Ideology

[Conscentia]

I dislike ideologies.
Like it or not, ideologies are strictly defined and aren't flexible. All these little prefixes at the beginning of actual ideologies mean nothing in reality.

Finally someone gets it.

See the responses to his post.

[The Liberated Territories]

Finally someone gets it.

See the responses to his post.

Labels can be flexible, for example "libertarian' can cover a wide range of ideologies, but it is my belief that labels are too constricting, as they bind someone's identity to commonly held dogma and stereotype.

Example: Objectivism, as described by Objectivists, offer very little room for ideological deviation, and if you call yourself an Objectivist the outside will see and stereotype you in a singular manner even if you agree with part of their criticisms. Likewise, other groups will hold you in a point of contention if they feel that your label is inappropriate, like anarcho-capitalists are held in regards with other anarchists.

It is then easier to forgo labels altogether, to avoid the implications of labeling something you are not, or getting into fights.

[Conscentia]

See the responses to his post.

Labels can be flexible, for example "libertarian' can cover a wide range of ideologies, but it is my belief that labels are too constricting, as they bind someone's identity to commonly held dogma and stereotype.

Example: Objectivism, as described by Objectivists, offer very little room for ideological deviation, and if you call yourself an Objectivist the outside will see and stereotype you in a singular manner even if you agree with part of their criticisms. Likewise, other groups will hold you in a point of contention if they feel that your label is inappropriate, like anarcho-capitalists are held in regards with other anarchists.

It is then easier to forgo labels altogether, to avoid the implications of labeling something you are not, or getting into fights.

I think you're blaming the labels, when you should be blaming people who generalise and hold political prejudices.

[The Liberated Territories]

Labels can be flexible, for example "libertarian' can cover a wide range of ideologies, but it is my belief that labels are too constricting, as they bind someone's identity to commonly held dogma and stereotype.

Example: Objectivism, as described by Objectivists, offer very little room for ideological deviation, and if you call yourself an Objectivist the outside will see and stereotype you in a singular manner even if you agree with part of their criticisms. Likewise, other groups will hold you in a point of contention if they feel that your label is inappropriate, like anarcho-capitalists are held in regards with other anarchists.

It is then easier to forgo labels altogether, to avoid the implications of labeling something you are not, or getting into fights.

I think you're blaming the labels, when you should be blaming people who generalise and hold political prejudices.

It's easier to change a label than to change a person, though.

[Conscentia]

I think you're blaming the labels, when you should be blaming people who generalise and hold political prejudices.

It's easier to change a label than to change a person, though.

Doesn't mean it makes sense to blame the labels.

[Desu Reich]

It's easier to change a label than to change a person, though.

Doesn't mean it makes sense to blame the labels.

I am a politically-eccentric anthropocentric moderate-autocratic secular interventionist keynesian utilitarian-leaning social-libertarian.
Yay for labels, there is one for everyone

[Vashtanaraada]

I am simulataneously a Democratic Socialist, Classical Marxist, Trade-Unionist, Anti-Fascist, Anti-Capitalist, Pro-Choicer, Anti-Nationalist, Revolutionary, Direct Democrat, Internationalist, Collectivist, Soft Drugs supporter, L.G.B.T and minority rights supporter, Green, Environmentalist, Apatheist and Student.

[Greater Istanistan]

Well.

Economically, I've found myself increasingly admiring something between Distributism and Council Communism. I believe that people, not corporations or the state, should own their own means of production for maximal economic freedom. Small business? Yes. Co-ops? Yes. I believe in public education and health care. I believe in the welfare state, although in my ideal world it would provide people with the means to start their own small business or join a council. My ideal eventual world, however, would be technosocialist. The means for that don't exist yet, so this'll have to do.

In terms of social theory, radical leftist-individualist. Do, say, believe, or be anything you want so long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others.

Militarily, humanitarian interventionist.

Internationally, naive one-worlder. Not gonna happen, but I want it.

I oppose arbitrary groupings of people, like proletarians or bourgeoisie. It fails to account for individual circumstances and beliefs.

That's about it.

[Desu Reich]

Well.

Economically, I've found myself increasingly admiring something between Distributism and Council Communism. I believe that people, not corporations or the state, should own their own means of production for maximal economic freedom. Small business? Yes. Co-ops? Yes. I believe in public education and health care. I believe in the welfare state, although in my ideal world it would provide people with the means to start their own small business or join a council. My ideal eventual world, however, would be technosocialist. The means for that don't exist yet, so this'll have to do.

In terms of social theory, radical leftist-individualist. Do, say, believe, or be anything you want so long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others.

Militarily, humanitarian interventionist.

Internationally, naive one-worlder. Not gonna happen, but I want it.

I oppose arbitrary groupings of people, like proletarians or bourgeoisie. It fails to account for individual circumstances and beliefs.

That's about it.

When you say "small business", where do you draw the line?