WrongPlanet Progressive Leftists

Post Reply New Topic

Since the right-libertopians and conservatives are busy identifying one another, a similar thread for the left is in order. Let the factionalization of this forum escalate!

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 23 May 2010, 12:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Now we just need a populist thread for the socially conservative socialists.

All four quadrants, eh?



But think of the future potential for further factionalization!

I'm a card-carrying NDPer here in Canada, so I guess i'm left. Questioning a bit on a few fronts mind you, far more than ever before, but still left in general.

My views of fractionalization of the political spectrum are a bit different, I certainly don't think a 1d view of the spectrum as representative of ANYTHING worth the paper it's written on.
Ghandi and Stalin were both left, at least by some definitions.

I put Thatcherism or "the third way" where you say Conservatism. The term conservatism yick... to general... lost it's meaning.
I put (think of word to comprise a one-law society "do nothing that limits another's freedom") where you put liberalism... and.. well socialism is a word that has been misconstrued and bastardized far too much to use anymore.... But if the true, original meaning of the word is intended then i'll let you keep it.

I think i break it by "freedom/control" and "specific ideology" Maybe it's the same thing, and i just don't like the words... "moral" is a word i hate (on moral grounds )

There's a difference between "I want to live by the old ways" and "I want to live by the old ways and you have to too"
and that's the reason we need a 2d (at least) spectrum.

Stalin.............x...........Thatcher

Castro.......Obama.........Bush

Ghandi.........Me............Hammurabi.

ballpark areas only for the above...
Can't really think of any politicians or world leaders that would land where X or Me lie.

I think we could add another axis in... but the distinctions are far more subtle, more to do with limitations on what you "can/can't" and "can/must" A requirement isn't necessarily the same thing as a prohibition on doing otherwise.

Then, with the control issue, it could be divided again along WHAT controls... the collective "will" of the people/power or the collective "money" of the people/power.

It's interesting looking at the diagram and deciding where you could draw a line in which democracy could exist on one side, and not on the other... Then another line, where democracy was sustainable or not(while maintaining one's placement on the grid)
Been a while since I really looked at this kinda grid... maybe with so many of my beliefs changing, it's time I did... Probably what made me reply to the comment anyways.

Why do I have the feeling, like when taking an MBTI assessment in class, that were this process to continue to its' end that I would end up standing alone? Depending on the subject and scope, people have pegged me as Democrat, progressive, conservative, socialist, interpretive Constitutionist, Machiavellian and Libertarian as the most common suggested variants... but generally there are at least one to two issues on which I dissent so thoroughly that there is no whole match for my political peg.


M.

Can we eventually start a civil war? Please....

how 'bout a different tack- instead of indentifying ourselves positively as a particular something, how 'bout saying instead what we are NOT? i am NOT one of those who says "i've got mine so screw all the rest of you." i am NOT one of those who says "because the lefties voted in a way i didn't like, they are not to be trusted with the right to vote, so i will support legislation reinstating a poll tax/property-owning requirements and literacy tests to specifically bar them from voting ever again!" i am NOT one of those who says "every man for himself." i am NOT one of those who says "might makes right." i am NOT one of those who says "he with all the gold makes all the rules."
anybody else out there on WP who will say what they are NOT?

Okay, all philosophy aside, and to the real world, I like your idea auntblabby.

I can put what i'm not (which in corollary defines who I am) in one sentence.

I am NOT someone who believes that the political process can ever create a world (or nation) that both is stable and free.

Matrix reloaded topic

I am a great fan of matrices as visual depictions of concepts and how categories are defined. One criticism is that there is no spectrum but at least the liberal/democratic/international socialistic ideas are on the left.

I consider myself very socially liberal.

good idea.

first of all, i not a person who is obsessed with wealth and social status or materialism.

second of all, i am not someone who beleives in pushing ideology and religious beliefs at the expense of people and groups, as is what occurs in iran or afghanistan. also, i am against intruding into the personal lives of people if what they do seems harmless.

also, i think individual rights are important, yet i think that responsibility is also important because people cannot enjoy basic rights if everyone simply does what they want.

Somewhere around the middle, i'm all about liberalism and all that. But sometimes it seems to me that some people should be told what to do, else they act like idjits and ruin it for the rest of us. <.< So... I guess i'd cover Socialism, Liberalism and Authoriarianism. I can't for the life of me think about conservatism as being "good" <.< .

I'm still trying to figure out what "national communism" is. It looks like it's a neologism coined by the logic of this syllogism: Communism is to socialism as national communism is to National Socialism (Nazism). I'd already consider Nazism to be a pretty extreme ideology, but then again maybe "national communism" refers to the "socialism in one nation" idea of Joseph Stalin, encouraging a sort of proletarian class pride and a nationalism for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the contemporary People's Republic of China is quite nationalistic too although they've more or less dropped Marxism-Leninism while maintaining one-party Communist rule.

Okay, but beware that the other sides are willing to use the full coercive power of the State.

LINK!!

You're right - it's a neologism coined to fit into the logic of the system.

That is if you don't believe in egoism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

My political beliefs don't have a name. They also aren't similar to anything I've seen before.