EPTPolitical Roll Call - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
rinoh
United States335 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
 . Hopefully it stays civil.Although, it is pretty obvious that a majority of the people on this site are middle aged or younger, and thus will have a lot more liberal view point. Which is fine and I'm really interested to see the results. Cant believe I didnt think of this thread earlier. | ||
|
PH
United States6173 Posts
-_- | ||
|
Sentenal
United States12398 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
In US-Terms this would probably mean Communist-Satan. | ||
|
Hasudk
Denmark78 Posts
| ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
All of the best countries (read:scandanavian) in the world are social democracies. The American Political climate is currently far right versus centre right. To hear Americans refer to Obama as left wing is hillarious. Sad America  | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28783 Posts
meaning that I want small disparity between rich and poor, a state that takes care of all basic needs, and the freedom to express myself and do whatever the hell I please as long as nobody else suffers from it. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On January 29 2010 17:26 EmeraldSparks wrote: goodness gracious we are drowning in libertarians Freedom and Liberty is not divisive :p | ||
|
RoyW
Ireland270 Posts
On January 29 2010 17:34 Rothbardian wrote: Freedom and Liberty is not divisive :p Yeah, especially when enforced by a strongly armed police force because your society is devoid of any social responsibility | ||
|
Murderotica
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote: Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up. You haven't sold enough drugs in your life lol. | ||
|
Froleson
Iceland18 Posts
In praxis I´m a social democrat, but in heart I identify with the socialist tradition. ----> so I went for the socialist. But anywho, I think there´s mixup of concepts here. Can anyone explain the difference between Communist, Socialist and Anarchism? I honestly think that most people who vote either one of these, have pretty much the same thing in mind; a anarcho-syndicalist system, a left-wing communism. A "Man could not reach his fullest potential unless he had full industrial, civil and political democracy" - system. I can hardly imagine anyone who vouches for communism, vouching for the right-wing communism of the party-vanguard bolsheviks of the Soviet Union? | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On January 29 2010 18:00 RoyW wrote: Yeah, especially when enforced by a strongly armed police force because your society is devoid of any social responsibility Oh my! Someone's a pessimist!! | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On January 29 2010 16:43 HuskyTheHusky wrote: This is actually a great thread . Hopefully it stays civil.I don't see anything civil about this poll at all... if you look at the choices for what they mean, its like this: Anarchist - No classes. Socialist - There's plan-people, and common-people. Communist - There's plan-people, and common-people who own no property. Libertarian (minarchist) - There's plan-people who swear an oath not to plan, and common-people Social Democratic (Center Left) - There's kind plan-people, and common-people Centrist or Moderate - There's plan-people who do some good and some bad, and common-people Conservative (Center Right) - There's plan-people who plan how not to plan, and common-people Fascist, Far Right - There's plan-people, with business-men friends, and common-people Corporatist, Third Position - There's business-men who are planner-people, and common-people Apathetic or Apolitical - There's people but I don't give a shit what they are. Other - There's some weird people. Apart from anarchist, apathetic and other, I don't see how any other label is civil. They're all insulting. Suggesting that there should be classes of people for the sake of... the common good, natural law, a strong nation, whatever it is. I don't buy it, and I find it disgusting, completely unnecessary. It's a subtle type of slavery, but it's still so ingrained in our heads that few even notice it. Naturally, in a statist world, people think it's the ultimate solution for anything, akin to god perhaps? And here we are polling which god we find best. Saying that there should be a planning-class is the same as saying that you know whats best for me and I have to do what you want. I have to abide by your judgment that not only will I benefit from such plan-people, but that if I don't pay my dues to them, I'll be rightfully abducted and thrown into some pit for some years. Even if I did nothing to nobody, even if there were no victims to my "crime"; all I did was stop paying a service which I don't use nor recognize as legitimate, and I'm arrested, potentially even killed if I resisted. So in the end, you, statists, are advocating the use of statist force against me, only because I don't want part in your system, or overpriced, monopolized services. Is that civil? In my eyes it's not. I'm bond to a contract I've never signed; to an organization I cannot secede from. I don't think that many people noticed back when slaves where bounced around that they deserved better either so... it's a sad reality, I just hope one day it's seen for what it is, like full blown slavery now is. We're enslaved to the plan-people, and in democracy, to our neighbors, in constantly deciding who the next plan-people will be. This ain't civil. This is madness. Froleson, anarchy is the absence of hierarchy, meaning, no man is above any other. Whatever is built past that point, has to be done voluntarily. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism that recognizes property rights, popularly with libertarian-like principles. | ||
|
Hasudk
Denmark78 Posts
[B] Can anyone explain the difference between Communist, Socialist and Anarchism? I honestly think that most people who vote either one of these, have pretty much the same thing in mind; a anarcho-syndicalist system, a left-wing communism. A "Man could not reach his fullest potential unless he had full industrial, civil and political democracy" - system. I can hardly imagine anyone who vouches for communism, vouching for the right-wing communism of the party-vanguard bolsheviks of the Soviet Union? I can try =) The difference between what you call communists (the non-marxist-leninist variety) and anarchists is really one of means more than it is of goals. Anarchists say: "The state is oppressive, lets get rid of it right now by popular riots." They don't care who the "rioters" are as long as they share a common goal. See the post above this for an excellent example of state-hatred. Marxists claim that this is an illusion, you cannot destroy the state, you must make it obsolete. This is only possible through a revolution where the working-class (and only the working-class) take control of the state and transform it into a workers-state. Then a long process (called socialism or the socialist society by Marx) takes place in which all other classes than the working class gets destroyed, finally leading to a point in history where the state is no longer needed, because there is no need for one class to suppress another. Everyone belong to the same class and have the same basic needs/goals. The classical anarchist counter-argument is that you cannot use oppression (the working-class dictatorship/state = socialism) to produce freedom (the stateless society). Socialists (today) generally refer to reformists, who deny the need for a revolution and claim that capitalism with a human face is a possibility. They share some values with communists but their ultimate goal is very different in that they seek to transform the capitalist society into something more social, instead of seeking to destroy it. This is basically ideology 1.01, but I can't be asked to go into more detail right now, and besides I would hardly consider my own knowledge of anarchist-theory impressive. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On January 29 2010 18:25 Froleson wrote: Let´s struggle to keep the post civil, keep from flaming but constructive criticism is welcome? In praxis I´m a social democrat, but in heart I identify with the socialist tradition. ----> so I went for the socialist. But anywho, I think there´s mixup of concepts here. Can anyone explain the difference between Communist, Socialist and Anarchism? I honestly think that most people who vote either one of these, have pretty much the same thing in mind; a anarcho-syndicalist system, a left-wing communism. A "Man could not reach his fullest potential unless he had full industrial, civil and political democracy" - system. I can hardly imagine anyone who vouches for communism, vouching for the right-wing communism of the party-vanguard bolsheviks of the Soviet Union? i wouldn't call myself an anarcho-syndicalist, but a socialist. because i still believe in a centralised government with a strong influence. that's not really the idea with syndicalism, right? | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
What I mean by that is that people from the US and Europe might have totally different views but vote the same thing. For instance the Conservative party in the UK considers itself Center-Right... but it's nothing like the Republican party. Whilst our Labour party, which considers itself Center-Left and has even regarded itself publically as being akin to the Democrats, is really just a center party that appeases the Unions. Also I don't really see much merit in alligning yourself to a group at all. Bi-partisan idealogy is the major flaw in democracy. Can't we just debate the merits of decisions without pre-guessing which way we're going to go? | ||
| ||
