Political Ideologies & Definitions

In Alphabetical Order:

Anarchist: Someone who believes in bottom-up social organization and opposes top-down social organization. Opposes concentrated social, political, or economic power--be it private business or governments.

Authoritarian: Someone who believes that central authority (be it public or private) ought to control some or all aspects of a person's life.

Capitalism: A system of social and economic control whereby the means of production in society are controlled by an elite minority, ostensibly to promote economic efficiency. The primary goal of capitalism is the unequal distribution of property and the accumulation of said distributions by sociopathic hierarchies. This is closely related to State Capitalism, which also organizes political power along capitalist lines.

Communism: A class-conscious political ideology proposing that a period of total authoritarian control by a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is required to bring about socialist reforms in capitalist states. It is the proposition that only states can reform private businesses, and states must do so aggressively by force. Political organization of the working class on an international scale is proposed as the means by which the communist state would be established.

Conservative: Meaningless rhetoric; should be deprecated. Synonym for 'good' in common American political discourse.

Fascist: Someone who believes that the economy ought to be organized according to a system of private ownership that is regulated by the government. Tends to correspond to social authoritarianism.

Liberal: Permissive policies intended to promote individual freedom.

Libertarian: A person who believes in a liberal ideology of some form or another. "Libertarian socialist", and so on.

Socialism: A system of social and economic liberation establishing democratic administration of the means of production. This democratic administration can take several different forms; worker self-management, federations of worker councils, direct control by the local community, etc.

State Capitalism: A system whereby private businesses are protected and subsidized by the state, usually to promote economic efficiency and growth. This has the effect of privatizing gains in society, and distributing risk and costs onto the public. State Capitalist systems are usually organized as fascist states.

If anyone can think of some more suggestions, go ahead and propose them.

 

Too broad. That definition makes pretty much western nation a fascist nation.

Fascists believed that the nation was its own entity, where the collective good was greater than the good of the individual, etc. It was the nation that mattered. They promoted this through propaganda and passing the buck, as in they found members of society that were to blame for all of society's ills.

 

Alright come on.

A conservative- someone who believes in traditional values. I.E. They stick with what's proven.

A liberal is someone who believes in change. I.E. They tend to experiment.

The sterotypical idelgoly of modern day Liberals and conservatives both believe in something that would be considered unconsuitional.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

What did you fix?

 

It doesn't mean they do what is proven. A lot of traditions don't do anything, but they're done just because they're traditional.

 

Yes, yes it does. Perhaps that observation ought to startle you, rather than prompt you to propose a less accurate definition?

I would ask you how this substantially differs from the definition I proposed. What modern western state denies that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or which condemns the system which promotes suffering for the poor in the name of economic efficiency? I think that the notion of collective good over individual good is implied by the definition I proposed.

Doesn't this rather accurately describe western nations today, which propagandize their populations, and constantly seek scapegoats to pin their problems upon? The examples are obvious enough in the US, but the situation is not altogether different in Europe, where all sorts of nonsensical social problems are blamed on immigrants, Muslims, poor eastern Europeans, etc.

I don't think that this extension of the definition would distinguish the traditionally accepted fascist states from modern western states.

 

Most western nations don't march their troops up and down the streets all the time, ban all opposition parties, beat up political rivals, etc.

 

What I meant when I said proven, was what at that time, was proven to work.

 

Wrong again. It has nothing to do with doing things because they were proven.

There's a difference between believing something works and it actually working.

 

You forgot Corporatism. The control of a state or organization by large interest groups. Similar to Fascism and what the United States is today.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - Benito Mussolini

 

Please define traditional values for me. I have a feeling you'll find this a difficult task. There are few people who can actually narrow down exactly what values are traditional--after all, traditionally people have believed a wide range of things. What is traditional for someone raised by labor organizers will no doubt be very different from what is traditional for someone raised by a minister. That is why I define conservatism as meaningless rhetoric--it is defined only by reference to other ill-defined terms.

A person can be liberal while supporting the status quo; for example, a liberal could be someone who fights to preserve meaningful freedom of expression. What makes that person liberal is the fact that they fight for a permissive policy--not merely agitation for change.

I would suggest to you that someone who believes in change just for the sake of change ought to be called a revolutionary, not a liberal.

 

Yeah, Fascism and most Western nations look alike because they both follow corporatism.

 

Is this really the core of fascism? Would you deny that there are more subtle, and more effective forms of control? Is a state not a fascist state simply because they don't march the thugs on a weekly parade down main street, even if they mimic one in all other respects?

 

Correct, most dictatorships, to the left and right, march their thugs down the street.

 

Basically, traditional values is in retrospect to what's going on at the time. For instance, the Caudillos in Latin America had conservative support, because of the authoritarian like figure of the Viceroys prior to indepdence.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9WOqJG-2s&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLD39D8FC75C932DD8"]Who favors more freedom, liberals or conservatives? - YouTube[/ame]

That's taking what I said to an extreme, and I would call them a radical, not a revolutionary.

 

I think I just threw up a little in my throat.

 

Malcontentism---A state of political discontent deriving from the general need one may experience to belong, along with ones need to avoid anxiety and uncertainty. With malcontentism, there is simply a disconnect from reason and compromise as malcontetism is marked by extreme and often irrational dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. Rational discussion only furthers the malcontentist to adhere more strictly to their chosen political dogma.

 

What makes you think that fascist states must be dictatorships? The US demonstrates very clearly that you can have fascism by consensus, and that you can even grant meaningless political rights (like free speech, which is graciously ignored, or the right to vote, when all meaningful parties are fascist parties) without disturbing the core economic system. At its core, fascism can be established gently, without the need for the obvious expressions of totalitarian rule. When you strip it of the ostentatious displays of power, a quiet sort of fascist state can rule quite stably and effectively.

 

So who's traditions are valuable, and who's are not? Because when everyone's got different traditions, someone's going to get the shaft in that arrangement.

Ah, yes, so no groups of people in Latin America had a tradition of resistance to their leaders? Because if some of them did, then clearly traditional values would say that the people ought to revolt. That's my point here; there's lots of groups of people within a country, and not all of them have shared the same traditions or traditional viewpoints.

This seems like a meaningless contrived discussion.

Fine, but it is certainly different from being liberal.

 

So you have no concrete objections or suggestions?

 

I'm not sure that anyone actually belongs to such an ideology, because most dissatisfied people have very rational reasons for dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. Just because a few external observers cannot empathize or understand their reasons does not make them less rational. For example; a wealthy man who proposes that a person from a generationally poor family ought to just pick themselves up by the bootstraps--that poor man has very rational reasons for being dissatisfied, but the wealthy man just does not have the perspective to recognize it.

 

The common ground is usually kept. For instance, Conservatives in Europe during the early 1800's would have supported a absolute monarchy.

No, I'm saying that because the Council of Indies kept out democratic traditions, the Caudillos were able to keep power, thanks to the power of tradition.

Take it for what it is.

Basically.

 

In other words, conservatism has nothing to do with tradition, only with favor by elites. I might be inclined to agree with that--conservatives are people who promote policies in the interest of elites.

And you would claim that no one had a tradition of resistance to that? Because otherwise that is nothing more than the ruling party declaring tradition by fiat.

Then you agree with my original definition of liberal, as someone promoting permissive policy?

 

Many people subscribe to such an ideology. Note the contempt for things which are not even understood in full. Note knee jerk responses, note that propaganda has a high success rate.

You say most, I say few.

While I can recognise the validity of what you speak of, I know far too well people and their insecurities which drive them in flocks to act in certain fashions. You simply minimise the numbers while exagerating peoples rational discontent.