What ideology do you most agree with?

What do you consider yourself to be?
Please use the most specific term you can.
Also, what party do you usually vote for? (please list country)

Please, don't start arguments about ideologies, just answer the questions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

>>120
And all have failed.  In the end they drown in their own corruption. Time to put-up or shut-up.

Classical liberalist
Det Liberale Folkepartiet (Norway)

communism/socialism. Aslong as someone elected is leading and not someone apointed. Aslong as this person is smart and is proven to be smart by being elected into office. But we would have to wait and see if he has plans for the jews or plans for the economy(By killing the jews and takin der money.)

god
i am god
NOW DO MY BIDDING MUAHAHAHAHA

GOOD GOD

>>123
That would never work.

National Socialist

communist/socialist in nature but with democratically elected leaders and with most of the important decisions made by referendums like weather or not to go to war

i doubt it would work though. theres always the greedy bastards and jackasses

I happen to be of the persuasion of survival of the fittest in all aspects of life. Whether it is political, social, religious,etc. Whichever one survives is the best one. So whether that is socialism or pure capitalism does not matter. The best ideology will win.

>>130
So if the fittest ideology contradicts the law of the survival of the fittest then you'd be ok with that.

Conservative/Republican - I am a big fan of the survival of the fittest theme in the marketplace and on social issues.

>>131

Why would it contradict the law of survival of the fittest? It couldn't. If that was the philosophy most fitting and had the most power then it was right. It would have been the best one for taking power and having people believe in it. And if they died off then the one who survived would be the most powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_suicide

Socialist, or communist and Marxist-Leninist. Depends who gets to define the "-ism".
I want power to the people, abolishment of private property of the means of productions. The bourgeois must be thrown from their position, if they don't submerge to the request of the working class and retaliate they will must be forced.


Norway. Raudt (read: Red)

>>133
Well it might be the fittest ideology on the ideological arena but it will negate the survival of the fittest on other arenas.
>>134
Evolution is too complex for that to happen, if a peacock's decoration is too energy intensive then it will starve and it's brother with a less energy intensive decoration will survive and mate with all the peavajayjays. If there is a drought and the peacocks have less energy available and they all die then the cause can be attributed to the drought rather than excessive sexual selection.
>>135
What if when you give power to the people they use that power to restore the ability for people to own means of production simply because it is a more efficient means of managing complex industries which depend on accurate knowledge of supply and demand and thus depend on a market system?

Will you execute them like they did in all the communist countries during the 20th century? You probably wouldn't, but the thugs at the forefront of the revolution would and after their Stalin is in power they will kick you out like they did to Trotsky. That guy was such a dumbshit and so are you. I bet you didn't understand any of that.

>>136

Evolution is too complex for that to happen, if a peacock's decoration is too energy intensive then it will starve
If the peacock's decoration sucks, he always can deliver the fate of his fellos peacocks to the cuckoos in exchange for some *PERSONAL* fitting.

*cough*cough* Ted Kennedy *cough*

capicci now?
yoo comprendo?

>>1
the one that lets me troll people.

>>136

135 here...
Can't say you wrote anything difficult to understand in there. I have studied some Marxism, and communism in general, and study political science.

I don't think that will happen. Here is why. Say 500 workers own a car factory (I have noo idea how many people work at car factories, so this is a quite random number, but it will illustrate my point.), the workers will not vote to give their part of the factory to one person, because 499 would not gain on this.
And just because the ratio between supply and demand is complicated doesn't mean that you need a free market to solve it. It's not like the capitalist system really solves anything. Yes, it would be more effective, but e.g. there is more research on drugs to boost the male erection, than there is on HIV and AIDS medicine. Even if it is perfectly clear that there is a bigger need or "demand", if you want, for the medicine.


As far as Stalin. I will never go so far as call him a true communist. This was clear pretty much all the time, and was  especially easy to see during and after the Moskva trials after the exclusion of Trotsky.

There will always be asses out there who wants too rule over people, but i don't think there will be more of them under socialism than capitalism.

>>5
As far as I know democratic socialists are socialists who seek to divide the wealth and reduce capitalism through bourgeois parlamentarism.

Liberal socialists is bourgeois! Too right winged to be called socialists.

>>122
You, sir, is an ass.

>>139
Well they could decide to sell the shares as individuals so they can afford more alcohol and lap dances, or they could vote for the company to issue more shares allowing capitalists to buy enough shares to gain equity over the factory, but whatever.

If we assume their ownership over the factory is mandatory and they cannot buy or sell shares they will be faced with a situation where 500 unqualified laborers have to perform in depth research and make 1000s of decisions and calculations that only a few educated professionals can make so the business can survive let alone prosper, they may decide to hire an educated professional to do this for them, maybe even pay him far more than the average worker and reward him for raising their wages, but they still cannot escape the same problems that any restrictive bureaucratic economic system is going to face, whether it be socialism or totally unfettered anarcho-capitalism. For instance if the tractor factory has to downsize or alter it's production methods to remain economically productive it may not be able to do this, the society will continue to support failing businesses just so people can keep their jobs when they should be accepting that things change and they should be seeking new employment.
>>140
A democracy where practically everyone is petite bourgeoisie except a minority of retarded ghetto/trailer trash is pretty much as close to one of your mushy headed utopias as we're going to get in the real world, and you want to destroy it because you can't handle the fact that someone is richer than you. Lick my bourgeoishole.

I'm a Maosist

I'm a Maoist

I'm a Maoist

>>143
>>144
What do you think of this site?
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/

Libertarian Socialist here, which is basically a fancy term for anarchist.

>>146
live in somalia for a week

>>147
Somalia's not a shit hole because of it's politics.  It's a shit hole because it's a desert with a polluted coast, overpopulated by tribal cultures.  A people who had moved beyond tribes and clans, who were in a sustainable environment(sustainable in part because of technology), would have an honest shot.  Not that the world's governments would ever let that happen.  It would look too tempting.  That's why the US has maintained the embargo on Cuba.

>>148
If the population of Somalia were exterminated and the land sold to Australian outback ranchers and the borders mined the GDP per capita would increase significantly. I think this proves capitalism is superior.

>>148
How could you be a Libertarian "Socialist" and an anarchist at the same time? I think you're confused. Also, how the hell would Libertarian Socialism work? Don't those two terms contradict each other?

>>148
Because Cuba is anarchist?
Hmmm....

Cuba is also a run down, lame excuse for a country. I've noticed that anarchy and terrible living conditions go hand in hand.

>>149
Thank you for that positive and thought provoking post...

>>150
Not the same guy.

>>151
No, because Cuba is communist, and the capitalists couldn't tolerate the existence of a stable affluent communist society during the cold war.  If there was no embargo then Cuba would have been swimming in money from US tourism and trade.  I thought that was clear, but I don't mind explaining things to slower folk. 

>>152
Think so?  Ever been there?  Perhaps you should look into their medical system.

>>150
lol, no, little baby. Libertarian socialism and anarchism are synonyms. Socialism doesn't mean "government control of everything", holy shit your education sucked.

>>147
Somalia is not a libertarian socialist society.

>>154
Alright, you don't have to be a condescending elitist prick about it. It was just a question. Could you explain about it more though?

>>153
Perhaps you should look at their large middle class and better living standards they had BEFORE the communist revolution. Seriously, Cuba used to be a first world country. What the hell happened?

>>157
I meant to say "better living standards than Europe"

>>153
>If there was no embargo then Cuba would have been swimming in money from US tourism and trade.
So why don't they negotiate with the US and try to get them to lift the embargo? Because socialism leads to excessive power centralisation and excessive power centralisation leads to corruption. Cuban children have to drink sewage because Fidel Castro has a grudge against the US, nice government you have there.

>>157
Yeah, the Batista regime was wonderful.  BTW, First, Second, and Third World refer to the Western capitalist nations, the communist(it was coined when the USSR was the big cheese), and the undeveloped, unaligned nations respectively, so Cuba just went from First World, and kissing our asses, to Second, preferring the taste of Russian ass.  That aside, apparently the "large middle class" wasn't large enough to prevent the larger lower class from revolting.  Then the usual dumb shit happened.