Pigeonhole Yourself!

[Manopolus]

Okay, maybe the title is a bit misleading (for comic relief). I'm just inviting people to leave the current issues aside for the moment and discuss their particular political philosophy in general terms. Although I said "pigeonhole" I actually invite nuance with open arms. I'll go ahead and go first.

Economically, I'm a particular brand of progressive... but not the type that conservatives like to rant and rave against. Those would be academic liberals that took up the term because the old one was soiled so bad by the weaponization of sliding definitions started by Reagan. For me, progressivism is all about labor rights and social programs. I'd prefer that people leave their identity politics and broken identities out of it, but I'm also definitely not against equal rights and protections of any sort, either. I also see the side effects of laws that aim to do this, though.

...but I also see progressivism as a tool contained in a box labelled "break glass in case of oligarchy" in big red letters. It's a means, not an end. Its purpose is to restore balance when things are starting to go off the rails in a particular direction.

Extreme versions of progressivism would be communism/socialism, but I'm not afraid of those words, either. Where's my line as too far left? I actually think the government could function just fine as the landlord... we'd just have categorized lease agreements instead of titles and (hopefully lower) rent instead of taxes. I'm fairly confident that fair systems could be made with regard to land usage. Our governments actually already do that... just in different ways. I don't, however, think it works as a replacement for a capitalist system with regards to production or material goods other than land.

But here's the real kicker on the communist/socialist angle: The transition is the problem. There's no way to get from here to there which isn't extremely unfair. So... only viable in a completely broken system with a shiny new government. I don't condone that. Not worth it. And it's not so much that I advocate for a government monopoly on land as it is that I think it could possibly work if done right.

In summary, I'm an "Occupy Wall Street" sort of progressive, not a rebranded liberal elite extremist.

Socially (culturally), I'm a typical classical liberal, which leaves me agreeing with the right as much as the left (at least when things were normal, but they aren't nowadays). That means that socially, I value freedom above all else (for those that don't know what the word "liberal" actually means). I try to see the conflict between different people's freedom in different contexts... I know that sometimes BOTH sides of the conflict think that freedom is what they're fighting for. I only choose sides when I think that one is obviously being disingenuous (usually at the top, not the root). Otherwise, I actually can see that both sides have merit.

My angle on any particular issue always depends on nuance. These labels are descriptions, not oaths of fealty.

----------

Regarding the current political context, I'll admit to being against Donald Trump's very existence. Can't help it. He's literally everything I despise. No, it's not a mental illness. It's perfectly natural to be solidly against a known con artist who literally attempted a coup, for starters... especially if you're a veteran (which I am). But this is admittedly getting off my own topic. It's not about policy or philosophy (policy is secondary in his case). It's about the fact that he's a freaking traitor and a thief.

 

[arthwollipot]

Again, I wish there were still a non-local politics subforum. In US terms, I would be an extreme progressive Democrat, out beyond Bernie and AOC on the political spectrum. Tax the rich, get corporations and religions out of politics, LGBTQIA+ rights - you know, all the things that would get me detained at the border today. All the things.

 

[Manopolus]

Again, I wish there were still a non-local politics subforum. In US terms, I would be an extreme progressive Democrat, out beyond Bernie and AOC on the political spectrum. Tax the rich, get corporations and religions out of politics, LGBTQIA+ rights - you know, all the things that would get me detained at the border today. All the things.

You're certainly welcome here, Arth... as is anyone international that would like to chime in.

 

[Darat]

Again, I wish there were still
a non-local politics subforum. In US terms, I would be an extreme progressive Democrat, out beyond Bernie and AOC on the political spectrum. Tax the rich, get corporations and religions out of politics, LGBTQIA+ rights - you know, all the things that would get me detained at the border today. All the things.

Psst - there is.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Again, I wish there were still a non-local politics subforum. In US terms, I would be an extreme progressive Democrat, out beyond Bernie and AOC on the political spectrum. Tax the rich, get corporations and religions out of politics, LGBTQIA+ rights - you know, all the things that would get me detained at the border today. All the things.

Being nearly 70 years old, I happen to hold much the same politics. Or what we call in Australia: "normal".

 

[gabeygoat]

Economically, I basically compromised over time. I'm not totally satisfied, but I keep seeking better answers. Basically, Capitalism has a lot to offer in production. It allows me to buy 25 cent ramen. But it has a billion warts, so I like to regulate it. basically, I think this makes me a social democrat.
Socially, I'm pretty darn left. I'm not too bothered about what your naughty bits look like, and in another compromise, I'm for religeous freedom because, despite the damage religeon can do, once it becomes a part of government, it gets worse. Basically, I want to protect the religeous from each other.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Somebody asked me many years ago where I was on the political spectrum. My reply was "I'm an Engineer".

The guy in this video points out how absurd trying to define yourself based on a political spectrum is.

 

[arthwollipot]

I certainly feel that it is not productive to label absolutely everything on the left-right political spectrum, as is usually done in America. As a metaphor it has some value, but it doesn't have to be the be-all and end-all of political discourse.

 

[shemp]

We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs. But a two-thirds majority ...

 

[TragicMonkey]

My political ideal is sort of like the Borg collective, except each Borg is Mona-Lisa Saperstein.

 

[PitPat]

My political ideal is sort of like the Borg collective, except each Borg is Mona-Lisa Saperstein.

I read that as the Bong collective. And I have a Mona Lisa bong in my collection. Her smile kind of creeps me out before I singe my eyebrows.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Economically, I basically compromised over time. I'm not totally satisfied, but I keep seeking better answers. Basically, Capitalism has a lot to offer in production. It allows me to buy 25 cent ramen. But it has a billion warts, so I like to regulate it. basically, I think this makes me a social democrat.
Socially, I'm pretty darn left. I'm not too bothered about what your naughty bits look like, and in another compromise, I'm for religeous freedom because, despite the damage religeon can do, once it becomes a part of government, it gets worse. Basically, I want to protect the religeous from each other.

Capitalism is the best economic system, apart from all the others that have been tried.

The thing is, for most of your life you haven't lived under capitalism, you've lived uner a mixed market system with significant public ownership and strong public regulation of the privately owned parts of the market. Every time a country has tried to introduce capitalism, it's economy collapsed inside of thirty years.

 

[arthwollipot]

There's a difference between laissez-faire full free market capitalism, and just regular ordinary capitalism. Most developed countries have the latter, not the former.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

There's a difference between laissez-faire full free market capitalism, and just regular ordinary capitalism. Most developed countries have the latter, not the former.

The first is the only kind of capitalism. Because it's the only thing that adheres to the essential character of the system, that no restrictions are placed on the owners of capital.

 

[Manopolus]

The first is the only kind of capitalism. Because it's the only thing that adheres to the essential character of the system, that no restrictions are placed on the owners of capital.

"True" capitalism involves chattel slavery, indentured slavery, etc. So... not on board. Not even a little bit. It's basically just oligarchy of the worst kind.

Because that's what "no restrictions placed on the owners of capital" means. It means they can own slaves. And even if you do outlaw the ownership of humans (and only that), you still get something very close to slavery, anyway.

 

[Darat]

"True" capitalism involves chattel slavery, indentured slavery, etc. So... not on board. Not even a little bit. It's basically just oligarchy of the worst kind.

Because that's what "no restrictions placed on the owners of capital" means. It means they can own slaves. And even if you do outlaw the ownership of humans (and only that),
you still get something very close to slavery, anyway.

But the clever thing is you get your labour cheaper than keeping slaves, slaves are expensive.

 

[Brainster]

Economic and fiscal conservative but mostly socially liberal. I'd classify myself as a small-l libertarian, but not interested in the LP. I've pretty much reached the point where I despise both major US parties and vote for the lesser of two weasels.

 

[Resume]

Radicalized.

 

[arthwollipot]

The first is the only kind of capitalism. Because it's the only thing that adheres to the essential character of the system, that no restrictions are placed on the owners of capital.

Load of old cobblers. This is not how most people use the word.

 

[dann]

... I'm for religious freedom because, despite the damage religion can do, once it becomes a part of government, it gets worse. ...

Many people think so, but it's not actually true. It's not how it works.

Denmark has religious freedom, but religion is also "a part of government," much more so, actually, than in the USA where religion, like so much else, is privatized, i.e. is run like a business:

Church of Denmark (Wikipedia)
The Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Denmark or National Church (Danish: Folkekirken lit. 'the People's Church', or unofficially den danske folkekirke, 'the Danish People's Church'; Greenlandic: Ilagiit lit. 'the Congregation'), sometimes called the Church of Denmark, is the established, state-supported church in Denmark. The supreme secular authority of the church is composed of the reigning monarch and Denmark's Parliament, the Folketing. As of 1 January 2025, 70.7% of the population of Denmark are members, though membership is voluntary.

See also the paragraph: Separation of church and state

The Church of Denmark has worked wonders (!) for the secularization of Danes - and again: very much unlike the situation in the USA!
More here: The Death of Religion - not with a bang but with a whimper (ISF, Mar 20, 2009)

As for the theme of this thread: I'm what's actually Radical Left.
See sig line:

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Load of old cobblers. This is not how most people use the word.

This is the problem with 'Left' and 'Right' and 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism'. They are not descriptive of anything useful and generally just used as unthinking cries of tribal allegiance.

 

[dann]

The words are fine! You can't blame the words for people being ignorant about what they mean.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The words are fine! You can't blame the words for people being ignorant about what they mean.

What the words mean is constantly changing. As well as not being descriptive they have no utility (and are usually a hindrance) in coming up with solutions to problems.

1. Identify problem(s).
2. Propose solution(s) to problem(s).
3. Evaluate solution(s).
4. Decide on which solution(s) to implement.
5. Implement and monitor solution(s).

Guiding principles:

1(a). Treat others as they would wish to be treated.
1(b). Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

No need for 'Left' or 'Right' or 'Capitalism' or 'Socialism'.

 

[Manopolus]

What the words mean is constantly changing. As well as not being descriptive they have no utility (and are usually a hindrance) in coming up with solutions to problems.

1. Identify problem(s).
2. Propose solution(s) to problem(s).
3. Evaluate solution(s).
4. Decide on which solution(s) to implement.
5. Implement and monitor solution(s).

Guiding principles:

1(a). Treat others as they would wish to be treated.
1(b). Treat others as you would wish to be treated.

No need for 'Left' or 'Right' or 'Capitalism' or 'Socialism'.

True, but you have to keep an eye on the systems, too. Overburdening systems can bring about The Fall of Rome. I guess that's your #5 in a way, but those systems are things like capitalism, socialism, social programs, etc. Even the laws themselves (and justice) form a system. Gotta maintain the pressure release valve or the boiler blows.

Maintenance costs (debt) can blow it, but so can pressure (peasants with pitchforks). Should we take fuel to service that debt from the big ol' gas tank or try to summon it from more locations but in smaller quantities? Basically that sort of thing. We can adjust as we go along, but you've gotta know which way to adjust in the present. Should probably include some sensors in there that tell you something about that (and it does, but people don't always check them before having opinions).

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

True, but you have to keep an eye on the systems, too. Overburdening systems can bring about The Fall of Rome. I guess that's your #5 in a way, but
those systems are things like capitalism, socialism, social programs, etc. Even the laws themselves (and justice) form a system. Gotta maintain the pressure release valve or the boiler blows.

Maintenance costs (debt) can blow it, but so can pressure (peasants with pitchforks). Should we take fuel to service that debt from the big ol' gas tank or try to summon it from more locations but in smaller quantities? Basically that sort of thing. We can adjust as we go along, but you've gotta know which way to adjust in the present. Should probably include some sensors in there that tell you something about that (and it does, but people don't always check them before having opinions).

Political ideologies are not systems. At best they are constraints for thinking about solutions to problems. More often they result in believers ignoring and distorting reality to the point of stupidity.

For example, last night I was listening to some guy on the radio who had presumably drunk the libertarian Kool Aid because he was opposed to having state funded healthcare, but was then proposing for people to join health insurance companies to spread the risk. Without explaining how or giving any actual examples with numerical data he believed having lots of insurance companies doing the same thing for profit would be better than one mutual insurance company funded by everybody.

 

[Manopolus]

Political ideologies are not systems. At best they are constraints for thinking about solutions to problems. More often they result in believers ignoring and distorting reality to the point of stupidity.

For example, last night I was listening to some guy on the radio who had presumably drunk the libertarian Kool Aid because he was opposed to having state funded healthcare, but was then proposing for people to join health insurance companies to spread the risk. Without explaining how or giving any actual examples with numerical data he believed having lots of insurance companies doing the same thing for profit would be better than one mutual insurance company funded by everybody.

I wasn't so much criticizing/disagreeing as expanding on your vibe. Yeah, we do summarize types of systems with these vague words, and then they get even more vague as time rolls on. But they don't actually describe a course of action. You're right about that. That's the weakness of it. It's more a source for inspiration than it is a strategy.

...and to be perfectly 4th wall upfront, it fit a character sketch I was working on at the time -- engineers discussing politics.

Funny how those things go.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Most political systems boil down to: "Let's all do it MY way. My friends agree, and they will thump you if you don't."

 

[arthwollipot]

Most political systems boil down to: "Let's all do it MY way. My friends agree, and they will thump you if you don't."

Civilisation is where the State has a monopoly on the exercise of violence.

 

[dann]

Civilization is where the state has stopped exercising violence.
In all autocracies the state has a monopoly on the exercise of violence. It's also what democracies have in common with dictatorships.
As has been pointed out before, there is no such thing as Western civilization.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

According to politicalcompass.org, I am solidly left-wing economically and moderately libertarian socially. My scores were similar to their guestimate of what the 2020 Green Party candidate in the US presidential election (Howie Hawkins) would have scored. This was a little surprising to me, as though I perceive myself to be a little more socially liberal than the average American, I definitely do not view myself as being very far to the left economically - definitely not in the Bernie Sanders segment. Though one might question the validity of their test, as they rate Biden as almost as right-wing economically and almost as authoritarian as _____; in fact, my economics score was farther to the left than their guestimate of Sanders' score.