political orientation

[Sturm]

I am just wondering the political orientation of people and why they are that particular orientation.

[Infarction]

"Democrat" and "Republican" are references most non-American's wont quite understand. I don't associate myself with either party either; I'm mostly moderate but slightly conservative (adapted the the USian scale of moderate and conservative :icon_wink:). And I'm definitely a capitalist.

[Sturm]

I ok thanks, just for clarafication a democrat is like a socialist but not as extreme and a republican is a capitalist thats not that extreme either(even though alot of democrats and republicans are really communists/socialists and capitalists/fascists respectively, they just do not want to be labeled "radical") Oh and Im a communist.

[~s.o.s~]

They are all the same, they just 'mesmerize the simple minded with propaganda that keeps us blinded'.

[Sturm]

They are all the same, they just 'mesmerize the simple minded with propaganda that keeps us blinded'.

Is that a bad thing? Intellectuals are the ones that make the difference no t simpletons.

[tgreer]

You left out "none". It is possible, and even pleasant, to lead a life devoid of any political affiliation and/or opinions.

[~s.o.s~]

> Is that a bad thing? Intellectuals are the ones that make the
> difference not simpletons.

When you are taken for a simpleton, yes its a bad thing. And no one wants those suckers to decide who makes a difference and who doesn't -- everyone has his own opinion.

Just for the record, those who suck others' blood are not called intellectuals, jerks would be more like it.

[jbennet]

Does liking the labour party (main party in uk, left of the us democrats by a long way) mean i have to vote communist then?

[EnderX]

I ok thanks, just for clarafication a democrat is like a socialist but not as extreme and a republican is a capitalist thats not that extreme either(even though alot of democrats and republicans are really communists/socialists and capitalists/fascists respectively, they just do not want to be labeled "radical") Oh and Im a communist.

Sorry, Sturm, but from what I understand, Facism is just as much a totalitarian format as Communism is. Both of them would be leftward-marching from my pov.

[joshSCH]

hmm.. how are democrats, republicans, and capitalists different? This poll has both very general and very specific terms.. For example, the republicans, democrats, and capitalists are all basically the same; only very subtle differences compared to the rest of the options. Perhaps you should have left republicans and democrats out, and added apathetic.

[jwenting]

and fascists can be of any political denomination, though most are leftist extremists.
Big Government, total government control over the life and death of everyone, intollerant of other ideas.

I'm a firmly royalist libertarian capitalist.

[Sturm]

hmm.. how are democrats, republicans, and capitalists different? This poll has both very general and very specific terms.. For example, the republicans, democrats, and capitalists are all basically the same; only very subtle differences compared to the rest of the options. Perhaps you should have left republicans and democrats out, and added apathetic.

lol, ok you have a point.

Sorry, Sturm, but from what I understand, Facism is just as much a totalitarian format as Communism is. Both of them would be leftward-marching from my pov.

communism does not have to be totalitarian by nature, it is quite possible to have a democratic communists society.(fascist are racists communists are not)

Does liking the labour party (main party in uk, left of the us democrats by a long way) mean i have to vote communist then?

Not necessarily, being a socialist would also fill that criteria.

[Rashakil Fol]

What is "capitalist" as a political orientation? Most Democrats and Republicans could not be described as "capitalist". Is "capitalist" a code-word for libertarian? Which option should anarcho-capitalists select? What about people slightly short of anarcho-capitalist and slightly past minarchist?

[christina>you]

I picked Fascist, like Mussolini and Hitler.
=p

[joshSCH]

What is "capitalist" as a political orientation? Most Democrats and Republicans could not be described as "capitalist". Is "capitalist" a code-word for libertarian? Which option should anarcho-capitalists select? What about people slightly short of anarcho-capitalist and slightly past minarchist?

lol.. there goes rashakil being difficult again.. Capitalism can be considered a political orientation, but should not be confused with the open market economic system.

[~s.o.s~]

Wish DMR were here, he would have added a new political orientation 'wombatism' leading the poll with 9999 votes... :-)

[jbennet]

Where has DMR been lately?

[~s.o.s~]

Wish I could answer that... :-(

[RwCC]

I would put myself down as none of them. I am a Unionist, which has aspects of a few of them. Facing the difficulties of violence, greed and rebellion to keep our country.

[EnderX]

communism does not have to be totalitarian by nature, it is quite possible to have a democratic communists society.(fascist are racists communists are not)

I found a quote a while back from someone which rebutes that statement. I'll post it when I get a chance to look at it again.

Please also allow me to say that, in the course of human history, I can only think of one community that appears to have abided by the idealized socialistic point of view. (And it is my suspicion that they would not be acknowleged as 'legitimate' socialists.) Every other time it has occured, human nature has tended to cause the society to self-destruct.

[Sturm]

I found a quote a while back from someone which rebutes that statement. I'll post it when I get a chance to look at it again.

Trotsky supported a democratic communist society.

Please also allow me to say that, in the course of human history, I can only think of one community that appears to have abided by the idealized socialistic point of view. (And it is my suspicion that they would not be acknowleged as 'legitimate' socialists.) Every other time it has occured, human nature has tended to cause the society to self-destruct.

Hopefully in the future, human nature will be completely repressed. As a civilization advances, the amount of human nature that influence the civilization also decreases. In this way, if a society gradually progresses into a socialist states and then into a communist state it will find itself, I believe, as a idealistic and perfect society. Of course this will take hundreds if not thousands of years assuming there is no setbacks (the medieval ages and the invention of the atomic bomb come to mind)

Every communist society seems to try to "force" ideas and propaganda on its citizens, much like religion. I believe that you cannot force ideas and propaganda onto people, they must come to accept and agree with the ideas instead. Take for example how the Soviet Union destroyed churches and other places of worship. The Soviet Union tried to "force" the change of a huge population. A better way would be to teach children at school how to think logically and clearly, thus avoiding the trap of religion. In this way the Soviet Union could have peacefully repressed religion and also made a more stable state.

> Is that a bad thing? Intellectuals are the ones that make the
> difference not simpletons. When you are taken for a simpleton, yes its a bad thing. And no one wants those suckers to decide who makes a difference and who doesn't -- everyone has his own opinion. Just for the record, those who suck others' blood are not called intellectuals, jerks would be more like it.

Sucking other peoples blood? What country do you live in? Maybe its different in India, but in America the people or organizations that wield the most power are usually the least intelligent. American Idol, other stupid tv shows, George Bush, movie stars, and sports stars come to mind. Those who are smart usually have the least power. (Nobel prize winners, scientists, engineers, etc) Just compare the salary of a scientist and a sports star.

[Serunson]

Up with communism ~ seeing as it is the only one i understand..............

[Sturm]

Your right, most people are going to be happy with communism. And its impossible to understand any other form of government is good for the society.(except perhaps socialism) And supporting the masses, since the
obviously make up the most people, should be any governments number one priority.

[EnderX]

Supporting, yes. Regulating, no. And given that the government usually isn't a true pure democracy (where everyone [in theory] gets to decide things as a group), then eventually the subset of 'the masses' which makes up 'the government' will end up regulating others for the sheer sake of the power to do so, no matter what alternative motives they profess. They may even believe they're doing it for their stated motives, but at its core it boils down, largely, to 'power tripping'. It's simply human nature. And you might be able to repress it for a while in some people, but you won't be able to do so for everybody, nor will you be able to do so for very long with anybody. It's an inherent part of who and what we are.

[Sturm]

And given that the government usually isn't a true pure democracy (where everyone [in theory] gets to decide things as a group), then eventually the subset of 'the masses' which makes up 'the government' will end up regulating others for the sheer sake of the power to do so, no matter what alternative motives they profess.

Your right, I meant oligarchy not democracy.

Human nature abuses power when given. That is why a communist society will only work when human nature has been fully and completely suppressed.

[EnderX]

Except that that particular event will never happen in this world.

[Rashakil Fol]

masses

What are these "masses" you speak of? I have never understood the term.

[Sturm]

Yes it will, we can already repress human nature with a cocktail of drugs and medication.

[Sturm]

The masses are people with an IQ of 100 +/- 10. The "masses" make up over 80% of society.

[EnderX]

A) You're not repressing human nature, you're numbing it. The real thing is still under there.

B) The instant you run into someone who doesn't react the normal way to your nice little Brainwasher's Delight cocktail, your plan goes out the window. If you're fortunate(from your perspective, not mine), the reaction will be anaphylactic and you'll simply kill the poor victim. Otherwise, you'll end up with people who are incapable of being so repressed...at which point the revolution will begin to take form again.

And all of that is assuming you can actually get every single person to take the drug cocktail in the first place, which I find highly unlikely on the grounds that individualism is also a part of human nature (if not always fully grown in practice) and many people would refuse to allow you to drug them; enforced drugging would lead others to turn against you, and once more, we're back at the revolution.