[Discussion] Your Political Ideology

[YowYan]

Dear lord, people if you know nothing about politics, please, don't post here.

First of all: If you say China is a socialist country, you're wrong. Do not in any way google socialism but go read a book instead. Second of all, yes China is a "communist" country, except for one small thing. It isn't. China used to be a communist country at one point, as the USSR tried to gain allies in the cold war. Same thing why the Vietnam war actually occurred. Try to let go of your patriotic view and actually look at facts (which you don't always learn at school), then discuss it. The only problem is that nothing in China is even remotely communistic nowadays. They are easily one of the world leaders, even more so than the US or Russia. Simply look at the basic numbers. They are still a country that is in huge economical and industrial development, yet they still have one of the most steady economies in the world. I could go and explain why this is, but I suggest you read up on why this is so. Even their governing leadership system isn't remotely on par with what communism has in mind for it. There is no leadership, or at least no leadership that stands above others in communism. The proletariat rules the country, that's the fundamental idea behind it.

The biggest issue with communism is that, in theory it sounds sweet, it can't be done. Simply because of the urge of people to differentiate themselves and the fact that our opinion and society dictates upon us that we should actually have a high degree, that we should have a job and status that is seen as socially acceptable or even socially looked up to.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a socialist myself (yet again, go read about what socialism really is) but it needs to be practical. Now, I'm from Belgium myself. In itself, the system we maintain is quite socialistic. We pay a large amount of taxes to the government that they redistribute to the people. I think people in Belgium pay around, what, 50% of their money to taxes? Most people would find this insane, but all in all most people make a good living for themselves, while still benefitting from what the government has to offer us: Healthcare, one of the best educational systems in the world, a steady system and most of all a lot of social security.

I personally have to say that I never got the idea behind "The American Dream". All I see in the idea that is has is capitalistic propaganda that is outdated and doesn't relate to our time anymore. The USA was founded (or well, called itself independent) around 1770-ish somewhere, if I'm not mistaken (yes, I'm too lazy to actually google the exact date as I really don't see the relevance either on this topic). That makes it clear that "The American Dream" and reasoning behind it in itself is outdated. It was a super duper nice idea to have when you still had the industrial revolution going on, but just be honest with yourself for a second. Since the industrial revolution occurred, birth rates have sky-rocketed, globally speaking people live much longer, and there is a much higher rate of globalization as well. That in itself puts forward a NEED and REQUIREMENT for at least a basic foundation, and (in my opinion) a higher layer above that of social security as well. The basic principle behind "The American Dream" is the principle behind capitalism as well. Every man for himself, get rich or die trying (I just quoted 50 cent here, I'm so coolio right now), screw the rest, I'm the best! and what not. The problem is that this only works if you have a constant system of growth and prosperity, something which is just as impossible as communism working. Look at the crisis we have at hand now. American banks were just handing out money to everyone, people were buying stuff with a credit card all over the place. This leaves people with a constant small amount of debts each month that they have to pay off. Over time, the amounts became so big all together that it was IMPOSSIBLE to pay it off. Can you really go ahead and say that this is the system of prosperity and longevity? Sure, you could just throw in the argument that people should not buy stuff that they can't afford, or work harder for it, but let's be honest, our system doesn't allow that! Capitalism, and especially marketing and advertisement nowadays plays on the human psychology. YOU NEED AN IPHONE TO BE HIP! Let's face it, would you rather be the cool kid with the new Iphone, or would you rather be the kid that sits by the dumpster and gets food thrown at him (sorry to make this weird and perhaps rude statement, but I'm just trying to make a point here. I'm not trying to insult someone). It's pretty obvious which of the two anyone in here wants to be, but the point is that it's impossible to maintain this lifestyle, and by concluding that, capitalism is just a system that is impossible to maintain in the long run as well.

Now, don't get me wrong, and I'm sure a lot of Americans (Sorry guys, I have no quarrel with Americans, but I just like to point it out since you guys make it so easy ^_^) will hate me for saying this, considering the recent elections. I love the idea behind capitalism as much as the idea behind communism, but neither is possible because both of them are extremes. It's impossible for everyone to be equal, but it's just as impossible for everyone (despite the reason, and I think a lot of people need to stop thinking so radical about this) to make something out of themselves. So what I'm a supporter of is simply Socialistic Capitalism. I guess Obama somewhat does this, but I won't get in to that just yet. I like capitalism, but I am dead serious when I say that it's IMPOSSIBLE without any kind of restrictions put onto it by the government, or certain guidelines and what not. I don't mind companies going super big and rich, but I do mind companies having a monopoly on an entire market. It's not good for the consumer, or simply said the people. I don't mind companies making a lot of money, but I do mind those companies paying out big ass cheques to their CEO's while they fire thousands of people a the same time. I don't mind companies exponentially growing, but I do mind when it happens at the cost of something that shouldn't be so high. I hope you guys are getting where I'm coming from/at. Regulation is something that will always be needed. If not, there is always a certain group that abuses the system. This is to go in against all the people that say "hey, people abuse the system and still complain while they're lazy as hell!". Same goes for the companies, no?

Now, as for the Obama issue, I said I'd go in on it later on, but I don't feel like doing that after all, since I probably don't have enough knowledge about it, and even if I do, these kind of discussions tend to be filled with "fanboyerism"-tendencies, so I'm wisely staying off that touchy subject.

Anyways, I just wanted to throw that out there. A little bit of respect and understanding for other ways of thinking gets you a long way, and you might just be a little shocked when you reach the point where you see that your previous PoV actually wasn't all that almighty.

Well said.

 

[ImmaculateShadow]

First and for most, mad props to Wesobi for is post [

You must be registered for see links

].

Next - there is some thing all of the Capitalists in the forum need to understand.

There are actually smart, hard working, good looking, ambitious & funny people who live in poverty. Hel, there are working people who live in poverty. So all of this American Exceptionalism & Nationalism that some people seem to be cradling to their breast night and day is utter nonsense. [

You must be registered for see links

] Thanks Cap, I'll be sure to tell all the homeless people I see on the street - who can't get jobs because they've been flagged for *** crimes for peeing in public, yes that's how it works - exactly that.

Any way, all the people here who are proposing that Capitalism is the end all be all more than likely haven't read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. In other words they are ignorant of what Capitalism actually is -

I'm a socialist, because I believe in Democracy. Now this will not make sense if you don't know what Socialism is. If this is you I'll give you a rundown.

Socialism essentially means that a worker owns where it is that they work. As Noam Chompsky puts it, "those that work in the mills own them."

And that makes sense because we love Democracy, am I right? But for some reason when you go to work you subject yourself to tyranny. Because that's what corporation is - top down tyranny that will stop at nothing to increase profits.

I'm an Anarchist. No, not the bollux you hear about in punk rock music but the philosophy of a lack of tyrannical power structures. True Democracy does not need corporate, state or federal power structures.

that's all I can think of right now. I had more but lost it when I accidentally closed the page. Ugh.

Thanks goes to Zero K for the thread - Cheers

 

['Kurapika]

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.

But all current political systems seem to have no means of ensuring the representative's loyalty to his electors. And the only reason candidates get chosen by electors in the first place is that the candidates' cooperate supporters made their owned media channels convince the electors that the candidates would work for their best interest, but that's far from reality.
The only political system which can actually work in my opinion is one that isn't based on representation, and adopts a more direct form of democracy. Thousands of years ago, Athens had to drop direct democracy because the technology present at the time couldn't keep up with the rapidly increasing population, and it wasn't possible to gather all citizens in one hall "Parliament/Congress".
Representation might have been invented to solve a problem at its time, but currently, it's used so governments and corporations can use third parties to represent the citizens' choices. By doing so they are taking the masses' will while offering them the choice to choose who decides for them, who votes on policies for them, and these parties being easily controllable by corporations in the capitalist parts of the world created what is called The Dictatorship of the Market.

I say, lets use 'em macs and gaymen rigs "Computers" fo' things otha than browsin' facebook and playin calla dooty. And instead, we can use them for voting online on policies and laws, so that we actually have a saying in things such as our future and the future of our children. Cliche children reference ftw.

 

[Germanicus]

Socially liberal (marriage rights, immigration reform tweaks, etc.) and economically conservative. But I'm not a Libertarian. They have people like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul...who are frankly crazy. So, I guess I'm a moderate. I usually feel open to compromise on most political matters.

 

[YowYan]

Socially liberal (marriage rights, immigration reform tweaks, etc.) and economically conservative. But I'm not a Libertarian. They have people like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul...who are frankly crazy. So, I guess I'm a moderate. I usually feel open to compromise on most political matters.

Simpletons can't grasp the context in which ppl like Ron Paul think and handle.

 

[Germanicus]

Simpletons can't grasp the context in which ppl like Ron Paul think and handle.

Alright, we can take the dirt bag approach to this. Being civil is overrated anyway.

 

[YowYan]

Alright, we can take the dirt bag approach to this. Being civil is overrated anyway.

I'm sorry, that was offensive and unnecessary. Let's put it in this way: RP challenges the established mind set most citizens have. People who are not looking at things from a wider perspective will most likely, with the help of the media, ridicule RP's policy proposals.

 

[Germanicus]

I'm sorry, that was offensive and unnecessary. Let's put it in this way: RP challenges the established mind set most citizens have. People who are not looking at things from a wider perspective will most likely, with the help of the media, ridicule RP's policy proposals.

For the most part, I don't have a real problem with what he wants to do. The main problem I have here is the Libertarian idea on how to tackle the Federal Reserve. I'm having a hard time imagining a consistent replacement for it. I don't see how getting rid of it, as is Libertarian ideology, would be practical.

 

[YowYan]

For the most part, I don't have a real problem with what he wants to do. The main problem I have here is the Libertarian idea on how to tackle the Federal Reserve. I'm having a hard time imagining a consistent replacement for it. I don't see how getting rid of it, as is Libertarian ideology, would be practical.

I forgot most info concerning the FED, but all I know now is that the FED only creates huge inflation. Can you tell me what kinda stability and other 'benefits' it gives us?

Also, one simple replacement for the income that the FED brings us, is the collective call-back of all militairy bases spread over the globe. Instead of trying to get a power grip everywhere, focus the expenses on domestic purposes. Use all the money that's used on (to the citizens useless) experiments like Monsanto, drone designing and building, NASA, foreign military/financial aid (israel) and use it for domestic purposes. The FED will be useless.

 

[Germanicus]

I forgot most info concerning the FED, but all I know now is that the FED only creates huge inflation. Can you tell me what kinda stability and other 'benefits' it gives us?

Also, one simple replacement for the income that the FED brings us, is the collective call-back of all militairy bases spread over the globe. Instead of trying to get a power grip everywhere, focus the expenses on domestic purposes. Use all the money that's used on (to the citizens useless) experiments like Monsanto, drone designing and building, NASA, foreign military/financial aid (israel) and use it for domestic purposes. The FED will be useless.

I have been meaning to read more into it, since I've been busy. I'm not writing off the idea; it just seems drastic to me. Like I said though, my experience and knowledge in this area is limited, so I need to find more information.

 

[Shirohebi]

Well, I can say things from a better point of view because I live in a very communist country. All systems have pos and negs, but I think the main problem with Capitalism is that they spend way too much time thinking about the money and not in the man itself. I find very good the fact that by the end of the month you earn what you worked for, and the more you work the more you earn, but on the other hand is good to know that even if you can't work for any reason you still will get some money no matter what. That thing you mention called 'Liberal/anarcho Communism' is an utopia right now. My system has lots of flows and so does Capitalism. We have free education and health systems but an extremely low internet connection index, for example. and you have it the other way around, got it?

 

[YowYan]

your hope is misplaced...
I for one do not believe in unnecessary waste and suffering. People should have a greater purpose in their lives other than 'Make money so I don't starve'.

Finally another one that can actually think outside the walls of society..

 

[Kuzomothekiller]

liberal independent

 

[Kuzomothekiller]

I believe you are from or in Russia making you a communists.

I believe in democracy due to it being the best and most reseanable one of the choices.

Wow just because you are from Russia makes you a communist? that is BS mate. I know people from Russia and the surrounding Baltic countries and they are not communists. Get your facts straight