Political Stripes

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 20, 2006 14:33
VIEWED: 4118
PAGE 2 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:21 PM

Quote:
I've recently taken a job at a software company with a pretty radical agenda - namely to change the world. The fascinating thing, and the most appealing part for me personally, is that they plan to do it despite government.

Which is why I support the Free Software Foundation, and open source in general.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:47 PM

I don't know where I stand. I see the dangers of "big" anything, but when you have the "problem of the commons" on a big scale then you need big solutions. The ozone hole, for example, was stabilized by the Montreal Protocol. Needs more thought.

Maybe the groups I support says something about me: Planned Parenthood, Linux (any flavor), FSF, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, Amnesty International, Tree People, CAW, Earth Justice, public broadcasting, MoveOn, various labor organizations, and some politicians if they're good enough. Right now that means Feingold.

BTW- I think there is a misunderstanding about Marxism. Not a Marxist myself, but I was told that Marx considered the state to be a tool of oppression by the corporations (fascism as the natural expression of capitalism). In his vision the state was supposed to "wither away". I find a curious overlap between Marxists and Libertarians when it comes their views of "the state".

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:14 PM

Arawen,

Clafication point. You said 'liberal' economic policy. A while back we got into a spat on the forum because of a misunderstanding on the meaning of this term that went as follows:
In America, the economic left seems to tend towards state supported and collectivist, socialized medicine for example, etc.
In britain, correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall someone posting that liberal economics were free market and laissez-faire.

Signym,

On the Marx, that's interesting, I hadn't heard that. Maybe someone here knows Marx better. I think that everyong probably agrees that Marxism has never really come to be, but has only been a component of some other things. I'd never heard that anything in it was of a libertarian bent, certainly the communist states that have been have been the farthest from libertarian of anything that has ever been.

To me, corporation is a free right of the people to organize economically, and without it, the economic would quickly tend towards a dictatorial nature.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:35 PM

I don't think there is any conflict of terms.

You choose to use "liberal economics" as "the economics of liberals" where as the rest of the world takes it to mean economics "liberated" from restrictions.

You live in a "liberal democracy" meaning a free and tolerant democratic state, not that only liberals can vote ;)

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I would add that I support the rights of individuals to do their own thing, as long as they're not hurting others ... In short I guess this, and many issues like it, should not be a federal policy issue.

That's the crux of my point. Most things aren't federal policy issues, they're state or personal issues. Don't want to marry a man? Don't. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to die? Don't commit suicide. Keep your religion or your legal bullshit off my proverbial lawn, so to speak. It's not the federal government's job to interfere with people and live their lives for them. Those are state and local issues (at best; I don't even consider them issues at all - gay marriage is tricky because it involves soc. sec benefits and such, but even that is minimal imo).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:22 AM

I think this is from Engels, not Marx, but prolly close enuf to get the gist

Quote:
Former society, moving in class antagonisms, had need of the state, that is, an organisation of the exploiting class at each period for the maintenance of its ... production; therefore, in particular, for the forcible holding down of the exploited class in the conditions of oppression (slavery, bondage or serfdom, wagelabour)

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/lenin-staterev.html "The state" is an enemy of "the people".

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

PROGDEM

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:15 AM

Some further background on why the supposed communist regimes of the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. were all authoritarian, rather than anarchistic as Marx predicted. If people like Mao, Lenin, and Castro had been strict, or even moderately faithful Marxists they would have realized that no revolution which took place in a single country that had not experienced a period of capitalist economic organization could be THE revolution. Marx's predicted revolution would have had to have been worldwide, caused by the excess unemployment, monopolization, and economic instability that he thought capitalism would bring, and would have to destroy the capitalist system completely. Afterward Marx thought that there would be no need for government, as there was no class struggle to regulate. To account for this Lenin came up with the idea of the Vanguard Party, which was supposed to protect the nascent communist movement in Russia, since technically Russia didn't qualify as a nation that could have a genuine communist revolution. After he did this, and gained power over the largest empire in history because of it, many other communist leaders followed suit, sometimes at the behest of Moscow. This is one of the reasons that no one realizes that in a Marxist utopia, there is no government, and one of the reasons that 'communist' is a terribly misused word in the US.

I actually just started posting here, so I am not sure whether knowing my political opinions is that worthwhile.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 19, 2006 1:33 PM

Quote:
I actually just started posting here, so I am not sure whether knowing my political opinions is that worthwhile.

Welcome aboard, Progdem! Well, apparently you know several orders of magnitude more than we do about Marxism. Any opinion that enlightens our discussion with more information is always worthwhile.

Would the moniker "progdem" be a clue that your political stripe is "progressive democrat"? And, how would you describe that?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:01 PM

Fletch,

Don't assume the entire world uses words the way you do either. I was granting a middle ground ambiguity, but I certainly don't accept that I'm alone, and everyone always agrees with you. My statement was based on our previous argument.

My point here was how you interpret this statement might depend on which side of the atlantic you're on.

Quote:
Arawen posted:
I lean conservative on social issues and liberal on economic issues

Leaning liberal on economic issues in America might be taken to mean big govt, pro-social programs, public works projects, at least in the circles I travel in, but I'm willing to grant that people hear, probably because of a large number of brits, seem to sometimes mean free-market and laissez-faire by this. I think that historically, the world liberal was used in a different context, and this might have something to do with it. This thread wasn't for arguing, it just was for clarification to avoid more foot in mouth.

My point was after reading that line I wasn't sure where Arawen stood.

RUE

Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:55 PM

In general, as I said, I believe in the power of cooperation. Sometimes it is government, sometimes cooperatives.

But your rights end at my nose - or words to that effect. If you form a business which pollutes the air I breathe and takes years off my life - that gives me a stake in what you do and a justification to control it.

Also, corporations are economic entities and should be legally treated as such (though a long-ago Supreme Court ruling said they were 'individuals' with constitutional rights). As anyone with half a brain knows, they are not individuals.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE