What is Your Political Ideology?

[Haremm]

I'm more inclined to Democratic Socialism with a dash of the Nordic model (whatever those Scandinavians are doing).

[Democratic Commune of France]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Of the anti-revisionist kind, for that matter.

Do I support leftist unity? Well, I will work with anarchists on some issues, but ultimately it would be quite hard for us to work together long-term, due to our differences in organization in principle. I will, however, work with Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Luxemburgists, and even revolutionary-Marxist socdems in achieving revolution. By "revolutionary Marxist socdems" I mean those social-democrats who are very Leninist-leaning and use democratic centralism in organizing and support revolution as a means of achieving their goals.

[Nuroblav]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Of the anti-revisionist kind, for that matter.

Do I support leftist unity? Well, I will work with anarchists on some issues, but ultimately it would be quite hard for us to work together long-term, due to our differences in organization in principle. I will, however, work with Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Luxemburgists, and even revolutionary-Marxist socdems in achieving revolution. By "revolutionary Marxist socdems" I mean those social-democrats who are very Leninist-leaning and use democratic centralism in organizing and support revolution as a means of achieving their goals.

Coming from an ancom, I agree that the left being quite a diverse area (to be fair that can be said for politics in general) means that everyone working together in bringing about the society may be hard to work with.

[Acwth]

I'm a social democrat in the classical sense, meaning parliamentary reforms as the means to achieving socialism. In the shorter-term, I would like to see my country (Australia) develop towards what is typically called the Nordic model. I chose centre-left on the poll.

[Servilis]

Yeossism,

put quite simply it's the ideology I made which is basically just Anarchist Socialism with a modified version of Max Weber's definition of the State,
aside from that the main difference is that my ideology focuses on making society and life much more easier and simply, by looking into certain aspects that if were made easier to use, would actually make an overall quality of life improvement, mainly how General Ledgers are arranged, because the way General Ledgers and such are made is so hard to understand.

On the Political Compass it can be found at somewhere around -9,-9.

It also promotes ideas like Transhumanism as well as Vigilantism.

It doesn't matter how Yeossism is achieved, whether through Reform or Revolution, just that it is achieved.
I've already wrote a small lil' thing on Wattpad that gets to the jist of it by stating it's policies.

Although right now I'm writing a bigger version that is both updated and more informative and precise.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Of the anti-revisionist kind, for that matter.

Do I support leftist unity? Well, I will work with anarchists on some issues, but ultimately it would be quite hard for us to work together long-term, due to our differences in organization in principle. I will, however, work with Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, Luxemburgists, and even revolutionary-Marxist socdems in achieving revolution. By "revolutionary Marxist socdems" I mean those social-democrats who are very Leninist-leaning and use democratic centralism in organizing and support revolution as a means of achieving their goals.

Coming from an ancom, I agree that the left being quite a diverse area (to be fair that can be said for politics in general) means that everyone working together in bringing about the society may be hard to work with.

I'm not that bothered about the authoritarian/anarchist question because I don't think we'll really know which method "works" until one of them is successful.

In practical terms I end up alienated from both despite sympathy with the economic because of the very radical cultural positions and lack of tolerance for part buy-in. People expect it to be a "package deal" for their contingent alliance with various other groups and often people start tutting even at staying neutral on controversial topics, grumbling about "bystanderism" and so on. Which starts giving me the "are we the bad guys" vibes and I then start backing out of active support.

I used to square this by arguing that once a revolution was completed politics and economics would be much more local and partisan wedge issues would wither away, leading to the unintentional conclusion of more homogenous and "small c" conservative social politics. But with the increasing radicalism on the issue I think that maybe overthrow of the system might inevitably end up in one side or the other using either camps or decentralised inquisitorial-style lynch mobs to remove their opponents rather than tensions reducing. The forces of history seem to be leading away from the feasibility of what is like to see.

Which might eventually lead to a turn on my part back away from the left and support for any sort of revolutionary politics.

[J o J]

You know I bet this is a question some people have for me. You know, a nation that supports certain aspects of democracy while at the same time working with fascists and monarchies; what's the big idea?

Well, most of those aforementioned folks are third positionists, individuals who despise and/or disagree with both sides of the left vs right paradigm, and instead they take from both ends to create their own more personalized and purified way of thinking. There seems to be a few defined groups of third positionists, ranging from simple fence sitting centrists to full fascists. Me? Well, I'm some sort of democracy that adds in limitations on freedom of speech, bans non-democratic parties, and promotes militarism and nationalism. This is NOT a democracy like the modern United States, full of rampant individualism and unregulated capitalism. Speaking of capitalism, that is heavily regulated too to protect the environment and people while also allowing for slow but steady economic growth and activity, and the aspect of economics is where a lot of self proclaimed third positionists build their houses on, so to say; the desire to institute a system that is either a mix or complete outlier from the socialism versus capitalism world. I for one desire for a mix of the two where capitalism holds a minor edge over socialism in terms of policy and practical effectivity. But let's stop it there because I'm getting off topic, I'm supposed to be answering the simple question, so here it is: Third positionist slightly in favor of the right

Edit: I see the AN is "Dumb Ideologies". That'll be a fun time if they respond to this post, there is plenty to nitpick on regarding if this ideology of mine could actually effectively be put into practice, but hey, this is NationStates.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Self Improvement

[Rojava Free State]

I'm from the Fuck off, I got work to do party, and currently we are running EDP445 as our candidate in the American election.

I'm not allowed to totally tell you what we stand for but if you wanna know more, just go on YouTube and look this man up.

[Free Indian States]

The classic political compass test gave me just barely Auth right, about (2,2) I'd say.

[La Xinga]

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

I'm from the Fuck off, I got work to do party, and currently we are running EDP445 as our candidate in the American election.

I'm not allowed to totally tell you what we stand for but if you wanna know more, just go on YouTube and look this man up.

okay rojava

[Nuroblav]

I'm not that bothered about the authoritarian/anarchist question because I don't think we'll really know which method "works" until one of them is successful.

In practical terms I end up alienated from both despite sympathy with the economic because of the very radical cultural positions and lack of tolerance for part buy-in. People expect it to be a "package deal" for their contingent alliance with various other groups and often people start tutting even at staying neutral on controversial topics, grumbling about "bystanderism" and so on. Which starts giving me the "are we the bad guys" vibes and I then start backing out of active support.

I used to square this by arguing that once a revolution was completed politics and economics would be much more local and partisan wedge issues would wither away, leading to the unintentional conclusion of more homogenous and "small c" conservative social politics. But with the increasing radicalism on the issue I think that maybe overthrow of the system might inevitably end up in one side or the other using either camps or decentralised inquisitorial-style lynch mobs to remove their opponents rather than tensions reducing. The forces of history seem to be leading away from the feasibility of what is like to see.

Which might eventually lead to a turn on my part back away from the left and support for any sort of revolutionary politics.

A solution to the whole problem I thought of randomly not long ago was that - after the revolution - the given country would, if different ideologies wished to take practice, split into smaller areas (say, for instance, they had subdivisions already), each with their different system. If surrounding areas shared an ideology they could form together. Now that could work but it relies on each area not invading and taking over each other, which could cause a few problems.

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

Done

[La Xinga]

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

Done

I admit, we're total opposites. The only thing we share there is equality vs markets, and even then for me equality was only winning by 4%!

[Nuroblav]

I admit, we're total opposites. The only thing we share there is equality vs markets, and even then for me equality was only winning by 4%!

Thought we might be

I mean you mentioned higher taxes for the rich, which I also support.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

Higher taxes for the rich is the only thing we agree on.

But here.

[La Xinga]

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

Higher taxes for the rich is the only thing we agree on.

But here.

Unitary more than Federal I agree. The military for pacifism I agree. And I also had more equality, but only by 4%.

[The Islands of Versilia]

Higher taxes for the rich is the only thing we agree on.

But here.

Unitary more than Federal I agree. The military for pacifism I agree. And I also had more equality, but only by 4%.

I was more alluding to policies. For instance, to me, and I’m certain the majority of the properly educated global population, it is objective fact that creationism is absolute nonsense and has no scientific or epicurean basis and thus has no place in educated society. Furthermore I am completely in favour of abortion and contraception legalisation worldwide, as well as the toppling of authoritarian “security over freedom” type of countries that go against the interests of the British nation. Protectionism should only be applied when it can be determined that it would be more beneficial than not to.

Also I support forcing countries at gunpoint to treat their non-heterosexual citizens equally :^

[La Xinga]

Unitary more than Federal I agree. The military for pacifism I agree. And I also had more equality, but only by 4%.

I was more alluding to policies. For instance, to me, and I’m certain the majority of the properly educated global population, it is objective fact that creationism is absolute nonsense and has no scientific or epicurean basis and thus has no place in educated society. Furthermore I am completely in favour of abortion and contraception legalisation worldwide, as well as the toppling of authoritarian “security over freedom” type of countries that go against the interests of the British nation. Protectionism should only be applied when it can be determined that it would be more beneficial than not to.

Also I support forcing countries at gunpoint to treat their non-heterosexual citizens equally :^

Wow. Turn everything that you just said around and you have me!

[The Islands of Versilia]

I was more alluding to policies. For instance, to me, and I’m certain the majority of the properly educated global population, it is objective fact that creationism is absolute nonsense and has no scientific or epicurean basis and thus has no place in educated society. Furthermore I am completely in favour of abortion and contraception legalisation worldwide, as well as the toppling of authoritarian “security over freedom” type of countries that go against the interests of the British nation. Protectionism should only be applied when it can be determined that it would be more beneficial than not to.

Also I support forcing countries at gunpoint to treat their non-heterosexual citizens equally :^

Wow. Turn everything that you just said around and you have me!

Online political quizzes that attempt to name or designate what area of political thought one would be closest to are nothing more than entertainment and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Actual policies are what really matters to me. Principles - or rather the principles people lead others to believe are their’s - only matter to people when it benefits the individual(s) themselves, so I don’t really consider them particularly determining of a person’s true beliefs or nature.

[La Xinga]

Wow. Turn everything that you just said around and you have me!

Online political quizzes that attempt to name or designate what area of political thought one would be closest to are nothing more than entertainment and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Actual policies are what really matters to me. Principles - or rather the principles people lead others to believe are their’s - only matter to people when it benefits the individual(s) themselves, so I don’t really consider them particularly determining of a person’s true beliefs or nature.

True. I took a quiz that gave me auth-left even though I'm anything but auth-left.

[South Odreria 2]

Bagger 288 theocrat.

[Fortisinunum]

Well here is my PolComp score:

Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.59

I do not know what my distinct ideology is, but if had to make a thesis it would some form of centre authoritarianism. If my views were put into practice it would likely be a father-knows-best state of some sort.

[Fortisinunum]

Here's 8values

https://8values.github.io/results.html? ... 8.6&s=69.3

Higher taxes for the rich than poor, creationism, pro-life, heterosexuality, protectionism, authoritarianism, security over freedom.

I recommend y'all take this.

Here is mine:

https://9axes.github.io/results.html?a= ... &h=84&i=60

I see that we concur on most areas.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

There is another, very similar topic on this that's basically identical. Maybe those two threads should merge? (I'm not a mod but it's and idea). In any case, I might as well say my ideology for the time being. I identify as an ''Eco-libertarian democratic socialist'', which is just fancy for being as left wing you can get without becoming communist. I support near complete nationalization of most industries that are considered ''essential'', and large worker's rights. I also support increased environmental regulation and the establishment of a ''green new deal'', or so to speak.