What is your political ideology

[The Archregimancy]

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.

Knock it off; attack the argument, not the poster.

You're only escaping a formal warning because you did in part target the beliefs; but the sideswipe about 'an even bigger fool', though relatively mild as these things go, was unwelcome.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

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.

Link to source please.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

I find this ironic

[Wawakanatote]

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.

The problem with using the distinctions between "liberty-oriented" and "authority-oriented" (at least for me anyway) is that there is no either or in this situation. All ideologies, regardless if they claim to be "libertarian" or "authoritarian" take from both sides (be it liberalism or socialism), so to use it as a distinction between things is ridiculous. Also, calling someone a "totalitarian" literally means nothing as it's just a cheap buzzword, it's the equivalent of calling Bernie Sanders a "full-fledged communist" or Donald Trump a "neo-nazi dictator".

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think about t much anymore. I've been called socialist, pinko commie, conservative (yeah, I have been), and a host of other things. Me? When in the US, I identify as democrat. When back home in Spain, I'm PSOE, although some people say my leanings are more in line with IU. I don't frankly know anymore.

All politicos are cut from the same cloth.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I don't think about t much anymore. I've been called socialist, pinko commie, conservative (yeah, I have been), and a host of other things. Me? When in the US, I identify as democrat. When back home in Spain, I'm PSOE, although some people say my leanings are more in line with IU. I don't frankly know anymore.

All politicos are cut from the same cloth.

All that matters is that sweet, sweet monayyy.

[Kyrinasaj]

It's pretty complicated but what it comes down to is just that I support a decentralized form of socialism with a focus on agrarianism and environmentalism.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

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.

No. Rock and roll must coexist with other forms of music, or it cannot exist. Rock and roll is about the freedom and pluralism of individuals, and to have that, we must allow other forms of music.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Go ahead and repeat the disaster that is socialism.

Socialism has never been tried.

So, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, most of Eastern Europe, Allende, Guevara, Pol Pot, lots of Africa, and more... None of them were attempting Socialism? What were they attempting if not Socialism? You could argue that they're not true Socialism in fruition, but I don't see how you could argue that none of them even attempted Socialism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Socialism has never been tried.

So, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, most of Eastern Europe, Allende, Guevara, Pol Pot, lots of Africa, and more... None of them were attempting Socialism? What were they attempting if not Socialism? You could argue that they're not true Socialism in fruition, but I don't see how you could argue that none of them even attempted Socialism.

This
One can debate whether any government is socialist or not, but it’s definitely been attempted many times

[Mystic Warriors]

Socialism has never been tried.

So, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, most of Eastern Europe, Allende, Guevara, Pol Pot, lots of Africa, and more... None of them were attempting Socialism? What were they attempting if not Socialism? You could argue that they're not true Socialism in fruition, but I don't see how you could argue that none of them even attempted Socialism.

Attempting socialism and it being actual socialism are two different things. True socialism has never been in effect.

Mao was closer to communism, but again it was a bastardization of it. Communism has no classes, no money and no state. That is definitely not what China got.

[Liberated Communist States]

Currently I'm working on a concept of Techno-Folkism, it combines the elements of Technocracy, Left-Nationlism, Environmentalism, and Pagan beliefs(depending on your people the Paganism will be different, I myself follow Norse Paganism). It would be Authoritarian, but have a local Devolution model. It would have a government formed from three Divisions:

- Enlightenment Division(Science and Religion).

- Labor Division(Industry, Agriculture, Computer Systems etc).

- Defense(Police, Border Guards, Military etc).

It would promote Technological advancement, in the industry and labor, a sort of Peoples Nationalism(no racial or Fascistic elements would be tolerated, Ie Pro-Totalitarian agittators) and Traditionalism, in lifestyle, character and religion.

[Wawakanatote]

So, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, most of Eastern Europe, Allende, Guevara, Pol Pot, lots of Africa, and more... None of them were attempting Socialism? What were they attempting if not Socialism? You could argue that they're not true Socialism in fruition, but I don't see how you could argue that none of them even attempted Socialism.

Attempting socialism and it being actual socialism are two different things. True socialism has never been in effect.

Mao was closer to communism, but again it was a bastardization of it. Communism has no classes, no money and no state. That is definitely not what China got.

Mao wasn't any closer to communism than any of those other guys...
Also, socialism is literally just a bridge in the gap between capitalism and communism as society pushes forward in time.

Honestly, people who, ironically, call others (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Deng) out for "bastardization" of socialism are the actual people bastardizing socialism with ultra-left critiques and utopian beliefs. However, besides that, real bastardization of socialism is when people call social democracies socialist or when social democrats like AOC or Bernie call themselves democratic socialists or even when fascists like Hitler or Strasser call themselves national socialists.

[Mystic Warriors]

Attempting socialism and it being actual socialism are two different things. True socialism has never been in effect.

Mao was closer to communism, but again it was a bastardization of it. Communism has no classes, no money and no state. That is definitely not what China got.

Mao wasn't any closer to communism than any of those other guys...
Also, socialism is literally just a bridge in the gap between capitalism and communism as society pushes forward in time.

Honestly, people who, ironically, call others (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Deng) out for "bastardization" of socialism are the actual people bastardizing socialism with ultra-left critiques and utopian beliefs. However, besides that, real bastardization of socialism is when people call social democracies socialist or when social democrats like AOC or Bernie call themselves democratic socialists or even when fascists like Hitler or Strasser call themselves national socialists.

I would like to add not all socialist are communists, some are fine never actually going there. I for one dont want communism.

But I do agree neither Bernie or Hitler were socialists. Bernie is ok, but it seems like a buzzword to him.

[North German Realm]

The problem with using the distinctions between "liberty-oriented" and "authority-oriented" (at least for me anyway) is that there is no either or in this situation. All ideologies, regardless if they claim to be "libertarian" or "authoritarian" take from both sides (be it liberalism or socialism), so to use it as a distinction between things is ridiculous. Also, calling someone a "totalitarian" literally means nothing as it's just a cheap buzzword, it's the equivalent of calling Bernie Sanders a "full-fledged communist" or Donald Trump a "neo-nazi dictator".

While Sanders is, in fact, provably not a "full fledged" (or probably any other kind of) Communist; and while Trump is provably not a "neo-nazi" dictator (or, at least at this point, any other kind of dictator); you are provably a classical Marxist-Leninist and thus by definition totalitarian.

Furthermore, not really. While ideologies can align with both the State and the people in separate situations, one can consider where they generally align by putting a weighted zero-sum on them. Liberalism (in its actual definition, not the current American one) is provably libertarian-leaning, while it also has some authoritarian ones too (few, but still existent). Marxism-Leninism is almost completely authoritarian with almost no non-Authoritarian tendency. Thus, liberalism (and, also, by some definitions, "Libertarian Communism", which was the norm until people like you deviated from the original path in 1918) is libertarian, while Marxism-Leninism is (by large) an authoritarian ideology.

[Wawakanatote]

Mao wasn't any closer to communism than any of those other guys...
Also, socialism is literally just a bridge in the gap between capitalism and communism as society pushes forward in time.

Honestly, people who, ironically, call others (such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Deng) out for "bastardization" of socialism are the actual people bastardizing socialism with ultra-left critiques and utopian beliefs. However, besides that, real bastardization of socialism is when people call social democracies socialist or when social democrats like AOC or Bernie call themselves democratic socialists or even when fascists like Hitler or Strasser call themselves national socialists.

I would like to add not all socialist are communists, some are fine never actually going there. I for one dont want communism.

But I do agree neither Bernie or Hitler were socialists. Bernie is ok, but it seems like a buzzword to him.

To be fair, socialism has become a buzzword thanks to conservatives mainly, but I will agree that Bernie is okay. Also, yes, "not all socialists are communists", but this doesn't negate the fact that these non-communist, socialist ideologies are merely just appropriating terms long held by socialist activists and leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng, Che, or Castro, even Trotsky. Heck, even the term "social democrat" used to be used by communists until the social democrats of today began using it as pro-capitalist policy. Sooner or later us communists won't even know what to call ourselves as liberals just keep taking more and more of our terms.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, most of Eastern Europe, Allende, Guevara, Pol Pot, lots of Africa, and more... None of them were attempting Socialism? What were they attempting if not Socialism? You could argue that they're not true Socialism in fruition, but I don't see how you could argue that none of them even attempted Socialism.

Attempting socialism and it being actual socialism are two different things. True socialism has never been in effect.

Mao was closer to communism, but again it was a bastardization of it. Communism has no classes, no money and no state. That is definitely not what China got.

In which case the statement "Socialism has never been tried" is still inaccurate.

[Wawakanatote]

The problem with using the distinctions between "liberty-oriented" and "authority-oriented" (at least for me anyway) is that there is no either or in this situation. All ideologies, regardless if they claim to be "libertarian" or "authoritarian" take from both sides (be it liberalism or socialism), so to use it as a distinction between things is ridiculous. Also, calling someone a "totalitarian" literally means nothing as it's just a cheap buzzword, it's the equivalent of calling Bernie Sanders a "full-fledged communist" or Donald Trump a "neo-nazi dictator".

While Sanders is, in fact, provably not a "full fledged" (or probably any other kind of) Communist; and while Trump is provably not a "neo-nazi" dictator (or, at least at this point, any other kind of dictator); you are provably a classical Marxist-Leninist and thus by definition totalitarian.

Furthermore, not really. While ideologies can align with both the State and the people in separate situations, one can consider where they generally align by putting a weighted zero-sum on them. Liberalism (in its actual definition, not the current American one) is provably libertarian-leaning, while it also has some authoritarian ones too (few, but still existent). Marxism-Leninism is almost completely authoritarian with almost no non-Authoritarian tendency. Thus, liberalism (and, also, by some definitions, "Libertarian Communism", which was the norm until people like you deviated from the original path in 1918) is libertarian, while Marxism-Leninism is (by large) an authoritarian ideology.

By definition, Marxism-Leninism is not "totalitarian" as "totalitarianism" is simply just a buzzword used by people to put down ideologies they dislike, the only ideologies that you can call "totalitarian" are ones which specifically call themselves as such (like fascism). Also, what an absurd notion to claim that "libertarian communism" was the norm even when one of the originators of Marxism Friedrich Engels, and therefore modern-day communism, made a critique of those who complained about "authoritarianism" in 1872. So don't try to say that MLs "deviated" from the original path in 1918, which is actually funny you chose a year when Russia was plunged into a civil war as to when they "betrayed" everything by being "evil authoritarians".

Also, no non-authoritarian tendency exists within ML? Have you completely just disregarded all of the times that Che Guevara literally fought against colonialism in the third world, especially against apartheid in South Africa? All while being a Marxist-Leninist? And I guess there was nothing libertarian about Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam defeating US imperialism after pushing out Japanese imperialists even earlier?

Also, if you end up defending South Vietnam, then consider this conversation done. Because that would be rather hypocritical of you.

[North German Realm]

By definition, Marxism-Leninism is not "totalitarian" as "totalitarianism" is simply just a buzzword used by people to put down ideologies they dislike, the only ideologies that you can call "totalitarian" are ones which specifically call themselves as such (like fascism). Also, what an absurd notion to claim that "libertarian communism" was the norm even when one of the originators of Marxism Friedrich Engels, and therefore modern-day communism, made a critique of those who complained about "authoritarianism" in 1872. So don't try to say that MLs "deviated" from the original path in 1918, which is actually funny you chose a year when Russia was plunged into a civil war as to when they "betrayed" everything by being "evil authoritarians".

Also, no non-authoritarian tendency exists within ML? Have you completely just disregarded all of the times that Che Guevara literally fought against colonialism in the third world, especially against apartheid in South Africa? All while being a Marxist-Leninist? And I guess there was nothing libertarian about Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam defeating US imperialism after pushing out Japanese imperialists even earlier?

Also, if you end up defending South Vietnam, then consider this conversation done. Because that would be rather hypocritical of you.

Not really. It is in fact the farthest thing from a buzzword. You being a totalitarian doesn't make it a buzzword. Engels wasn't authoritarian either, he was just... not as liberty-oriented as Marx (or other, more intelligent communist ideologists of his time). Engels' comment regarding "complained about authoritarians" was primarily regarding the anarchists, who -at the time- were much more violent in their anti-authoritarian struggle than the largely parliamentarian Marxists were.

And not really, while Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara were authoritarian (Che not as authoritarian as Ho Chi Minh, who essentially became a tin pot dictator when assuming power), South Vietnam was as bad -if not worse- as North.

[Mystic Warriors]

Attempting socialism and it being actual socialism are two different things. True socialism has never been in effect.

Mao was closer to communism, but again it was a bastardization of it. Communism has no classes, no money and no state. That is definitely not what China got.

In which case the statement "Socialism has never been tried" is still inaccurate.

Should have stated true socialism, not the other types.

[Mystic Warriors]

I would like to add not all socialist are communists, some are fine never actually going there. I for one dont want communism.

But I do agree neither Bernie or Hitler were socialists. Bernie is ok, but it seems like a buzzword to him.

To be fair, socialism has become a buzzword thanks to conservatives mainly, but I will agree that Bernie is okay. Also, yes, "not all socialists are communists", but this doesn't negate the fact that these non-communist, socialist ideologies are merely just appropriating terms long held by socialist activists and leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng, Che, or Castro, even Trotsky. Heck, even the term "social democrat" used to be used by communists until the social democrats of today began using it as pro-capitalist policy. Sooner or later us communists won't even know what to call ourselves as liberals just keep taking more and more of our terms.

That's why most Americans dont know what socialism actually is. Conservatives have deamonized it and liberals use the terms without knowing what they mean. You go to other countries like Venezuela and you see the terms used inconsistent with their intent. You get a very muddy picture of reality.


I would like to go into more detail, but that is hard on my phone.

[Atheris]

Left leaning centrism, like most people.

Personally, though, I'm an anarcho-rumifist (my own self-created 'ideology' that isn't really an ideology), as I believe that information should be free from the controls of the government, be it internet, the press, texts, talking, or anything that applies.

Plus, to throw my hat into the ring even though I'll most likely be shat on,

Marxism-Leninism is (by definition, actually) Stalinism. It was coined by Stalin as a separate term for his form of Communism. Stalinism is inherently totalitarian at worst and authoritarian at best, so (shrug emoji)

[Hanafuridake]

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

In many instances, it would be unfair to criticize them when the reason for the formation of several of these leagues was for self-defense. It's easy to talk about absolute pacifism when it's convenient, but hard to walk the walk when one's own life is endangered. But then it reached the point where they would march on the capital if their demands were not met, or start fights over who slept with who's favorite male acolyte, it was clear that it was no longer about self-defense, but instead private corporate power of their own.

[Atheris]

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

Christian, can confirm. doesn't that like contractict buddhism or something

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

While Sanders is, in fact, provably not a "full fledged" (or probably any other kind of) Communist; and while Trump is provably not a "neo-nazi" dictator (or, at least at this point, any other kind of dictator); you are provably a classical Marxist-Leninist and thus by definition totalitarian.

Furthermore, not really. While ideologies can align with both the State and the people in separate situations, one can consider where they generally align by putting a weighted zero-sum on them. Liberalism (in its actual definition, not the current American one) is provably libertarian-leaning, while it also has some authoritarian ones too (few, but still existent). Marxism-Leninism is almost completely authoritarian with almost no non-Authoritarian tendency. Thus, liberalism (and, also, by some definitions, "Libertarian Communism", which was the norm until people like you deviated from the original path in 1918) is libertarian, while Marxism-Leninism is (by large) an authoritarian ideology.

By definition, Marxism-Leninism is not "totalitarian" as "totalitarianism" is simply just a buzzword used by people to put down ideologies they dislike, the only ideologies that you can call "totalitarian" are ones which specifically call themselves as such (like fascism). Also, what an absurd notion to claim that "libertarian communism" was the norm even when one of the originators of Marxism Friedrich Engels, and therefore modern-day communism, made a critique of those who complained about "authoritarianism" in 1872. So don't try to say that MLs "deviated" from the original path in 1918, which is actually funny you chose a year when Russia was plunged into a civil war as to when they "betrayed" everything by being "evil authoritarians".

Also, no non-authoritarian tendency exists within ML? Have you completely just disregarded all of the times that Che Guevara literally fought against colonialism in the third world, especially against apartheid in South Africa? All while being a Marxist-Leninist? And I guess there was nothing libertarian about Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam defeating US imperialism after pushing out Japanese imperialists even earlier?

Also, if you end up defending South Vietnam, then consider this conversation done. Because that would be rather hypocritical of you.

Opposing US imperialism does not preclude one from being authoritarian.