What is your political ideology

[Byzconia]

Why not?

Communists can't prove that their ideology is superior, because it is not.

Also, "something something bourgeois democracy."

[Democratic Communist Federation]

"Winning an argument" is how you win people to your cause. Marx himself argued that it was the duty of Communists to proselytize to the working class and propagandize at every opportunity.

Communism is not a cause. It is theory and praxis (practice). People need emancipation, not convincing.

[VoVoDoCo]

I'm kind of a novice when it comes to Georgism. Most of my readings, while all being secondary sources, have been very convincing. I still want to read some unique primary materials first though.

Socially I'm as Libertarian as it gets.

Same here. I’m more of a Geolibertarian than anything else, but I’m slightly more conserbative on social issues. I’m pro-life on abortion, but I see both sides of the capital punishment debate.

I recently discovered Georgism and it managed to somehow fit in perfectly with Libertarian logic. A miracle. Tho I happen to be more socially left.

[VoVoDoCo]

Right-Leaning Capitalist Libertarian-Legalist. Although after doing some research Georgism is an interesting economic system, and something I may pursue in the future

I'm kind of a novice when it comes to Georgism. Most of my readings, while all being secondary sources, have been very convincing. I still want to read some unique primary materials first though.

Socially I'm as Libertarian as it gets.

Have you found any good primary sources?

On Poverty and Progess is a must read. I haven't managed to get my hands on it. Probably An Amazon thing.

Same here. I’m more of a Geolibertarian than anything else, but I’m slightly more conserbative on social issues. I’m pro-life on abortion, but I see both sides of the capital punishment debate.

I honestly can't see a good libertarian being pro-life...
Although we are not required to follow every teaching of the political system we believe in. Hence why I am a Libertarian-Legalist, rather than a normal Libertarian

It's tough, but not impossible. It usually is either:

• They were conservatives first, and only then experiencing political shift.
• They interpret the NAP differently, which is why the NAP has very little place in political thought imho anyway.

[Byzconia]

"Winning an argument" is how you win people to your cause. Marx himself argued that it was the duty of Communists to proselytize to the working class and propagandize at every opportunity.

Communism is not a cause. It is theory and praxis (practice). People need emancipation, not convincing.

"Who cares what the working class actually wants, we'll tell them what they want, whether they like it or not." And here we have the reason why one-party communist rule failed miserably.

[Uiiop]

No, because there are more important things to do. Winning an argument is not a part of the communist struggle. If people want to find out about communism, there are plenty of resources for that.

"Winning an argument" is how you win people to your cause. Marx himself argued that it was the duty of Communists to proselytize to the working class and propagandize at every opportunity.

Tbf internet fourm discourse is a shit(Not in the sense of being 100% impossible to convince people but still) place and a shit method to win people over. I'm not sure Marx would say opportunities are always there.

[Liberated Communist States]

I can, it would just take awhile.

Lack of effort is not an effective argument.

I never said it was, I'm just busy.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

"Who cares what the working class actually wants, we'll tell them what they want, whether they like it or not." And here we have the reason why one-party communist rule failed miserably.

I said no such thing. I also do not believe in one-party communist rule.

[Helensburgh]

Right-Leaning Capitalist Libertarian-Legalist. Although after doing some research Georgism is an interesting economic system, and something I may pursue in the future
Have you found any good primary sources?

On Poverty and Progess is a must read. I haven't managed to get my hands on it. Probably An Amazon thing.

I honestly can't see a good libertarian being pro-life...
Although we are not required to follow every teaching of the political system we believe in. Hence why I am a Libertarian-Legalist, rather than a normal Libertarian

It's tough, but not impossible. It usually is either:

• They were conservatives first, and only then experiencing political shift.
• They interpret the NAP differently, which is why the NAP has very little place in political thought imho anyway.

An abridged edition of Progress and Poverty was free for a few weeks from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, which I got my hands on and made some friends order too. Even though it is abridged, it was a real treasure to read. George is a brilliant author and thinker, P&P is definitely worth paying for, and even though I have my free copy I will try and purchase an old, unabridged edition at some point.

[Byzconia]

"Winning an argument" is how you win people to your cause. Marx himself argued that it was the duty of Communists to proselytize to the working class and propagandize at every opportunity.

Tbf internet fourm discourse is a shit(Not in the sense of being 100% impossible to convince people but still) place and a shit method to win people over. I'm not sure Marx would say opportunities are always there.

Hear this argument all the time and fundamentally disagree.

[Byzconia]

"Who cares what the working class actually wants, we'll tell them what they want, whether they like it or not." And here we have the reason why one-party communist rule failed miserably.

I said no such thing.

No, it's just the logical conclusion of your argument. Education is how you emancipate the working class.

I also do not believe in one-party communist rule.

Yet you're using literally the same argument they did to justify their rule.

[Meikaii]

Fascism inspired, merit based geniocracy. It is the government's job, when rooted purely in fact, to eliminate falsehoods through whatever means necessary. By virtue of the politicans being benevolent and intelligent, there is little need for opposition; it can be said that any oppostion to decency, intelligence, reason, and a higher standard of living is definitively an oppressor which should be stamped out as soon as possible.

[VoVoDoCo]

On Poverty and Progess is a must read. I haven't managed to get my hands on it. Probably An Amazon thing.


It's tough, but not impossible. It usually is either:

• They were conservatives first, and only then experiencing political shift.
• They interpret the NAP differently, which is why the NAP has very little place in political thought imho anyway.

An abridged edition of Progress and Poverty was free for a few weeks from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, which I got my hands on and made some friends order too. Even though it is abridged, it was a real treasure to read. George is a brilliant author and thinker, P&P is definitely worth paying for, and even though I have my free copy I will try and purchase an old, unabridged edition at some point.

I'm on Amazon right now. Hardback and Softback is $25-$15. Not to shabby.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

No, it's just the logical conclusion of your argument. Education is how you emancipate the working class.

Education is not the same as debating. As a long-time sociology professor, I educate my students about Marxist theory all the time. The subject is a part of the courses I teach. However, I never enter into debates.

Yet you're using literally the same argument they did to justify their rule.

And what argument is that?

Either way, since, as a Luxemburgist, I do not support one-party rule, I would suggest that you misunderstood what I wrote.

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

I've reached the point where I think that political ideology isn't worth a shit to everyone in power. In governance and politics, the only things that matter is to stay in power and become better off.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Communists can't prove that their ideology is superior, because it is not.

No, because there are more important things to do. Winning an argument is not a part of the communist struggle. If people want to find out about communism, there are plenty of resources for that.

I don't want any part of any ideology in which winning an argument is not a part of its struggle.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Communists can't prove that their ideology is superior, because it is not.

No, because there are more important things to do. Winning an argument is not a part of the communist struggle. If people want to find out about communism, there are plenty of resources for that.

Why? Is suppressing your opponents more desirable in your ideology?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

one-party communist rule

Doesn't exist

Fascism inspired, merit based geniocracy. It is the government's job, when rooted purely in fact, to eliminate falsehoods through whatever means necessary. By virtue of the politicans being benevolent and intelligent, there is little need for opposition; it can be said that any oppostion to decency, intelligence, reason, and a higher standard of living is definitively an oppressor which should be stamped out as soon as possible.

Not every politician is intelligent or benevolent.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Fascism inspired, merit based geniocracy. It is the government's job, when rooted purely in fact, to eliminate falsehoods through whatever means necessary. By virtue of the politicans being benevolent and intelligent, there is little need for opposition; it can be said that any oppostion to decency, intelligence, reason, and a higher standard of living is definitively an oppressor which should be stamped out as soon as possible.

Because the people in power won't totally create their own truth to justify their atrocities, and suppress whistle blowers.

[Nordengrund]

Right-Leaning Capitalist Libertarian-Legalist. Although after doing some research Georgism is an interesting economic system, and something I may pursue in the future
Have you found any good primary sources?

On Poverty and Progess is a must read. I haven't managed to get my hands on it. Probably An Amazon thing.

I honestly can't see a good libertarian being pro-life...
Although we are not required to follow every teaching of the political system we believe in. Hence why I am a Libertarian-Legalist, rather than a normal Libertarian

It's tough, but not impossible. It usually is either:

• They were conservatives first, and only then experiencing political shift.
• They interpret the NAP differently, which is why the NAP has very little place in political thought imho anyway.

Yeah, I started off as a conservative, so that kinda explains my views.

[Cekoviu]

Republican

As in a republican political system or the Republican Party of the United States?

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

I've reached the point where I think that political ideology isn't worth a shit to everyone in power. In governance and politics, the only things that matter is to stay in power and become better off.

Stop acting like most politicians.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I don't want any part of any ideology in which winning an argument is not a part of its struggle.

Marx was not a rationalist, so I guess that leaves out Marxism.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Why? Is suppressing your opponents more desirable in your ideology?

Now, if only you could show me where I advocated suppressing anyone. Good luck, since I never said it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Why? Is suppressing your opponents more desirable in your ideology?

Now, if only you could show me where I advocated suppressing anyone. Good luck, since I never said it.

Many people who believe in suppression don't say it outright though.