Political Ideologies, Philosophies, Ways of Thinking

[Tolvo]

So I thought it might be interesting to talk about different politics, what they mean, where they come from, and how they are seen by and defined by the general populace as well as along specific sets of thinking and ideologies.

I notice that in a lot of political discussions things can actually be hard because there aren't always 100% agreed on ideas of what terms may mean. While some think Marx with regards to Communism others think Stalin. This happens across different political axis, and I think it's important to actually talk about distinctions between things like Marxism, Marxist Leninism, Stalinism, Bolshevism, Maoism, and the various other forms of Communism and ideas. What those actually mean.

What sorts of politics can actually mesh together and in what ways. Like people talking about being Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative, which aligns more with the original Democratic Party of the USA before they became known as the Democratic Party, and the modern Democratic Party which is broadly more aligned with liberalism.

And not to mention things like Authoritarianism which can be integrated into both Left and Right wing ideologies.

What are Progressives, Democrats, Liberals, Leftists, Centrists, do any of these things overlap, are they the same thing or not?

How do we define things in different countries? For instance what might be the Right or Left Wing Party in one country might not be seen that way in a different country with different context for them.

Where do these things come from is always of interest to me as well. Like that the Left and Right paradigm is actually very old and came from where political parties were seated in chambers.

Now I don't want to just do a massive wall of text with links, it might not be that interesting and I wanted to stoke discussions and questions really. On top of that I could end up setting those up and using definitions based on my own biases, it'd also have to be absolutely massive to actually cover everything. Like I listed above with a few of the main Communist ideologies there's quite a lot of different groups and ideas.

Now I don't really want there to be animosity necessarily towards anyone else. I can understand giving views on political figures, ideologies, events, etc. But I don't want this to be about arguing over who is Evil or Good. Discussing ethics and morals is fine as long as we don't do that about others and make judgement about each other.

Would anyone be interested in talking about these things, asking questions, discussing, etc?

[Twisted Crow]

I feel that part of how these stances get distorted are mainly by how words and phrases are used and misused. Language evolves (for better or worse).

Among some peers that know me, those here for instance, might see me as a "Classical Liberal" or maybe a "Classical Democrat" perhaps. Depending on the connotation and what morals/ethics that imply with such a label, they might be accurate. I would like to call myself a "liberal" but the problem is that that word seems to be appropriated a lot to have different meanings.

I feel that the left might generally call themselves liberal, maybe out of tradition... even if their views might lean more toward what Progressives seem to want. Progressive ideals sometimes seem at odds to what I feel is Liberal. Then the right (unfortunately the ignorant among them) generally maintains that "Liberal = Progressive and Progressive = Liberal" perspective... perhaps out of expedience or circumstance. I am not entirely sure. But it isn't helpful that some of them perpetuate this with insults like "libtard" and what not. So, here in Texas, for example... it is difficult to claim ones own "Liberal" label considering that it's current effective meaning is ambigious and somewhat contingent on perception (or a somewhat "elective perception", maybe).

As for different countries, I wouldn't know enough about their politics to speak about them as much. :/

It is frustrating that all we seem to have are colloquialisms to rely on as labels, in spite of understanding how language changes when such labels are misused. Even I am sure that I do it out of simply not knowing better.

[Tolvo]

It can get very strange especially when people do intentionally use a term to make them appear more friendly or less extreme than what they really are or believe. You mention Classical Liberal, there are quite a lot of White Nationalists who do call themselves that. So in certain circles if someone calls themselves that, people might assume you are a White Nationalist. But that's actually why they did that, so one can be confused for the other more easily. Classical Liberalism does not equal White Nationalism but now it raises animosity and worries when people use that term. Libertarian is another one where often if you hear someone is Libertarian you might associate them with Tea Party ideals, even though its not really the same thing and that is also very American where a lot of Libertarians in the world are actually Left Wing.

Usually it's why I focus on trying to actually figure out what a person's perception of those groups are rather than just going "Well they said Libertarian they must mean x" because you need the context for which version they mean. And everyone on every side is definitely guilty of this, some of it is more mainstreamed in certain groups. But it is definitely a problem across basically every line. A problem too though is that I can't entirely blame people for it, is it fair to be like "Oh you don't know what Communism means? You need to read Das Kapital to even talk about this" because that a pretty elitist mindset, and when we also argue strictly from authority that comes with a lot of problems. So its important to take into account how people commonly use certain words.

[Twisted Crow]

*grins*

It is why I am not so quick to put a label on myself anymore. I used to think to use "Libertarian" but, now... not so much that, either.

Usually it's why I focus on trying to actually figure out what a person's perception of those groups are rather than just going "Well they said Libertarian they must mean x" because you need the context for which version they mean.

I share this with you, in thought... It is easier for me to dissect the issues individually and give my stance on them as opposed to just picking out a team jersey for the Partisan Championship Finals. Oversimplifing maybe but... the gist of my beliefs revolves around "small government; build our roads, protect our rights and leave us alone," not wanting too much legislation on dictating people's behavior and rights beyond preserving them (easier said than done, however).

I feel that women should be able to keep abortion, for example.

I also feel that religion should be seperate from State legislation, and it should go both ways. Relgion should not be able to "dictate" what marriage is (by law). At the same time, they should also not be pushed or pressured into marrying people when they feel it against their religious beliefs.

I also feel LGBT should reserve the same basic human rights as anyone does. Though, it is hard for me to argue that there are certain complications at times.

Anyway, the point is that I prefer to isolate the issues from being partisan game pieces. So I think I might relate to you on this. My politically purple thread was an attempt to voice that among other things... though its success is questionable, as my ability to articulate my points can be "hit or miss", depending on the topic.

[Twisted Crow]

To add another: "Anti-Establishment" is perhaps one I have been branded as a lot. And some of that might even be true for all I know. Though it can also come with negative implications as well. :D

Labels are... frustrating. :/

[Tolvo]

I did read that thread. It is a bit tricky because of the left and right idea working in general.

But it doesn't always work when you hold specific views that belong to one end and then others that belong to the other end. Like if you are pro LGBTQIA+ rights but also very pro nationalism, where do you end up exactly? Usually people broadly agree with a side but there are still quite a few who have elements from both, or from the center. And it becomes hard to then define them as any one thing in particular, or to then call them center because they have both extremes and it averages out because center is actually its own part of the spectrum with its own ideologies. Like weirdly enough, gun control is more supported by those in the center than on the left or the right.

Extreme example but one that people know of, the question of whether the Nazi Party was left or right. So we do consider them right wing generally, but it is not exactly totally that. Because they weren't really interested in being as right as possible but were actually more focused on just doing whatever it took to win the war, and to kill Jewish people(And others). People like to argue about how "Nazis supported gun control and abortion" but the thing is actually they were pro and anti those things, depending on who it was for. They supported the populace having guns, but not Jews. They supported Jewish abortions but not German citizens having abortions. So to them it wasn't about left or right, it was about the genocide they wanted to do. The Nazis were big on privatization, until it became apparent they had to control everything to try and win the war. They basically just did whatever served the genocidal mindset in that moment whether it was a traditionally left or right wing ideology. Modern Neo Nazis are actually more entrenched as right wing than the original Nazis were, but you probably wouldn't call Neo Nazis as extreme as the people who already committed the most well known genocide in history. The main attributes to call them right wing falls upon their nationalism. Otherwise they did pick and choose how they applied a lot of things. Even the idea of them being Socialists was just to get the votes of workers, they hated Socialists and Communists, it was the Nazi view that "Bolshevism was the greatest weapon of the Jewery." And the real socialists in Germany hated what Hitler did to their name and country and actually tried to take over(That didn't go well for them). But those Socialists by today's standards we'd actually still consider nationalists and had some horrible views as well. They hated Capitalism but did agree with the Nazis on a lot of other things. And even Hitler did speak about his hatred of Capitalism in ways, but he felt there was a Greedy Capitalism and a Just Capitalism, and promoted Just Capitalism. But he still hated Capitalism in the broader sense and in the American sense. Again, a lot of his ideas were very much about gaining power and genocide and war, not about whether he was left or right wing.

[Twisted Crow]

I should perhaps admit that I am unsure of what it means to be a "Nationalist" anymore.

[Tolvo]

The common definition and how I'd use it personally is the idea that your nation/identity should always come first even at the cost of others. So technically, saying "I love America" is not really Nationalistic, but saying "America First" is. In premise it is the idea that you or your people should always come first and matter more than anyone else. Then when you get into Nationalism formed around a certain idea, like White Nationalism, the idea is you also want your Nation to then be only of that identity. People who want Ethnostates fall into that category(Which by the way is a really hard thing to actually do since tons of different groups mingle throughout history. So even ignoring the ethics and morals its kind of physically impossible in most places unless you preform a genocide).

Usually it is seen as in opposition to Globalists(Which that is a can of worms because it is an actual ideology but a lot of people also use it to basically mean "Jews"). Which that is more about the international community and everyone working together and not focusing as much on divides and belonging to a collective, an example being the EU.

[Twisted Crow]

Hmmm. It would be hard to fit me in either, though my pragmatism leans to "Fix own problems first, then help others. But do not meddle." However, I don't really like phrases such as "God Bless America." Not for its religious aspect but for how narrow (and perhaps selfish) it sounds to me when it is used. It just sounds strange to me, even if the intent isn't to be selfish. I am unsure if I would adopt either one in entirety (Nationalist/Globalist).

*shrugs*

[Tolvo]

It can be tricky. Globalism(Or Internationalism and other terms) can run the risk of then putting your influence over other countries. While I agree with the idea of the international community working together to solve problems, it does have complications when one country has way more influence over how that is done. Usually this involves criticism of Imperialism. Like the USA under Obama was more Internationalist but, also used that power to influence the international community how they specifically wanted. It's a part of the problem of the UN. The UN has laws you have to follow, unless you are strong enough you don't. Because what is the option for the rest of the UN, to go to war with a much more powerful country? So while their laws may have good ideas, and can be used for instance to prosecute war crimes, you can't do it to a country you can't prosecute. Like the US Military does a lot of war crimes in the modern day, but that doesn't really matter because the UN can't enforce that on the USA. Russia is another country it doesn't really work against, and the only why to even enforce these laws in such countries is to start a World War that runs the risk of human extinction if things get bad enough. So while the smaller countries are beholden to the law, the bigger ones aren't.

It also can come in with interventionism. Of whether it is always right to enforce your views on another country, like if they have laws you consider immoral but they don't and you judge that you then have to go there and enforce them. Like if a country has slavery is it then alright to conquer that country and outlaw slavery? And you don't always even know if what you think about them is true. the Iraq War is a great example of this since people were lied to but the lie made them believe they needed to go in and stop a threat. There is also the question of whether or not to empower groups to take over another government that you think is bad, whether that be because it is a threat, counter to your ideals, has resources you want, etc. Which leads to things like Castro leading Cuba, and the US supporting a Muslim Militant Jihad against Marxist which led to the formation of Al Qaeda. But then it also would mean not fighting in wars to free people who are clearly oppressed by their governments. It is a very tricky subject with a lot of ideas about how both can work and not and horrors that have come out of both views.

[Remiel]

Extreme example but one that people know of, the question of whether the Nazi Party was left or right.

I think history has proven that any philosophy--liberalism or conservatism, socialism or free-market capitalism--when taken to its extreme, ends up becoming essentially the same thing: all the power in the hands of a select few.  Because, to quote the venerable Dr. Perry Cox of Scrubs fame, people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

Consider free-market capitalism.  Left completely unregulated, it eventually becomes its own antithesis.  Small businesses are inevitably bought up or driven out of the market by larger ones, until eventually you have a monopoly that can pretty much set prices on its own whim, and then you no longer have a "free" market.  That's one reason, among others, why Ayn Rand-style pure libertarianism will never work in a civilized society.   That's why our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, who is venerated by the Right for his pro-military, aggressively expansionist / imperialist views, was also aggressively known as a trust-buster.   

My personal opinion is that the best economic philosophy is as close to the center as possible, in which both the government and the free market have power, and serve as checks on each other.  I start to get nervous whenever the political pendulum swings too far to either side, because that way tyranny lies.

[Tolvo]

I don't really see tyranny as something belonging to any one side in particular, or as something that cannot be accomplished with centrist ideas. The center is in itself its own position along the model with centrists having their own views and systems typically. Which can still have corruption and greed and power struggles.

[Remiel]

I don't really see tyranny as something belonging to any one side in particular, or as something that cannot be accomplished with centrist ideas. The center is in itself its own position along the model with centrists having their own views and systems typically. Which can still have corruption and greed and power struggles.

Right, but the best kind of political system acknowledges this and puts in place checks and balances so that no arm of government can overreach its power.

To quote Winston Churchhill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other ones that have been tried."

[Tolvo]

Checks and balances are not something inherent to centrism. Other ends of the political spectrum can still have those depending on how they are implemented.

[Lustful Bride]

Checks and balances are not something inherent to centrism. Other ends of the political spectrum can still have those depending on how they are implemented.

But being without them makes it much easier to lead to tyranny.

Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Tolvo]

But again that's not something really inherent to left, right, or center. They are all capable of doing that or breaking away from it. You can also still have a government that is focused on the ideologies of one but with a multi party system. Democracy can also be done with a number of different forms of representation with different implications and effects. You can also have a government with checks and balances that aren't set up well enough or can be abused such as is the case with the US government.

[Remiel]

Granted, and agreed.  I personally think that the two-party system we have in the U.S. is broken.    Third parties, right now, are not taken seriously and never will be, and in fact serve to undermine their own interests, as we saw in 1992 with Ross Perot and 2000 with Ralph Nader. 

Although what the solution is, I have no idea...

[Tolvo]

It is kind of tricky because the two party or even one party system has certain advantages, but also is going to favor very specific groups and keep them in power. Many party systems allow for people to feel more represented in who they are voting for, but if say your votes are splits between 5 similar groups along one political axis, and then another political axis just all decided to vote for a specific party, then all these splintering votes favor whichever one can pool the votes. Meaning you won't actually end up with majority rule, and can end up with 15% of the votes for example but be the winning party because that was the highest percentage any party got. It can also mean that for a republic nothing ever gets passed because people can't all agree on one thing to vote for.

[Remiel]

Granted, and agreed.  I personally think that the two-party system we have in the U.S. is broken.    Third parties, right now, are not taken seriously and never will be, and in fact serve to undermine their own interests, as we saw in 1992 with Ross Perot and 2000 with Ralph Nader. 

Although what the solution is, I have no idea...

It has also occurred to me that the argument could be made that Bernie Sanders' treatment at the hands of the DNC leached a significant amount of support away from Clinton--a large proportion of the Sanders supporters ended up staying home and not voting at all--thus enabling Trump to win.

[Tolvo]

It's kind of complicated and involves a lot of different issues. The public image of Clinton was not great, people were still reacting to their anger with Obama and what he represented to them, as well as the DNC's actions, and Bernie Sander's movement not feeling represented, a lot more things really. Basically many people saw it as a choice between two greedy power hungry politicians. And in general the right in America is much better at unifying than the left, or center. So even when their choice didn't represent everything they wanted they still voted for their party, while that's not the same for people who were Dems that did not feel represented. It should also be mentioned how the electoral system also complicated things with Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. If you look at past elections not as many people voted period, Obama's numbers would have absolutely destroyed Trump for instance.

I don't know that Bernie Sanders would have won, but while Hilary was trying to compromise with the right and reach common grounds she should have been doing that with the left more since they're the people who actually want a lot of what she claimed she would implement. But it isn't really any one thing that enabled Trump to win. Media also played a big role which portraying Trump as mostly harmful and goofy and that you shouldn't take him serious didn't help people understand how dangerous letting him win was.

[sdparquinn]

I think history has proven that any philosophy--liberalism or conservatism, socialism or free-market capitalism--when taken to its extreme, ends up becoming essentially the same thing: all the power in the hands of a select few.  Because, to quote the venerable Dr. Perry Cox of Scrubs fame, people are "bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

Consider free-market capitalism.  Left completely unregulated, it eventually becomes its own antithesis.  Small businesses are inevitably bought up or driven out of the market by larger ones, until eventually you have a monopoly that can pretty much set prices on its own whim, and then you no longer have a "free" market.  That's one reason, among others, why Ayn Rand-style pure libertarianism will never work in a civilized society.   That's why our 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt, who is venerated by the Right for his pro-military, aggressively expansionist / imperialist views, was also aggressively known as a trust-buster.   

My personal opinion is that the best economic philosophy is as close to the center as possible, in which both the government and the free market have power, and serve as checks on each other.  I start to get nervous whenever the political pendulum swings too far to either side, because that way tyranny lies.

What is considered the center, in any given society, changes with time. If you proposed an NHS style healthcare system in Britian during the early colonial period then you would have been considered far outside the center. But, up until recently, the NHS was considered a staple institution in British society. Even Thatcher was afraid to touch it for fear of being seen as too far outside the political mainstream (and thus face backlash). And the "center" is also relative geographically. In place like the United States an NHS style healthcare system is considered too extreme by almost all republicans and most establishment democrats.

There were, in the past, people who believed that the slaves should be freed but not allowed to vote. They would probably be considered the "center" during their times (the mid point between giving the full franchise and maintaining slavery). But I think we all agree here that anything but the full franchise (both emancipation and giving equal rights) is tyranny.

The above example (as well as many others) suggest to me that, for lack of a better term, there is a "platonic ideal" of political arrangements and that the center does not, even most of the time, align with that platonic ideal of governance and economy.

In other words I see no reason to privilege the center, or that the center has any special ability to avoid tyranny. There maybe tyranny that takes a leftist form, and a rightward form, and even a centrist form. Picking a point on the political spectrum and declaring the solution seems unwise.

And this is not even getting into the whole issue that politics seems (yet again form lack of a better term) more "rhyzomatic" than a one-dimensional line with "left" on one end and "right" on the other. More so than even a political compass with two axis. 

[Lux12]

Then you get to us anarchists. Oooooh boy there are a lot of divisions there and some of them, as an anarchist myself seem rather arbitrary. For the record I see anarchism as a mostly leftist collection of ideologies who all share a common belief that the state lacks moral legitimacy and may even impede proper moral behavior. Another thing we have a general objection to is the attempted state monopoly on violence to the point where, contrary to popular belief, many of us oppose violence as it is a tool of what we deem an oppressive system. Now granted, there are many anarchists who believe it is proper to use violence in defense of ones self, but not as a means of forcing ones will on another person. The vast majority of us may not believe in government or even rule of law, but that doesn't mean we don't have morals. Now, once you get past common or universal aspects (there are far fewer universals than one might  believe) of anarchism, a lot of things get really complicated and messy. For example, get a Anarcho Syndicalist and an Anarcho Capitalist into a discussion on economics or whether or not capitalism ultimately creates a toxic, predatory hierarchy/system just like the ones they both ostensibly oppose (for the record, I tend to believe that statement quite vehemently). Then you have the divide between religious and atheistic anarchists. Believe it or not, for a number of anarchists, spirituality is actually closely tied to that anarchist political philosophy. I'm one of them. My religious point of view plays into my objection to statism. I'm honestly barely scratching the surface with all this. There's so much to be discussed as there is with pretty much any political umbrella.  There are divisions within divisions within divisions.

[Tolvo]

Sounds quite similar to what I know and have experienced. Usually I see the most division around anarchocapitalists and anti-civ people in my anarchist circles(I can be considered an anarchocommunist but it's exactly perfect in describing my views). A lot of people view anarchists as people who just want chaos and no morality(Those do exist but I've met very few) due to people's ignorance and a lot of media portrayals. Leftists can be quite similar with division(Get an anarchocommunist and a Marxist-Leninist in the same room and there will be blood). A lot of it coming from them having incredibly different views that cannot be reconciled(One is anti-Authoritarian, the other is very Authoritarian).

[Tolvo]

Something I thought I'd talk about a bit since it comes up often on E, is there is a lot of misinformation about Feminists, what they are, what they do, and what their movements and views are. Not insulting anyone or any ideas, just talking about the facts of Feminism and its history.

Feminism is a movement that seeks equality for all sexes/genders. Originally focused on suffrage and land owning(Both only for white women, for other women that came later), Feminism has evolved greatly over the years. There is the 1st Wave, the 2nd Wave, and the 3rd Wave. Each typically with their own focuses. 1st Wave was mainly Suffrage and Property. 2nd Wave was main labor, reproductive rights, and certain legal inequalities. 3rd Wave was focused on individuality and allowing people to make their own choices(Support for sex workers, pornography), not have to be bound to gender roles, including women of color and diversity. Intersectional Feminism(Called the 4th Wave as well, but there are also Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists who claim to be the true 4th Wave) is focused on taking into account how different forms of inequality intersect, such as class, race, etc, and focuses on Feminism in the modern age, gender based sexual assault, rape, harassment.

There are more forms but they're more specific, and can at times be what people think of as the "Radical Feminist" trope. Such as Lesbian Separatists(Women who believe men and women need different societies and to be purely homosexual), Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists(Feminists who are exclusive of Trans people, mainly they are 2nd Wave but not all 2nd Wave feminists are Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists).

Feminists of various waves have made great strides for gender equality for all, Feminists are why a lot of laws include men(Laws about Rape did not include men raped by women, until Feminists campaigned to include male victims raped by women). Feminism will continue to evolve as an egalitarian movement focused on equality for the genders/sexes of people in society. That is the ultimate goal and main purpose and history of feminism. Many who are of an earlier wave evolve and join a new wave as it develops and improves upon old views, and includes the positives of the old(New waves aren't going to suddenly reverse position on suffrage for example).

When people worry about Feminism being anti-man, that is the opposite of its purpose as Feminism focuses on protecting the rights of men as well. Simply in our societies women are more disadvantaged broadly(With some exceptions in specific circumstances), thus why it was termed Feminism and focuses on women because they face the most violence/abuse/mistreatment, but that doesn't mean men, or people of other genders do not(Nonbinary people face extreme levels of injustice). The Patriarchy as a concept doesn't mean that all men are evil or responsible for all sexism in the world, it is specifically about those in power who are mainly men(Though as more women have come into power who then still support gender inequality there are other terms people use like Kyriarchy). The Patriarchy does not harm only women but everyone, a lot of laws that disadvantage men are written by men in power for instance.

[Chantarelle]

Hi, I’m Chantarelle and I may get beat up in here but I just thought that this felt like the “safest” space to come out of the closet...I voted for Trump...I’m a conservative, republican with libertarian leanings. There! I feel better now. I’ve just felt a total lack of representation among the E community. I love everybody but it sounds an awful lot like an echo chamber in most threads, not to mention media outlets. But anyways I wanted to comment on Feminism a little...

I have no problem with feminists, I happen to not identify as one myself, but people can think how they want. However, it isn’t feminists but radical/socialist/Marxist feminists that suffocate the mainstream nowadays to the point being a liberal is synonymous with the democrat party and the LGBTQ+ community and with it the problem of giving hormones to children because gender is a spectrum now and it is fine for little kids to do drag. I’m not trying to offend but you have to give society a chance to talk about these things openly, objectively, and honestly. Society has changed so rapidly for people. There has been a radical push from a left leaning media to promote a PC culture, in other words censorship and a feminization of men at large, a reason why so many of us are on E looking for dominant role play partners because irl masculinity has become “toxic”. There are real world consequences to all of this, Trump was just one of them.