"What are your politics?" thread

[Not A Communist Shill]

For what?

You said you are more concerned about actual issues which one and why that one

It is difficult to say which one of my children I prefer.

My party, if I have one, is the Liberal Democrats.

My main concern in terms of Home affairs is that the voting system is change to one that is more representative (from First Past the Post to something like the Single transferable vote vote). The UK had a referendum in 2011 where voters were asked to decide between FPTP and the "Alternative Vote" voting system. The result was decisively in favour of sticking with FPTP to such an extent that I was briefly of the view that it would not make sense to continue to push for a change until many years had passed. However, as I now understand that the AV voting system could actually be less representative of the electorate's intentions in some instances, I am of the view that the referendum was not a real choice, and thus I still see reform as a pressing issue.

I also believe that the House of Lords (the British equivalent of the American senate, albeit with less power) should be a wholly elected body. I believe that the monarchy and peerages should be abolished. I also think that the Prime Minister should be directly elected by the electorate, although I consider this of less pressing importance.

I would like the regions of the country to be increasingly federalised. An English parliament would probably be beneficial, as would be a Yorkist, Lancastian, or "Northern" parliament. I consider nation states to be rather archaic, and would like there to be universal free movement of people, in principle (in the short term, it would be untenable to simply announce such a sweeping change: it would have to be done by degrees).

I believe that the defence budget should be dramatically decreased. I do not believe that we should have nuclear weapons. I think money should be spent instead on diplomatic (soft power etc.!) and humanitarian efforts. I believe that focusing on decreasing poverty and increasing education worldwide will be far more cost-effective and beneficial than spending money on armies etc. I think we should only intervene militarily when the lives of civilians are being lost. This is in conjunction with my view that immigrants, including refugees, should be readily accepted. Countries neighbouring a regional crisis should be encouraged to intervene more, especially if those countries have a negative view of Western intervention.

A sovereign wealth fund seems like an attractive idea. The idea of paying everyone a basic income should be seriously considered. There should be some form of Buffett Tax, perhaps at a lower rate. Science spending should be significantly increased. There should be an aspiration to be an carbon-neutral economy. More houses! Don't follow leaders. Watch the parkin' meters. That's why I think I should Mr. Universe (bachelor).

[Aylen]

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/electi...ticomatic.aspx

[DirectorAbbie]

I consider myself a libertarian monarchist.
I believe the government should regulate less, tax less, and spend a whole lot less. Those easterners need to butt out of state business and adhere to the 10th amendment.
I also want a royal family rather than a president. But we can vote on which prince we want to reign after his father dies or abdicates. That way we'll already know the life history of all potential candidates, and election campaigns will be a whole lot cheaper and less common.

And my test results:

You're a Sarah Palin Conservative!

You look for help from on high when making all decisions. A marriage, in your opinion, can only be between a man and a woman. Abortion is murder, period! The government can have your gun … when it pries it out of your cold, dead fingers! The feds need to butt out of health care, too – for gosh sakes, they already spend too much other people’s money as it is! And when it comes to America’s natural resources – drill, baby, drill!

[Not A Communist Shill]

I got the same result as @Aylen on that test.

[AlexV]

My results :

You're an Abraham Lincoln Conservative!

You believe in a strong federal government, traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. You think the government shouldn’t spend more money than it receives, but must be responsible for the security of the nation and its people. Your spiritual beliefs are important to you, but are just one of the things you consider in political matters.

[Sandoval]

"You're a Barack Obama Liberal!"

I'm more of a Bernie Sanders liberal.

I'm quite concerned with politics lately, for the first time in my life.
The USA is a political mess this election year, with people voting against their best interests. Almost all national polls "on issues" show that Americans by and large want to join the rest of the developed world by having universal health care, free public college, paid paternity leave, getting money out of politics and regulating big banks and corporations. But the only candidate that wants to do that (Bernie) has been shunned as a radical, and obscured by the corporate media which is controlled by said big banks and corporations.

So, ironically, even if the people want those changes, elections are bought by big money so they can't even implement it. Our government no longer has the capacity to represent the people, even when the majority speaks out. c.c

[Aylen]

You Might Be a Marxist If ... You Believe in From Each According to Their Abilities, to Each According to Their Needs

I thought about this thread this morning because it has been suggested, in the past, I might hold similar beliefs to a Marxist. It has riled up some people when I said I agreed with certain principles. It is like they won't even listen to the pros and cons. My point of view was theoretical but older people got so upset at the mention of anything related to communism and wanted to lecture me about lack of freedom, abuse of power, etc.... I was only about 7 years old when I asked why people could not live this way and my aunt started calling me a communist. She was not kidding. I didn't even know what the word meant. I just thought it made sense, just like it made sense to tell my family to send my food to the kids starving when they told me to eat all my food because people were starving in other parts of the world. I guess I hadn't thought it all the way through.

The first part of the principle—from each according to their ability—means that all members of society will have the right and the actual opportunity to develop their talents and abilities to the utmost and to use their talents to produce goods and services for the benefit of society. In other words, everyone will have an education that allows them to realize their highest potential and a job in which they will have the opportunity to give their best efforts back to society. There will be no uneducated or poorly educated people, no unemployment, and no one will be forced by economic necessity to work in fields unsuited to their abilities. The second part of the principle—to each according to their needs—explains what citizens will receive from society in return for their labor, and that will be nothing less than complete satisfaction of their material and cultural needs.

Marx also said something very interesting about the implications of a fair distribution of wealth in a communist society. He said that the principle “to each according to their needs” actually entails that under communism any given individual will have the right to receive a quantity of goods and services that is unequal rather than equal to the quantity received by others. This will sound counterintuitive, or even wrong, to many readers, because most of us have been taught to believe that equal rights are the highest form of fairness, but Marx shows that this is not the case with regard to the distribution of wealth.

Here’s why: Imagine two women living in a communist society. One woman is a bus driver with five children and the other is a bus driver with one child. Let’s ask ourselves a question: According to the principle “to each according to their needs” which woman should have the right to receive more goods and services (food, housing, clothing, medical and childcare services, etc.) in compensation for her labor?

You might be tempted to answer that both women should receive the same quantity because both are bus drivers, and it’s only fair that everyone be treated equally. That would be the correct answer if this society was being run on the principle “to each according to their work,” which would mean that all bus drivers would receive the same pay. But that is not what Marx had in mind for the highest stage of communism. The problem is that if each woman were treated equally, the driver with one child would receive more relative to her needs than the driver with five children—the former would be objectively richer and the latter poorer. This shows that an equal distribution of wealth can actually result in a highly undesirable kind of inequality—a division between rich and poor. This happens because principles such as “to each according to their work” or “equal pay for equal work” fail to take individual needs into account.

The communist principle “to each according to their needs” overcomes this defect by treating individuals differently, but in a positive way that considers and meets their differing needs, rather than a negative way that ignores individual needs. Under communism the unique needs of every individual would be respected. Thus the correct answer is that the woman with five children should receive more because her needs are greater.

This should put to rest the common misconception that communism means everyone will be treated exactly the same, as in the oppressive uniformity of the anthill or the barracks. Communism actually means the opposite: out of respect for the individual, everyone will be treated differently, but in a way that satisfies the individual’s needs. This does not mean that communism has no place for equality. Communism has the deepest respect for equality, but it must be equality of the right kind. The right to an unequal share in the consumption of goods and services actually results in a higher form of equality—all people will be equal in the sense that the needs of all will be met.

The communist principle holds true even if we compare our bus driver with her five children to a neurosurgeon with two children. Shouldn’t a neurosurgeon be entitled to more than a mere bus driver? Not at all, since the prejudice against “lower” forms of labor is one that communist society will have overcome. Under communism it won’t matter what kind of work you do. What will matter is that you contribute to the best of your ability. In return, society will meet your needs. If the needs of an individual who happens to be a bus driver are greater than those of a neurosurgeon, then the bus driver will receive more. But the needs of both will be completely and ungrudgingly fulfilled. Who would have a problem with that except for people who want more than they need? And there’s a name for that condition; it’s called greed.

There’s something else we must keep in mind in order to understand the Critique of the Gotha Program correctly. Marx did not believe that society could advance directly from the overthrow of capitalism to the highest stage of communism. In the following quotation, he outlines the conditions that must be met before that stage can be achieved.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour ... has vanished ... after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

In theory it sounds great actually but in practice humans are not cooperative enough, yet... I probably want too much stuff to ever be a Marxist but I don't think I am a greedy person. I would give as much as I take.

In the distant future I imagine this will have to be the model humankind will have to adapt to, if they want to continue to survive.

[Creepy-bg]

i didn't agree with any of the options for some of them, or could think of contexts in which my answer differs. also some of them felt weasily in their wording/options displaying a bias. i answered indifferent to ones where my answer was more nuanced to be saying what i felt they were saying i was saying in the available answers

 

You're a Ronald Regan Conservative!
You don't believe government should try to protect us from ourselves. You are convinced that what is right and good will always triumph – and that the people of this country are ready to move forward again – enough wallowing and apologizing! The feds need to get out of the way, quit making rules, quit wasting our money, quit paying folks to be lazy – and focus on what is needed to make America great once again.


i think i confused it. although i guess i don't disagree with it in principle, i just think i'm more liberal than that

[Neon]

"You're an Arnold Schwarzenegger Moderate"
"If you're a registered member of the GOP, some would call you a RINO - a Republican in name only! You believe in moderation in matters of gun control, government spending, drug laws, same-gender marriage, abortion and public spending. In most issues, you're middle of the road ... but still you're not all that comfortable with somebody calling you a 'liberal'."

I'm not unfocused. I'm a pragmatist.