By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - What Are Your Political Views?

DevilRising said:
I am, fundamentally speaking, a Socialist. I used to call myself a Democratic Socialist, and I still want to believe that can work, but in all blunt honesty, if last year taught us anything, in the US, UK and elsewhere, it's that Democracy, as it has been enacted in the modern world, kinda doesn't work. The problem with "Democracy", using the US system as a prime example, is that two-fold.

Firstly, you have the problem of a very small number of major poltical parties that amass power and get entrenched, and then what you get is what we have: Every 4 to 8 years, you get these big political powers playing their little chess game, with the right swooping in and claiming they're going to "save the country from the left", and then the left swoops in and claims they're going to "save the country from the right", ad nauseum. Very little ever actually gets done, and little to nothing of significance ever TRULY changes, because the big political parties in power don't WANT things to change. They don't WANT things to change, because they profit far too much from the way things are, thus their only true interest is in maintaining the status quo.

Secondly, and perhaps far more importantly, people, as in the mass population, "The People", are a manic mess, and don't honestly seem to know what the hell they actually want, let alone what's actually good for them, for others, and for the planet. Most of the people that actually bothered voting in 2016 in the US, were either blind "liberals" who willingly ignored just what a scummy, fake, lying and corrupt piece of trash Hillary Clinton really is, in many ways THE blatantly single most "corporate" presidential candidate the Democratic party has ever put forth, yet they ignored this and voted for her enthusiastically. Either because they were playing SJW/Feminist "identity politics", caring more about what's between a candidates legs than what kind of person they actually are, or because they blindly want to believe that EVERY candidate the Democratic party ever puts forth, is shining gold, a true liberal beacon of hope and progress. Then you had the OTHER side, a bunch of (mostly) angry white folks, mostly male, so-called "conservative", who bought Trump's BS, not because they actually like the guy, but because they ate up all of the ridiculous, inflammatory, and often-times outright bigoted shit he was constantly saying on the campaign trail.

Neither are universal, of course. But regardless, even those who weren't fervent believers in those two candidates, there were still millions more voters who simply voted D or R, because that's how they were raised, what they've been taught, and the details be damned. It's a statistical fact that this past presidential election saw a historically low voter turnout, the lowest in decades, because, quite frankly, you had a race between the TWO phoniest, LEAST likeable candidates in a very long time, if not ever. And that's is truly saying something, because 2004 had George W Bush vs. John Kerry. This was worse than that.

I will say, for myself, that I did have a bit of hope in Bernie. Not the religious, naive, pie in the sky type of hope that many of his supporters did. I didn't even have that for Obama the first time. I liked that Bernie was an IND, and even though I understood it, I hated that he "had" to run as a DEM to even get in the national conversation, to even get noticed. And I will say, it's worth noting that it wasn't just "far left" people and college kids voting for him (though he did have the highest youth vote turnout in decades, last I checked). I personally know traditionally "conservative" voters who were going to vote for him if he made the Presidential nomination, even though he's a proud Socialist, because he's also no-nonsense, supports veterans, etc., and to many non-traditional Democrat voters, he was something of a breath of fresh air.

I held no personal illusions about him fixing everything and changing the country. But I DID think that he was a last gasp hope, of at least nudging us in the direction we SHOULD be going in, living in the 21st Century, instead of being stuck in the same old BS 1980s era politics. But I also understood, and had a bad feeling, that the deck was too far stacked against him, that Hillary had the DNC directly in her pocket, which she did. He came MIGHTY close, in spite of some very blatant and very fishy voter incidents across the country. But ultimately, he was never going to win the DEM nomination.

That wasn't the part that really bothered me. It was that when Hillary DID "win", he just immediately conceded. Myself, and many of his other supporters, had really hoped that he would switch back to IND and continue to run as the third candidate in the race (much the same as Trump had threatened to do). But instead, he just called it quits, after all of his talk, and after the historic amount of grass-roots money his supporters raised for his campaign. There is zero chance that those same supporters WOULDN'T have continued to help him as an IND. But instead, he just gave up, and worse, told his supporters to vote for Hillary.

That was the moment it all kind of finally became "real" for me. That killed me. I wasn't SUPER invested in Bernie, mind you. But it was basically the final straw the broke the camel's back for me. I have become completely tired and disillusioned with the American political game. I was already sick of it, but now I'm just done. The way I saw it, I was faced with the WORST choice of candidates in my voting lifetime, and even though, technically speaking, a Hillary win would have been "less bad" than the daily circus of a Trump presidency, I find myself very tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils", I get tired of voting for "less bad".




So yeah. I honestly did not vote in the main Presidential election. There was no point. I refused to put my stamp or approval on either candidate, and voting for Johnson or Stein would have gotten me the exact same end result that not voting at all did: either a Clinton or Trump presidency. I'll admit, I actually did not expect Trump to win. I don't think even he did. I think that Trump never truly wanted to be President, and I think if you look at his activities and attitude since he's taken office, that kind of bears out. I believe he ran as an ego stroke, a PR trip, for fun, to get the whole nation, the whole world talking about him. Because if there's one thing Trump loves, it's being the center of attention. I don't think he ever seriously wanted to be President. I think he was just as surprised as Clinton when he won. I think that, by all accounts, EVERYONE expected Clinton to win, herself most of all. She was, after all, the "anointed one", setting her sights on being the first female US President since all the way back when Bill first won the White House in the 90s.

Obviously, shit didn't go as it was probably planned to go, and now you have what you see going on. Trump, and more accurately the people Trump assembled to do the actual work because he himself doesn't actually want to be President, kind of just running with it. And the funniest part is, they're like some outcast group of DC and Big Business lifers, who the "actual" Republicans in Congress don't like or want to work with.


But regardless of all that banter....yeah. I'm a Socialist at heart. What that means to me, is what I think Socialism IS at it's core, anyway (which most people don't seem to understand), that being the principle value of: "The Good of the People should always come before the Good of the State". I do not necissarily believe in a so-called "Welfare State", as conservatives like to paint it, but I DO believe in safety nets, and I DO think that things like the quality health-care, a roof over your head, food in your stomach, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to get an education, should be fundamental rights. Hell, I'd go one more and say I think that, in the 21st Century, things like electricity and internet access should be something people don't have to pay for, as well. They've become integral enough parts of enough people's day to day lives.

But it isn't just about free health-care and free school and free stuff. Not at all. I think that a TRUE and GOOD Socialist society, would have many programs and institutions in place, that actually WORK, to prop people up, to get them on their feet, get them out the door, and HELP them to find their place in society, which is part of why access to education is so important. A lot of societies ills stem from a lack of education. And in general, more educated people tend to be more active, more inspired, and more productive people. Not to mention that, with the exception of corruption and "white collar" crime, more educated people tend to commit less crimes. That isn't universal, but the statistics bear out.


I think the right balance needs to be struck between Capitalism and Socialism. I think that all of the fundamental bases need to be covered by the State. That is the Socialist part. But I also think that people should be encouraged and enabled to START their own businesses, to offer new goods or services, to enhance the society and world around them. I think that there is a big future, both literally and figuratively, in investing heavily in infrastructure and the "Green Sector", by banking big on cleaner "Green" technologies, and putting a lot of people to work, not just on fixing highways and bridges, but on cleaning up existing pollution, getting the world caught up with the 21st Century, tackling Climate Change and Pollution head-on, etc. I think heavy investing in that alone, along with higher education, would be a great boon.


I just don't know where Democracy fits in, anymore. I can't say that I personally really believe in it. I WANT to. But I'm just so sick of the game. And I think the low voter turnout this last election shows that I'm hardly alone. I do think it's important for the People to have a voice. The people of a nation SHOULD have not just A say, but the BIGGEST say in how things are handled and what gets done. But like I said...you also have the problem of how we seem to HANDLE that. And how little the masses at large seem to truly KNOW what should be done, or what they want or need.


I guess I'll just end this by quoting a Megadeth song...

"If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it better work this time."

Well stated, and sums up a lot of my sentiments at least regarding the recent affairs of American politics. Though I tend to have a little more optimism than you regarding capitalism, at least in theory. It's *crony* capitalism/neoliberalism run rampant that I think becomes the problem. But I am definitly in favor of a Bernie-esque Democratic Socialism that still keeps Capitalism as the fundemental system but makes things more balanced and less rigged for the common person.

As a more classical liberal turned somewhat Libertarian, I was already sort of drifting away more and more from the DNC for the past 5 years or so, then what they did too Bernie pretty much was the final straw for me. I didn't agree with all of his policies, but he was certainly the most my views had in common with a politician aside from maybe Ron Paul. I'm not too proud to admit, I actually voted Trump because I was so upset with the DNC. It was really far more a anti Hillary/DNC vote than a pro Trump vote. My statement esentially being "I think your system sucks so much I'm actually willing to have this xenophobic buffoon businessman in office rather than your establishment candidate." And I think many share the same sentiment. 



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network

-I'm a pure utilitarian. So, I believe moral is what makes people happy, fulfilled, in the long run, taking a GLOBAL average. I'm also slightly egoist (as is everyone), so my choices sometimes prioritize what is good for me over what I consider moral.

-Based on this (as well as my, without a doubt, flawed reasoning) I believe in:

1. Capitalism, as a tool to generate productivity in society, and efficiently distribute resources.
2. Social redistribution, because the happiness that 1000$ can provide goes down as we go up the echelons.

I see the above 2 as a function system to optimize.

3. Calculated government intervention, as to accomplish common goals, planning the general direction of society. As seen in game theory, restricting the choices of the players can sometimes bring to situations advantageous to all, or, for the very least, the calibrated majority.

4. Globalism. Economic theory predicts that putting together two markets increases their average efficiency. Also, again, according to game theory, the less payers you have (if all rational), the better.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Socially liberal.

Economically centrist. 

Healthcare, Basic education, clean water, clean air, and some assistance programs I think are fundamental rights for each citizen. 

Capital based economy just works best, state run economies always fall apart. Should be well regulated however to prevent corporate corruption. 



VGPolyglot said:
numberwang said:

These seem to be opposite on the spectrum, how can they fit together?

They are not on the opposite end of the spectrum. Anarchism originated as a left-wing ideology, and most anarchists are socialists. Communism is an ideology that uses a socialist economic model, while having a classless, stateless society. I use the term anarcho-communist instead of jsut anarchist or communist is because later on the former label got taken over by anarcho-capitalists and the latter by Stalinists and Maoists.

I still wonder how that works together, anarchy has no rules (everbody does what is right in their own eyes) and socialism requires extensive state power over the individuals. I know academic anarchists who praise the free market instead (AnCaps) which seems a bit more coherent. Is there any real life example of an An-Co state?



epicurean said:
Soundwave said:

Healthcare is cheaper in other countries because they gov't enforces it to be. You pay more for healthcare because it's a for-profit business in the US. 

I can't speak to what other countries do, but in America they do a terrible job, if they do any at all, of regulating prices in anything they control.  Health Care costs were a small percentage of what it was before medicare came around, at which time everything skyrocketed.  Our gov't getting involved in anything raises costs.

That's because they half-assed it. What makes healthcare cheaper in other countries is that there is only one consumer (the government) that is negotiating prices with several producers. This gives the consumer a lot of power, and lets him drive the prices down. Like an inverse monopole. In the health industry, this is necessary, because demand is in many situations absolute (pay the cost or die), so the producer has almost free control over the price they demand (particularly with the retarded american copyright laws).

 

In countries where the healthcare system is entirely controlled by the government, prices are thus significantly lower, even before aca.

(Here a nice chart from 2010.) http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends_much_more_on_health_than_what_might_be_expected_1_slideshow.jpg

Also, you live shorter than pretty much everyone in that list except Turkey, Mexico, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary (who all pay less than a quarter of what you were paying BEFORE the aca.)

 

The american government simply forced everyone to pay without serving as intemediate. This gives even more power to the procucer, and consequently raised costs.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
numberwang said:
VGPolyglot said:

They are not on the opposite end of the spectrum. Anarchism originated as a left-wing ideology, and most anarchists are socialists. Communism is an ideology that uses a socialist economic model, while having a classless, stateless society. I use the term anarcho-communist instead of jsut anarchist or communist is because later on the former label got taken over by anarcho-capitalists and the latter by Stalinists and Maoists.

I still wonder how that works together, anarchy has no rules (everbody does what is right in their own eyes) and socialism requires extensive state power over the individuals. I know academic anarchists who praise the free market instead (AnCaps) which seems a bit more coherent. Is there any real life example of an An-Co state?

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no hierarchy or unjustified authority, with relations being handled in a horizontal, bottom-top manner. Socialism also does not require state power over individuals. There are no example of an anarcho-communist state, because it is by definition stateless. However, there were anarchist movements in Spain and Ukraine before they were overrun by Franco's army and the Soviet Union, respectively.



VGPolyglot said:
numberwang said:

I still wonder how that works together, anarchy has no rules (everbody does what is right in their own eyes) and socialism requires extensive state power over the individuals. I know academic anarchists who praise the free market instead (AnCaps) which seems a bit more coherent. Is there any real life example of an An-Co state?

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no hierarchy or unjustified authority, with relations being handled in a horizontal, bottom-top manner. Socialism also does not require state power over individuals. There are no example of an anarcho-communist state, because it is by definition stateless. However, there were anarchist movements in Spain and Ukraine before they were overrun by Franco's army and the Soviet Union, respectively.

Socialism would require intervention to redistribute wealth, no? And who is to intervene, if not someone that is collectively decided upon (which makes it a democratic government.)



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Social Democrat



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

palou said:
VGPolyglot said:

Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no hierarchy or unjustified authority, with relations being handled in a horizontal, bottom-top manner. Socialism also does not require state power over individuals. There are no example of an anarcho-communist state, because it is by definition stateless. However, there were anarchist movements in Spain and Ukraine before they were overrun by Franco's army and the Soviet Union, respectively.

Socialism would require intervention to redistribute wealth, no? And who is to intervene, if not someone that is collectively decided upon (which makes it a democratic government.)

It doesn't need a state to do that. The people would have to take control of the workplace and it make democratic, which by then it would make the state redundant. I do support a democratic system, it's just that I support direct democracy instead of representative democracy.



VGPolyglot said:
palou said:

Socialism would require intervention to redistribute wealth, no? And who is to intervene, if not someone that is collectively decided upon (which makes it a democratic government.)

It doesn't need a state to do that. The people would have to take control of the workplace and it make democratic, which by then it would make the state redundant. I do support a democratic system, it's just that I support direct democracy instead of representative democracy.

If you introduce the democratic principle (mayority decisions) there will be no more anarchy because all people have to follow majority decisions.

If 51% decide that alcohol is forbidden, will the remaining 49% have to follow that law in your example?