Well first off the United States is a constitutional republic, or a liberal democracy. we have a system of elected officials who are limited in power by a constitution and elected by citzens.
We need to keep our eyes out for the following characteristics:
Corporatocracy Rule by corporations; a system of governance where an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[19] Its use is generally pejorative. Fictional examples include OCP in Robocop
Kakistocracy Rule by the stupid; a system of governance where the worst or least-qualified citizens govern or dictate policies. Due to human nature being inherently flawed, it has been suggested that every government which has ever existed has been a prime example of kakistocracy. See Idiocracy. Kleptocracy (Mafia state) Rule by thieves; a system of governance where its officials and the ruling class in general pursue personal wealth and political power at the expense of the wider population. In strict terms kleptocracy is not a form of government but a characteristic of a government engaged in such behavior. Examples include Mexico as being considered a Narcokleptocracy, since its democratic government is perceived to be corrupted by those who profit from trade in illegal drugs smuggled into the United States.
Phobiocracy Rule by fear and hate;[20] a system of governance where the basic organizing principles is the use of fear mongering to keep those being ruled in line; this attribute is preferred tool of control that all forms of governments seemed to have in common over the centuries. What makes this extremely effective is the (unfortunately) common human trait of not trusting people one doesn't know. The most commonly used fear throughout history is fear of "rapacious outsiders" (i.e. barbarians, communists, terrorists, etc.), who would "rampage over the homeland if not for the brave military"; the United States has been accused of "hardliner phobiocratic-policies" which triggered racial segregation and the Cold War.[21] Add to this the policy of making the populace fear themselves and/or the rulers as well; the pattern is to have the ruled be too afraid to resist the rulers, who were usually local; to manipulate the citizenry into activities deemed desirable by the rulers, and to divide the populace into small/fearful/ignorant groups; and at the same time fear the possibility of invasion, or at least banditry, even more due to the consequences of noncompliance in the population. Well-informed people are less fearful than those who are ignorant or uneducated; fear makes people do stupid things.
@Dantos4 I am a socialist becuase I think that a better world is possible in the long run. Also, the abrupt change from the really back-ward dicatorship countries to another form of dictatorship is irrelevant for my own view of socialsim except to demonstrate how it should *not* be done.
Modern democracies have a far greater chance of creating a working socialist state than what Tsarist russia had. The dividing line is if people in general feel that they have power over the state, a state with transparant policies.
I agree completely with the first part, these are perfect examples of how socialism should *not* be done. The Scandinavian countries and, to a small extent, Latin American countries such as Venezuela have shown that it is possible to be "socialist" and operate in the global society.
I would much rather see a socialist/communist world than a purely capitalist one. That is certain. Although I feel a mix of options is best, myself.
The second part... I'm not sure. We shall have to see that with time. I hope you are right, I really do. My gut feeling tells me that any form of social change is likely to be in either smaller countries with less capitalist influences (Scandinavia etc) or will come from in one form of proletariat revolution or another.
My own opinion is that people don't seem to care either way anymore. At least not majorly in the UK. It's more a sport where you root for your colour/team than any particular policies or state decisions. I don't know, I don't really have much faith in democracy anymore, it can be so easily manipulated.
EDIT: With the waning US capitalist influence and the rise of China, we could potentially see a rise of the left in many places I suppose. I don't think that's something we'll see in our lifetimes, though.
Yeah, democracy certianly has come under strain lately, but I am unsure about what other systems to fight for. In my view, the fallacies, which @fighting_ferret also seems to write about, seems to be an argument for *more* democracy. That is:
-Increasing the knowledge the people have over the doings on in the state, which includes corporations and state officials. Critical views abound. -Broadening democratic control over the economy. People will loose faith in the state if it doesnt help them in every day life, which means that if some, not all get all the goods faith in democracy will falter. -More power in everyday life. Can you boss fire you on a whim after 10 years in the company? What do you think about the local infrastructure/schools/elderly homes? <- Make people have some degree of experienced control.
I dont think people are stupid, they just have an inconsequential/apathetic stance and dont bother to take power because they believe it is futile.
It does seem that most other options are futile in the long run (although benevolent dictatorships are bliss in the short term), to a certain extent democracy has it's downsides too. But I guess if we're going to have some form of collaborative civilised society, the people living in said society should have a fair say in what goes on. It just seems to make sense. If we're all in this together, we should all get a say.
We seem to be on the right tracks as a race, we're just doing it all in a roundabout way with plenty of corruption and power-hungry psychopathy to boot :P
Better an armchair politician than not caring about the issues at all.
I never said to ignore issues, I vote in every election and inform myself enough to make a quality decision But a vast number of people in the USA has developed a sick obsession with politics The United States is a more divided and dysfunctional country then ever So whose fault is that ? But life is too short and too precious to waste on politics People that live to promote their own personal agenda I both pity and fear I have seen too many that have no ability to reason or be reasoned with They need to get a life
I wonder how one can be 'economically right, socially left'. Doesn't social mean taking care of eachother, creating a society where nobody falls of the economical cliff, wealth is more equally distributed? How can one be socially left without being economically left as well? What does 'socially' mean if sharing ain't part of it?
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Being socially left doesn't necessarily mean caring about everyone else. It just means that you are more accepting of change on social issues. You're confusing "social issues" with "being social".
I think Churchill had it correct (even if he may not have been the first to suggest this) - If you are not a liberal in your twenties you have no heart - if you are not a conservative after forty you have no brain...
This pretty much sums up where I've been over the past 50ish years altho today I am so disgusted/angry with US politics (or what passes for it today) that I have joined the Apathetics - Our Motto is "The trouble with the world today is Apathy - but who cares..."
I got a much more left result than I did when I took the same test ten years ago.:)
These were my results
Economic Left/Right: 3.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
I've never really been much of a fan of that compass. Not saying I've found a better one, but a few of the statements like "the rich are too highly taxed", "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism." and "People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality." can vary by the country they are applied in.
My results were fairly Left and Libertarian. @Wanderon: Not sure I agree with that quote. You can be progressive and intelligent after forty, I'm sure.:)
Both socialism and democracy(and all their variations) are illusions at this stage of our development as humans. I lean towards democracy because it seems a little less illusionary(for now). But overall, somewhere in between is the best, I think.
I wonder how one can be 'economically right, socially left'. Doesn't social mean taking care of eachother, creating a society where nobody falls of the economical cliff, wealth is more equally distributed? How can one be socially left without being economically left as well? What does 'socially' mean if sharing ain't part of it?
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Being socially left doesn't necessarily mean caring about everyone else. It just means that you are more accepting of change on social issues. You're confusing "social issues" with "being social".
Sorry, I'm a bit late too react, but what are the social issues referred to? I may be single minded, but with 'social issues' I think about how well the poor are treated, if trading systems are just, there's enough healthcare and welfare. In Holland 'The social issue' ('de sociale kwestie') in the beginning of the 20th century was how to deal with poverty etc. We handled it pretty well by creating worker's rights and a welfare state, which is gradually being demolished alas.
What other 'social issues' are there, that could create a 'libertarian right'? (if i got the international terminology right, they seem to differ from country to country, in Holland 'liberal' is right-wing and trying to demolish the welfare state and increase the gap between rich and poor).
I could think of things like gay marriage, but that's more of a cultural than a social issue, isn't it?
What I find very, very sad in real life, is how Marx's ideas were misrepresented in the Soviet Union, by creating a party-dictatorship instead of a land ruled by the people and economy led by the workers, as Marx intended. The errors of the USSR in interpreting Marxism lead to the false belief capitalism is the best system in existence.
It's a parody, obviously.:) I find it darkly funny, but there do seem to be elements of society who would be happy if the world was like this, so to speak.
I wonder how one can be 'economically right, socially left'. Doesn't social mean taking care of eachother, creating a society where nobody falls of the economical cliff, wealth is more equally distributed? How can one be socially left without being economically left as well? What does 'socially' mean if sharing ain't part of it?
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Being socially left doesn't necessarily mean caring about everyone else. It just means that you are more accepting of change on social issues. You're confusing "social issues" with "being social".
Sorry, I'm a bit late too react, but what are the social issues referred to? I may be single minded, but with 'social issues' I think about how well the poor are treated, if trading systems are just, there's enough healthcare and welfare. In Holland 'The social issue' ('de sociale kwestie') in the beginning of the 20th century was how to deal with poverty etc. We handled it pretty well by creating worker's rights and a welfare state, which is gradually being demolished alas.
What other 'social issues' are there, that could create a 'libertarian right'? (if i got the international terminology right, they seem to differ from country to country, in Holland 'liberal' is right-wing and trying to demolish the welfare state and increase the gap between rich and poor).
I could think of things like gay marriage, but that's more of a cultural than a social issue, isn't it?
I would think dealing with poverty and worker's rights are economic issues, and social issues are the things you describe as cultural issues. At least that's how I understand it. Maybe North America and Europe use different terminology.
I wonder how one can be 'economically right, socially left'. Doesn't social mean taking care of eachother, creating a society where nobody falls of the economical cliff, wealth is more equally distributed? How can one be socially left without being economically left as well? What does 'socially' mean if sharing ain't part of it?
I don't think that is necessarily the case. Being socially left doesn't necessarily mean caring about everyone else. It just means that you are more accepting of change on social issues. You're confusing "social issues" with "being social".
Sorry, I'm a bit late too react, but what are the social issues referred to? I may be single minded, but with 'social issues' I think about how well the poor are treated, if trading systems are just, there's enough healthcare and welfare. In Holland 'The social issue' ('de sociale kwestie') in the beginning of the 20th century was how to deal with poverty etc. We handled it pretty well by creating worker's rights and a welfare state, which is gradually being demolished alas.
What other 'social issues' are there, that could create a 'libertarian right'? (if i got the international terminology right, they seem to differ from country to country, in Holland 'liberal' is right-wing and trying to demolish the welfare state and increase the gap between rich and poor).
I could think of things like gay marriage, but that's more of a cultural than a social issue, isn't it?
I would think dealing with poverty and worker's rights are economic issues, and social issues are the things you describe as cultural issues. At least that's how I understand it. Maybe North America and Europe use different terminology.
In Canada I would say a fiscal conservative describes one of two things; either someone advocating for a reduction in the role of government on spending on social programs like welfare, healthcare, etc or someone advocating for more stringent rules on spending and accountable government. A fiscal liberal (despite the wikipedia definition for fiscal liberalism) are more inclined to push for government spending in areas like welfare, healthcare, etc though they sometimes also will push for accountability.
A social liberal (arguably "socially left" depending on degree I suppose) is someone who would advocate for less government involvement in areas like consensual sex, abortion, relationships, alcohol/drug consumption/purchasing, but would advocate for greater aboriginal rights (and financial assistance though that would fall under fiscal issues as well). Whereas a social conservative (socially right-wing) is more "traditionalist". By that I mean they are more in favour of a ban of gay marriage/unions and encouraging "traditional" marriages, as well as restrictions on abortions, and current/greater drug restrictions. Amongst social conservatives there are also monarchists (big on a connection to the monarchy and I guess that tradition).
Its a part of Canadian Heritage... this is why our most successful party has been Centrist. I have no issue with conservative economic theory and good business practices, but on nearly any socially conservative issue I end up liberal. I may not LIKE some socially liberal ideas, and am naturally a bit prudish, but live and let live usually works. Oppression for its own sake is stupid, so even if I'd prefer no PDA, I am aware not everyone is a prude, and I hate double standards.
I am outraged my country is disenfranchised by this poll! Peace! Order! Good Government! (Yes, we are a very, very milqutoast nation sometimes)
I do not intend to intefere about americas politic however is there no neutral? It would be hard for anyone to make choice between facist and commies.
Agreed! I don't swing either way. I'm not into socialism (especially the Fabian Party kind of socialism - i.e. the Animal Farm style "everybody is equal but some are more equal than others!"), but I don't like capitalism either. I also hate the thought of everything being controlled by the state, but some things really do need to be at least government regulated (in the UK we have privatised transport and energy, and it doesn't work well at all!).
The biggest thing for me is freedom of speech, which is something a lot of people take for granted, to the point where they start to actually believe the opposite. Too often, I hear so-called "liberals" trying to stop people from saying things that they consider right-wing, and that disgusts me. I may not like something that somebody says, but they still have the right to say it. Argue the point, by all means, but don't try to tell me what I should think and then claim to be "liberal", while calling me a fascist, or declaring me to be an idiot, for not agreeing with you, so that you can wallow in your intellectual superiority, firmly entrenched in your sincere belief that you are better than everybody else. (not you personally...the people who behave like this ;-) )
Sorry for the mini-rant, just had to get it off my chest. :-) Politics is always a hot topic on any forum, and the reason for this is that a lot of people from both sides of the camp simply won't tolerate the other side's views, so discussions quickly escalate. I've seen it happen too many times, and both sides are often equally guilty of it.
i'd go with right but mostly because Ed Milliband is an idiot. i apologise to any labour supporters who might be on the forums i also agree that David cameron is a Knobhead and Nick Clegg is a doormat
Comments
We need to keep our eyes out for the following characteristics:
Corporatocracy Rule by corporations; a system of governance where an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[19] Its use is generally pejorative. Fictional examples include OCP in Robocop
Kakistocracy Rule by the stupid; a system of governance where the worst or least-qualified citizens govern or dictate policies. Due to human nature being inherently flawed, it has been suggested that every government which has ever existed has been a prime example of kakistocracy. See Idiocracy.
Kleptocracy (Mafia state) Rule by thieves; a system of governance where its officials and the ruling class in general pursue personal wealth and political power at the expense of the wider population. In strict terms kleptocracy is not a form of government but a characteristic of a government engaged in such behavior. Examples include Mexico as being considered a Narcokleptocracy, since its democratic government is perceived to be corrupted by those who profit from trade in illegal drugs smuggled into the United States.
Phobiocracy Rule by fear and hate;[20] a system of governance where the basic organizing principles is the use of fear mongering to keep those being ruled in line; this attribute is preferred tool of control that all forms of governments seemed to have in common over the centuries. What makes this extremely effective is the (unfortunately) common human trait of not trusting people one doesn't know. The most commonly used fear throughout history is fear of "rapacious outsiders" (i.e. barbarians, communists, terrorists, etc.), who would "rampage over the homeland if not for the brave military"; the United States has been accused of "hardliner phobiocratic-policies" which triggered racial segregation and the Cold War.[21] Add to this the policy of making the populace fear themselves and/or the rulers as well; the pattern is to have the ruled be too afraid to resist the rulers, who were usually local; to manipulate the citizenry into activities deemed desirable by the rulers, and to divide the populace into small/fearful/ignorant groups; and at the same time fear the possibility of invasion, or at least banditry, even more due to the consequences of noncompliance in the population. Well-informed people are less fearful than those who are ignorant or uneducated; fear makes people do stupid things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#By_elements_of_where_decision-making_power_is_held
I would much rather see a socialist/communist world than a purely capitalist one. That is certain. Although I feel a mix of options is best, myself.
The second part... I'm not sure. We shall have to see that with time. I hope you are right, I really do. My gut feeling tells me that any form of social change is likely to be in either smaller countries with less capitalist influences (Scandinavia etc) or will come from in one form of proletariat revolution or another.
My own opinion is that people don't seem to care either way anymore. At least not majorly in the UK. It's more a sport where you root for your colour/team than any particular policies or state decisions. I don't know, I don't really have much faith in democracy anymore, it can be so easily manipulated.
EDIT: With the waning US capitalist influence and the rise of China, we could potentially see a rise of the left in many places I suppose. I don't think that's something we'll see in our lifetimes, though.
-Increasing the knowledge the people have over the doings on in the state, which includes corporations and state officials. Critical views abound.
-Broadening democratic control over the economy. People will loose faith in the state if it doesnt help them in every day life, which means that if some, not all get all the goods faith in democracy will falter.
-More power in everyday life. Can you boss fire you on a whim after 10 years in the company? What do you think about the local infrastructure/schools/elderly homes? <- Make people have some degree of experienced control.
I dont think people are stupid, they just have an inconsequential/apathetic stance and dont bother to take power because they believe it is futile.
We seem to be on the right tracks as a race, we're just doing it all in a roundabout way with plenty of corruption and power-hungry psychopathy to boot :P
after my sword
on haste
with potion of storm giant stregth
every other person in the USA is a armchair politician
America is not a better country for it
But a vast number of people in the USA has developed a sick obsession with politics
The United States is a more divided and dysfunctional country then ever
So whose fault is that ?
But life is too short and too precious to waste on politics
People that live to promote their own personal agenda
I both pity and fear
I have seen too many that have no ability to reason or be reasoned with
They need to get a life
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
I got a much more left result than I did when I took the same test ten years ago.:)
This pretty much sums up where I've been over the past 50ish years altho today I am so disgusted/angry with US politics (or what passes for it today) that I have joined the Apathetics - Our Motto is "The trouble with the world today is Apathy - but who cares..."
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.95
I've never really been much of a fan of that compass. Not saying I've found a better one, but a few of the statements like "the rich are too highly taxed", "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism." and "People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality." can vary by the country they are applied in.
@Wanderon: Not sure I agree with that quote. You can be progressive and intelligent after forty, I'm sure.:)
What other 'social issues' are there, that could create a 'libertarian right'? (if i got the international terminology right, they seem to differ from country to country, in Holland 'liberal' is right-wing and trying to demolish the welfare state and increase the gap between rich and poor).
I could think of things like gay marriage, but that's more of a cultural than a social issue, isn't it?
What I find very, very sad in real life, is how Marx's ideas were misrepresented in the Soviet Union, by creating a party-dictatorship instead of a land ruled by the people and economy led by the workers, as Marx intended. The errors of the USSR in interpreting Marxism lead to the false belief capitalism is the best system in existence.
A social liberal (arguably "socially left" depending on degree I suppose) is someone who would advocate for less government involvement in areas like consensual sex, abortion, relationships, alcohol/drug consumption/purchasing, but would advocate for greater aboriginal rights (and financial assistance though that would fall under fiscal issues as well). Whereas a social conservative (socially right-wing) is more "traditionalist". By that I mean they are more in favour of a ban of gay marriage/unions and encouraging "traditional" marriages, as well as restrictions on abortions, and current/greater drug restrictions. Amongst social conservatives there are also monarchists (big on a connection to the monarchy and I guess that tradition).
Eating my own kind is the last thing I'd do.
I didn't sign up for some political discussion! YOU LIED TO ME!
Its a part of Canadian Heritage... this is why our most successful party has been Centrist. I have no issue with conservative economic theory and good business practices, but on nearly any socially conservative issue I end up liberal. I may not LIKE some socially liberal ideas, and am naturally a bit prudish, but live and let live usually works. Oppression for its own sake is stupid, so even if I'd prefer no PDA, I am aware not everyone is a prude, and I hate double standards.
I am outraged my country is disenfranchised by this poll! Peace! Order! Good Government! (Yes, we are a very, very milqutoast nation sometimes)
The biggest thing for me is freedom of speech, which is something a lot of people take for granted, to the point where they start to actually believe the opposite. Too often, I hear so-called "liberals" trying to stop people from saying things that they consider right-wing, and that disgusts me. I may not like something that somebody says, but they still have the right to say it. Argue the point, by all means, but don't try to tell me what I should think and then claim to be "liberal", while calling me a fascist, or declaring me to be an idiot, for not agreeing with you, so that you can wallow in your intellectual superiority, firmly entrenched in your sincere belief that you are better than everybody else. (not you personally...the people who behave like this ;-) )
Sorry for the mini-rant, just had to get it off my chest. :-) Politics is always a hot topic on any forum, and the reason for this is that a lot of people from both sides of the camp simply won't tolerate the other side's views, so discussions quickly escalate. I've seen it happen too many times, and both sides are often equally guilty of it.
In my defence the thread is very old, and was made long before (relatively) the 50/50 threads.
i apologise to any labour supporters who might be on the forums
i also agree that David cameron is a Knobhead and Nick Clegg is a doormat