NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your political philosophy? Mine is more a combination of many different philosophies, with a strong emphasis on lack of loyalty to someone else's ideology, or to a political party or state. My loyalty is to ideals only. These ideals are mixture of views from left and right, given that complex issues need to be looked at in a complex manner, and on a case-by-case basis, but overall I'm a Socialist-Libertarian, and a militant humanitarian when it comes to foreign affairs.(I will support intervention in an other country, if in defense of human rights).

I call it Happy Mediumism. I think it's title is self-explanatory. *nod*

Mine's pretty simple:

1. Government is necessary but fundamentally untrustworthy in all forms. Therefore a minimal government is best.

2. Leave everybody else the hell alone if they're not hurting anybody.

The high amount of interns they sack makes me like them more.

If you read Locke, De Tocqueville, and Kant, you've got about 90% of it. There's a smattering of Marx, Rawls, and Burke in there to boot though that comes in on specific issues.

Realism.

My views come closest to what could be described as social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism), which is to be distinguished from the American definition of liberalism. Having said that, my views do not fall neatly into this particular political philosophy but most of them do.

You're going about this all wrong.

What are your economic interests? From there you can extrapolate what the political or ideological veil they can use to defend their economic interests. Marxism is the political extension for the economic interests and wish for liberation of the working class majority for example.

If you find your economic interests and politics are in contradiction, you have been fooled, why are you defending the bourgeois property of someone else?

All ideology, politics and philosophy in the State exists for backing up the economic interests of the current ruling class in power, nothing more.

I follow no ideology, no politics, and no philosophy, I recognize Marxism-Leninism as a living growing social science.

Isn't your answer essentialy Libertarian, Dododecapod?

My philosophy? hell knows that one, because i haven't a clue probably somewhere that's not really important, if that's possible in politics.

The Oscar Mayer theory of life, the universe, and everything. To wit: Life is what you make of it. ;)

My philosophy? Nihilism. In essence, all the people who know how to run the country are busy collecting garbage, only idiots and dicks have the time to run for office, and nobody cares about it. Basically, we're fucked.

Andaras, your response was strikingly cynical. Perhaps your political views are determined soley by your economic interests, but don't presume to speak for the rest of us. Some people actually have ideals beyond what benefits their pocket-book (yes, including some people in power, though I fear such idealism becomes rarer the higher up one goes).

I'm a social democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy).

Andaras, your response was strikingly cynical. Perhaps your political views are determined soley by your economic interests, but don't presume to speak for the rest of us. Some people actually have ideals beyond what benefits their pocket-book (yes, including some people in power, though I fear such idealism becomes rarer the higher up one goes).
Indeed, many ignorant people unaware of economic reality fall prey to naive idealistic views, be they libertarianism, liberalism, social-democracy, whatever. This simply means they are acting in contradiction to their economic interests, which happens of course quite alot. This is why you'll find so many 'libertarians' or whatnot defending the property of others and not themselves.

Liberal, but I have many socialist leanings.

Isn't your answer essentialy Libertarian, Dododecapod?

It's very close. But the current crop of Libertarians have gotten all hung up on the "Tax Issue", while I have no problem with tax. Government is necessary, for things like Health, Welfare, General administration, and Mutual Defence, and therefore must be paid for. A graduated taxation system is the fairest way to do that.

Political views which have no basis in the real economic conditions of the individual holding them are ultimately irrelevant. Otherwise the political views are just a nice triviality to the individual, like a nice necklace, but they have no real basis.

Political views which have no basis in the real economic conditions of the individual holding them are ultimately irrelevant. Otherwise the political views are just a nice triviality to the individual, like a nice necklace, but they have no real basis.
*Yawns* You already said that. Why not go somewhere else if you're once again spoiling for yet another fight.

*Yawns* You already said that. Why not go somewhere else if you're once again spoiling for yet another fight.
Just saying.... People on NSG tend to treat their own personal politics like that, something nice and appealing, it would be nice if they used some self-criticism.

In terms of the poll, I tend to waffle around "right-libertarian," "left-libertarian," "socialist," and "anarchist." I've been described by another as a moderate market libertarian socialist. Basically, there isn't anything wrong with free enterprise that diffuse, diverse, decentralized, and direct ownership and control of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) wouldn't solve.

Truth be told, I'm really just a right-libertarian who tired of right-libertarians constantly making excuses for monopolistic corporations and the governments who do their dirty work for them. Oligargic bullshit is oligargic bullshit, whether "privatized" or whatever else.

I'm not sure where to begin.

I'm a socialist and an anarchist, politically on the hard left.

I oppose capitalism because it denies ordinary human beings substantive control over their own lives: it lets the terms of the economy, and thus the terms of society as a whole, be dictated by powerful exclusively-owned economic institutions instead of by the public as a whole. For me, capitalism is an obstacle to freedom, and a just social system is always about freedom.

I tend to think that freedom is best realized on the social level, through radical democracy, than on the level of individual autonomy, because society is so fundamental to how human beings live that we cannot be free as individuals unless we acquire substantive freedom as citizens on equal terms, as a public exercising its democratic will. Individual freedom doesn't just exist; at least in societies like ours, dominated by power and interdependence, it is something that must be secured, and it can only be secured at the social level.

On the other hand, the dangers of centralized government, and a political class with exclusive power controlling it, are obvious... and I'm not particularly fond of governments as they presently exist. I think it's possible to have an anarchist "government" of sorts, one that makes and enforces social rules without having a class of rulers tasked with doing so, and politically that's what I'd like to see.

Ultimately, I'd like to see a society where human beings are emancipated from work one way or another, and I doubt that either capitalism or a socialism that merely replicates capitalism's productivist mindset will be able to achieve such an end. A libertarian communism would probably best manage such an end, and with it demolish the remaining vestiges of the horrors of class society, but I'm pragmatic enough that I don't see any such thing coming into being immediately.

Because I believe in freedom I believe in variety and diversity, both individually and collectively, but freedom means freedom: social systems that are incompatible with freedom should be opposed, even if they are "traditional."

I've talked mostly about politics in the context of economics here, but I'm also a rather militant feminist, a radical advocate of queer liberation, and a supporter, though not of Black nationalism or separatism (though in part only because it's hopelessly impractical), of a massive shift in the racial distribution of power in this country.

In terms of the poll, I tend to waffle around "right-libertarian," "left-libertarian," "socialist," and "anarchist." I've been described by another as a moderate market libertarian socialist. Basically, there isn't anything wrong with free enterprise that diffuse, diverse, decentralized, and direct ownership and control of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative) wouldn't solve.

Truth be told, I'm really just a right-libertarian who tired of right-libertarians constantly making excuses for monopolistic corporations and the governments who do their dirty work for them. Oligargic bullshit is oligargic bullshit, whether "privatized" or whatever else.
Hmmm, I've met quite alot of anarchists like you, what I don't get is that they focus on the form of the state, not the substance. Do you accept the class analysis of State and Society?

This simply means they are acting in contradiction to their economic interests

So?

So?
That was the point.

That was the point.

What's wrong with acting in contradiction to your economic interests?

My philosophy is a mixture of the three famous schools--the Cynics, the Stoics and the Epicureans--summed up thusly:

"You can't trust any bugger further than you can throw him, and there's nothing you can do about it, so let's have a drink. Mine's a double, if you're buying. Thank you. And a packet of nuts. Her left bosom's nearly uncovered, eh? Two more packets, then!"

My politics are designed so that my actions will minimize man's ability to plunder over man's ability to produce.

Socially: So damn libertarian. Anti-hate speech laws, Anti-seat belt laws, Pro-public smoking, Anti-zoning laws, Pro-public nudity, Pro- Weed, etc.

Economically: Capitalist, but I support environmental and safety standards.

Special Issues: I am against abortion, pro- animal rights(THough not vegetarian), anti- baby design, etc. Moralistic, methinks.

So far every quiz or so that I've done has placed me somewhere in the moderate liberal (American Standards at least).

I kind of take my views from a nice variety of sources such as Machiavelli, John Locke, Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiments, not Wealth of Nations), and such.Financially I'm more conservative, but socially and such I do support things like welfare.One thing that seems to shock people where I live is my belief in separation of church and state. Yay living in the Bible Belt. However, I also think that sometimes people go to far with it.

So the point of the rant,and mentioned in the beginning, is that I'm a moderate left-wing kind of guy.Now if only there were more of me where I live.

My politics are designed so that my actions will minimize man's ability to plunder over man's ability to produce.

The funny thing is that both a militant orthodox Marxist and a militant orthodox anarcho-capitalist could say that perfectly sincerely.

Andaras, what, may I ask, is wrong with protecting the interests of others? It's true that being a ruthless cutthroat may yield short-term gains, but in the long run that kind of behavior may very well undermine your own interests.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: idealism is not impractical, or with out real-world value, it's merely harder and takes longer. If you protect only your own interests, you will accomplish the following: One, you will have reduced yourself to the level of the lowest members of mankind. Second, by abandoning others to advance yourself, you will have lost the sympathy of those who might have stood by you when the tide turns and some one else threatens your interests, takes away your rights, in order to promote their own self interest. And third, you will rightly be considered a hippocrite if you protest the unjust actions of others towards yourself.

This is the problem with so-called "idealism vs realism" debates: the fundamental premise is flawed, because it presumes that the two are sepperate, that idealism has a lesser, or no place in real life. In fact idealism does succede, but it often does so only in the long-term. Thus, like space exploration, it's value is dismissed by people who want to profit now, often at the expense of the future. The self-interested cynic may win in the short-term, but your actions may come back to haunt you as surely as the weapons the US sold to Saddam. As far as I'm concerned, your position is as short-sighted and ill-informed as it is callous and self-indulgent.

snip
Firstly, political systems develop based on the material conditions of separate societies, which is why many bourgeois states have different forms of government, the same is true of post-revolutionary socialist societies. Obsessing over trivialities such as 'decentralized', 'autonomous', 'direct democracy' and all that is largely irrelevant to the greater class struggle.

Post-revolutionary societies will always be strife torn, liberal bourgeois society for example was nearly assailed by the reactionary feudal elements on more than one occasion.

I am not fully against your obviously Utopian ideas, but I think it's best to put them in context of how they can be realistically and practically built given real conditions. In the short term tactically decentralization is death for a socialist society, it would simply become a function for reactionaries to infect, they ultimately will hamstring the proletarian state from defending itself from the inevitably reaction. War Communism for example was not 'ideal' or 'Utopian' but given the material position of the working class dictatorship and the civil war, it was needed to preserve the State.

Socialism is about short-term tactics, one only has to read the 'two Manifestos'(Communist Manifesto and 'The State and Revolution') to realize this. Plainly put, your decentralist ideas would become a conduit for bourgeois counter-revolution if put in place straight after a revolution. Temporary centralization is about aggravating the class struggle under socialism so to advance socialist society.

We should be just as brutal and unflinching against those who wish to topple proletarian rule.

What's wrong with acting in contradiction to your economic interests?
Because if a political system is not relevant to your economic interests and those of your class, they cannot yet improve your own condition, and if politics have no basis in that reality and the ability to change that reality, they are irrelevant.

Your communism is tiring, Andaras. Historically communism has proven itself repeatedly to be a failed philosophy, leading only to the replacement of the old upper class with a new upper class, made perhaps even more ruthless and oppressive by its revolutionary origons. In the end, what ever the economic system, the state police will still haul you out of bed for saying the wrong thing, and a small clique will still control everything. It's the same old BS, just with a new veneer to make it more palatable to the proletariate.

Of course, you advocate brutality against those who opress the proletariate. What you fail to understand is that by emulating the tactics and cruelty of your enemy, you are no better than he. I would rather my economic interests suffer than that I sink to the level you are espousing. I would rather be poor and downtrodden than putting some one else in the same position. Why should my interests take precedence over others? You still have yet to answer this question.

Because if a political system is not relevant to your economic interests and those of your class, they cannot yet improve your own condition, and if politics have no basis in that reality and the ability to change that reality, they are irrelevant.

So, given that communism would act against my economic interests, I should oppose communism?

Your communism is tiring, Andaras. Historically communism has proven itself repeatedly to be a failed philosophy, leading only to the replacement of the old upper class with a new upper class, made perhaps even more ruthless and oppressive by its revolutionary origons. In the end, what ever the economic system, the state police will still haul you out of bed for saying the wrong thing, and a small clique will still control everything. It's the same old BS, just with a new veneer to make it more palatable to the proletariate.
Firstly. Ruthless to whom? The bourgeois? I honestly couldn't care about the exploiter class thank you.

Secondly. Political class and all that crap is a Trotskyite myth generated to serve his counter-revolutionary aims, class is a relationship to the means of production, and such a relationship up until revisionism in the USSR did not exist, the Party has a specific role as the vanguard of the working class in defending worker dictatorship.

Your tired anti-communist ramblings mean nothing.

So, given that communism would act against my economic interests, I should oppose communism?
Indeed you should, and you probably do.

Firstly, political systems develop based on the material conditions of separate societies,

No, they don't. They're at least as much influenced by concrete political struggle: by contests of power.

Obsessing over trivialities such as 'decentralized', 'autonomous', 'direct democracy' and all that is largely irrelevant to the greater class struggle.

No, it isn't. Without real political freedom for the workers, any successful resolution of the class struggle will be destroyed by a new political ruling class. Even you admit that ultimately the Soviet Union was a failure--and, indeed, if I remember Anti-Revisionist theory correctly, for exactly that reason.

Marx understood this. That's why he spent time describing the political form of the Paris Commune--he knew that government by the workers was going to have to be a specific kind of government, one oriented towards real popular rule. His failure was that he assumed that the socialist revolution would naturally, inevitably secure such a government. Unfortunately, his assumption proved false.

Post-revolutionary societies will always be strife torn, liberal bourgeois society for example was nearly assailed by the reactionary feudal elements on more than one occasion.

Right. And who said that revolutionary gains shouldn't be defended?

I am not fully against your obviously Utopian ideas,

Nothing "utopian" about them. I understand, of course, that they must be worked towards with the available means, not dogmatically asserted at every opportunity... but then, between us I don't think I am the dogmatic one. ;)

In the short term tactically decentralization is death for a socialist society, it would simply become a function for reactionaries to infect,

Tactically, centralization has already been proven to be death for socialist society, so let's note that the burden of proof here really shouldn't be on me. ;)

However, as for a "function for reactionaries to infect"... how so? Which reactionaries? What influence would they have? Why would anyone else listen to them?

War Communism for example was not 'ideal' or 'Utopian' but given the material position of the working class dictatorship and the civil war, it was needed to preserve the State.

I'm nothing if not pragmatic. I'm willing to make compromises when necessary. But I understand, as Lenin and you apparently do not, that if your means are too far from your ends, you won't get your ends at all.

Rule by a centralized party elite isn't going to magically go away, and in practice, that's what Leninism has become. Every time.

Plainly put, your decentralist ideas would become a conduit for bourgeois counter-revolution if put in place straight after a revolution.

Again, why so? You seem to assume that the people will be so easily fooled by the capitalist who promises to restore their oppression... but then, a lack of faith in the people has always been a staple of Leninist (and bourgeois) ideology.

Temporary centralization is about aggravating the class struggle under socialism so to advance socialist society.

The issue is not what it's "about", the issue is about what its actual, practical consequences would be (and have been).

We should be just as brutal and unflinching against those who wish to topple proletarian rule.

When, exactly, has brutality been effective?

Because if a political system is not relevant to your economic interests and those of your class,

It might be "relevant", but maybe I'm not concerned for that relevance.

they cannot yet improve your own condition,

"My own condition" is irrelevant. What matters is justice.

and if politics have no basis in that reality and the ability to change that reality, they are irrelevant.

Right. Politics must always be practical: they must always be situated in reality, and willing to deal with it. If I'm concerned for a just society, I should be concerned with realistic ways of achieving it.

But that does not mean that they need be unprincipled--it does not mean that their essential foundation should be self-interest.

Without a strong state class struggle and repression against the expropriated classes would not have enough punch to be simple.

To liquidate a class you must destroy the economic, political and ideological basis for their economic power.

It might be "relevant", but maybe I'm not concerned for that relevance.
Then your position is fundamentally anti-Marxist.


"My own condition" is irrelevant. What matters is justice.
'Justice' is a liberal abstraction which only exists as an economic extension. Bourgeois jurisprudence in capitalism serves that class, and law in proletarian societies must defend the uphold the interests of the worker class dictatorship.

'Justice' is far from universal, and thoughts to the contrary are liberalistic and Utopian, justice - the legal system of the society, just as the politics of the society, reflect the economic ruling class of that society.


Right. Politics must always be practical: they must always be situated in reality, and willing to deal with it. If I'm concerned for a just society, I should be concerned with realistic ways of achieving it.

But that does not mean that they need be unprincipled--it does not mean that their essential foundation should be self-interest.[/QUOTE]
Why not, revolution will always come from the professional revolutionary relating his theory to the real conditions of the masses.

Without a strong state class struggle and repression against the expropriated classes would not have enough punch to be simple.

Why is that?

Maybe to fight a long, bloody civil war, as in Russia... but I'm willing to recognize, as most Leninists I've talked to aren't, that sometimes conditions are such that you shouldn't mount a revolution at all. Sometimes it can't be done, or it can't be done right, which amounts to the same thing in the end.

To liquidate a class you must destroy the economic, political and ideological basis for their economic power.

"Economic" and "political", yes--but what else is anarchism? "Ideological"? Hardly. Minds can't do anything without power.

Indeed you should, and you probably do.

Shouldn't we also concern ourselves with what is moral?

God King Pharohism ftw.


Provided I am that God King.

Then your position is fundamentally anti-Marxist.

Yeah, Marx, Engels, and Lenin were such proletarians. :rolleyes:

'Justice' is a liberal abstraction which only exists as an economic extension.

Prove it.

Bourgeois jurisprudence in capitalism serves that class,

Indeed. It does not follow that this is a necessary condition of law as such.

Why not, revolution will always come from the professional revolutionary relating his theory to the real conditions of the masses.

That's right. It must always be related to the "real conditions of the masses." So? People in general are concerned with what is right.

Shouldn't we also concern ourselves with what is moral?
Morality is an extension of the economic system of the day, just as politics is, so to better back up the ruling class.

You may say 'I am doing what is right', or 'I am doing what is moral', or even 'I am for freedom'. But in end you're doing 'what is right and good for the bourgeois' or 'I am for bourgeois freedom' and not your own freedom and that of your class.

But in end you're doing 'what is right and good for the bourgeois' or 'I am for bourgeois freedom' and not your own freedom and that of your class.

Again, prove it.

In reality, this assumption rests on your dogmatism. You assume that any moral system must be based upon bourgeois (or class in general) ideology, and so you always explain it in those terms.

But you can't prove that assumption. You can't even give it credible support. Because it's nonsense.

Shouldn't we also concern ourselves with what is moral?

We should. One of the basic problems of Marxist, Leninist and especially Stalinist thought, is their rejection of any moral basis.

Once you internalize the concept that repressing a group is good, it becomes easy and inevitable to repress everyone. Not that this has not been used elsewhere - the villainization of a minority is one heck of a trump card for the would be dictator. See also: Nazism, the treatment of Protestants in the Reign of Queen Mary of England, even to a certain extent the rise of Julius Gaius Caesar at the end of the Roman Republic.

Through villainization, more and more centralization of power occurs in order to fight the "threat". The final error of communism is that the very tactic it espouses to gain power, ensures that the devolution of power that is it's stated goal becomes impossible.

Yeah, Marx, Engels, and Lenin were such proletarians. :rolleyes:
You forget what the role of the professional revolutionary (political Communist) is. They are part of the intelligentsia or technical or intellectual groups. The role of the Communist is also about short-term tactics, the educated intellectual knows Marxist theory, he can therefore be a good organizer, speaker and political motivator etc, his role is strictly non-sectarian and simply to be a political extension for the working class economic power.



Prove it.
Well I give up on that angle because I can't be bothered building the wheel every single debate.


Indeed. It does not follow that this is a necessary condition of law as such.
It naturally follows if you accept the class basis for the State and society generally, you will accept that thesis.



That's right. It must always be related to the "real conditions of the masses." So? People in general are concerned with what is right.
Me and Trot(whatshisname) discussed this matter on that Communist Manifesto Anniversary thread, try and find that.

Combining the John Rawls and Elizabeth Anderson with economist Amartya Sen, mix with the transhumanists Nick Bostrom and Jame Hughes and you have some idea of my political philosophy.

We should. One of the basic problems of Marxist, Leninist and especially Stalinist thought, is their rejection of any moral basis.

Once you internalize the concept that repressing a group is good, it becomes easy and inevitable to repress everyone. Not that this has not been used elsewhere - the villainization of a minority is one heck of a trump card for the would be dictator. See also: Nazism, the treatment of Protestants in the Reign of Queen Mary of England, even to a certain extent the rise of Julius Gaius Caesar at the end of the Roman Republic.

Through villainization, more and more centralization of power occurs in order to fight the "threat". The final error of communism is that the very tactic it espouses to gain power, ensures that the devolution of power that is it's stated goal becomes impossible.


I dont think Marxism rejects morality, they just say that current "morallity" is dictated by the powerful. Which is true.

Again, prove it.

In reality, this assumption rests on your dogmatism. You assume that any moral system must be based upon bourgeois (or class in general) ideology, and so you always explain it in those terms.

But you can't prove that assumption. You can't even give it credible support. Because it's nonsense.
And that's where you go totally off track, you fall prey to romanticized abstract notions as your personal inspiration, and you're views ultimately have basis except as a reactionary offshoot.

I dont think Marxism rejects morality, they just say that current "morallity" is dictated by the powerful. Which is true.

Yet, I would say, history disagrees with you. Many rulers have attempted to dictate morality - but only a few have succeeded, a very small few. Hitler, for instance, did not create anti-semitism as a politically acceptable ondition - he merely utilised an already existing bias.

Likewise, despite 70-or so years of party indoctrination, the general populace of Russia did not believe in the moral authority of the "political dialectic".

Successful leaders follow the morality of the populace. A strong leader, or popularist, or entertainer, may influence the moral tone of a nation - but that is a long way from dictating it.

I dont think Marxism rejects morality, they just say that current "morallity" is dictated by the powerful. Which is true.
That's correct, socialism generally and the building of Communism is the opposite of all previous economic relationships in that it works toward abolishing everything that holds economic class up in society (ideology, politics, philosophy and religion).

Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms. - Marx

You forget what the role of the professional revolutionary (political Communist) is.

It doesn't matter what their role is. The fact remains that they dedicated their lives to socialism despite the fact that it didn't reflect their economic circumstances. But you suggested that it was anti-Marxist to support something despite your economic circumstances... so that would require concluding that Marx, Engels, and Lenin were all "anti-Marxist."

You are a Marxist are you not?

I'm an anarchist. I am substantially influenced by Marx. I do not identify with Marxism as a political movement and ideology.

It naturally follows if you accept the class basis for the State and society generally, you will accept that thesis.

No, it doesn't.

It follows that conceptions of justice will be influenced by social power structures. This is especially true insofar as our ethics are associated with tradition and institutions... and indeed, the most prominent traditional institution is religion, and we find unsurprisingly that patriarchy and heterosexism produce sexist and homophobic understandings of justice.

It does not follow that every conception of justice is determined by economic circumstances, nor that there is no universal justice (even if it is one that us, in our imperfect world, cannot at the moment see.)

We should always be vigilant for the possibility that our conception of justice has become too influenced by social power: we should never concede "ought" to "is." But we should never discard justice as such. That is really to give up the struggle for a better world in its entirety.

Yet, I would say, history disagrees with you. Many rulers have attempted to dictate morality - but only a few have succeeded, a very small few. Hitler, for instance, did not create anti-semitism as a politically acceptable ondition - he merely utilised an already existing bias.

Likewise, despite 70-or so years of party indoctrination, the general populace of Russia did not believe in the moral authority of the "political dialectic".

Successful leaders follow the morality of the populace. A strong leader, or popularist, or entertainer, may influence the moral tone of a nation - but that is a long way from dictating it.

Morality all started with who was in control. Why do you think in the US people are always talking about "Christian Morals" and all our leaders are "Christian" and have been since the dawn of our country. They feed off each other.

I dont think Marxism rejects morality, they just say that current "morallity" is dictated by the powerful. Which is true.

Morality, according to the Marxists, are part of the "superstructure" determined by the underlying economic basis of society. You're right, it's not a rejection per se (and they do have a point), but it implies a relativism that fast becomes problematic. The abuses they criticize under bourgeois capitalism suddenly become acceptable after the revolution, because they're in the service of their new Utopian project.

Yet, I would say, history disagrees with you. Many rulers have attempted to dictate morality - but only a few have succeeded, a very small few. Hitler, for instance, did not create anti-semitism as a politically acceptable ondition - he merely utilised an already existing bias.

Likewise, despite 70-or so years of party indoctrination, the general populace of Russia did not believe in the moral authority of the "political dialectic".

Successful leaders follow the morality of the populace. A strong leader, or popularist, or entertainer, may influence the moral tone of a nation - but that is a long way from dictating it.
I think KoL's definition is off a little, which is where your false assumption of the Marxist position comes from.

A 'ruler' or 'government' is not a ruling class, he is but the political extension of that ruling class, he may even at some times act against that economic ruling class, in the case maybe of FDR and New Deal, but ultimately economic real power rests with the ruling class.

Do not confuse 'the powerful' or 'the ruler' with the ruling class and bourgeois property generally, bourgeois property is not a bunch of individuals generally but is an economic relationship which is fundamentally unjust.

And that's where you go totally off track, you fall prey to romanticized abstract notions as your personal inspiration, and you're views ultimately have basis except as a reactionary offshoot.

Come on, is that the best you can do? Prove me wrong.

(One wonders why a "reactionary offshoot" would inspire me to oppose capitalism and the state....)

Come on, is that the best you can do? Prove me wrong.

(One wonders why a "reactionary offshoot" would inspire me to oppose capitalism and the state....)
Slip of the hand? Don't you mean the 'capitalist state' and not 'capitalism' and 'the state' as both bad things? The state is a neutral object, the conditions it producers depend on which class controls it.

Slip of the hand? Don't you mean the 'capitalist state' and not 'capitalism' and 'the state' as both bad things?

Me? No.

You, maybe. ;) (Though, actually, neither Marx nor Lenin were particularly fond of the state.)

The state is a neutral object, the conditions it producers depend on which class controls it.

It produces exclusive minority power, because as a centralized institution it is always distant from the people and most accessible to the powerful.

That's why a socialist revolution would have to change political institutions as well as economic ones. Marx knew this. So did Lenin. Shame he implemented the principle so horrifically poorly.

Morality all started with who was in control. Why do you think in the US people are always talking about "Christian Morals" and all our leaders are "Christian" and have been since the dawn of our country. They feed off each other.

Of course they do. But you are not reasoning from source, but from effect.

Why are all our leaders Christian? Because the overwhelming majority of our populace is Christian. But even so, we have run the gamut of Christian thought, from Deist/Agnostic (Jefferson) to Born Again Fundamentalist (Bush II). At our most extreme levels of religious fervour, we have had leaders who were moderates; at our lowest religious ebbs, fundamentalists have held the reins of power. Why? Because our leadership has has to toe the line on being christian to attain power - that being a requirement of the popular morality - but have, by and large, been unable to influence our morality towards their end of the spectrum.

On a more concrete level: LBJ did not believe in the Civil Rights movement. He apparently supported it's goals, but did not believe that the timing or the tactics were right.

But neither his position, nor the many in Congress who were outright racists (think "Dixiecrats") were listened to. The morality of the populace was changed. The chosen spokespeople were Martin Luther King and Malcolm X - who were both leaders, ultimately, of only tiny groups.

Today, our President is a fundamentalist. But the population is not significantly more fundie than it was eight years ago - and neither of his likely successors is even close to fundamentalism.

Moral tone of a nation cannot be imposed from above. It can be influenced, if you're lucky or if you're good, but the people choose who's voices they will listen to, regardles of who's in the White House.

Do you accept the class analysis of State and Society?

I wrote a paper in a political sociology class arguing that Hugo Chavez was utilizing the Venezuelan media, state, and economic process to engage in bourgeois oppression; that his one and only goal is to subvert the democratic process and consolidate his own personal power.

My fire-and-brimstone Marxist (or, perhaps, marxist) professor saw fit to award me an "A." :D

I think KoL's definition is off a little, which is where your false assumption of the Marxist position comes from.

A 'ruler' or 'government' is not a ruling class, he is but the political extension of that ruling class, he may even at some times act against that economic ruling class, in the case maybe of FDR and New Deal, but ultimately economic real power rests with the ruling class.

Do not confuse 'the powerful' or 'the ruler' with the ruling class and bourgeois property generally, bourgeois property is not a bunch of individuals generally but is an economic relationship which is fundamentally unjust.


That makes somewhat more sense. There are many historical examples of a dominant society imposing it's moral code on a subjugated one.

However, it begs the question, in the modern period, of differentiation. With the factors of production now controlled primarily corporately, and many if not most of those corporations having owners including what would once have been considered members of the Proletariate, and further with the rise of the politically savvy working class and their participation in the governmental process, placing a point of differentiation between the two supposed classes is becoming difficult.

I wrote a paper in a political sociology class arguing that Hugo Chavez was utilizing the media, state, and economic process to engage in bourgeois oppression, that his one and only goal is to subvert the democratic process and consolidate his own personal power.

My fire-and-brimstone Marxist professor saw fit to award me an "A." :D

I'd have to agree, although I had early hopes. The USPV is basically infested with right-social-democrats these days, Chavez sending the national guard against striking workers was the last straw. I had early hopes Bolivarianism would be a doorway to an actually revolutionary Communist movement, but in seems Chavez is basically just more authoritarian welfare capitalism.

I'd have to agree, although I had early hopes. The USPV is basically infested with right-social-democrats these days, Chavez sending the national guard against striking workers was the last straw. I had early hopes Bolivarianism would be a doorway to an actually revolutionary Communist movement, but in seems Chavez is basically just more authoritarian welfare capitalism.

My paper was mostly a reaction to RCTV getting shutdown. But I also recall arguing that the nationalization of oil assets and proposal for a South American economic coalition were decidedly bourgeois.

My paper was mostly a reaction to RCTV getting shutdown. But I also recall arguing that the nationalization of oil assets and proposal for a South American economic coalition were decidedly bourgeois.
RCTV got shutdown because they advocated on live tv the military coup the briefly toppled Chavez, somehow I doubt many stations would get away with that.

RCTV got shutdown because they advocated on live tv the military coup the briefly toppled Chavez, somehow I doubt many stations would get away with that.

Have to agree. It's one of the few actions Chavez has managed that I have no problem with.

RCTV got shutdown because they advocated on live tv the military coup the briefly toppled Chavez, somehow I doubt many stations would get away with that.

I also recall a speculative analysis, asking the question of how Chavez might have responded to a leftist television station which hypothetically encouraged a military coup against a right-wing government.

I also recall a speculative analysis, asking the question of how Chavez might have responded to a leftist television station which hypothetically encouraged a military coup against a right-wing government.

I don't give a damn what leaning the station had. It openly supported the attempted destruction of the government - said government is thus entirely wthin it's rights to destroy it.

Have to agree. It's one of the few actions Chavez has managed that I have no problem with.

I would agree that the toppling of a government is not something to be done lightly. But, given the nature of popular protests in Venezuela against the RCTV shutdown, I would say it's not unreasonable for one to wonder.

At the very least, one would expect a government to pursue criminal charges against specific individuals if some sort of crime has been committed. Taking the opportunity to shut down an entire opposition media outlet, however, is only going to look suspicious.

I don't give a damn what leaning the station had.


Neither do I, actually.

I tend to be more concerned with whether or not government pursues the prevention and punishment of crime in an open, fair, and democratic manner (especially where the political leadership in question claims to be pursuing such ideals/goals). If a crime has been committed, one seeks the arrest and trial of specific individuals so accused. One does not close down an entire avenue of public discourse. This is one area of my personal political philosophy that I do not waffle on.

This poll could use some work. I fit under "left libertarian", "socialist", "communist" and "anarchist". I voted anarchist because it most closely fits me though.

Right Libertarian. Fiscally Conservative - Socially Liberal

This poll could use some work. I fit under "left libertarian", "socialist", "communist" and "anarchist". I voted anarchist because it most closely fits me though.

I agree, the catagories could use some revision. I don't really see where my political ideology would fit into any one of thee catagories.

I could be one of many things, but picked 'communist' as I think it's the most accurate.

I am for private property, and take that to its logical extension of opposing territorial monopoly on jurisdiction, i.e. the state, because the state has the privilege of being able to forceably expropriate property rights.

I've never bothered to read up on the different philosophies so I can't know for sure. I'm left both socially and economically, which I think would make me a modern liberal but I don't support such open immigration or democracy.

:cool:

Hmmm, you left "cynic" off of the poll. To truly understand politics, one must break the word into its component parts. First, we have"poli," which is Latin for "many." Then, we have "tics," which are blood-sucking arachnids. Putting them together, we have: Politics = many blood-sucking arachnids.

"American Liberal" or DBILN, according to OpenPolitics.ca.

Basically, a democratic "big government" that doesn't leave progress up to the private sector but still hampers that sector as little as possible.
I chose "liberal," but that's a pretty broad category.

You're going about this all wrong.

What are your economic interests? From there you can extrapolate what the political or ideological veil they can use to defend their economic interests. Marxism is the political extension for the economic interests and wish for liberation of the working class majority for example.

If you find your economic interests and politics are in contradiction, you have been fooled, why are you defending the bourgeois property of someone else?

All ideology, politics and philosophy in the State exists for backing up the economic interests of the current ruling class in power, nothing more.

I follow no ideology, no politics, and no philosophy, I recognize Marxism-Leninism as a living growing social science.

Since you've written this in a more sensible tone, it deserves to be addressed. So far though you have simply stated that any ideology is there to simply defend economic interests, proof? Examples? What does the concept of proportionalism for example, have to do with economic interests?

Flippin' crazy randomness is my "political philosophy".

On the other hand, the dangers of centralized government, and a political class with exclusive power controlling it, are obvious... and I'm not particularly fond of governments as they presently exist. I think it's possible to have an anarchist "government" of sorts, one that makes and enforces social rules without having a class of rulers tasked with doing so, and politically that's what I'd like to see.

Any ideas on how to accomplish this? It sounds a good idea on the surface but my first question is how do you keep the people in this "government" from becoming a ruling class?

Proud Bourgeois Capitalist Exploiter.

Right Libertarian, and the only one on Facebook to boot.

I'd be Libertarian, shading to Conservative in spots. As Buckley said, "I would happily ignore politics if I could be assured that, in turn, politics would ignore me."

Why is Communism even on the poll? 'Communist' is about as politically relevant as 'Monarchist' these days. Communism is dead. Let it go. We put a stake in the heart of that godless totalitarian evil and buried it at the cross-roads of history so it wouldn't walk again.

I'd be Libertarian, shading to Conservative in spots.


Thats funny.


Why is Communism even on the poll? 'Communist' is about as politically relevant as 'Monarchist' these days. Communism is dead. Let it go. We put a stake in the heart of that godless totalitarian evil and buried it at the cross-roads of history so it wouldn't walk again.

The Chinese disagree. So do many other countries. North Korea, for example.

I like to think I'm a liberal/leftist but every political test I've taken says I'm moderate to slightly conservative. I suppose its the way I'm a registered democrat yet very rarely vote democrat and yet refuse to be classified as a republican, I just shudder at the thought.

According to this (http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=no) the top five philosophies most in accordance with my beleifs are: Liberal Socialist, Anarcho-Communist, American "Liberal", Social-Liberal, Social Democratic. Liberal Socialist only edged out Anarcho-Communist by a hair.

The Chinese disagree. So do many other countries. North Korea, for example.

Is China slowly and surely becoming more and more capitalist or more and more communist? As for N. Korea, that's not even communism, that's just straight out batshit insane-ocracy.

You need a clearer definition of 'right' and 'left' libertarianism.

Is China slowly and surely becoming more and more capitalist or more and more communist? As for N. Korea, that's not even communism, that's just straight out batshit insane-ocracy.

Communism =/= Soviet bureaucratic collectivism. There are still a fairly large number of anti-Soviet communists scattered throughout the west, and they are starting to make gains in terms of membership now that the Cold War is over.

I don't really know, honestly.

Communism =/= Soviet bureaucratic collectivism. There are still a fairly large number of anti-Soviet communists scattered throughout the west, and they are starting to make gains in terms of membership now that the Cold War is over.

Didn't answer my question. Besides that, define 'fairly large' and 'gains in membership.' The Green Party claims to have 'gains in membership' too but I don't look for them to take any kind of relevant role in politics anytime soon.

Didn't answer my question. Besides that, define 'fairly large' and 'gains in membership.' The Green Party claims to have 'gains in membership' too but I don't look for them to take any kind of relevant role in politics anytime soon.

For instance, the Communists swept to power in the Cypriot elections in Europe. American socialist groups are finding new members for the first time in a long time. Even where I live, in conservative Montana, there a quite a large number of communist youths. We tended to congregate together, but I was still quite surprised at the numbers we were able to find.

If you read Locke, De Tocqueville, and Kant, you've got about 90% of it. There's a smattering of Marx, Rawls, and Burke in there to boot though that comes in on specific issues.
If you read Hume, Hobbes, and Wittgenstein, you've got about 90% of it. There's a smattering of Hayek, Rand, and Dawkins in there to boot though that comes in on specific issues.

I have leftist tendencies, but I try to avoid all political discussions on a family principle. My family´s so divided when it comes to politics I rather not touch the topic at all.:p

You need a clearer definition of 'right' and 'left' libertarianism.

Right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism
Center-Right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Center-Left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-rothbardianism
Left: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Socialism

If you read Hume, Hobbes, and Wittgenstein, you’ve got about 90% of it.
May I ask how Wittgenstein influences your political philosophy?

As to the OP, and following in Llwedor and Xenophobialand’s trend, I’d probably describe myself as a green social anarchist, influenced heavily by Murray Bookchin, Peter Singer and the early writings of Karl Marx, but also intrigued by J.S. Mill, John Rawls, Alain Badiou, Epicurus and the delightful Mary Midgely.

As to the OP, and following in Llwedor and Xenophobialand’s trend, I’d probably describe myself as a green social anarchist, influenced heavily by Murray Bookchin, Peter Singer and the early writings of Karl Marx,

That pretty closely describes me as well. I'm also quite heavily influenced by Erich Fromm and Paul Mattick.

but also intrigued by J.S. Mill, John Rawls, Alain Badiou, Epicurus and the delightful Mary Midgely.

I'll have to look more closely at the last three. I've only heard of Epicurus from among them.

That pretty closely describes me as well. I’m also quite heavily influenced by Erich Fromm and Paul Mattick.
Interesting...

I’ll have to look more closely at the last three. I’ve only heard of Epicurus from among them.
Alain Badiou is a French Marxist thinker, heavily involved in the radical political scene since before 1968 as well as being one of the most outspoken theorist in contemporary continental philosophy. His excellent book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil is a challenge to the hallowed ground of modern political discourse: human rights and the realm of ‘ethics’. Highly recommended.

Mary Midgely doesn’t write specifically on political philosophy, she’s more famous for taking on the assumption of many that science is the ultimate, and only, respectable form of enquiry; see her Evolution as a Religion and Science and Poetry. Moreover, if you’re interested in Singer’s work on the relationship between nonhuman animals and humans, Midgely has a number of very interesting things to say, with a more philosophical bent, especially in Beast and Man.

Hope you check some out. :)

Alain Badiou is a French Marxist thinker, heavily involved in the radical political scene since before 1968 as well as being one of the most outspoken theorist in contemporary continental philosophy. His excellent book Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil is a challenge to the hallowed ground of modern political discourse: human rights and the realm of ‘ethics’. Highly recommended.

Mary Midgely doesn’t write specifically on political philosophy, she’s more famous for taking on the assumption of many that science is the ultimate, and only, respectable form of enquiry; see her Evolution as a Religion and Science and Poetry. Moreover, if you’re interested in Singer’s work on the relationship between nonhuman animals and humans, Midgely has a number of very interesting things to say, with a more philosophical bent, especially in Beast and Man.

Hope you check some out. :)

Sounds very kinky. I will check them out as soon as I get the chance.

May I ask how Wittgenstein influences your political philosophy?
To use the Rumsfeld taxonomy, it's important to know what we know.

I want the government to know things before they act, rather than acting based on beliefs, popular opinion, or political expedience.

Wittgenstein's On Certainty is probably the book that has most influenced me.

I put down Socialist, but I'm really an eventual-communism-through-syndicalism… ist. Oh well.

Realism.
Forgot the white part, reading: "IRONY"

Anarcho-capitalist.

To use the Rumsfeld taxonomy, it's important to know what we know.

To expand necessarily on "the Rumsfeld taxonomy", in context, is the following ...:
...because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.
+
I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know.
+
I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.
+
There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.
+
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. (On Iraq's "WMD")
+
We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.
+
If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone.
+
If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly.
+
Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often.

My political philosophy is the same as my epistemological philosophy and my ethics.

Truth doesn't depend on perspective, any individual can know reality as it is and must do so to survive. Therefore nothing is right simply by virtue of having majority approval.

No one can demand the unearned, good or bad, and everyone must be able to rely on their own mind to understand reality, impose their own values on it and forge a living that way. The initiation of force is out, as is fraud. So is the rule by one individual, ie dictatorship.

The result is rule by constitution, where a constitution spells out the objectively correct law, as we can all know if we put our minds to it - law that allows us to live as we must, doesn't give or demand the unearned and doesn't make the initiation of force a part of civilisation. Subjugated to that there can and probably must be democracy, limited in its scope to implementing the principles set out in the constitution.

I suppose my point is that talking about a political philosophy seperately from what you personally think about knowledge and its acquisition and about how to tell right from wrong is basically a bad idea.

Let's say I'm eurocommunist, qv. in Wikipedia, with strong Gorbacëvian influences.


btw in english, "communist" has got two "m"s

Classical liberal. Well, that's what I call it, anyway.

eco-socialist anarcho-pacifest.

NOT 'marxist', NOT capitolist. not idiology, economics, nor anything else, ahead of the real effects of real policies on real people, places and things.

not brainwashed into seeing soverign hierarchy as inhierently bennificial, outside of narrow contexts in which it serves some useful purpose: not seeing its abscence as inheirently negative in any way, but recognizing the reality of the dependence of human life, as well as physical well being, upon that of the natural environment, and that of mental well being, being dependent upon the gratifications of creating and exploring.

capitolism, whatever the shortcommings of other economic idiologies, is still a self serving con game, and not a default condition of anything.

it HAS proven useful, in ONE particular narrow context, but that is the beginning and end of it. it HAS also, proven, harmful in others, and is currently and continually doing so.

and not seeing any concept of soverignty as serving any other usefull and legitimate purpose, then to try and prevent people from starving, freezing or beating each other over the head, and to endevour to keep physical infrastructure and its tecnologies harmoniously compatable with nature's cycles of renewal

and not supporting the violent overthrow nor destruction of anything either, even by whatever government claims soverignty over whatever land i may happen to be surrounded by and living in.

=^^=
.../\...