[Discussion] Your Political Ideology
- Thread starter ZK
- Start date
Oh, and FYI: people tend to ill-informed about the Nazis. It's derived from Hitler's political party (NSDAP, which stands for: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Also, you seem guys forget something about this. It's a fascist political party. It's still a far right party, so in that reasoning, it has nothing to do with "socialism". It has that name because it's NATIONAL socialism. Racism, put your own before others, etc etc is their reasoning. It's similar to the KKK and what not in terms of reasoning. They just happened to like bratwurst.
Morning Star
Member
Panem et Circenses as Romans used to say. Every regime is good when people's stomachs are full and when they are adequately entertained. Then every freedom has a fertile ground to grow and blossom. From poverty, hunger and sickness tyrannies are born.
You are the one who apparently googled fascism and pasted it from wikipedia or something else. I don't know how many times it has to be explained that fascism is not an extreme right movement. It is a media's propaganda that tells people lies. Every right-wing supporter is considering fascism to be WORSE than communism. Development of fascism was the result of consequences of WW1. It was built by the people who were defeated, disappointed and desiring revenge. Communism and various crises also contributed to it. In Germany and Italy, fascist were rejection things like capitalism, liberalism, individualism. Fascism forced people to sacrifice. The people were for the government, and not the other way around.
I guess you are in a dead center of ideologies. I'm not a radical righty (I wish I could be, but I'm also human). Self-actualization is important, even if I don't like it - right is always right. Do me a favor and don't say that fascism is a right-wing movement. We support libertarian ideas and we definitely do not want fascism.
In regards to the bolded part of your post, I'd just like to add that Italy was on the winning side of WW1. Fascism was founded in Italy during World War 1. And how did Communism have anything to do with Fascism? At the time of Mussolini, Lenin and his Bolsheviks were busy in Russia. The two have nothing to do with each other.
In regards to the second bolded part of your move; I have nothing to add. You're ovbiously not aware of how 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' works. Conservatism and Liberalism are both right-winged ideologies, but you can't be both. They're different.
Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme. (
You must be registered for see links
)
Can anyone honesty say the way we've been doing things is acceptable? It shouldn't mattter as much what happened in the past. People should get behind what needs to be done to make sure we even have a future. Living in the moment is fina and all.. if you're an animal. We don't have to be animals anymore. Conservatism is inherently harmful because keeping things the same == stoping change == slowing down progress == people die, individually and collectively. Things need to change, people need to start considering far left-wing policies. The implications go far beyond individuals or even nations or civilization.
GEIxBattleRifle
Member
Do you know what a book is? I would rather read a book about Socialism or any other political ideology from a author who is highly respected and well known for indepth analysis and has high ratings on his books compare to someone who can make a web page and ''write'' anything they want on any topic. Maybe Wesobi is smart enough to known that using too much internet will keep you narrow minded in the end and the man overall knowns wtf he's talking about. If you keep typing into google like ''Socialist China'' for example. You are pulling up websites made by random people around the world who are giving you ''their view'' on why they think China is socialist they could be right or wrong you never know
Last edited:
Communists were the worst enemies of fascists, so obviously communism had a lot to do with fascism. You said that Hitler was not a socialist, and now you tell me that I'm not aware of ideologies. Term "liberal" was stolen by socialists, I try no to identify with it now. If people are liberal, so women have freedom to abortion, then it's definitely not right-wing policy, unless in your mind. You can be both conservative and liberal. You can be conservative in one aspect and liberal in the other. Fascism is definitely more lefty. It's like slaves and their owner. Democracy is just that.
It's true that I have read many opinions about this aspect, but they are all very different, and I only preserve only specific ones that support entirely what I think.
GEIxBattleRifle
Member
I agree. Most Conservatives like to take it slow now I don't have a problem with that since I am not a big fan of them just that they can't control change. The people are changing rapidly look at the demographics for example. People are changing sooo fast the conservatives are having a hard time keeping up honestly and if they don't adapt they will slowly but surely start to die out.
Most of the policys I saw them try to preach this election were almost the SAME stuff I heard from Bush Jr years again. The talking points were almost the exact samething just reworded differently so they can fool people who don't pay attention at all
Last edited:
This is going to be so long no one may bother to read, but Never, ever in my short miserable life have I ever been so suicidal because of such an amount of Ignorance. Zero and Wesobi and a few others, thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, from a former student of Economics, and a frequent attender of the Students' Social Worker party meetings or something, AND JUST A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY READS BOOKS I tend to agree with what Wesobi is suggesting so far. Communism is indeed flawless in theory, and there are major problems in its implementation but
BUT
BUT Communism my dear friends, as in the ****ing Communist Manifesto of Marx, as well as the writings of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, have never, ever mentioned or indicated or called for MANY of the 'communist features' and 'policies' decorating the history of USSR and China and North Korea and Cuba and wherever . . . .
They are Capitalist economies, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD Communist basis, as Zero outlined. If you let private sector and companies exist, YOU ARE OPERATING IN A FREE MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM, end of story.
I tend to be of Wesobi's school of thought or direction. I haven't made up my mind on Socialism yet, but the way it seems to me so far, nationalization of crucial industries (defense, education and health for example) and the banking system is a requirement in my vision of the model country, with allowing some heavily regulated private-sector to exist.
Having outlined that, some replies to previous commentators.
1. labour-wage slavery.
2.alienation theory
3. expolitation of the worker and the class struggle
Capitalism is, as Marxists argue, the reason for the current economic crisis.
I personally have not made up my mind about that just yet because I am confused to what extent is Neoliberalism considered a feature or an element of Capitalism. Capitalists will argue it's not, it's just deregulation that lead into the crisis.
HOWEVER the dead Bearded Mr. Marx SAID that Capitalism will come in new faces, and that there will always be justifications to why it screwed up. BECAUSE DEREGULATION HAPPENED DUE OF THE PROFIT MOTIVE AS DEAD MARX PREACHED ! Why would ****ING Greenspan make it ILLEGAL to regulate banks if HE DIDNT GET SOME SORT OF BENEFIT FROM IT !
Well, Keyens basically says "LOL, to hell with that". Government needs to intervene and regulate, we can't wait for the unemployment to fix itself, we can't wait for divine revelation to descend upon the economy, and that's what every single ****ing country in the world is doing. All countries intervene in the mechanism of their economy. Demand and Supply NEVER were the only influence.
For those interested ~
Even though I don't agree with him entirely, I will conclude with the brilliant analogy and words of Alain Badiou, in the beginning of "L'Hypothèse Communiste"(2010:3)
"Lumping together Stalin and Hitler was already a sign of extreme intellectual poverty: The norm by which any collective undertaking has to be judge is the number of deaths and its causes, it was argued.
If that was the case, the huge colonial genocides and massacres, the millions of deaths in the civil and world wars throughout which the West forged its might, should be enough to discredit, even in the eyes of 'philosophers' who extol their morality, the parliamentary regimes of Europe and America"
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, from a former student of Economics, and a frequent attender of the Students' Social Worker party meetings or something, AND JUST A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY READS BOOKS I tend to agree with what Wesobi is suggesting so far. Communism is indeed flawless in theory, and there are major problems in its implementation but
BUT
BUT Communism my dear friends, as in the ****ing Communist Manifesto of Marx, as well as the writings of Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, have never, ever mentioned or indicated or called for MANY of the 'communist features' and 'policies' decorating the history of USSR and China and North Korea and Cuba and wherever . . . .
They are Capitalist economies, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD Communist basis, as Zero outlined. If you let private sector and companies exist, YOU ARE OPERATING IN A FREE MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM, end of story.
I tend to be of Wesobi's school of thought or direction. I haven't made up my mind on Socialism yet, but the way it seems to me so far, nationalization of crucial industries (defense, education and health for example) and the banking system is a requirement in my vision of the model country, with allowing some heavily regulated private-sector to exist.
Having outlined that, some replies to previous commentators.
What you speak of, my boy, are Marxists ideas, or echoes of them :
1. labour-wage slavery.
2.alienation theory
3. expolitation of the worker and the class struggle
Someone hasn't been to the third world countries and has NOT seen how Africa has been made a raw-material-supply store for Capitalism to allocate the so-called rare resources. I study this in a module called the Politics of Development and Africa. It's basically why is Africa a mess, and how is the West and capitalism are the reason why . Adam Smith is rotting in his grave. So is Keyens. Do you know who they are ?
Capitalism is, as Marxists argue, the reason for the current economic crisis.
I personally have not made up my mind about that just yet because I am confused to what extent is Neoliberalism considered a feature or an element of Capitalism. Capitalists will argue it's not, it's just deregulation that lead into the crisis.
HOWEVER the dead Bearded Mr. Marx SAID that Capitalism will come in new faces, and that there will always be justifications to why it screwed up. BECAUSE DEREGULATION HAPPENED DUE OF THE PROFIT MOTIVE AS DEAD MARX PREACHED ! Why would ****ING Greenspan make it ILLEGAL to regulate banks if HE DIDNT GET SOME SORT OF BENEFIT FROM IT !
You people seriously need to familiarize yourself with such terms/ideas as Laissez-faire Economy that Adam Smith preached about, and Keyensian approach to Free market. They are both capitalists but different. You now speak of Laissez faire economics, letting the Invisible hand of the economy regulate it, as Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations.
Well, Keyens basically says "LOL, to hell with that". Government needs to intervene and regulate, we can't wait for the unemployment to fix itself, we can't wait for divine revelation to descend upon the economy, and that's what every single ****ing country in the world is doing. All countries intervene in the mechanism of their economy. Demand and Supply NEVER were the only influence.
For those interested ~
Even though I don't agree with him entirely, I will conclude with the brilliant analogy and words of Alain Badiou, in the beginning of "L'Hypothèse Communiste"(2010:3)
"Lumping together Stalin and Hitler was already a sign of extreme intellectual poverty: The norm by which any collective undertaking has to be judge is the number of deaths and its causes, it was argued.
If that was the case, the huge colonial genocides and massacres, the millions of deaths in the civil and world wars throughout which the West forged its might, should be enough to discredit, even in the eyes of 'philosophers' who extol their morality, the parliamentary regimes of Europe and America"
Last edited:
GEIxBattleRifle
Member
^
I read your comment. I don't mind reading that's how you learn because here in the US where I live if you ain't into capitalism you are some how viewed as a communist. Ignorance runs high here it's unbelievable
I read your comment. I don't mind reading that's how you learn because here in the US where I live if you ain't into capitalism you are some how viewed as a communist. Ignorance runs high here it's unbelievable
Last edited:
I believe that everyone should be encouraged and allowed to work for things in life. I believe that people who work hard shouldn't have to be forced to help people who don't work at all.
-People should be allowed to achieve greatness. They should not tied down by the weights of others who are just along to feed off of ones success.
I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-People should be allowed to achieve greatness. They should not tied down by the weights of others who are just along to feed off of ones success.
I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I support the one where you put a tag on about 10 different chimps, each reading a different approach to a problem and make them all fight to the death and the winner... well you get the rest.
Sadly though this would never work, we just don't have enough chimps
Sadly though this would never work, we just don't have enough chimps
Last edited:
B-b-but I know of the existence of Socialist Democratic Parties T_T Why are you suggesting that democracy is antithetical to socialism/communism ? If anything, they could be more democratic than current forms of Capitalism, but that's debatable.
And seriously, you think that the USSR still exists ? o.o ?
Bolded part 1: Nope, they call it majoring (or used to, since I started a second major this year) in West-European history. I guess you caught me though on googling how to exactly spell the NSDAP fully, since my German isn't as good as it used to be a few years ago.
Bolded part 2: The reason they call it extreme right is because they have to categorize it somehow. I never claimed that ring-winged and minded people don't think nazis were bad. I'm just saying you need to put it into a contextual term and perspective. Nazis don't exist anymore. Neo-nazis do. Contextually speaking, we're talking about something that occurred roughly 80-70 years ago. I'm talking about the 1930's-1940's. If you think about the political landscape and political ideologies back then, National Socialism = an extreme-right winged party. There's no way to say that's wrong in any way. I just think you're a bit butthurt at the moment, because nazis are called a right-winged party while you yourself have a right winged ideology. I'm not saying every right winged party is like the former nazi party. That's how you're willing to interpret it yourself, I can't help it if you think that I'm calling you something similar to a nazi. Same as how communism is an extreme left-winged party.
Bolded part 3: No way I'm arguing with you there, and in a way, can you even start to blame the people for voting for Hitler? The guy brought industry, economical stability and a sense of unification to his country. Heck, I'm pretty sure all of us would have supported him just as well. I'm not saying that was a bad thing, but you forget the biggest issue. Due to those votes (again, not blaming them) he became a dictator. All the investments he made were eventually all in preparation for his warfare plan. Making new highways, industrializing certain areas, changing most factories to war factories and what not. The general outlines and ideas behind the fascism or national socialism are seen as an extreme right-winged party because of everything that happened because of the war. The holocaust, attacking neutral countries, general attitude towards foreigners, homosexuals, what not else. You need to accept the fact that "extreme-right" will always be stamped as a racist point of view, and a dictatorial point of view. Hence where the nationalism comes in. It's unavoidable, that's how we categorize it. Now, don't get me wrong, I know communist parties tend to be just as bad, but the problem is that in essence, it isn't communism as it is supposed to be. Not how Karl Marx wanted it. That's why I hardly find it correct that the the USSR are called communists. Their way of working had some notions of how Marxism is supposed to be, but far from implemented it as it was meant to be.
Anyways, yea, kind of going off-topic with this discussion. O_O
I like whatever ideology implies having a somewhat diplomatic political representative choice, instead of a former sailor, garbage collector, or whatever it is that ****ing cunts used to do before joining politics.
Last edited: