Political Ideologies & Definitions

You make a great point. It is the same argument that I have made in the past that Communism doesn't necessarily equal dictatorship (cold war thinking) I think that I was commenting that other government types also march their thugs. You are right, the modern United States is a good example of a non-dictatorial fascist state.

 

Complete understanding is not required to develop contempt for something; if you learn half of everything there is to know about an item, yet you dislike all of it, you have grounds for contempt. I would say that you have rational grounds for contempt if you find even a substantial number of issues, much less than half.

I don't see how the psychological phenomena of knee-jerk responses really plays into an ideology of malcontent.

Propaganda certainly does play a role, but only in as much as it presents a logical explanatory narrative. Propaganda works because it provides a viable narrative that those subjected to it can buy into. It may not be truth, but it is rational... for the people who have been convinced of its premise. If you really and sincerely believe that communists are out to take over the world and destroy your life, then it is quite rational and logical to explain distasteful policies in the context of a communist plot. This seems absurd and nonsensical to everyone else, but that's because we disagree with the assumptions that form the basis of that person's worldview. For that person, it is the only logical conclusion.

Propaganda is not a failure of logic, it's a misuse of education.

Why? Could you perhaps provide an example of some individuals or groups whom you feel are irrationally dissatisfied with their political or economic system?

I think that at the heart of any mass action is a genuine discontent... which can only be sustained if the discontent is rational and confirmed by experience.

 

Yes, I can: the Tea Party

 

As much as I don't agree with the tea party, I do think their discontent is rational. It's certainly justified, though their reaction is very much the wrong sort of reaction. They ought to be questioning the system that has created their miserable situation--not just assigning some blame elsewhere.

 

Which is my point and the basis for which malcontentism is predicated upon.

Yes, I can agree. Lets consider this, but it does not in anyway negate malcontentism as an ideology.

It is a reflection of a need to belong and not necessarily a need or desire to understand. Many will even implicitly avoid Information which effectively goes against their chosen adherence.

It is extremely biased, one sided information designed to persuade and recruit and gain a substantial following. Adherents enjoy it for a number of reasons, one being an inherent need to avoid anxiety and uncertainty. A need to understand or be part of an understanding and consensus. Also a psychological need to belong to a group which most people exhibit, only some do to much more extreme measures in attempt to satisfy this need and fill the void.

Well there are many here at these very fora. They can be found all over the world.

I disagree good fellow. Movements and mass action need only such things as a good motivator, and one who may incentivize action through the impartation of victim sentiment. Just one example of course. Malcontentism is a most expedient term and I will try to have it on wikipedia by the end of the week.

 

I guess my problem is I'm not sure what the Tea Party is upset about. High taxes?? Taxes are the lowest since 1950. I am really beginning to think they are just upset because we have a black president. Where were they when Bush was president? Things were not much different then. People tend to forget that Bush had a little spending problem too.

 

Good fellow, have you considered that at least a porion of the movement could have began with malcontentism?

 

I'll break character and explain for a change; the tea party feels that their way of life is being threatened. They are very correct in that assessment. They are certainly in danger of losing everything they've worked for, their savings, their retirement, their home value, their comfortable jobs, and their social status. There is a reason why the tea party is mostly comprised of elderly and middle aged white folks. They are at an age where they are recognizing that they have no choice but to continue on with the path they were on... while at the same time starting to recognize that the future isn't so rosy because of a number of choices that have been made over the last few decades. Unlike younger voters, they don't have the option of starting over again. Their cards have been played, and all that remains is to call the other player's hand. They are accustomed to a fair amount of privilege and status due to their economic achievements and skin color, and that's now being challenged. If I was in their situation, I would be discontent and angry too.

Where I disagree with the tea party is in how they choose to go about addressing that discontent. Rather than looking for answers in structural deficiencies in the US political and economic system, they've instead chosen to focus on a personalized gallery of villains--it's the fault of democrats, of minorities, of immigrants, or muslims, of liberals, etc. This is a silly and ineffective route of protest. The problems in America aren't caused by some nefarious group of people out to destroy the country. Pretty much everyone who lives here, except maybe the criminals, is doing their best to make the country a better place, in their own way. Our issue is a very fundamental structural problem--we have a system designed to produce an excess of supply, while at the same time restricting demand. We compensated for this structural deficiency by spending on credit (falsely stimulating demand), but the numbers involved are becoming worrisome, even to those who aren't well versed economically.

To solve the problem, we have to engage in substantial structural reforms--we have to address the core inequities of the old system, because we won't be able to mask the consequences much longer. Even this option, however, poses a threat to the tea party demographic. They've long been the people who have intelligently and correctly situated themselves to benefit from these structural inequities. They're the people who went to college, put their nose to the grindstone, worked the extra hours to keep their job, set aside immediate pleasure for long-term savings, and built up a pile of wealth and privilege in exchange for all of that effort. Well, now it's becoming increasingly obvious that all of that was pretty much a lie, and all that effort was wasted, and now they're too old to do something about it. And that's threatening. It's compounded when they see that society itself is shifting demographically--they see foreign groups becoming larger and more politically powerful, and that threatens the status and privilege they've worked for as well.

I can totally understand their discontent, even if I disagree with how they express it. It's not a good position to be in. The correct resolution requires a lot of faith and trust in other people that things will work out alright for everyone in society, and our society has not done a good job of encouraging trust in other people. After all, we have spent so much time and effort promoting this myth of the rugged independent individualist who cares not a whit for the people he has to struggle to surpass. We've built up an ideal that makes it hard for people who consider themselves made in that model to trust others. They see that they themselves have ignored the plight of the less fortunate around them, so they have a justifiable worry that others will ignore them if the tables turn.

Yes, the tea party has very rational reasons to be discontent. They've just chosen an irrational response to express it.

I think the fact that Obama is black just makes it easier for them to place blame on someone they would have blamed anyway. There's less of a civility barrier when dealing with what is perceived as an out-group.

 

If what you say is true, I must admit, I have very little sympathy for them. They kind of made there own bed. The elderly and middle aged white folks of the tea party today were the middle aged and young white folks of the 1980s.

These were the young Regan Republicans that loved there debit driven economy of excess and greed. They traded in their stable pensions for market driven 401ks. They believed their bosses when they were told that unions were evil and unnecessary for job security. They were all brainwashed to believe that as long as they voted along corporate lines, everyone would someday be rich. They were all convinced that the only institution that may have provided them a safety net (their own government) needed to be down sized.

The teaparty may be discontented, but is it rational to discontented when you brought it upon yourself?

 

I agree with this so much that it goes full-circle and I find myself trying really hard to poke holes in it.

I don't think anyone would call themselves some of these things if that were the definition they were using. Nobody thinks of themselves as a state capitalist or a fascist, but we all agree they do exist.

I often wish we had an open fascist on the boards so we could have arguments. Sort of like the open racists on the forum (you know who you are) -- personally, I give them some points for arguing their cases as well as they can, knowing that they'll take flak for it. It's stupid, but at least it's honest, even ballsy.

Do we have any state capitalists around here? I think we do, but I don't think they think that's what they are.

By the above definitions, I would call myself an anarchist liberal with some hope that socialism could actually be democratic ... better yet, voluntary ... practice. In truth, it just isn't yet, I don't think ... there's a missing ingredient that we haven't invented yet. Once we do, bring on the socialism.

 

What do you see as something that liberals believe in that isn't constitutional? I think of myself as a liberal and I think my beliefs (at least my political beliefs), in terms of how we should run our government, pass constitutional muster.

 

But they got us this far. I agree that going in a straight line for too long inevitably sends you off a cliff or into the ocean or through a bear. But there's something to be said for the direction that hasn't gotten you killed most recently.

 

While several examples would allow for a more in depth look, the term liberal carries over from the term progressive. Progressives view the constitution as a living breathing document to be adjusted and altered as times change, while conservatives typically want to keep the constitution as it was created and interpret it as they feel the founders (or at least a select few of them) intended it. Theres a great book called ''american progressivism'' which tells the entire story of how the movement came about and what their intentions were.

 

Take a look at a lot of alternative medicine. Conservative people in a number of countries still use it because it's traditional. It does nothing though.

 

I don't think that the idea that the collective matters more than the individual is what makes fascism. Most people are willing to sacrifice themselves or even others for their families, I think. And a family is a sort of collective.

The problem with fascism is that it's about the will of the collective being put in practice over the will of the individual. That's unacceptable in most circumstances. But as much as I hate fascism, I have to admit that there are certain laws that I do not consider arguable even for other people, like the law that says no one will molest children, no one will commit rape, no one will bring serious harm to a child in general. If you're within my scope of influence, you will obey those rules or I will use threats, force and violence on those that disobey my will. I know that's not what people think of when they think of fascism, but I think that's because none of us think about it in terms of what degree of fascism we're actually perfectly comfortable with. I'm perfectly comfortable with my degree of fascism.

So I think you were right when you said that virtually every western civilization is guilty of some degree of fascism. Or something like that. But by the broad definition of fascism, the will of the collective being enforced on the individual whether the individual likes it or not, I think virtually every civilization has some degree of fascism in it. I don't know them all well enough to point them all out, but I bet they're there.

 

Some of it does nothing, some of it does something, maybe some of it does something that you or I just don't understand yet. Some conservatives have the opposite problem and can't bring themselves to use anything deemed 'alternative' because of how that would reflect on them socially. It's weird.

 

Like the way we tend to confuse conservatism with fundamentalism, you mean?

Exactly! A liberal is open to change, but doesn't mandate change. If you mandate something, you're failing to be permissive and thus that position isn't liberal.

This is why I disagree with the health insurance mandate. I think the solution is universal health care with a public and private option ... but the argument is made, and sometimes compellingly, that this requires a level of contribution on the part of each individual that is counter to permissiveness.

 

That sounds like everyone to varying degrees. Nobody likes the way things are. Everyone wants to change the present into either the future or the past.

 

Okay. But what is something that you as an unconstitutional liberal belief?

 

That is no necessary to be fascist.

 

I wish there was some way to go back and correct the original post after the editing period has passed. There's a few terms I'd like to add (Progressive, malcontent, etc).

 

I have already laid out the principles behind malcontentism. If you have ideas which you feel should be added to the new term please elaborate.

 

For the sake of convenience, it would be nice if new terms could be added to the old set, so that someone just entering the thread won't have to scour many threads to find what they're looking for.

 

There are many classic examples of progressive vs conservative when it comes to the U.S constitution. One being the second ammendment, various gun controls and regulation said to be a liberal argument going against the founders idea that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

I think that, if we are looking for internally consistent definitions, then one cannot describe gun control as a liberal belief. Just because it is part of the Democratic party's platform does not make it liberal. Both sides have a fair amount of liberal and authoritarian policy.