What is your political ideology

[Vaeruio]

My political ideology in simple terms is Democratic Socialist. While the long version is Authoritarian Christian Social Democracy. Though, I am also a Monarchist. So, for the even longer title Authoritarian Christian Social Democratic Monarchist. I'll try and answer any questions y'all have, anyways, have a nice day.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Is it fair to say I like monarchies and nobility, and love things like the titles, the pomp, and even to an extent the idea of them all having private armies ie feudalism, but I understand this is a horribly corrupt system with little benefits other than I find it aesthetically pleasing?

[The Foxes Swamp]

anarchy

[Wawakanatote]

Literally stop....You only make yourself out to be an even bigger fool than what you already are with that set of beliefs.

This might possibly be the only situation where I side with DCF, but a Marxist-Leninist, of all people, shouldn't talk about others being a fool "with that set of beliefs".

Okay bud, I guess it's not foolish to invoke a "not real socialism" argument when talking about Marxism or use dumb distinctions like "libertarian" or "authoritarian" when talking about socialism, communism, or capitalism, which is a pretty elementary way of looking at politics.

[Vaeruio]

anarchy

Why do you support anarchism?

[Adad Civilization]

Anarcho-Nazism

The German Race must be the only race for all of us to be free.

[Upper Secundus]

I guess I'd describe myself as a Rock and Roller Supremacist.

Rock and roll must be the only music for all of us to be free.

[Adad Civilization]

Anarcho-Nazism

The German Race must be the only race for all of us to be free.

I guess I'd describe myself as a Rock and Roller Supremacist.

Rock and roll must be the only music for all of us to be free.

HMMMMMMM

[North German Realm]

This might possibly be the only situation where I side with DCF, but a Marxist-Leninist, of all people, shouldn't talk about others being a fool "with that set of beliefs".

Okay bud, I guess it's not foolish to invoke a "not real socialism" argument when talking about Marxism or use dumb distinctions like "libertarian" or "authoritarian" when talking about socialism, communism, or capitalism, which is a pretty elementary way of looking at politics.

It indeed is not. It is your world view that is foolish and childish at its core, like all forms of authoritarian thought.
Specifically about Socialism, the very real historical divide that did in fact happen between the authoritarian revolutionaries and reformist parliamentarians that started as early as 1863 or the similar divide between anarchists and parliamentarians even earlier in the First Internationale, makes it enough to say it is indeed not foolish and actually a very important way of looking at theory and seeing whether or not it is worth adhering to. Of course, only a totalitarian such as yourself would consider the very basis of modern political divide (Liberal political freedoms vs. reactionary state power) as "childish and elementary"; which is in fact not at all true. Distinctions such as "liberty-oriented" (i.e. "Power to the people") and "Authority-oriented" (i.e. "Power to the State") are one of the very first things that need to be made clear for an ideology to start dabbling in discourse.

[Upper Secundus]

Anarcho-Nazism

The German Race must be the only race for all of us to be free.

I guess I'd describe myself as a Rock and Roller Supremacist.

Rock and roll must be the only music for all of us to be free.

HMMMMMMM

Oh no...don't tell me you're another Sweet-Jazzite!

[The Technocrates]

Technocrat, I just believe that scientists should be in charge because if they can land a man on the moon and know how life started, then they can certainly turn society into a utopia.

[Adad Civilization]

HMMMMMMM

Oh no...don't tell me you're another Sweet-Jazzite!

No, I'm a metalist

I was just HMMMing over the similarities between our posts

[Internationalist Bastard]

Technocrat, I just believe that scientists should be in charge because if they can land a man on the moon and know how life started, then they can certainly turn society into a utopia.

This annoys me so much
That’s not what Technocracy is

[The Foxes Swamp]

anarchy

Why do you support anarchism?

we are on this planet once and the system we have is the best we can come up with?

[Upper Secundus]

Oh no...don't tell me you're another Sweet-Jazzite!

No, I'm a metalist

I was just HMMMing over the similarities between our posts

I've always admired the Metalist ideology as well, there's a lot in common with Rock and Rollism. I'd even go as far as to say that Metalism is a more extreme branch of it.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Technocrat, I just believe that scientists should be in charge because if they can land a man on the moon and know how life started, then they can certainly turn society into a utopia.

This annoys me so much
That’s not what Technocracy is

It depends on whether you mean technocracy in the broad definition (a proposed system of governance in which decision-makers are selected on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility), or technocracy in the narrow definition (that price system-based forms of government and economy are structurally incapable of effective action, and that a society headed by technical experts would be more rational and productive). The broad definition has origins in either Plato or Henri de Saint-Simon, whereas the narrow definition has origins in 1930s America during the Great Depression.

Perhaps the closest example of a RL technocracy (according to the broad definition) would be Singapore, given that from what I've read the political and expert components of the governing system in Singapore seem to have merged nigh-completely. Although, I could be spouting a load of dingoes kidneys. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Hanafuridake]

Is it fair to say I like monarchies and nobility, and love things like the titles, the pomp, and even to an extent the idea of them all having private armies ie feudalism, but I understand this is a horribly corrupt system with little benefits other than I find it aesthetically pleasing?

Yes. It's one reason I can appreciate sōhei and monastic homosexuality in medieval Buddhism while not wanting to return to those things because of the religious violence and power imbalance in relationships which were an essential part of those systems.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Is it fair to say I like monarchies and nobility, and love things like the titles, the pomp, and even to an extent the idea of them all having private armies ie feudalism, but I understand this is a horribly corrupt system with little benefits other than I find it aesthetically pleasing?

Yes. It's one reason I can appreciate sōhei and monastic homosexuality in medieval Buddhism while not wanting to return to those things because of the religious violence and power imbalance in relationships which were an essential part of those systems.

To this day as a Buddhist I have no idea how I feel about warrior monks

[Marrero]

my political ideology is everyone needs to sodomize(not my ass) me in my country or theyre executed UNLESS they're underaged of course theres no age of consent in Marrero( in order to keep the old men happy ) but still...... they have to be 18.

anyways everyone knwos politics are for people who want to feel important

there is no race here either since everyone knows any idiot who uses race to feel superior to other people is just pathetic and has no other superior qualities.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

my political ideology is everyone needs to sodomize(not my ass) me in my country or theyre executed UNLESS they're underaged of course theres no age of consent in Marrero( in order to keep the old men happy ) but still...... they have to be 18.

anyways everyone knwos politics are for people who want to feel important

there is no race here either since everyone knows any idiot who uses race to feel superior to other people is just pathetic and has no other superior qualities.

Hello, and welcome to NS! I know that you're new here, which is why I'm here to inform you that General is an Out-of-Character forum. Also, and I don't wish to be impolite, but I'd advise that you better adhere to the standard spelling and grammar conventions of the English language.

[Mystic Warriors]

Socialist. Capitalism is pure evil.

Go ahead and repeat the disaster that is socialism.

Socialism has never been tried.

[Mystic Warriors]

The libertarian communism or socialism, which described by Marx and Engels, has never been tried. The last century began with Lenin's twisted authoritarian capitalism, not communism.

Literally stop....You only make yourself out to be an even bigger fool than what you already are with that set of beliefs.

He is right though. Socialism has never been tried, and most dont even know what it is much less democratic socialism.

[Kazarogkai]

I am a Fascist as my signature indicates. More explanation can be done but I'm feeling a bit lazy.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Go ahead and repeat the disaster that is socialism.

Socialism has never been tried.

Here we go with the "meh it wasn't real socialism again". Venezuela would like to have a word with you. Every single time someone new has tried socialism it has turned to crap.

[Mystic Warriors]

Socialism has never been tried.

Here we go with the "meh it wasn't real socialism again". Venezuela would like to have a word with you. Every single time someone new has tried socialism it has turned to crap.

Venezuela isnt socialist, just because you use the word doesn't mean you practice it.

No; Venezuela is not a socialist state in the sense of having its government officially and constitutionally bound to socialist construction (this is what a “socialist state” means in the the Marxist-Leninist / Communist sense). At most, a socialist party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, held a majority in the National Assembly from 2000 to 2015 and two of the country’s presidents have belonged to this party.

Now let’s turn to the question you probably intended to ask: does Venezuela have a socialist economy?

The answer to this would unequivocally be no. The dynamic of capital accumulation still drives economic activity, most enterprises are privately-owned and profit seeking, the the wage-labor relationship is still in place - and even more fundamentally - Veneuzela operates in a global capitalist market system.

The government does intervene with the process of capital accumulation and with market processes and does create a negative and uncertain atmosphere for business in the name of fighting corruption and serving the needs of “the people”. But it hasn’t erected a new system to replace capitalism - nor could it accomplish such a monumental task on its own. At most Venezuela is a mixed economy with anti-business government policies that distort markets and retard growth.

The most socialist aspect of Venezuela was during Chavez’s presidency when the profits of Venezuela’s Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (a state-owned oil company that was under state ownership prior to Chavez taking power) was used to finance social programs.