Political Temperature Check

[Mireille]

The 99% percent encompasses people of many different political persuasions. I am curious as to what is the general makeup of our group. This area tends to be conservative, but I consider the movement to be mostly liberal leaning. It would be interesting to see how our group weighs in.

Your vote is confidential - the poll will indicate that you have voted but it won't reveal your choice.

[Solus Hospes]

...because I was still a wee bit fuzzy on the terms and just encase anyone else was too.

con·serv·a·tive [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]

adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

noun
1. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
2. a supporter of conservative political policies.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, especially the Conservative party in Great Britain.
4. a preservative.





Liberal lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]

adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

noun
1. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
2. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

[gm0ney]

Personally I think the literal definitions of liberal/conservative don't exactly fit the situation that we have in America (from a historical context) or the classical definitions -as conservatives want to conserve traditional American values of liberty and freedom (as they see it) as opposed to the traditional form of government (monarchy) that existed when our country was founded.

I agree with the conservative critique that it doesn't make a lot of sense that Monarchy/Fascism is on one side of the political spectrum while Communism is on the other with Anarchy just to the left of Communism (with Democracy in the middle) when in practical terms Fascism and Communism are the same and radically different from Anarchy.

I think we need a new political science that separates the different dichotomies. From a literalist point of view, Conservative is NOT the opposite of Liberal, but Progressive while Authoritarian is opposite of Liberal.


I am interested in knowing what others think of this idea, though I am aware of Classical definitions and that they are largely based on ideology, that only serves to cloud the issue of how power is actually disseminated in practice and numerous vices and moral outrages have been excused due to the ideals of people. Maybe it's time to put people before ideology.

[Mireille]

I found this site when looking up political definitions -
Political Compass - www.politicalcompass.org/test
This test tells you where you fall more clearly and makes distinctions between social and economic dimensions in politics.

For example, it explains things like "The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)."

Apparently I am in the company of Ghandi, Nelson Mandella and the Dalai Lama in my political thoughts. I'll take it! ;D

[Solus Hospes]

Thank you for posting that gm0ney. For me, what you said makes sense and the only reason I posed the dictionary definition is because I have little or no concept of political terminology and such. I am just recently learning these things so it's new to me. Ultimately I am driven by my instincts. I use logic to research and educate myself as much as I can but in the end it's my gut which tells me if something is right or wrong morally and in terms of a course of action.

Mireille, that Political Compass was very interesting. The questions were not all easy and I had to really consider how I felt because there's no middle ground. It looks like the Dalai Lama and I are pretty close according to this and from what I've read and seen and felt that seems pretty right on.

Thanks for sharing you guys!

[James]

www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-9.00&soc=-9.44

Voluntary Regional Collectivism! (anarcho-syndicalism!?)

This test was awesome, and explained some common misconceptions about various political ideologies. However, it is important(for me)to point out that Communism was initially envisioned as a worker's state. In Marx's criticisms of Capitalism, he mainly focused on two classes, owners and workers(bourgeoisie and proletariat), pointing out the disparity of power between these two classes. The Bourgeoisie were the owners of the means of production - meaning land, the resources therein, and property. The Proletariat were seen as using these "means of production" solely for the profit of the Bourgeoisie, leaving their labor all that they had to exchange for a wage, or other forms of property(we say goods and services). It was believed by Marx that this disparity would ultimately result in a revolution in which the Proletariat would defeat the Bourgeoisie and take control of the means of production.

I point this out because what we see historically in terms of Communism is people attempting to bring this idea of a workers state about. The most commonly referenced instance of this being Stalin, who was, I believe, perpetuating the authoritarian ideology of Lenin's earlier vanguard party. This authoritarian approach is what, I think, is generally understood as "state-imposed collectivism." There are lots of different ways to arrange equal access to the means of production, and Pol Pot uses one of them.

The fact that it has generally been implemented in an intensely authoritarian way is why I think people are so quick to jump on the idea that Communism and Fascism are similar. Maybe they appear structurally similar, but they are definitely ideologically opposed.

At least this is how I understand it. ;D

Further Reading: theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Dwight_Macdonald__The_Root_Is_Man.html(I still haven't finished this one...)

[nicholas]

Political Compass is pretty reliable, or at least consistent and makes sense.


To clarify the issue of communism, it might be important to employ capital letters. Big "C" Communism, a la Soviet Russia, China, Cuba etc. while calling themselves Communist aren't very communist (notice the little "c"!) Indeed, James' distillation of Marx isn't a bad one, it might be clarified further by stating 2 things:

1: Marx didn't invent communism/socialism (which are almost essentially the same thing. Socialism is the belief that working people ought to control the means of productions, democratically. Most socialists vary in their ideas about how to make this change. Classical communism agrees with this, but also tended to be paired with ideologies calling for the eradication of other social structures (i.e. anarcho-communism, which really is just normal communism, but as communists split in methods, namely the use of the state or authoritarian revolution, the distinction became more important.) Socialism, as defined as workers' CONTROL of the means of production, is an altogether radically misunderstood concept these days, or rather almost always. It can vary in terms of personal ownership of goods (toothbrush, house, guitar) but necessitates the collectivization of the means of production/ capital.

Another way of looking at it, as the great radical American Industrial Workers of the World (and international organization as well!) did, is as Industrial Democracy. Workplace Democracy.

2. What Lenin started in Russia and Stalin furthered, has been referred to by some as "bureaucratic collectivism." In this it has been compared to Fascism, and National Socialism. All three emphasis the centrality of state-power (never a tenent of either socialism, or communism until Lenin, really) as the sole means for survival/revolution. Granted it's for different reasons, I think a good case can be made for the fact that in all three one was expected to defer to state-power in almost every regard.


BUT!

AUTHORITARIANISM has NOTHING to do with communism/socialism. It has to do with a specific methodological conception known as Marxism-Leninism. Castro subscribed to it, Lenin subscribed (obviously) Trotsky subscribed, Mao adapted.


I'm not even saying Marxism-Leninism is altogether useless, but it does have authoritarian elements embedded in it.


Hope this helps.

BTW Anarchism is very fascinating..... Really clarifies what it means to be 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

[Solus Hospes]

Thank you all for the detailed clarifications!

[James]

No problem! It's what we do ;D

[evanne]

It's been my understanding that Marx was writing for industrialized, democratic, countries like the US and the UK. My college philosophy professor even cited a letter with a Russian communist where he told her that it would fail because the people didn't understand their own power or something like that.

However it amazes me how politically docile we are in general in America. Think of the paralysis of the 2000 election and how that would've ended in riots in so many other places.

[gm0ney]

The irony for me, is that much of my progressivism is really a form of ultra-conservatism in that I want to bring back the ancient structures of concensus governments, communal living and seeing nature as something sacred that needs to be revered.

[gm0ney]

Hmmm, I took the test, and I still don't think it is a totally accurate way of looking at things -I wasn't happy with some of the questions for one (there should be a none of the above or "I don't like this question" option) and the individual/collective division needs to be distinct from traditional/progressive. I'm not totally sure what left/right means in this context.
I guess the problem is that money has such an impact on society, that it can be both freedom and power.

[tripp]

Follow the money. US & British banks financed Hitler. They also financed the communist movement including Lenin. The banksters have been funding both sides for centuries. They don't care who wins because they fund both sides. They create the problem and then pose as saviors with the "solution". This is becoming more well known. Watch "The CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY", it's a 45 minute doc. that explains this well. They are playing chess while most of us are playing checkers.

[mrliberty]

I love the assumption that "this group encompasses all manner of people"...

Majority says VERY LIBERAL.

Hahahaha. No wonder there is so much silencing of dissent and intolerance. In the arena of ideas, you can't compete, so you hijack a movement like this to force people into thinking your ideas have some force behind them.... they don't

You're outnumbered, you're outmatched and your silly ideas are dying, as they should.

www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

[Solus Hospes]

Majority isn't all... so "all manner of people" is still accurate.

[mrliberty]

But certainly not the 99%, right???

[GaryP]

Nov 8, 2011 19:30:18 GMT -5 mrliberty said:

I love the assumption that "this group encompasses all manner of people"...

Majority says VERY LIBERAL.

Hahahaha. No wonder there is so much silencing of dissent and intolerance. In the arena of ideas, you can't compete, so you hijack a movement like this to force people into thinking your ideas have some force behind them.... they don't

You're outnumbered, you're outmatched and your silly ideas are dying, as they should.

www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Mr liberty seems to be a very upset & marginalized . Boy , if I were him . I'd go out & find a group were I was better repersented . You know this is a free country , he should find a group ( or create one ) where he was more appreciated & better represented.

[evanne]

There is room in Occupy for everyone who is willing to sit down and work with others in good faith. It isn't a religion, it's not about all believing the same. It's not a fan club, we don't all have to like the same things either. We're also not a political group, so we don't all have to vote the same. We can all see injustice going on, we don't have to think alike to work together. When you show people the truth they can come to their own conclusions.

If you feel that someone else voicing strong opinions is an infringement on what you believe maybe you should reconsider why you think you have to agree just because you heard a differing opinion. The other side of the coin is that you may get everyone to listen, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree. We're all individuals.

[Mireille]

mrliberty is not working with others in good faith. He wants to impose his beliefs and push his agenda. Nothing wrong with hearing what he has to say but when he is constantly pummeling people in the head with it, it becomes rather irritating.

[evanne]

ಠ_ಠ Dislike. We're all the 99%, we need to learn to work together.

[mrliberty]

Evanne!!! Bless you. The first one who speaks with some sense. Thanks to you.

[gm0ney]

The irony is that Americans have gotten more Socialy Liberal over the last 40 years on most subjects, but it's 'cool' now to label yourself a conservative -esp. the younger generations.

For instance, a lot of young 'conservatives' I've talked to favor legalization of marijuana, civil rights for minorities, women and homosexuals, ending dependence on oil and having alternative energy sources.

We'll see how things change in the next 3 years.


And yes, I realize that racism and sexism aren't conservative values, but they were.

And yes, I realise that most Southern Democrats were against the civil rights movement in the 50s - 60s, but we're not talking about party affiliation.

Look, I have no problem with conservatives as people, so long you keep things civil.

[evanne]

British citizens and their colonists were some of the freest people in the world, and were granted more rights by their government, aka the crown, then most other people at the time on a global scale. But we(Americans) fought a revolution for more freedoms.

The shift to the right in our politics does freak me out, but that is mostly because it seems like there is amazing support behind the idea of deregulating non-human entities like corporations and regulating humans more closely. Laws against abortion, gay marriage, multiple marriage, unions, various and sundry 'taboo' behaviors that happen between consenting adults, birth control, drugs, prostitution and feeding the homeless are all laws changing what human beings are allowed to do. All of this is going on at a time when our government has been under massive pressure to deregulate business, which has happened way more than it should. I don't get it, and it doesn't seem very American to me.