What are your political beliefs?

[Sociopia]

I'm a dowhateveryouwantaslongasyoudon'tfuckwithanyoneist. Or a dweywalaydfwaoist, if you will.

[NFA]

Libertarian. Please read my sig.

[Kraannei]

Libertarian Marxism.

Trotskyist and Anarchist leanings.

[Othelos]

No, anarchism indicates a society devoid of social hierarchies. Anarchism is a type of stateless society, but not all stateless societies are anarchies. Capitalism not only creates hierarchies, but requires the state in order to exist.

What have you been smoking? The very definition of an anarchist society is a stateless one.

That doesn't mean all stateless societies are anarchist.

[Othelos]

Libertarian. Please read my sig.

you spelled marijuana wrong.

[NFA]

Libertarian. Please read my sig.

you spelled marijuana wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out brother. Fixed.

[Othelos]

you spelled marijuana wrong.

Thanks for pointing that out brother. Fixed.

no problem.

[Dumyat]

I'm a neoliberal democrat.. it would seem...

I had that result 2 months ago. Now it slightly changed (really not that much) according to politicaltest.net, and I am a neoconservative.

I got leftist-Fascist

[Adriopium]

I am a centrist Libertarian that supports a free market with limited (but crucial) regulation to protect businesses, workers, and customers from unjust exploitation and to assure safety and quality standards. On social issues I tend to be more liberal. If it doesn't harm anyone, legalize it, such as gay marriage, prostitution, soft drugs (i.e. marijuana, ecstasy).

[Korouse]

National Liberal

[District XIV]

National Liberal

'Nationalist Liberal'? Is that what you mean?

[Korouse]

National Liberal

'Nationalist Liberal'? Is that what you mean?

It's National Liberal, go look it up

[District XIV]

'Nationalist Liberal'? Is that what you mean?

It's National Liberal, go look it up

National liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining nationalism with some liberal policies [...]

Essentially what I assumed.

[Korouse]

It's National Liberal, go look it up

National liberalism is a variant of liberalism, combining nationalism with some liberal policies [...]

Essentially what I assumed.

Best ideology, ever.

[Deutsches Heilige Land]

I chose other. I have studied the Roman Republican government and have decided an updated form of their form of governance to be adequate.

[Conscentia]

Essentially what I assumed.

Best ideology, ever.

No it isn't.
Nationalism is preventing Europe from becoming a superpower.

[Old Tyrannia]

Best ideology, ever.

No it isn't.
Nationalism is prevent Europe from becoming a superpower.

Not everyone is particularly interested in making their country a superpower, however. I dislike nationalism, but only because I identify nationalism as a specifically revolutionary ideology based on the idea of the supremacy of the nation-state as a political unit, whereas patriotism, which I like, is simply a love of and loyalty to one's native culture and birthplace. Basically, patriotism is passive, defensive and conservative whereas nationalism is aggressive and revolutionary. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but regardless, even without being a nationalist I am a patriot, and have no desire for my country to become part of a unified European "superpower".

[Conscentia]

Not everyone is particularly interested in making their country a superpower, however. I dislike nationalism, but only because I identify nationalism as a specifically revolutionary ideology based on the idea of the supremacy of the nation-state as a political unit, whereas patriotism, which I like, is simply a love of and loyalty to one's native culture and birthplace. Basically, patriotism is passive, defensive and conservative whereas nationalism is aggressive and revolutionary. I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but regardless, even without being a nationalist I am a patriot, and have no desire for my country to become part of a unified European "superpower".

I want a European superpower primarily to counter the influence of the US. The persistence of US influence is bigger hazard to your native culture than European unification.
I don't see why loyalty to one's culture need be mutually exclusive with political union.

[The Abbadids]

What you just described is authoritarian state capitalism, not socialism.

Yes, that was my point. All Socialist countries has reverted to state capitalism as a "temporary measure" in their road to Socialism. No pure Socialist state has ever been created and succeeded on it's principles only, and it's hard for me to believe in something that hasn't even been confirmed that works. Once Socialism is put ENTIRELY into practice somewhere and provide at least the comfortable life standards I am used to today I would become a Socialist in a heartbeat. I don't know why that is so insulting, if you honestly believe in Socialism I am also a supporter if you can put it into practice and make it work, am I just supposed to support something blindly?

Capitalism is the same in a way, pure capitalism has never been seen in any country. There is always corruption and greed which destroys the capitalist dream that gives everyone the chance to succeed. But it's stable, and gives me the life standards that I crave, it is also the only system I have ever experienced and that make me not inclined to try out something that has failed repeatedly for a pipe dream that promises a benevolent government.

TL;DR If you are a Socialist, put it into practice, make it work, and you will make me and I bet thousands of others Socialists as well.

[Calimera II]

I am a centrist Libertarian that supports a free market with limited (but crucial) regulation to protect businesses, workers, and customers from unjust exploitation and to assure safety and quality standards. On social issues I tend to be more liberal. If it doesn't harm anyone, legalize it, such as gay marriage, prostitution, soft drugs (i.e. marijuana, ecstasy).

So you are not libertarian.

[Kainesia]

Read my sig. Nuff said.

[54e]

I don't put numbers or labels on my politics. I like new information.

[Threlizdun]

No, anarchism indicates a society devoid of social hierarchies. Anarchism is a type of stateless society, but not all stateless societies are anarchies. Capitalism not only creates hierarchies, but requires the state in order to exist.

No, most do use the word to refer to advocacy of a stateless society.

And most use the word incorrectly. The proper term to refer to a stateless society is simply "stateless society", not "anarchy".

No, communism exhibits a lack of the market and currency. All anarchism is socialist, as socialism is the only economic system that ensures a classless society, but not all anarchism is communist. Both mutualism and collectivism for example are common economic systems endorsed by anarchists.

Collectivism does not refer to a specific economic system.

Alone it doesn't, though within the context of the conversation it was meant to refer to collectivist anarchism, which advocates abolition of private property and the market but maintains currency as labor notes that are exchanged for resources.

Libertarian Marxism.

Trotskyist and Anarchist leanings.

Trotskyism is not compatable with libertarian interpretations of Marxism and most certainly isn't compatable with anarchism. Trotsky slaughtered political opponents en masse. He crushed the independent communes, strikers, and Russian and Ukrainian anarchists. The man was a monster. Leninism is an authoritarian ideology that cannot be reconciled with libertarian traditions.

Yes, that was my point. All Socialist countries has reverted to state capitalism as a "temporary measure" in their road to Socialism. No pure Socialist state has ever been created and succeeded on it's principles only, and it's hard for me to believe in something that hasn't even been confirmed that works. Once Socialism is put ENTIRELY into practice somewhere and provide at least the comfortable life standards I am used to today I would become a Socialist in a heartbeat. I don't know why that is so insulting, if you honestly believe in Socialism I am also a supporter if you can put it into practice and make it work, am I just supposed to support something blindly?

Capitalism is the same in a way, pure capitalism has never been seen in any country. There is always corruption and greed which destroys the capitalist dream that gives everyone the chance to succeed. But it's stable, and gives me the life standards that I crave, it is also the only system I have ever experienced and that make me not inclined to try out something that has failed repeatedly for a pipe dream that promises a benevolent government.

TL;DR If you are a Socialist, put it into practice, make it work, and you will make me and I bet thousands of others Socialists as well.

No, all socialist societies were socialist; state capitalist societies were state capitalist. All human societies were socialist throughout the vast majority of our existence. There has never been a point in human history that socialism hasn't existed. Small communes always have existed and large scale societies such as Anarchist Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory functioned relatively well prior to losing in the Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War respectively. It isn't hard to find modern communes, and there are even larger corporate entities such as the Mondragon Corporation that operate on a basis of worker ownership. Real life examples of socialism put into practice exist all around you. More often than not they don't even realize they are operating on a socialist model.

[Kraannei]

[spoiler]

No, most do use the word to refer to advocacy of a stateless society.

And most use the word incorrectly. The proper term to refer to a stateless society is simply "stateless society", not "anarchy".

Collectivism does not refer to a specific economic system.

Alone it doesn't, though within the context of the conversation it was meant to refer to collectivist anarchism, which advocates abolition of private property and the market but maintains currency as labor notes that are exchanged for resources.

Libertarian Marxism.

Trotskyist and Anarchist leanings.

Trotskyism is not compatable with libertarian interpretations of Marxism and most certainly isn't compatable with anarchism. Trotsky slaughtered political opponents en masse. He crushed the independent communes, strikers, and Russian and Ukrainian anarchists. The man was a monster. Leninism is an authoritarian ideology that cannot be reconciled with libertarian traditions.

Yes, that was my point. All Socialist countries has reverted to state capitalism as a "temporary measure" in their road to Socialism. No pure Socialist state has ever been created and succeeded on it's principles only, and it's hard for me to believe in something that hasn't even been confirmed that works. Once Socialism is put ENTIRELY into practice somewhere and provide at least the comfortable life standards I am used to today I would become a Socialist in a heartbeat. I don't know why that is so insulting, if you honestly believe in Socialism I am also a supporter if you can put it into practice and make it work, am I just supposed to support something blindly?

Capitalism is the same in a way, pure capitalism has never been seen in any country. There is always corruption and greed which destroys the capitalist dream that gives everyone the chance to succeed. But it's stable, and gives me the life standards that I crave, it is also the only system I have ever experienced and that make me not inclined to try out something that has failed repeatedly for a pipe dream that promises a benevolent government.

TL;DR If you are a Socialist, put it into practice, make it work, and you will make me and I bet thousands of others Socialists as well.

No, all socialist societies were socialist; state capitalist societies were state capitalist. All human societies were socialist throughout the vast majority of our existence. There has never been a point in human history that socialism hasn't existed. Small communes always have existed and large scale societies such as Anarchist Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory functioned relatively well prior to losing in the Spanish Civil War and Russian Civil War respectively. It isn't hard to find modern communes, and there are even larger corporate entities such as the Mondragon Corporation that operate on a basis of worker ownership. Real life examples of socialism put into practice exist all around you. More often than not they don't even realize they are operating on a socialist model.

[/spoiler]


I am NOT a Leninist. I am NOT a Trotskyist either. I AM a libertarian Marxist. SOME of what Trotsky said (world revolution, etc) is stuff that I agree with.

[Suicune]

Apparently I'm a cosmopolitan social democrat.