Where do you place yourself on the political spectrum?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Spectrum? I operate through a wormhole traversing in and out of the "spectrum" in the 5th Dimension. Don't be on the spectrum, that's a sucker's game.

Anyway, I used to fancy myself something of a "democratic socialist", but then I realized what kind of talent rises to the top in such a system, and what the results will inevitably be. So now I believe in balancing sources of power like private wealth and a democratic mandate against each other, which should make me a Centrist of some sort. Not that the pop "left" mob appreciates the difference between that and "Muh Fash-ism!"

CM156:
If statements were meals, that would be the equivalent to eating unflavored rice crisps.

Indeed. There's nothing like a broad mission statement to sound superficially nice but end up giving very little idea what's actually going on.

The LDs are a economically capitalist, but broadly so; they span from classical liberals to social liberals so overlap with Labour and Conservatives and average up between the two; which way they lean depends on which wing is in the ascendant at the time (currently it's the economically laissez-faire). They are less hierarchical / authoritarian than either Con/Lab: they tend to favour local empowerment (i.e. decentralisation), as well as empowerment and greater input from the base electorate. They are free trade, internationalist (hence pro-EU), pro-environmentalist, and favour electoral reform (proportional representation) so that Parliament better represents the public's actual voting and views.

Socially they are obviously liberal - how you want to live your life is your business, and should not be constrained without good reason. Obviously, they tend to be pro-feminism, gay rights, etc. However, as the LDs retain a stronger attachment to classic liberal thinking, few (by my experience) are enthusiastic about the sort of progressivist activism much complained about by some right-wingers. The bit that's basically about human development in the mission statement is key; via social liberal thought the state has a key role in providing opportunities for developing their potential (although the responsibility to use those opportunities remains with the individual).

Centrist. I don't really concern myself with which side is more wrong as long as they are wrong. I like to think I'm fairly rational, and that rationale often comes off quite harsh.

StatusNil:
So now I believe in balancing sources of power like private wealth and a democratic mandate against each other, which should make me a Centrist of some sort. Not that the pop "left" mob appreciates the difference between that and "Muh Fash-ism!"

Er, that is not far from what fascism effectively attempted to do. Bending all of society to the service of the state involved forcing various sectors of society to work with eacher: in practice, this meant compelling compromises between the desires of the capitalist and the masses which could be viewed as economically centreist.

Fascism is considered far right because it was highly socially conservative, nationalist, rigidly ordered and hierarchical.

Agema:

Er, that is not far from what fascism effectively attempted to do. Bending all of society to the service of the state involved forcing various sectors of society to work with eacher: in practice, this meant compelling compromises between the desires of the capitalist and the masses which could be viewed as economically centreist.

Fascism is considered far right because it was highly socially conservative, nationalist, rigidly ordered and hierarchical.

Nope, as you said, Fascism tried to co-opt private property to the State by compromise. What I'm talking about is opposing forces, a dynamic equilibrium.

Furthermore, I don't really consider Fascism "highly socially conservative", since it was radically collectivist. That's not conservative, it doesn't seek to restore a past state or retain the pre-Fascist one. It was a progressive, transformative movement. They just had some disagreements with the Communists about the direction of the progress and the proper social order.

StatusNil:

Furthermore, I don't really consider Fascism "highly socially conservative", since it was radically collectivist. That's not conservative, it doesn't seek to restore a past state or retain the pre-Fascist one.

It was far from "radically collectivist". Firstly, it violently disassembled workers' collective bargaining power, and hobbled workers' rights. It enforced a rigid class-based hierarchy, in which both social mobility and equal earnings were impossible to achieve. Finally, it was extremely picky about who had the right to be involved in this social structure, killing (or sometimes exiling) those it deemed unworthy. The working class in a Fascist society had no representation in work, fewer rights, and no ability to challenge it. Pay structures were extremely imbalanced, even more so than in conventional early-Capitalist societies.

Everything here is utter anathema to what we understand as "collectivism". People just seem to conflate the notion of working for the good of the State as "collectivism", when it's actually anything but.

The Fascists also intensely romanticised the past eras of their respective countries, constantly harking back to (mostly mythologised) past glory. There is a reason the Fascists were entertained by the conservative movements of their day (Hindenburg, Horthy, the Spanish conservatives), but were strongly opposed by the Social Democratic parties. The Social Democrats and Communist parties were the first political groups to be violently targeted by the Fascists.

Silvanus:

It was far from "radically collectivist". Firstly, it violently disassembled workers' collective bargaining power, and hobbled workers' rights. It enforced a rigid class-based hierarchy, in which both social mobility and equal earnings were impossible to achieve. Finally, it was extremely picky about who had the right to be involved in this social structure, killing (or sometimes exiling) those it deemed unworthy. The working class in a Fascist society had no representation in work, fewer rights, and no ability to challenge it. Pay structures were extremely imbalanced, even more so than in conventional early-Capitalist societies.

Everything here is utter anathema to what we understand as "collectivism". People just seem to conflate the notion of working for the good of the State as "collectivism", when it's actually anything but.

The Fascists also intensely romanticised the past eras of their respective countries, constantly harking back to (mostly mythologised) past glory. There is a reason the Fascists were entertained by the conservative movements of their day (Hindenburg, Horthy, the Spanish conservatives), but were strongly opposed by the Social Democratic parties. The Social Democrats and Communist parties were the first political groups to be violently targeted by the Fascists.

Everyone living and dying solely for the greater glory of the Fascist State, or "The Race" in the case of the Nazis, is utter anathema to collectivism? I should think not. It's just another variety. What it is anathema to is individualism, like what those Liberals promote.

Sure, these people romanticized the mythic past, but they were very much about the future. I've been over this with more than once even here, complete with pertinent quotes from Mussolini and co., so please pardon me for not doing so again. And of course they were violently opposed to their Left counterparts, they were direct competitors. Like Sega and Nintendo.

As for the conservative allies of Fascists, it was generally perceived as a choice between them and the communists. At that time, the latter already had a track record to reckon with.

FalloutJack:
An Independent in the truest sense. I have no party loyalties, except to what I think is the correct path.

Gordon_4:
I got no clue honestly.

altnameJag:

If there's a pithy term for all that, it'd be interesting to hear.

If you do this test, it will give you some terminology to describe what you believe. You don't have to agree with it but it should give you an idea.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

StatusNil:

Everyone living and dying solely for the greater glory of the Fascist State, or "The Race" in the case of the Nazis, is utter anathema to collectivism? I should think not. It's just another variety. What it is anathema to is individualism, like what those Liberals promote.

Collectivism, as it is widely understood, can be described as the prioritisation of society-- the entirety of the group-- over competing individual needs.

The Fascists in Italy, Germany and Spain created a system in which some sectors of society work solely for the benefit of other sectors of society; some individual needs violently suppress other individual needs. The utter victory of some over others, by design.

The purpose of collectivism is to benefit all who take part collectively. This could not be further from the Fascist experiment, which by its very design benefited some members and forced others through violence to support the former.

StatusNil:

Sure, these people romanticized the mythic past, but they were very much about the future. I've been over this with more than once even here, complete with pertinent quotes from Mussolini and co., so please pardon me for not doing so again. And of course they were violently opposed to their Left counterparts, they were direct competitors. Like Sega and Nintendo.

You've been over it before, yes, and I doubt people were convinced then, either (at least if they'd read their history). Mussolini and Franco also spoke (and wrote) at length about "returning to glory", the purity of the past. Members of Franco's movement even envisaged what they called "the end of history"; the Fascist state as the end stage of development, with no further onward movement.

StatusNil:

As for the conservative allies of Fascists, it was generally perceived as a choice between them and the communists. At that time, the latter already had a track record to reckon with.

They also supported the Fascists' violent efforts against the more peaceful opponents, such as the SDP, or the social Democrats in the Italian Biennio Nero.

Before I?m anything else, I?m a nihilist. I believe firmly that, if not the worst possible outcome, things will invariably change for the worst, that life and anything we choose to do with it is meaningless, and that the only constant people share is insignificance.

Needless to say... I don?t often engage in political discourse... mostly because there would be no end game in it for me. Some argue with the hope of convincing others to see their point of view, but I don?t want more people like me to exist in the world.

Were you to somehow strip away all those layers of apathy and see the political beliefs underneath it? Well, I guess my stance on most things can be summed up as ?if you?re not hurting anyone, do what you want? and ?I truly don?t care about national pride or tradition?. So I?d imagine I?d end up somewhere center-left

Pretty left leaning I suppose. I think abortions are pretty much entirely a womans choice, I believe in equality of opportunity, that religion should have as little of a role in government as possible, that taxes should be based on the amount that can be afforded (in other words a progressive tax that is higher on rich then poor), and that violence has no place in political discourse.

On the high ground with a lightsaber

dscross:

If you do this test, it will give you some terminology to describe what you believe. You don't have to agree with it but it should give you an idea.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I've done that test time and again, and I always end up at the same place. More or less.
Yet it's woefully inadequate in categorizing your political beliefs. Especially so in today's world.

I would love to find another (more in-depth) test, which takes other "dimensions" into aspect.

Before that Event which shall not be named, I was basically a progressive leftist (with some reservations), and though I still agree with a lot of those points today, my priorities has shifted to fight for their continued existence against people supposedly on my side, yet who are hollowing out and replacing those same principles. Instead of just fighting for a fairer, more equal and just society.
I'm staunchly against authoritarian methods yet fascists (which can come from both sides) are gaining ever more traction and clamp down on our freedoms and rights.
Against the Ctrl-Left, I've become Alt-Right.

image

Vendor-Lazarus:

I've done that test time and again, and I always end up at the same place. More or less.
Yet it's woefully inadequate in categorizing your political beliefs. Especially so in today's world.

I think it's adequate to give you an initial idea if you don't know the terminology. You know the terminology so you want more detail, and that's ok, but I was just suggesting it for people who didn't and wanted to know a bit more about how the labels work. Everything in life that humans put a label on or categorise is usually only small part of the picture, but it helps when communicating your beliefs to people who only haven't looked very hard into the terminology.

I place myself left-wing. Actual left wing, someone who won't defend Goldman Sachs, and Neoliberals like New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy who is not in the left-wing, he is a pseudo-right winger who worked for the worst hedge fund in the world. If people here knew half of the things Goldman Sachs did, they wouldn't have defended him like they did in that twin governor election thread.

I also will not vote for Cory Booker if it comes down to him, and Donald Trump in 2020, and I live in a purple state.

#NoNeoliberalShills2020

StatusNil:
Furthermore, I don't really consider Fascism "highly socially conservative", since it was radically collectivist.

That's not conservative, it doesn't seek to restore a past state or retain the pre-Fascist one. It was a progressive, transformative movement. They just had some disagreements with the Communists about the direction of the progress and the proper social order.

I think this is an analysis very typical of the US right wing (libertarian / conservative), and quite a misleading one. I think they promote it in large part because it suits their own ideological/political ends, rather than because it is necessarily that convincing in a wider picture: they feel the need to fiddle an argument to place the world's most abusive regimes as far from themselves as possible.

Conservatism is just not the polar opposite of collectivism for the two to be incompatible - let's make that clear immediately. There is right-wing collectivism. One can hardly deny various collectivist impulses of fascism, particularly the extreme nature of its belief in subordination to the nation state. On the other hand, I see no reason to argue that many conservative regimes across the years have not been substantially collectivist too. I don't think "collectivism" is an adequate way to lump the right-wing hierarchical economic, social and political ownership and control by elites over the masses with conceptually extremely different left-wing collectivism.

Fascism was far less progressive than you make out. In many ways, it changed remarkable little. They still had aristocrats (Mussolini didn't even depose the King of Italy), and a capitalist class, and a working class, and the plce of religion. For all their messianic ideological zeal and new governance, fundamentally almost the entire social structure of the state went unchanged. Nor can you ignore that the fascists were chiefly voted for, enabled and raised to power by conservatives: because fascism actually offered a vision of the country immensely appealing to them. And let's not forget that in all manner of things like art, literature, music etc. they were crushingly dull traditionalists.

Ultimately, there's a good reason so many bog-standard right wing autocracies don't look that different from facsism - they're certainly a damn sight closer to fascism than Communism ever was. And I think that's a far more penetrating angle to examine and consider.

dscross:

If you do this test, it will give you some terminology to describe what you believe. You don't have to agree with it but it should give you an idea.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

CaitSeith:

dscross:

If you do this test, it will give you some terminology to describe what you believe. You don't have to agree with it but it should give you an idea.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

You'd think a lot of people on this site would probably reside somewhere in that quadrant. I'm a little left of you on the chart I think, but I don't take it massively seriously because I'm definitely not as left wing as someone who's an all out socialist, so I think to some extent you need to use your judgement. It's good for getting a general idea though.

dscross:

You'd think a lot of people on this site would probably reside somewhere in that quadrant. I'm a little left of you on the chart I think, but I don't take it massively seriously because I'm definitely not as left wing as someone who's an all out socialist, so I think to some extent you need to use your judgement. It's good for getting a general idea though.

I've done that several times over the years; I normally turn out -2 - +2 economically and ~6-8 libertarian. It varies because I do not give consistent answers, because I think certain questions are woolly and it depends how I interpret them at the time I take it.

Take for instance the question that's something like "What's good for business is good for individuals". As a black and white statement, I would have to disagree with that because there are instances where it is plainly untrue. However, taken as a grey area, in practice overall successful business translates into jobs and incomes, so I would be inclined to agree.

Very socially liberal, though economically I like a mix of socialist and capitalist policies. There certainly are positives to capitalism, but over the past few centuries we've seen that it also needs very heavy regulation to ensure that doesn't run countries into the ground. I guess I lean towards socialism, but deny that capitalism should be completely dismantled; competition is good for the consumer, with industries like healthcare being an exception, but the government needs to be on hand to ensure inequality isn't rampant, and that there is true equality of opportunity, both of which are sore points in the U.S..

Essentially I'd say I'm pro-"big government," but I'm also strongly in favor of direct democracy and competition within the government. Additionally, I see very little value in nationalism i.e. before I'm an American, I'm a human. I find the tradition and zeal of national identity confounding and ridiculous, and I welcome globalism with open arms.

All that being said, I have no doubt that the world is trending towards a socialist idea of equality of results, and see that as a very positive change.

Silvanus:

Well, the thread's asking about political ideology, rather than party loyalty. "Independent" doesn't really mean anything in the context of the political spectrum.

I don't have an ideology, per se. Just a blanket moral highground.

dscross:

If you do this test, it will give you some terminology to describe what you believe. You don't have to agree with it but it should give you an idea.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

No, it will ask a bunch of questions that will calculate a percentage that may not be accurate because it isn't asking the right questions or providing the right answers. Frankly, since most people don't know how political alignment actually works, the test is useless, anyway.

The question was asked and I answered. Live with it.

FalloutJack:

No, it will ask a bunch of questions that will calculate a percentage that may not be accurate because it isn't asking the right questions or providing the right answers. Frankly, since most people don't know how political alignment actually works, the test is useless, anyway.

The question was asked and I answered. Live with it.

Rude. I was just trying to help because it didn't sound like you knew. It was just meant as a bit of fun to help with the terminology - you don't have to get all defensive. Everyone has an ideology, whether it's subconscious or not.

FalloutJack:

I don't have an ideology, per se. Just a blanket moral highground.

Then what sort of thread would get you to try to clarify that position? One separate issue at a time, maybe (like in that loot box thread some time ago)?

Like, when writing my short reply to this thread I began jotting down some general lines on today's hot topics, but I decided it would take a bit too long and be incomplete anyway. Also everything I say about politics or social issues comes with a heavy Finland-leaning bias.

I wrote something to that effect before in a different thread but I'm a disillusioned centrist who moved further to the left as a consequence to an out of control right. A few years ago I was a libertarian, the worst kind of libertarian to be honest, making a point of being angry about "SJWs", supporting GamerGate, making fun of feminists on the internet, claiming political correctness was runining the freedom of artists all of that crap. Then the powergrab in Turkey happened and Trump happened and the neofascist sentiment back hime in Germany kept getting stronger and I realized that I was barking up the wrong tree. Now I believe that there's a necessity for strict antifascism in our politics if we wanna keept our civilization from collapsing. And also a strict necessity for a regulated form of capitalism and a strong welfare state if we don't want the standard of living we know take for granted become more and more inaccesible to more and more people.

I really didn't think I'd turn out like that but I think there's a point where everyone needs to realize that some of the views they held when they were teenagers or very young adults were incorrect.

PsychedelicDiamond:
I wrote something to that effect before in a different thread but I'm a disillusioned centrist who moved further to the left as a consequence to an out of control right.

I find myself aberrating from political lines. Especially online where the viewpoint gets very international. Oftentimes I just shrug and decide the current argument or whatever doesn't apply here or at least to me - and if it did, I would just not know about it.

Somewhat left, though my voting record doesn't necessarily reflect that. Whilst I would ideally like to vote for the Green Party or the SNP (despite not being Scottish), I've previously voted Lib Dem and Labour. I'm generally for increasing welfare, nationalising public services, and for broader social rights and freedoms for individuals.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here