Are you a leftist or a rightist?

[Raver]

The most important thing is the need for criticism and alternatives. Democracy dies when there's no longer any criticisms or alternatives. So would science. From criticisms, alternatives are born, and from alternatives, criticisms are accepted.

So why is democracy "good"? Is it only because it's a given that it's naturally good? Is it because the majority is always right? Because it protects individual rights?

Well it's really because it has the possibility and the potential for unlimited growth and progress, which comes from offering criticisms and alternatives. However it's not necessarily certain and stable, and it could always turn into authoritarianism or something other. It's actually kind of miraculous that this is continuing for hundreds of years, as that has never happened in the history of humankind. And it might just not be a matter of luck or coincidence, but it's because there have been some ingenious systems and institutions put into place to make it a stable, functioning system. Basically, it's stable because there have been people that have been working at it to made it stable.

You can't say that "This is the only way, and nothing else", and that goes for both the right and the left and somewhere in between. At some point, you realize that you're heading to the wrong path and you're going to have to change the direction.

Some might say that politics is the art of making compromises. They say A, and you say B, and you listen to both points and arrive at compromise C.

Democracy is already dead and has been for quite some time now:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...hy-For-Decades

All we have now is the illusion of democracy with a broken two party system in the U.S that has been hijacked by an oligarchy. Also, direct democracy has almost never existed in Western countries aside from Ancient Greece.

At best, we have had an indirect democracy in the past through a representative democracy or a constitutional republic, etc...

[Aylen]

I am left of the right and right of the left.

I also believe you should be able to abort your adult children at any time... or do I...

[Sisyphean]

I am left of the right and right of the left.

I also believe you should be able to abort your adult children at any time... or do I...

lmao big brain centrism represent with those 63rd trimester abortions

[vesstheastralsilky]

The issues are either too mixed or unaddressed across both sides to say.

[Cheebs]

download.png

[Sisyphean]

.
ideology.jpg

[woofwoofl]

[Raver]

download.png

[Memento Mori]

My Political Results.jpg

I really really really don't fucking care about economic issues. Other than that I have very clearly definable priorities.

[Sisyphean]

I really really really don't fucking care about economic issues. Other than that I have very clearly definable priorities.

Needs more punitive justice, you pussy.

[Muddy]

[Singu]

Democracy is already dead and has been for quite some time now:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...hy-For-Decades

All we have now is the illusion of democracy with a broken two party system in the U.S that has been hijacked by an oligarchy. Also, direct democracy has almost never existed in Western countries aside from Ancient Greece.

At best, we have had an indirect democracy in the past through a representative democracy or a constitutional republic, etc...

Well I don't think that representative democracy is a bad thing, since it makes democracy more stable.

There might be a trend worldwide, especially in the US that people are starting to remove the safeguard devices that make democracy possible. Removing things like anti-monopoly laws were a start that was started by the wrong neoclassical economic ideology. The FCC Fairness Doctrine that made media coverage more fair and balanced was removed. The Media and the journalists are increasingly becoming compliant to the authority and becoming less and less critical of it. I think that the authorities are starting to create a convenient "grand narrative" for the masses to believe in.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

http://www.politiscales.net



Additional characteristics: Pragmatism : politics objectively boil down to looking at where the problems are and trying to solve them according to the means available.

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/re...t1=43&prag=100

[Raver]

Well I don't think that representative democracy is a bad thing, since it makes democracy more stable.

There might be a trend worldwide, especially in the US that people are starting to remove the safeguard devices that make democracy possible. Removing things like anti-monopoly laws were a start that was started by the wrong neoclassical economic ideology. The FCC Fairness Doctrine that made media coverage more fair and balanced was removed. The Media and the journalists are increasingly becoming compliant to the authority and becoming less and less critical of it. I think that the authorities are starting to create a convenient "grand narrative" for the masses to believe in.

I am fine with representative democracy too at least in theory because if it is done right it is more efficient than a full direct democracy. However, the problem with representative democracy is that it is more vulnerable to control from wealthy/powerful people. You've mentioned some good examples of how that is happening and I'd add the laws that have been giving advantages to corporations slowly over time over small businesses and the fact that major mass media outlets are largely owned by corporations only compounds this problem. So like you said, major news outlets are essentially mouthpieces for those that own corporations. It's clear we've been an oligarchic society for quite a while and that it's only slowly becoming worse over time as more laws get passed in favor for the wealthy and powerful, while the main populace gets the short end of the stick.

[Raver]

The political test Prowthin posted was good, but I thought I'd share another test too as it shows the 4 axis instead of the standard 2 axis. I hate the traditional left/right dichotomy because it's overly simplistic and it doesn't explain much of someone's political beliefs. You can get people that are both on the left, right or center with different political beliefs. I have almost always gotten left libertarian when I take this test or similar tests and somewhat close to the center too though:

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26



Here's the test site: https://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Cheebs]

chart.png

I remember the days when I was deep in the purple and had black and gold as my wallpaper...

[Taknamay]

I am still developing my beliefs but at the moment I would say I am a left-wing market anarchist. I am tolerant of communist anarchism, I think there is room for coexistence, but I also feel that the market serves a non-oppressive purpose in what Austrian economists refer to as the "economic calculation problem". One writer that I admire a lot is Errico Malatesta, when I read his works I feel like we have a similar way of thinking of individuals and society, right and wrong, freedom and order, etc. although he was a communist anarchist.

Left-wing market anarchism differs from classical liberalism in its advocacy of abolishing "profit" in the Marxist sense, of acquiring wealth based on ownership as opposed to the individual's sweat of brow. This means abolishing rent of land, interest on loans exceeding factors like risk and inflation, corporate ownership, proprietorship, and other similar kinds of profit. As an alternative, laborers themselves individually or collectively own the means of production. Individually, this means the farmer owns the farm, the miller own the mill, the baker owns the bakery, etc. Collectively this means the formation of institutions where there is not a separation of stakeholders and owners. Housing cooperatives, credit unions, and worker cooperatives are examples of collective ownership in which profit is abolished while still functioning similarly to their capitalist counterparts.

This is also different from communism, which seeks to abolish the money system (that is, abolish the economy entirely). I think there is nothing morally wrong about such a system, but I am not confident it fits into a post-industrial kind of society. It has been demonstrated to work in agrarian utopian communities which are fine. However I see nothing wrong with paying people differently for different kinds of work. If we live by the slogan "From each according to their ability, to each according to their means" then what encourages people to do undesirable, challenging or dangerous work? Somebody needs to work with raw sewage, coal mining, etc. and it's fair that people are paid different for different kinds of work. The best way to decide how to pay people is through the market system. When individuals are free to pay what they think is a fair price for a good or service, generally the result is that the less desirable but still necessary work will be paid more than other kinds. This is what Adam Smith called the invisible hand of the market which should still function in the absence of profit.

[Saberstorm]

On the subject of the picture chart in the first post. I am 100% leftist.

I do not agree with any specific leftist policy, only the trend towards the goals.

[Muddy]

I am still developing my beliefs but at the moment I would say I am a left-wing market anarchist. I am tolerant of communist anarchism, I think there is room for coexistence, but I also feel that the market serves a non-oppressive purpose in what Austrian economists refer to as the "economic calculation problem". One writer that I admire a lot is Errico Malatesta, when I read his works I feel like we have a similar way of thinking of individuals and society, right and wrong, freedom and order, etc. although he was a communist anarchist.

Left-wing market anarchism differs from classical liberalism in its advocacy of abolishing "profit" in the Marxist sense, of acquiring wealth based on ownership as opposed to the individual's sweat of brow. This means abolishing rent of land, interest on loans exceeding factors like risk and inflation, corporate ownership, proprietorship, and other similar kinds of profit. As an alternative, laborers themselves individually or collectively own the means of production. Individually, this means the farmer owns the farm, the miller own the mill, the baker owns the bakery, etc. Collectively this means the formation of institutions where there is not a separation of stakeholders and owners. Housing cooperatives, credit unions, and worker cooperatives are examples of collective ownership in which profit is abolished while still functioning similarly to their capitalist counterparts.

This is also different from communism, which seeks to abolish the money system (that is, abolish the economy entirely). I think there is nothing morally wrong about such a system, but I am not confident it fits into a post-industrial kind of society. It has been demonstrated to work in agrarian utopian communities which are fine. However I see nothing wrong with paying people differently for different kinds of work. If we live by the slogan "From each according to their ability, to each according to their means" then what encourages people to do undesirable, challenging or dangerous work? Somebody needs to work with raw sewage, coal mining, etc. and it's fair that people are paid different for different kinds of work. The best way to decide how to pay people is through the market system. When individuals are free to pay what they think is a fair price for a good or service, generally the result is that the less desirable but still necessary work will be paid more than other kinds. This is what Adam Smith called the invisible hand of the market which should still function in the absence of profit.

I was into anarchist ideologies too but then I switched over to fascism. The problem with anarchist societies whether it anarcho-communism or left-wing market anarchism is that they have no defense against foreign invasion and meddling or totalitarian takeover from within. Societies that don't possess some form of hierarchy are extremely flimsy and inevitably succumb to opportunistic strongman like Napolean following the french revolution or Stalin the following the Russian Revolution (The USSR was originally intended to eventually become stateless by its founders but hence that wasn't something that was ever going to happen in reality).

Fascism instead acknowledges and embraces the need for hierarchy and seeks to create a hierarchical system where those with the most virtue are the ones who reach the top and rule over society. ******'s Germany in the pre-war years actually put tremendous effort towards improving the conditions for workers, and contrary to what you hear about them being totalitarian they did actually allow farmers to own farms and so forth. They put a lot of regulations on businesses and put a cap on how much a person could earn but they didn't actually command the economy in the same manner as the USSR. I recommend reading this article if you want to learn more about the well-being of worker's in pre-war nazi germany:

http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/...never-see.html

[Skepsis]

[Muddy]

I'm neither a libertard nor a cuckservative.

[perpetuus]

A pragmatic mix of left and right positions.

[perpetuus]

politiscale.png

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/re...omp=67&prag=67

[Raver]

A pragmatic mix of left and right positions.

IMO, this is the best position to take with politics. Anything else means you're ideologically driven rather than thinking critically through the issues. To elaborate further, being able to take multiple positions on the left and right does not mean you have to be a centrist. It also does not mean that you have to be in the middle of every position.

You can very well be left wing or right wing in general and take most of your positions on the left or the right. What it means is you choose issues based on your true values and not on your political stance's values. What bothers me is when people try to side with issues just because of their political stance, which is incredibly shallow and idiotic.

For instance, I believe in strict immigration laws like a conservative, universal health care like a liberal, legalized marijuana like a libertarian and I am against third trimester abortions like a centrist. Overall, I am likely a left-libertarian according to most political tests that test at the four dimensional scale rather than the two dimensional scale.

[perpetuus]

political axis.png

[ruined]

militant left, think like the black panther party

[perpetuus]

IMO, this is the best position to take with politics. Anything else means you're ideologically driven rather than thinking critically through the issues. To elaborate further, being able to take multiple positions on the left and right does not mean you have to be a centrist. It also does not mean that you have to be in the middle of every position.

You can very well be left wing or right wing in general and take most of your positions on the left or the right. What it means is you choose issues based on your true values and not on your political stance's values. What bothers me is when people try to side with issues just because of their political stance, which is incredibly shallow and idiotic.

For instance, I believe in strict immigration laws like a conservative, universal health care like a liberal, legalized marijuana like a libertarian and I am against third trimester abortions like a centrist. Overall, I am likely a left-libertarian according to most political tests that test at the four dimensional scale rather than the two dimensional scale.

I agree.

It really boggled my mind back in 2016 how one or two former Bernie supporters I knew were suddenly endorsing very Republican wedge issues after switching allegiances to Trump. Perhaps their values really did change, in which case I can respect their change of minds, but it seemed very convenient and abrupt, when usually people's values tend to change more gradually. Most people don't just go from supporting democratic socialist values and ideals to center-right authoritarian ideals (or any other drastic shift in worldview) just overnight, unless they are completely uninformed and vote entirely on superficialities like likability.

[Aramas]

I'm so left I make left look like right.

I'll let you tell me my type.

[Computer Loser]

i try to see things as they are, not through ideologies or parties, but we're all subject to bias and influence, myself included

[Chakram]

I agree.

It really boggled my mind back in 2016 how one or two former Bernie supporters I knew were suddenly endorsing very Republican wedge issues after switching allegiances to Trump. Perhaps their values really did change, in which case I can respect their change of minds, but it seemed very convenient and abrupt, when usually people's values tend to change more gradually. Most people don't just go from supporting democratic socialist values and ideals to center-right authoritarian ideals (or any other drastic shift in worldview) just overnight, unless they are completely uninformed and vote entirely on superficialities like likability.

It could be that they have a couple of specific issues that they agree with heavily, and if what they view as the top priority is out of the picture they will switch to their next top priority, which could be on either side of the "scale."

The entire Left-Right scale is garbage imo, it doesn't take enough things into perspective, and simply deems people that have more varied views from the decided points as moderates.

[woofwoofl]

It really boggled my mind back in 2016 how one or two former Bernie supporters I knew were suddenly endorsing very Republican wedge issues after switching allegiances to Trump. Perhaps their values really did change, in which case I can respect their change of minds, but it seemed very convenient and abrupt, when usually people's values tend to change more gradually. Most people don't just go from supporting democratic socialist values and ideals to center-right authoritarian ideals (or any other drastic shift in worldview) just overnight, unless they are completely uninformed and vote entirely on superficialities like likability.

Context changes fast.

Democratic party blew it too many times. Throwing Howard Dean under the bus for Kerry sealed loss for Ds. DLC doing same to Bernie for Hilary, another L for Ds.

Dem statists fan the flames for racial tribalism -- and wonder how we get Naziism.

USA "left" is unbearable now. Not my home. Dogpiling on Elon Musk was the last straw. Raising hell on Uber's CEO was also lame. Domino's Pizza fills potholes in roads for free; gov'ts leave roadways crater-marked, even after taking taxes. Gov't built the E-Check, industry built the electric car.

I can go forever w/o seeing another "asscaps punctuated by dumb emoji claps" tweet. Always thought Our People were the artists, how does a word as face-value ugly as "cishet" get pushed as a designator for standard human?

On "our people" as concept, esp "purple" -- http://spiraldynamicsintegral.nl/en

Communitarian "purple" may top out at 150 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Class war isn't my way forward. Tech reached a certain threshold too. Many of the old zero-sum games are obsolete, more will be on the way out.

[ContractedCriminalboy]

Screenshot_2019-02-12-07-06-39_kindlephoto-197004977.png
I didn't like Trump during the election since I thought he was too liberal if that puts anything into context. Still voted for him though, will do so again.

[gone]

politiscales.png

I'd guess it corresponds quite well to Christian Democracy.

[nefnaf]

politiscales.png

This thread is fairly eye-opening in terms of how many fascists are on here. Actually I already knew about it, but in most cases it's much easier to ignore lol

[Chakram]

This thread is fairly eye-opening in terms of how many fascists are on here. Actually I already knew about it, but in most cases it's much easier to ignore lol

Other than the fact that this thread seems to have a good amount of people from both left and right, where are you pulling fascism out of this? Do you think that everybody that doesn't hold the same opinions as you are immediately fascists?

[Sisyphean]

Other than the fact that this thread seems to have a good amount of people from both left and right, where are you pulling fascism out of this? Do you think that everybody that doesn't hold the same opinions as you are immediately fascists?

"Fascist" is just a fart-sniffing quip to make lukewarm intellects feel superior for holding boilerplate mainstream feel-good ideas like they were told to since Kindergarten.

[ouronis]

SlVrRnd.png

[bgbg]

lol@ the flag

[bgbg]

politiscale.png

http://www.politiscales.net/en_US/re...omp=67&prag=67

:( master race

[Cheebs]

Other than the fact that this thread seems to have a good amount of people from both left and right, where are you pulling fascism out of this? Do you think that everybody that doesn't hold the same opinions as you are immediately fascists?

The left has a heavy demographic ranking system (with many competitions) where the higher you rank on the list, the more power you are given over the direction of the movement (as long as you are a part of it in the first place). Therefore, you only need to investigate the most "oppressed" members of the left and see what ideas they support to figure out where it will head next and why it is going there, as all members lower in the ranking system who disagree are deemed oppressive and kicked out to the roadside. This is a fear regulated social system based on competitions of who can convince the group of which demographic(s) needs the most care and attention, and since people want to help the weak and oppressed (without violating the expectations of the group), they feel a need to raise awareness as a sort of labor or servitude and fulfill the person's requests, no matter how increasingly petty and trivial they become. This is to pay off the debt of privilege or make the world a better place for those who really believe in it and gain social status/security for those who don't. As a result, there is a continuous demand for an elongating spectrum or "path" of leftism that tugs the right along with it on a generational basis due to the education system, corporations, etc. being focused on what the ranking system decides and telling everyone that they should be focused on it too. Since the right is pulled left, all rightist terminology like conservative, populist, fascist, nazi, etc. are pulled as well and become increasingly warped and lose their meaning due to having to fulfill the increasingly lower standards that the left requires of them.