often been called a pinko commie.

I verge between slight pragmatism and wild idealism; Democratic Socialism and Anarcho-Communism. Or just plain Anarchism.:p

Democratic Socialist, with a little Libertarian Socialist thrown in.

Democratic Socialist, with a little Libertarian Socialist thrown in.

*looks at Political Compass scores*

I'd say a little more than a little libertarian socialist thrown in, but that's fine by me.

Democratic Socialist with a little Utopian init

The kind that wants freedom of business, as long as the average chap or chapette doesn't suffer, with fairly high taxes, but not too high as to actually curtail the amount of money coming into the treasury due to a lack of investment, to provide a good quality of education and a subsidised health service.

No idea how to describe that in 'standard' socialist terms, sorry.

The kind that wants freedom of business, as long as the average chap or chapette doesn't suffer, with fairly high taxes, but not too high as to actually curtail the amount of money coming into the treasury due to a lack of investment, to provide a good quality of education and a subsidised health service.

No idea how to describe that in 'standard' socialist terms, sorry.

Pretty much sums me up too. Yootopian Socialism? :p

Also, see score in sig.

Pretty much sums me up too. Yootopian Socialism? :p
Because I'm not that egotistical, I'd call it something like "Realito-Socialism", apart from that makes it sound like a Marxist movement, which is almost the exact opposite of what it is.

Meh.
Also, see score in sig.
Mine's usually about -7ish on both scales.

Which is quite a deviation from what I actually believe, but then the PolitComp score is kind of inaccurate for everyone involved.

I picked "other."

I find the social hierarchies of capitalism reprehensible, but seeing as how I think free enterprise, property, and individual autonomy are fantastic, I'm not sure exactly how far into the socialist camp I really go. Of course, I've run into a whole mess of socialists who advocate free enterprise and individual autonomy as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), even if opinions concerning property are complex and controversial. I suppose ultimately I consider myself a socialist, it's just that the residual effect of my previous association with right-wing American "libertarianism" continues to produce not insignificant levels of cognitive dissonance.

If I had to choose a particular label, the Mutuallist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29) school makes me least uncomfortable. As I've stated in previous threads, certain examples of bottom-up workers' self-management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take) are pretty much what I have in mind when I think "socialist."

I suppose I'm searching for a middle ground. Martin Luther King Jr. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.) said "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon) had long before stated a similar concept.

I agree with both of them.

hmm good question i have belief from almost every type of socialism though mainly from Democratic Socialism, revolutionary socialism although i do take some ideas from modern chinese form of communism. though not with communism i believe that there should be civil freedoms but not much political freedoms

Well, this about the distribution that I expected. I'll give it a little more time, though.

The kind that wants freedom of business, as long as the average chap or chapette doesn't suffer, with fairly high taxes, but not too high as to actually curtail the amount of money coming into the treasury due to a lack of investment, to provide a good quality of education and a subsidised health service.

No idea how to describe that in 'standard' socialist terms, sorry.
I think that's what is termed a "Social Democracy". Or as the Rightwingers like to say
The evil "Nanny State"

not sure really, somewhere between anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist.

... i believe that there should be civil freedoms but not much political freedoms

What's the difference?

The kind that wants freedom of business, as long as the average chap or chapette doesn't suffer, with fairly high taxes, but not too high as to actually curtail the amount of money coming into the treasury due to a lack of investment, to provide a good quality of education and a subsidised health service.

No idea how to describe that in 'standard' socialist terms, sorry.

seconded

...or nthed. Democratic socialism in this poll..?

What's the difference?
Civil liberties - "woo I can go and have sex with a man"
Political liberties - "woo I can vote a bit" (political liberties are basically a specific bit of civil liberties)

As everyone knows, voting is overrated. Being able to do what you like, within reason, is pretty alright, though.

Democratic socialism in this poll..?
Democracy doesn't really need to be a part of it, although I suppose it could be. I'm not really fussed either way, as long as there were good people at the top.

(political liberties are basically a specific bit of civil liberties)


Without that "specific bit" I lose my ability to assert and defend the rest. Or, at least, I lose my ability to do so peacefully, which I would hope would be the preferred mode of action.

Democracy doesn't really need to be a part of it, although I suppose it could be. I'm not really fussed either way, as long as there were good people at the top.

There quite rarely are good people at the top. Makes one wonder if Acton et al. were right.

EDIT: On second thought, perhaps the category "democratic socialist" is a little to large to be meaningful.

True. One could call our labour in England "democratic socialists".

True. One could call our labour in England "democratic socialists".

More specifically, Labour UK used to follow the philosophy of Fabianism (i gave it its own seperate category, since it differs quite qualitatively from how I define "democratic socialism".)

I think I'm somewhat close to Labour, but since I'm American, that means more or less left wing. I'm somewhat Libertarian on social issues -- your private life is none of my business. Scrog whatever you want. Shoot drugs. Collect AK47s. The only time it's my business is if you harm another person.

Without that "specific bit" I lose my ability to assert and defend the rest. Or, at least, I lose my ability to do so peacefully, which I would hope would be the preferred mode of action.
Hardly.

Find me a nation which has refferenda on every law that could affect your civil liberties. You will find none. The closest you can really get is Switzerland, which has referrenda on going to war.

Once you vote a government into power, in almost every nation in the world they are utterly untouchable other than due to internal conflicts.

This is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you wish to view things.
There quite rarely are good people at the top.
All that voting in a democracy allows you to do, to help or hinder that, is to get the person who can persuade you best that they're a good person at the top.

No stalinist? I am inulted. : (

:P

Once you vote a government into power, in almost every nation in the world they are utterly untouchable...


...until the next election. Or until the elected official commits a crime, or violates a constitution, or acts in some other offensive manner. The rule of law is an important part of political/civil rights and liberties.

Besides that, who really gives a damn what "almost every nation in the world" does? They're obviously all broken. ;)

I seem to be the only Libertarian communist (who’s voted).

Though Anarcho-communist would cover me as well.

I basically want what America is now, with universal health care and a better safety net for the unemployed, maybe some New Deal style public works projects every now and then.

To be honest, I barely qualify as a socialist at all.

Marxist-Leninist

I am a pragmatic socialist. If the hammer doesn't drive nails,or the sickle doesn't cut plants, then we have to find something that works.

And we will. We have the ability. And they have the need.

I was raised by socialists, so I didn't come to it through youthful rebellion or dusty Marxist tomes. I was simply always surrounded by people organising and protesting.

The Asian ones are the most rigourous, but I think the Latino ones are the funnest.

I think the Latino ones are the funnest.
And, more often than not, the most active.

Here in Scotland, the socialist contingent consists of the splintered SSP, still suck in the 1950s, and the Green Party, who, at the very least, have fantastic scarves.

Anarcho-communist. I favor smashing both the state and capitalism.

Probably lean more towards democratic socialism/Fabianism in the short term, but see libertarian socialism as a long term goal. Call that what you will.

...until the next election. Or until the elected official commits a crime, or violates a constitution, or acts in some other offensive manner. The rule of law is an important part of political/civil rights and liberties.

Besides that, who really gives a damn what "almost every nation in the world" does? They're obviously all broken. ;)
See the world after September 11th for a classic example of how this ABSOLUTELY IS NOT TRUE.

Countless laws, human rights acts, constitutions and so on and so forth have been broken, but the only way that ANYONE has been held responsible is by the opposition parties gathering up enough support.

In the US, for example, the general public doesn't rule the nation. A few hundred overpayed public speakers and beaurocrats do. Once every few years you are supposedly given an opportunity to magically change this.

But all it actually does is empowers the leaders who get voted in, because they've always got a thin layer of credibility due to being voted in.

In a dictatorship, you don't have that, and the politics is more raw, more down to earth because of it.

If you wanted to take out the leadership of the US, you'd have to go an a bit of a rampage, because of the sheer scale of the leadership, and all of that. To cripple Romania, all it took really was shooting Nicolae Ceauşescu.

To cripple Romania, all it took really was shooting Nicolae Ceauşescu.

Which is much harder than it sounds. I think it would be an incredible mistake for us to not care about political systems, because, by in large they have a lot of control over economic systems. What a libertory economic system needs is a liberatory political system, something like Athenian democracy coupled with federalism.

Which is much harder than it sounds.
They pulled him out of a building, quickly sorted a trial out and then shot him, and sent the footage over the world.



OK, for a more close-to-home one : Iraq.

All it took to take out Iraq's political structure was find Saddam and arrest him. Then there's no leader and the system completely falls to peices.

That's compare that to the aftermath of the JFK assassination - all that happened was that the vice president got into power, and if he'd have been killed, another vice president would have gotten into power, and so on and so on times several hundred (although going through several hundred people in a four year term would, in itself, be pretty incredible).
I think it would be an incredible mistake for us to not care about political systems, because, by in large they have a lot of control over economic systems.
What controls an economic system is the buying public.

This is why the implementation of communism failed oh so much in the USSR - there was nothing much for people to actually DO with their money, so outside of going to work because otherwise your family was up shit creek, the economy didn't really do much other than fail epically.

The way this was circumvented, at least in East Germany, IIRC they did something somewhat similar in the USSR and indeed most of the Eastern Bloc was to have shops for tourists that people from that state could also used - just for a comparitively high price.

It doesn't matter if your government is made up of a bunch of elected people, or the new leader's best mates, unless the general public has something to do with their money, then they won't work, and at that point, the whole thing comes down.
What a libertory economic system needs is a liberatory political system, something like Athenian democracy coupled with federalism.
Hardly.

I'm just good old fashion Canadian socialist... though I've often been called a pinko commie.
Often by Albertans like me, no doubt.

I think I'm somewhat close to Labour, but since I'm American, that means more or less left wing. I'm somewhat Libertarian on social issues -- your private life is none of my business. Scrog whatever you want. Shoot drugs. Collect AK47s. The only time it's my business is if you harm another person.QFT
And it's also none of their business whether or not I buckle my seatbelt or wear a motorcycle helmet. I do, because it's stupid not to. But adults should be allowed to be stupid as long as they're only getting themselves killed.

[QUOTE=Trotskylvania;13005702]This poll is to satisfy my curiosity about the exact make up of the self-described socialist population on NSG. If you would indulge me, answer as what best describes you.[QUOTE]

I lean towards DeLeonism. They believe that for a socialist movement to truly work it must organize people both in the workplace and in the political sphere. They also believe that it must be a popular movement backed by the majority and not an athoritarian vanguard.

Not that I get too worked up about it. I don't anticipate much change in my lifetime. I think we're more of an archivist generation just keping the dream alive.