What kind of socialism are you?

[The USOT]

I am a syndicalist, with slight communalist (Bookchin style) and great Proudhorn Mutualist tendencies.

I am in no ways a nationalist, and tend to be against statist socialism as a producer of nationalist sentiment.

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

Social democrat here. Nine million Swedes can't be wrong.

[Person012345]

government justifies its existence by being of service, and otherwise stays out of the way. otherwise known as service state anonymous.

it is of service by protecting people from starving, freezing, or beating each other over the head, and by keeping infrastructure in harmony and balance with the natural environment.

and it doesn't really matter what ideology you call it or don't. there is really very little excuse for the existence of sovereignty in any form otherwise.

Nazis would disagree.

[Cameroi]

government justifies its existence by being of service, and otherwise stays out of the way. otherwise known as service state anonymous.

it is of service by protecting people from starving, freezing, or beating each other over the head, and by keeping infrastructure in harmony and balance with the natural environment.

and it doesn't really matter what ideology you call it or don't. there is really very little excuse for the existence of sovereignty in any form otherwise.

Nazis would disagree.

yes? and this would be a problem? last i checked, the universe we all live in, isn't too moved by what anyone agrees or disagrees with. only social movements and support for social movements sometimes are.

[Nyraubia]

I am the kind of socialist that believes in free markets, mostly unregulated economy, having a large private sector and small public sector, and minimal government intervention

[Person012345]

Nazis would disagree.

yes? and this would be a problem? last i checked, the universe we all live in, isn't too moved by what anyone agrees or disagrees with. only social movements and support for social movements sometimes are.

"The universe" provides no excuse for anything. So I fail to see your point.

[Aethelstania]

Socialist Libertarian. Individualism rules folks ! as do workers Co-ops. The state should exist in a very small form and be almost entirely dedicated to providing means for us to achieve our full potential LOOOOTS OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FUNDING.

[Condunum]

Laissez Faire capitalist here. At least, that's where I am right now. Still developing, and moving further away from socialism. As far as I'm concerned, essential things, such as healthcare and welfare can stay. By welfare, I mean a very basic safety net to spring you back into work.

[Cameroi]

yes? and this would be a problem? last i checked, the universe we all live in, isn't too moved by what anyone agrees or disagrees with. only social movements and support for social movements sometimes are.

"The universe" provides no excuse for anything. So I fail to see your point.

my only point was failing to see yours. perhaps you would be so kind as to explain?

[Etnaduba]

Libertarian socialism.

[Eviliatopia]

Anti-Socialism is the best kind of Socialism.

[Person012345]

"The universe" provides no excuse for anything. So I fail to see your point.

my only point was failing to see yours. perhaps you would be so kind as to explain?

there is really very little excuse for the existence of sovereignty in any form otherwise.

Nazis would disagree. Then you brought up how it didn't matter because the universe doesn't care if people agree. I wasn't talking about the universe I was talking about your statement. If your statement is relevent, the universe provides no excuse for anything and thus renders your point somewhat null.

[Buenavida]

the one that has an utopic society,where no one is exploited,unfree or miserable, as it's main target

(libertarian socialism,actually)

[Ruridova]

I believe in free and universal healthcare, which Fox tells me is socialist.

^This.

[Cameroi]

my only point was failing to see yours. perhaps you would be so kind as to explain?

there is really very little excuse for the existence of sovereignty in any form otherwise.

Nazis would disagree. Then you brought up how it didn't matter because the universe doesn't care if people agree. I wasn't talking about the universe I was talking about your statement. If your statement is relevent, the universe provides no excuse for anything and thus renders your point somewhat null.

ah but it is precisely relevant to the kind of world we all have to live in. as to what i'm questioning the pertinence of, it is the disagreement of something calling itself nazi's.

[Person012345]

Nazis would disagree. Then you brought up how it didn't matter because the universe doesn't care if people agree. I wasn't talking about the universe I was talking about your statement. If your statement is relevent, the universe provides no excuse for anything and thus renders your point somewhat null.

ah but it is precisely relevant to the kind of world we all have to live in. as to what i'm questioning the pertinence of, it is the disagreement of something calling itself nazi's.

What.

You claimed there's "no excuse for X". What were you referring to? If you were referring to "the universe", it povides no excuse for anything. If you were referring to something else, your comment about the universe is irrelevent.

[Cameroi]

ah but it is precisely relevant to the kind of world we all have to live in. as to what i'm questioning the pertinence of, it is the disagreement of something calling itself nazi's.

What.

You claimed there's "no excuse for X". What were you referring to? If you were referring to "the universe", it povides no excuse for anything. If you were referring to something else, your comment about the universe is irrelevent.

if reality is irrelevant, what point is there to be made?

[Person012345]

What.

You claimed there's "no excuse for X". What were you referring to? If you were referring to "the universe", it povides no excuse for anything. If you were referring to something else, your comment about the universe is irrelevent.

if reality is irrelevant, what point is there to be made?

1. I didn't say that at all.
2. We regularly make decisions, especially moral and philosophical ones, based on things other than hard "reality" all the way back.

[Cameroi]

if reality is irrelevant, what point is there to be made?

1. I didn't say that at all.
2. We regularly make decisions, especially moral and philosophical ones, based on things other than hard "reality" all the way back.

while many may, is this in their own best interests, let alone anyone else's, to do so?

is a "morality" that ignores reality, a morality at all?

[Person012345]

1. I didn't say that at all.
2. We regularly make decisions, especially moral and philosophical ones, based on things other than hard "reality" all the way back.

while many may, is this in their own best interests, let alone anyone else's, to do so?

Absolutely. There is no inherent morality intrinsic to the universe. It serves us all to have a few arbitrary moral values. As long as they are internally consistent and aren't based on incorrect information, that's good.

is a "morality" that ignores reality, a morality at all?

Aain, we're not talking about ignoring reality.

Here's how this started:
>You made claim
>I responded to claim
>You responded to my response
>I responded to your response by applying the concept cited in your response to my response to you, to your original claim to demonstrate inconsistency in what you were saying
>You made some red herring I don't really understand atm and didn't address the point.

[Cameroi]

while many may, is this in their own best interests, let alone anyone else's, to do so?

Absolutely. There is no inherent morality intrinsic to the universe. It serves us all to have a few arbitrary moral values. As long as they are internally consistent and aren't based on incorrect information, that's good.

is a "morality" that ignores reality, a morality at all?

Aain, we're not talking about ignoring reality.

Here's how this started:
>You made claim
>I responded to claim
>You responded to my response
>I responded to your response by applying the concept cited in your response to my response to you, to your original claim to demonstrate inconsistency in what you were saying
>You made some red herring I don't really understand atm and didn't address the point.

i stated an observation
you responded to a misunderstanding of my observation that totally baffles me.

[Genivaria]

Either Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist. I haven't made up my mind yet.

[Itanica]

State control of transportation, healthcare, education, electricity, gas and water, with all of them except transportation provided free for all citizens.

No Government regulation in other industries.

Also I'm authoritarian. Not Stalin style killing, and not US style spying, just a mild form of authoritarianism.

[Sovereign Rulers]

I think the OP was refering to our nations policies, but whatever.

I'm an undecided libertarian socialist. I believe in the workers control over the means of production and the abolishment of the state. I don't know what would be best though whether it's free-market mutualism, collectivism or communism.

My idea of property is that it comes down to possession. I have no problems with corporation or the so-called "petite-bourgeoise", you can produce whatever you want as long as you're not exploiting others. If you own more means of production than you can use (say, an entire factory which requires several employees to operate) the possession rule no longer applies, and the factory will also belong to your co-workers. No one will own buildings that they don't intend to live or work in.

[Chinese Regions]

Light Democratic Socialist