Political Allignment of NS

[Jute]

Me, I'm centre-left. I don't know why someone would be far-left though, the whole No State thing kinda throws me off, and the lack of any form of capitalism. I'm content with a social democratic, libertarian state socially, and Nordic Model economically.

There are two left-right spectrums.

Social views and Government views.

Socially left means liberal, socially right means conservative.

Government left means hyper-state, government right means anarchism (libertarianism is close far-right depending on variety).

Liberal is actually considered centrist here where I am. And most anarchic political schools are left-wing, so that comparison isn't that helpful.

[Jute]

The weather outside wasn't already making it clear?

I realized why NS Summer is so bad this year. Heat wave in Europe and North America.

It's way too hot here, yeah. So that is actually somewhat plausible.

[Immoren]

Me, I'm centre-left. I don't know why someone would be far-left though, the whole No State thing kinda throws me off, and the lack of any form of capitalism. I'm content with a social democratic, libertarian state socially, and Nordic Model economically.

There are two left-right spectrums.

Social views and Government views.

Socially left means liberal, socially right means conservative.

Government left means hyper-state, government right means anarchism (libertarianism is close far-right depending on variety).

Liberals are right wing.

[Geilinor]

There are two left-right spectrums.

Social views and Government views.

Socially left means liberal, socially right means conservative.

Government left means hyper-state, government right means anarchism (libertarianism is close far-right depending on variety).

Liberals are right wing.

Classical liberals are, social liberals are not.

[Immoren]

Liberals are right wing.

Classical liberals are, social liberals are not.

No such thing exist in Finland.

[Reploid Productions]

Stop triggering me with facts and logic, pissbaby. Rape! RAPE!

Stop triggering my warn reflex! Or maybe even my Banhammer! Here's some handy tips to avoid triggering the mods!

*** Warned for flaming. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Technocracy of England]

There are two left-right spectrums.

Social views and Government views.

Socially left means liberal, socially right means conservative.

Government left means hyper-state, government right means anarchism (libertarianism is close far-right depending on variety).

Liberal is actually considered centrist here where I am. And most anarchic political schools are left-wing, so that comparison isn't that helpful.

I don't know how to multi-quote do the guy above me this is your response as well.

It doesn't matter what parties call themselves in your country, nor what they are like relative to other parties. It is their policies that determine their affiliation, not their label.

If my local government party said, 'I want to increase taxation on the rich' I would immediately say they are left-wing (at least economically). Now you could have a communist party that say 'I want to make the rich nonexistent' , that doesn't make the local party any less left-wing, it just makes the communist party extreme left-wing.

I hope I made myself clear, its killer-hot out here and I'm running outta buckets.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

Liberals are right wing.

Classical liberals are, social liberals are not.

I consider myself a right-wing social liberal.

[Skrovishte]

Communism is classless, therefore stateless and free of any coercive apparatus, including a populist one. Communism is moneyless, therefore no tax. Communism entails no private property, therefore land rights as a concept do not exist. And what is high socialism?

Classes are not based on the existence of a state. Classes are based on what society considers to be the primary means of influence.
Example, a rich man today (an upper-class man) would be so because he is wealthy and has plenty of disposable income, which is a widely accepted medium of exchange, therefore his influence is other people's acceptance of money as a valuable product/item. This exists in any society regardless of state or whatever; in an anarchy if there is a famine farmers and cattle-farmers will become de facto rich men (upper-class men) because they can then use this valuable item as influence to get what they want. This is obvious and economics 101. Also, 'coercive apparatus'? Thats a ridiculous thing to say, every society has an 'apparatus' especially anarchys in the form a regional warlord, but I digress. It is also redundant to say 'apparatus' as that nebulous word in this context is no different than the state, so what you said is: The State not existing means the State doesn't exist. Wow. Good job.

Communism is moneyless. That is ludicrous. Yes communism has no wealth because it will fall into poverty, famine and destitution. Money is not a magical thing created by logical rational people. Money is just a term used to describe an accepted product of exchange. It could be anything, from dirt, organs or rocks. In fact some pacific islanders used disc-shaped rocks as money, because rocks were so rare. So once again. Another ridiculous statement.

Communism entail no private property. Yeah, you tell that to the guy who can produce weapons to enforce what he thinks is his. Jesus this is so stupid. How can you make society just abandon its property? To do so would require *force*, which every communist country to date came in the form of a State. Also, you cannot just arbitrary decide what concepts exist and what doesn't. Thats a stupid assertion. If you political opinion is based on the assumption that Humanity lacks based Human concepts then your politics are fantasy, hocus pocus.

I think we agree in essence on what class is, but one thing I would add is that class is more closely related to produce more of whatever provides one with influence, generally by using the labour of others. So today's upper-class are those who own the means of production and can use said ownership to produce more for themselves and exploit the labour of others. This in turn generates more influence for them.

However, all this is beside the point. I was arguing that in a classless society, there can be no state, because there will not be a certain stratum of society which manages and rules society, owns the means of production or ideologically dominates, and therefore there will not be a certain stratum of society which uses special coercive institutions to enforce their dominance (a police force, an army, a government). "Coercive apparatus," refers specifically to the system of laws and law enforcement, and I was emphasising that even a populist version of said apparatus would exist in socialism (and you were insinuating that it would).

Wealth =/= money. I know what money is, and I know that there will be none of it in communism. There will be no need for a medium of exchange when there is overabundance.

You're right, it requires force, which is why there is a revolution and a transitional phase which has a state - at least, according to Marxism - to ensure that the means of production can be wrested from private ownership and not fall back into it. "Communist country," is also something which never has existed. And it never will, because it's an oxymoron.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that last bit. Are you suggesting that land rights are a timeless, eternal concept ingrained into the human psyche by some mystical force and always existent, regardless of the changes in society and in material conditions which have, throughout history, been revolutionising the way in which humans think about each other, the world, morality and so on?

[Greater Fennoscandia]

Stop triggering me with facts and logic, pissbaby. Rape! RAPE!

Stop triggering my warn reflex! Or maybe even my Banhammer! Here's some handy tips to avoid triggering the mods!

*** Warned for flaming. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Seemed like a clear joke to me, but I guess I will have to refrain from those in the future. Thanks for the warning.

[Nordenkalt]

Left libertarian.

[United West Afrika]

"I hate arguing with black people (read: niggers), for example, because they're completely ignorant..."[/color]

You see where I'm going here, yes? Not cool, man. Not cool.

Just reading that hit me in the gut like cannonball. How can you so casually use that word? Who do I go to when a moderator needs to be moderated?

[Technocracy of England]

Classes are not based on the existence of a state. Classes are based on what society considers to be the primary means of influence.
Example, a rich man today (an upper-class man) would be so because he is wealthy and has plenty of disposable income, which is a widely accepted medium of exchange, therefore his influence is other people's acceptance of money as a valuable product/item. This exists in any society regardless of state or whatever; in an anarchy if there is a famine farmers and cattle-farmers will become de facto rich men (upper-class men) because they can then use this valuable item as influence to get what they want. This is obvious and economics 101. Also, 'coercive apparatus'? Thats a ridiculous thing to say, every society has an 'apparatus' especially anarchys in the form a regional warlord, but I digress. It is also redundant to say 'apparatus' as that nebulous word in this context is no different than the state, so what you said is: The State not existing means the State doesn't exist. Wow. Good job.

Communism is moneyless. That is ludicrous. Yes communism has no wealth because it will fall into poverty, famine and destitution. Money is not a magical thing created by logical rational people. Money is just a term used to describe an accepted product of exchange. It could be anything, from dirt, organs or rocks. In fact some pacific islanders used disc-shaped rocks as money, because rocks were so rare. So once again. Another ridiculous statement.

Communism entail no private property. Yeah, you tell that to the guy who can produce weapons to enforce what he thinks is his. Jesus this is so stupid. How can you make society just abandon its property? To do so would require *force*, which every communist country to date came in the form of a State. Also, you cannot just arbitrary decide what concepts exist and what doesn't. Thats a stupid assertion. If you political opinion is based on the assumption that Humanity lacks based Human concepts then your politics are fantasy, hocus pocus.

I think we agree in essence on what class is, but one thing I would add is that class is more closely related to produce more of whatever provides one with influence, generally by using the labour of others. So today's upper-class are those who own the means of production and can use said ownership to produce more for themselves and exploit the labour of others. This in turn generates more influence for them.

However, all this is beside the point. I was arguing that in a classless society, there can be no state, because there will not be a certain stratum of society which manages and rules society, owns the means of production or ideologically dominates, and therefore there will not be a certain stratum of society which uses special coercive institutions to enforce their dominance (a police force, an army, a government). "Coercive apparatus," refers specifically to the system of laws and law enforcement, and I was emphasising that even a populist version of said apparatus would exist in socialism (and you were insinuating that it would).

Wealth =/= money. I know what money is, and I know that there will be none of it in communism. There will be no need for a medium of exchange when there is overabundance.

You're right, it requires force, which is why there is a revolution and a transitional phase which has a state - at least, according to Marxism - to ensure that the means of production can be wrested from private ownership and not fall back into it. "Communist country," is also something which never has existed. And it never will, because it's an oxymoron.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in that last bit. Are you suggesting that land rights are a timeless, eternal concept ingrained into the human psyche by some mystical force and always existent, regardless of the changes in society and in material conditions which have, throughout history, been revolutionising the way in which humans think about each other, the world, morality and so on?

First paragraph, completely agree. Fundamentally no problem. Skipping that.

Now your second paragraph is where it gets confusing. Specifically this sentence: 'I was arguing that in a classless society, there can be no state, because there will not be a certain stratum of society which manages and rules society, owns the means of production or ideologically dominates, and therefore there will not be a certain stratum of society which uses special coercive institutions to enforce their dominance (a police force, an army, a government).' I will dissect this slowly to hopefully get my thoughts across.

-Classes exist regardless whether there is a state or not, it might be how many children (thus manpower) they have, or how efficiently they can turn-out their crops. Initially, lets assume we get everyone onto the same level. It will only be a certain amount of time before differences crop up, violent attacks, efficient work, deaths, disease, famine... etc.
-If no one owns the means of production or has any form of populist state your later point: 'There will be no need for a medium of exchange when there is overabundance.' Cannot be true, as people are naturally greedy and will settle and take things. Furthermore, yes, ownership is fundamental to the Human psyche, it comes from predatory instinct of survival, so that when someone eats our food we're vengeful (and if you looked after it, it wouldn't be stolen, thereby surviving).

"Communist country," is also something which never has existed. And it never will, because it's an oxymoron.
Appreciate you saying that communism cannot exist and is therefore useless to advocate for : )

Did I cover everything?
Also I thought I would apologize for being overly aggressive and inflammatory in my prior post. No real excuse, it was uncalled for.

[Immoren]

You see where I'm going here, yes? Not cool, man. Not cool.

Just reading that hit me in the gut like cannonball. How can you so casually use that word? Who do I go to when a moderator needs to be moderated?

Moderation.
Or GHR-
I guess.

[MERIZoC]

Just reading that hit me in the gut like cannonball. How can you so casually use that word? Who do I go to when a moderator needs to be moderated?

Moderation.
Or GHR-
I guess.

Nonetheless, it would be frivolous.

[Immoren]

Moderation.
Or GHR-
I guess.

Nonetheless, it would be frivolous.

But that's how we roll!
Or was that nonsense instead of frivolity?!

[Jute]

Liberal is actually considered centrist here where I am. And most anarchic political schools are left-wing, so that comparison isn't that helpful.

I don't know how to multi-quote do the guy above me this is your response as well.

It doesn't matter what parties call themselves in your country, nor what they are like relative to other parties. It is their policies that determine their affiliation, not their label.

If my local government party said, 'I want to increase taxation on the rich' I would immediately say they are left-wing (at least economically). Now you could have a communist party that say 'I want to make the rich nonexistent' , that doesn't make the local party any less left-wing, it just makes the communist party extreme left-wing.

I hope I made myself clear, its killer-hot out here and I'm running outta buckets.

The politics of the liberal party here are centrist. No party on the left is referred to, or calls itself, "liberal" here, as far as I know.

[United West Afrika]

It's simply ridiculous. How is this supposed to be a safe space for anyone when even the moderators are using racist speech? Even if they're just using it "as an example" it's like when someone is like "Oh I'm going to tell this racist joke, but remember it's just a joke guys." These words cause actual, physical pain to people in the real world. I mean, there's a literal genocide of black people going on in the USA right now and we've got moderators throwing around slurs like it's no big deal.

[Technocracy of England]

I don't know how to multi-quote do the guy above me this is your response as well.

It doesn't matter what parties call themselves in your country, nor what they are like relative to other parties. It is their policies that determine their affiliation, not their label.

If my local government party said, 'I want to increase taxation on the rich' I would immediately say they are left-wing (at least economically). Now you could have a communist party that say 'I want to make the rich nonexistent' , that doesn't make the local party any less left-wing, it just makes the communist party extreme left-wing.

I hope I made myself clear, its killer-hot out here and I'm running outta buckets.

The politics of the liberal party here are centrist. No party on the left is referred to, or calls itself, "liberal" here, as far as I know.

That could be because they're left economically and centrist/right-wing socially. But of course I reckon you know your countries' parties better.

[Technocracy of England]

It's simply ridiculous. How is this supposed to be a safe space for anyone when even the moderators are using racist speech? Even if they're just using it "as an example" it's like when someone is like "Oh I'm going to tell this racist joke, but remember it's just a joke guys." These words cause actual, physical pain to people in the real world. I mean, there's a literal genocide of black people going on in the USA right now and we've got moderators throwing around slurs like it's no big deal.

This forum needs a button for 'funny' or 'like' or '+1' something at least.

[Diopolis]

Can we get a revamped poll? I support social liberalism but not leftist economics. Conversely, I support laissez-faire economics, but oppose conservative social views.

A Libertarian can't really fit in a linear graph. Can we try a poll with the following options (with two choices, of course) to clarify positions?

Hard-leaning social conservative
Moderate social conservative
Social centrist
Moderate social liberal
Hard-leaning social liberal

Hard-leaning economic leftist
Moderate economic leftist
Economic centrist
Moderate economic liberal (as in libertarian, mind you)
Hard-leaning economic liberal

This itself is probably not thorough enough, but it is far more inclusive of the diversity that exists among individuals.

What you are describing is liberalism, which is already on the poll. Actually, it's covered by every option on the poll. If you're going for a position though, center-right usually works for classical liberals. None of what you described is libertarianism though, as libertarianism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-statist ideology.

I can't profess to know much about this community as I am new, but here is my perspective.

This community is socially *highly* left, almost to a land-slide, with a minority being centrist and the smallest of all being right-wing. One a scale of 1-10, 1 being liberal and 10 being conservative most common is 1-3, 5 is rare and 9-10 is rarer still.

Economically and politically its the opposite, even here with few exceptions or specific themed accounts fall under one of two categories, anarchist (to a lesser extent libertarian, IE: little to no government) or communist (hyper-state control).

Communism has no state, and is a form of anarchism.

I consider myself to be a centrist, (an Elitist Feudalistic Absolute Monarchy), my political compass shows me favoring the right a bit:

Thought?

Feudalism and absolute monarchism are by no means centrist. They are arguably as far right as you can possibly get, being about the most reactionary ideology out there.

It's possible to go farther right, but not by much and it takes a real oddball. Some of the harder core roman revivalists manage it.

[Immoren]

It's simply ridiculous. How is this supposed to be a safe space for anyone when even the moderators are using racist speech? Even if they're just using it "as an example" it's like when someone is like "Oh I'm going to tell this racist joke, but remember it's just a joke guys." These words cause actual, physical pain to people in the real world. I mean, there's a literal genocide of black people going on in the USA right now and we've got moderators throwing around slurs like it's no big deal.

The politics of the liberal party here are centrist. No party on the left is referred to, or calls itself, "liberal" here, as far as I know.

That could be because they're left economically and centrist/right-wing socially. But of course I reckon you know your countries' parties better.

Here liberal party is closest equivalent to the libertarians (along with pirates?? [I gueess])

[Technocracy of England]

What you are describing is liberalism, which is already on the poll. Actually, it's covered by every option on the poll. If you're going for a position though, center-right usually works for classical liberals. None of what you described is libertarianism though, as libertarianism is a radical anti-capitalist and anti-statist ideology.
Communism has no state, and is a form of anarchism.

Feudalism and absolute monarchism are by no means centrist. They are arguably as far right as you can possibly get, being about the most reactionary ideology out there.

It's possible to go farther right, but not by much and it takes a real oddball. Some of the harder core roman revivalists manage it.

Hello you must have missed what I said in response to that here it is again:
'Monarchy is centrist because any form of government (aside from those that have no state) can exist under it. Monarchy can support both libertarian/capitalism and communism. Feudalism is just a extension of the Monarchy and classifying the commoners + anyone else.'
Hope that clears it up. Also, reminder that a Monarch doesn't always mean a dictator, a Feudal Monarch is elected.

[Jute]

The politics of the liberal party here are centrist. No party on the left is referred to, or calls itself, "liberal" here, as far as I know.

That could be because they're left economically and centrist/right-wing socially. But of course I reckon you know your countries' parties better.

They're actually more right-wing economically, and centrist socially, in my opinion.

[Diopolis]

It's possible to go farther right, but not by much and it takes a real oddball. Some of the harder core roman revivalists manage it.

Hello you must have missed what I said in response to that here it is again:
'Monarchy is centrist because any form of government (aside from those that have no state) can exist under it. Monarchy can support both libertarian/capitalism and communism. Feudalism is just a extension of the Monarchy and classifying the commoners + anyone else.'
Hope that clears it up. Also, reminder that a Monarch doesn't always mean a dictator, a Feudal Monarch is elected.

It's possible to have a progressive monarchy, I I know. That doesn't mean absolute monarchy isn't rightist, along with every other system that invests absolute power in a single person, with the possible exception of maoism(stalinism, aside from the rhetoric, generally shares more similarities with the right than the left).