Political Journeys: What Were You?

[Lady Scylla]

I fell victim to American nationalism, and militarism after 9/11. I was so bothered by the attacks that I felt we should have just nuked the Middle East and been done with it. Of course, I was young at the time. Overtime, I started learning about Marx, and started to support the notions of a Communist revolution as a solution to the ails of society. I started to support Russia, and particularly Putin -- going so far as to support the Russian invasion of Georgia in '08. My hopes were that maybe Russia would re-secure itself on the stage.

After I started to get more sensible, I put off these radical flip-flopped beliefs and drifted further towards the centre. The increased polarization in politics started to make me dislike both sides, and I adopted syncreticism and pragmatism as the core tenets to my beliefs. I gained a lot of resentment towards both the Democrats and the Republicans, feeling they were wasting time fighting instead of actually leading the country towards something greater. This furthered into the belief that the current system was flawed in facilitating this and needed significant reform. I've remained consistently socially liberal, though my economics have bounced around, and as have my views on what role the State should fill.

As of now, I fashion myself as a National Syncreticist: I reject the typical left-right dichotomy, believe in civic nationalism as a path towards further globalist unionism, see the State as necessary, and uphold that liberal values (as in the ability to have freedoms such as speech and such) are a necessity to maintain stability. I've settled on being somewhat fiscally conservative.

[Arashi Shoujo]

To some degree my parents' strongly libertarian attitude had a big influence on me until I grew older (I don't know to what extent other people are influenced by their parents' stances). Most of my teenage years I was on the far-right a lot, read different Nazi, Fascist, and Traditionalist authors such as Gunther, Gentile, Evola, Guenon, etc. and agreed with them. Though I still had some libertarian social tendencies.

Around a year ago though, I started to become disillusioned with statism and with class collaboration, seeing as they more often than not worked in favor of the ruling classes and my preferred state of a corporatist society of producers would need some upper state apparatus to maintain private property. Syndicalism seemed a better way than corporatism so I moved toward that.

[Zottistan]

My economic views moved from far left to maybe right of center, my social views from center left to center right, and I have always been a diehard republican politically.

[Verwood Island Archipelago]

To some degree my parents' strongly libertarian attitude had a big influence on me until I grew older (I don't know to what extent other people are influenced by their parents' stances). Most of my teenage years I was on the far-right a lot, read different Nazi, Fascist, and Traditionalist authors such as Gunther, Gentile, Evola, Guenon, etc. and agreed with them. Though I still had some libertarian social tendencies.

Around a year ago though, I started to become disillusioned with statism and with class collaboration, seeing as they more often than not worked in favor of the ruling classes and my preferred state of a corporatist society of producers would need some upper state apparatus to maintain private property. Syndicalism seemed a better way than corporatism so I moved toward that.

My early left wing beliefs were definitely influenced by my parents working class background.

After a dark time in secondary school and studying business at a technical college I rebelled and became obnoxiously pro-capitalist but over the years have drifted towards the centre. Sometimes to the left of centre and sometimes to the right of centre depending upon what the issue is.

[Atomic Utopia]

I have moved from no real political views to Communism, more specifically classical Marxism. Upon realizing how impractical that was, I took a hard swing right to libertarianism, but ultimately also realized the futility in that. I then took a slightly less hard swing left into socialism, advocating the gradual nationalization of all industry. Then I took a comparatively softer swing right to where I am now in a center right area where I support lower corporate taxes and a free market, but also support increased welfare expenditure in a NIT or UBI type system, as well as a progressive income tax system and taxes on various externalities.

I always have been socially liberal, which is largely the only thing that has not change. Though a while ago I was a bit homophobic and definitely transphobic. Now I am far, far less so.

[Shefkland]

I was brought up in a family that voted Green, and I supported that for a while. When I was 12, I had an edgy anarchist egoist phase, but quickly slid back into environmentalist social democracy.

In high school I started to consider myself a reformist socialist, and I started reading political stuff outside the mainstream.

By the end of high school, I was reading more radical literature, critiques of humanism, the debate surrounding the Holodomor, and considering myself an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. I was hesitant to call myself a Maoist because I didn't fully understand it, but once I read more, I settled into my current politics.

Tldr: over about 10 years, I slowly slid from mainstream progressivism to revolutionary communism

[Soviet Socialist and Peoples Republics]

I was brought up in a family that voted Green, and I supported that for a while. When I was 12, I had an edgy anarchist egoist phase, but quickly slid back into environmentalist social democracy.

In high school I started to consider myself a reformist socialist, and I started reading political stuff outside the mainstream.

By the end of high school, I was reading more radical literature, critiques of humanism, the debate surrounding the Holodomor, and considering myself an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. I was hesitant to call myself a Maoist because I didn't fully understand it, but once I read more, I settled into my current politics.

Tldr: over about 10 years, I slowly slid from mainstream progressivism to revolutionary communism

Welcome to the light, comrade. As for Maoism, it's basically Marxism-Leninism applied and implemented to the unique circumstances of China, much like S T A L I N I S M (hrrrr, so evil, can you feel the evil crawling on your back yet?) is just Marxism-Leninism applied to the unique circumstances of the Soviet Union. Just like Hoxhaism is Marxism-Leninism in Albania and Ho Chi Minh thought is Marxism-Leninism in Vietnam.

[Zhopgrad]

Ah yes, mine was a random one, First I was about as Capitalist as can be, trusted Corporations and such, then for a short while as a sick joke I was a Nazi. Then I formed Zhopgrad as another joke, as a Stalinist Hell-hole. After a while it got boring so I made it nicer in Zhopgrad and started to believe in what I had created, started learning more about Socialism, began taking an interest in Eastern Europe and here I am today!

[Ishraqistan]

right wing conservative -> social democrat -> democratic socialist -> FULLCOMMIE council communist -> FULLCOMMIE council communist but on Islamic principles and a touch of Sharia

wew

Collectivist all the way through at least. Like me.
But far, far more religious...

;^)

right wing conservative -> social democrat -> democratic socialist -> FULLCOMMIE council communist -> FULLCOMMIE council communist but on Islamic principles and a touch of Sharia

wew

>islamic communism

>muslim
>immoral rich bourgeois borderline kafirs thrive while the pious but poor Muslimeen die

:^)

>islamic communism

Pretty sure you can put in "no money" and "to each according to what they deserve, from each according to what they have done" and not be a dirty heretic or takfir? Or am I wrong?

of course you can, everyone is equal in the eyes of God ; )

[United Muscovite Nations]

For me, what instigated such radical political change in a short period (about 18 months) wasn't so much change in political opinion as radical change in worldview. Prior to my conversion to Christianity, I viewed the world according to the tenets of Scientific Socialism (Dialectical Materialism). Reading about non-materialist worldviews, as well as my confidence in my ability to observe the world reliably being shaken (by the onset of schizophrenia), really destroyed any trust I had in Dialectical Materialism, and I turned at first to nihilism, which was soul-crushingly horrible, and then to Christian mysticism, which is how I got to where I am today.

What's some good stuff to read on non-materialist worldviews?

Just about anything by Berkeley, some stuff by Hegel (and later, Giovanni Gentile) on metaphysics, Sorel is breddy good too.

[The Islands of Versilia]

I used to be some sort of Communist in my earlier years.

Nowadays I'm between Liberal Socialism and strong-handed Left Nationalism.

[Imperializt Russia]

What's some good stuff to read on non-materialist worldviews?

Just about anything by Berkeley, some stuff by Hegel (and later, Giovanni Gentile) on metaphysics, Sorel is breddy good too.

Isn't metaphysics derided? Isn't that where we get stuff like ohkras?

[Sovaal]

I was brought up in a family that voted Green, and I supported that for a while. When I was 12, I had an edgy anarchist egoist phase, but quickly slid back into environmentalist social democracy.

In high school I started to consider myself a reformist socialist, and I started reading political stuff outside the mainstream.

By the end of high school, I was reading more radical literature, critiques of humanism, the debate surrounding the Holodomor, and considering myself an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. I was hesitant to call myself a Maoist because I didn't fully understand it, but once I read more, I settled into my current politics.

Tldr: over about 10 years, I slowly slid from mainstream progressivism to revolutionary communism

Welcome to the light, comrade. As for Maoism, it's basically Marxism-Leninism applied and implemented to the unique circumstances of China, much like S T A L I N I S M (hrrrr, so evil, can you feel the evil crawling on your back yet?) is just Marxism-Leninism applied to the unique circumstances of the Soviet Union. Just like Hoxhaism is Marxism-Leninism in Albania and Ho Chi Minh thought is Marxism-Leninism in Vietnam.

Ewww, Stalinism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Just about anything by Berkeley, some stuff by Hegel (and later, Giovanni Gentile) on metaphysics, Sorel is breddy good too.

Isn't metaphysics derided? Isn't that where we get stuff like ohkras?

It's derided by people who think that science has replaced philosophy when science is just a branch of philosophy. The reason something like materialism seems so obvious to us is that it's the explanation of reality that we're the most used to.

Metaphysics is pretty much the basis of all philosophy; even the scientific method is based on metaphysical suppositions.

[The Grene Knyght]

Procto don't tease me like this

What do you mean

You're teasing us with your secret commie side.

[The Liberated Territories]

an-cap that grew up to be a minarchist.

muh six months

[Calladan]

an-cap that grew up to be a minarchist.

muh six months

For reasons I can't quite fathom, I always read that as "mini-Christ" and it always confuses the crap out of me.

[Arashi Shoujo]

Sorel is breddy good too.

[Telconi]

Socialist in high school. Drifted right economically, as I realized that socialism was fundamentally flawed. I still hold somewhat left of center economic beliefs. Socially, I'm pretty liberal. I'm a largely disillusioned Democrat, because while I agree with what they claim to support, I disagree in their actual policies. Unfortunately this level of disagreement has forced me into voting Republican or Libertarian these last couple of cycles. But I wait with anticipation for the damn DNC to give me a candidate I can get behind without feeling filthy.

[Proctopeo]

What do you mean

You're teasing us with your secret commie side.

Talk to 13-year-old me about that, modern me is a mixed-economy person

[Genivaria]

I agree with him on both counts, I'm just a Social Democrat.

Ah but you're a socialist on Thursdays and a liberal on the weekend to be fair.

I don't see those as mutually exclusive, and when they conflict I take the side of personal freedom.

[Telconi]

Ah but you're a socialist on Thursdays and a liberal on the weekend to be fair.

I don't see those as mutually exclusive, and when they conflict I take the side of personal freedom.

Socialism and personal freedom conflict when anyone other than a socialist is involved. Anyone who doesn't believe in the ideals of a socialist system is either forced to comply with the system. Or, he is allowed to not participate in the system, retaining his personal freedoms, but fracturing the system's unity, which it depends on to function.

Peaceful socialism can only function with a voluntary populace.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see those as mutually exclusive, and when they conflict I take the side of personal freedom.

Socialism and personal freedom conflict when anyone other than a socialist is involved. Anyone who doesn't believe in the ideals of a socialist system is either forced to comply with the system. Or, he is allowed to not participate in the system, retaining his personal freedoms, but fracturing the system's unity, which it depends on to function.

Peaceful socialism can only function with a voluntary populace.

This is arguably correct.

Fundamentally, if you don't agree with the premise of a socialist society of any flavour, you will be unhappy with being in that socialist state.
Hayek and Rand of course spring to mind, but they were fleeing persecution from an extreme authoritarian state so no wonder it coloured their worldview.

One could make the counter-argument that the reasons a person would like to participate in a capitalist society are dealt with or eliminated in a socialist society anyway. A cynical socialist, possibly an anarchist, could make the argument that a person who disagrees with the socialist ideal is of course a person in favour of hierarchy by class and wealth, and exploitation of workers through wage labour, even if that person is a worker. After all, they are literally supporting that system.
The reasons for wanting this hierarchy of class and wealth are (cynically) motivated by greed, at some level - whether the pure desire to sit at the top and dominate power, or the wish to accrue more wealth albeit through actually being genuinely industrious.

Since there would be no wealth, these motives are unnecessary.

[Genivaria]

I don't see those as mutually exclusive, and when they conflict I take the side of personal freedom.

Socialism and personal freedom conflict when anyone other than a socialist is involved. Anyone who doesn't believe in the ideals of a socialist system is either forced to comply with the system. Or, he is allowed to not participate in the system, retaining his personal freedoms, but fracturing the system's unity, which it depends on to function.

Peaceful socialism can only function with a voluntary populace.

Yeah I have no idea what you're talking about.
I should also mention again for the record that I'm a Social Democrat, not an outright Socialist.

[Genivaria]

Socialism and personal freedom conflict when anyone other than a socialist is involved. Anyone who doesn't believe in the ideals of a socialist system is either forced to comply with the system. Or, he is allowed to not participate in the system, retaining his personal freedoms, but fracturing the system's unity, which it depends on to function.

Peaceful socialism can only function with a voluntary populace.

This is arguably correct.

Fundamentally, if you don't agree with the premise of a socialist society of any flavour, you will be unhappy with being in that socialist state.
Hayek and Rand of course spring to mind, but they were fleeing persecution from an extreme authoritarian state so no wonder it coloured their worldview.

One could make the counter-argument that the reasons a person would like to participate in a capitalist society are dealt with or eliminated in a socialist society anyway. A cynical socialist, possibly an anarchist, could make the argument that a person who disagrees with the socialist ideal is of course a person in favour of hierarchy by class and wealth, and exploitation of workers through wage labour, even if that person is a worker. After all, they are literally supporting that system.
The reasons for wanting this hierarchy of class and wealth are (cynically) motivated by greed, at some level - whether the pure desire to sit at the top and dominate power, or the wish to accrue more wealth albeit through actually being genuinely industrious.

Since there would be no wealth, these motives are unnecessary.

I have yet to understand how a society without any wealth or some other personal motivator would even function, as left-leaning as I am the profit motive actually makes alot of sense.