Conquer Club

muy_thaiguy wrote:Conservative, why? Lower taxes, less government into private life, personal responsibility, etc...

Let's see, lower taxes? Evidently you're not old enough to remember how George sr. lost to a complete wanker (yes, i'm talking about Horny Bill) because his taxing got out of hand - "Read my lips, no new taxes" - and then he slaps us with another one. That one even offended the Republicans. "Less government into private lives" - have you been hibernating the last 7 years???? Ever hear of the "Patriot" act? How about piss tests? Started with Nixon, and got kicked into high gear by Reagan, after that generous campaign contribution by Anheuser Busch. "Personal responsibility" - how about taking the responsibility to find out whether what you believe is true, rather than just parroting idiots like Rush Limbaugh. Compared to you i guess i would be a liberal, and compared to Guiscard i would be a conservative. Go figure.

Stopper wrote:
PS: I grudgingly put Liberal. Even if you didn't list each and every single type of nutter, no, sorry I mean, ideology here at CC, why didn't you have an option for people outwith the range you've got there?

I very much so agree with you here.

This is only taking one factor into account, a very linear approach.

I see political ideology as a spectrum, with 3 main 'linear' points, making each persons views a 3 dimensional bearing within a cube of possibilities.

The 3 linear points being:

The 'economical' line, with the extreme ends being communism and capitalism

The 'power' line with the extremes being anarchism and fascism

The 'Interestt' line with the extremes being apathy and hyper-activism.

The point being that there are so many possiblities of political ideology, that you cannot simply sum it up with a simple 2 choice poll.

I would class myself as being Mildly left on the eco scale, conservative on the power scale and mildly apathetic on the interest scale.

Outstanding summation - as concise as that of the poll, and much more accurate. I would classify myself as moderate on the power, liberal on the economic, and a wannabe hyper on the interest (i'd love to kill Bush and Chaney).

MeDeFe wrote:Anyway, commies are conservative, too, aren't they?

No, they are considered to be extreme far left, like fascists are extreme right.

b.k. barunt wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Conservative, why? Lower taxes, less government into private life, personal responsibility, etc...

Let's see, lower taxes? Evidently you're not old enough to remember how George sr. lost to a complete wanker (yes, i'm talking about Horny Bill) because his taxing got out of hand - "Read my lips, no new taxes" - and then he slaps us with another one. That one even offended the Republicans. "Less government into private lives" - have you been hibernating the last 7 years???? Ever hear of the "Patriot" act? How about piss tests? Started with Nixon, and got kicked into high gear by Reagan, after that generous campaign contribution by Anheuser Busch. "Personal responsibility" - how about taking the responsibility to find out whether what you believe is true, rather than just parroting idiots like Rush Limbaugh. Compared to you i guess i would be a liberal, and compared to Guiscard i would be a conservative. Go figure.

One little problem with your little comparison here, you are talking about politicians, I am talking about my own personal beliefs which happen to coincide with the conservative standpoint.

b.k. barunt wrote:Outstanding summation - as concise as that of the poll, and much more accurate. I would classify myself as moderate on the power, liberal on the economic, and a wannabe hyper on the interest (i'd love to kill Bush and Chaney).

You bloody rebel, they're lucky there are strict gun laws in America......

...hang on.....wait a sec......

Norse wrote:

Stopper wrote:
PS: I grudgingly put Liberal. Even if you didn't list each and every single type of nutter, no, sorry I mean, ideology here at CC, why didn't you have an option for people outwith the range you've got there?

I very much so agree with you here.

This is only taking one factor into account, a very linear approach.

Actually, I don't know why I didn't remember this the first time I saw this thread, but there is a site which measures respondents' political positionings along two axes: authoritarianism-to-libertarianism, and economic left-to-right.

It's not brilliant for a number of reasons, but it probably gives an idea of where you are compared with other people taking the same test.

It's on this thread.

I believe this is this one......

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It's got an interesting test on it.

But I still don't think that it gives the full picture, I really think the "apathy-activst" line is very much a component.

For anybody interested...

Eco - 5.13 and social +3.4

my nearest political figure is......

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Anyway, commies are conservative, too, aren't they?

No, they are considered to be extreme far left, like fascists are extreme right.

And your point is?

Conservative as defined by the dictionary I first could get my hands on means "not liking changes or new ideas" or "not very modern in taste, style, etc; traditional". What does that have to do with left or right? Nothing. However, if we take Marx as the inventor of communism it's definitely not a new idea. See where I might be heading? Of course, if we take J.S. Mill as the forefather of the theory of a free market and subsequently capitalism, that's not a new idea either.

Norse wrote:I really think the "apathy-activst" line is very much a component.

If you're talking about individual people, then yes, I'd say it's very important, and the further away your politics are from the mainstream, the more important your level of activism becomes. I'm lazy, so I support Labour.

Norse wrote:I believe this is this one......

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

It's got an interesting test on it.

But I still don't think that it gives the full picture, I really think the "apathy-activst" line is very much a component.

Old post:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... sc&start=0

I don't really buy into this "test" so much as it seems to put people more to the left than they really are. IMHO.

Oh, I "tested":
Economic left/right: 1.75

Social libertarian/authoritarian: 2.67

vtmarik wrote:I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

I'd call it the "New general consensus"

MeDeFe wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Anyway, commies are conservative, too, aren't they?

No, they are considered to be extreme far left, like fascists are extreme right.

And your point is?

Conservative as defined by the dictionary I first could get my hands on means "not liking changes or new ideas" or "not very modern in taste, style, etc; traditional". What does that have to do with left or right? Nothing. However, if we take Marx as the inventor of communism it's definitely not a new idea. See where I might be heading? Of course, if we take J.S. Mill as the forefather of the theory of a free market and subsequently capitalism, that's not a new idea either.

Communism is considered to be the exteme version of Socialism, which Liberals tend to have a lot in common with. It may be a little over a century old, but Capitalism is just a bit older. And why must try to deny something that is known as common knowledge?

Jenos Ridan wrote:

vtmarik wrote:I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

you know, anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic...

if correctly done, anarchy can work quite well, but it has to be a person's choice to live in an anarchical society, it can't be forced on people...they have to accept the ideals of said society in order for it to have a chance of working...

s.xkitten wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

vtmarik wrote:I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

you know, anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic...

if correctly done, anarchy can work quite well, but it has to be a person's choice to live in an anarchical society, it can't be forced on people...they have to accept the ideals of said society in order for it to have a chance of working...

Hate to break it to you, but anarchy just can't be done. A leadership/government will always be as one form or another.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

s.xkitten wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

vtmarik wrote:I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

you know, anarchy doesn't have to be chaotic...

if correctly done, anarchy can work quite well, but it has to be a person's choice to live in an anarchical society, it can't be forced on people...they have to accept the ideals of said society in order for it to have a chance of working...

Hate to break it to you, but anarchy just can't be done. A leadership/government will always be as one form or another.

Anarchy on a large scale would be highly difficult to pull off, but it can always be done...like i said, the people have to be willing...

on a smaller scale, the anarchist society in Home, Washington worked out quite well until the state closed it down.

so yes, an Anarchy can be done...

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Anyway, commies are conservative, too, aren't they?

No, they are considered to be extreme far left, like fascists are extreme right.

And your point is?

Conservative as defined by the dictionary I first could get my hands on means "not liking changes or new ideas" or "not very modern in taste, style, etc; traditional". What does that have to do with left or right? Nothing. However, if we take Marx as the inventor of communism it's definitely not a new idea. See where I might be heading? Of course, if we take J.S. Mill as the forefather of the theory of a free market and subsequently capitalism, that's not a new idea either.

Communism is considered to be the exteme version of Socialism, which Liberals tend to have a lot in common with. It may be a little over a century old, but Capitalism is just a bit older. And why must try to deny something that is known as common knowledge?

I think you have to define your terms more carefully.
Socialism is the utopian concept of a society in which everything is in common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. The means of production is controlled by the workers. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. Everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. A socialist society would be the ultimate expression of democracy in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. No government is required in a true socialist society, as every action should be carried out with consensus for the good of the people, by the people.
You are perhaps confusing socialism, with the modern socialist democratic parties.
Communism is not "an extreme version of Socialism". Communism (according to Marx) is a necessary step in the evolution of history to achieve a socialist society. It is the dictatorship of the proletarian. An interim period achieved through revolutionary means to lead to the perfect government less and classless society.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

vtmarik wrote:I'm of the ideology that says everything is dumb and that nothing is sacred.

So in other words, total chaos and anarchy?

No, I'm an absurdist. I support the ideology that ironies and absurdities are an integral thing that should be exposed and laughed at rather than ignored and shielded from attack.

flashleg8 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Anyway, commies are conservative, too, aren't they?

No, they are considered to be extreme far left, like fascists are extreme right.

And your point is?

Conservative as defined by the dictionary I first could get my hands on means "not liking changes or new ideas" or "not very modern in taste, style, etc; traditional". What does that have to do with left or right? Nothing. However, if we take Marx as the inventor of communism it's definitely not a new idea. See where I might be heading? Of course, if we take J.S. Mill as the forefather of the theory of a free market and subsequently capitalism, that's not a new idea either.

Communism is considered to be the exteme version of Socialism, which Liberals tend to have a lot in common with. It may be a little over a century old, but Capitalism is just a bit older. And why must try to deny something that is known as common knowledge?

I think you have to define your terms more carefully.
Socialism is the utopian concept of a society in which everything is in common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. The means of production is controlled by the workers. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. Everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. A socialist society would be the ultimate expression of democracy in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. No government is required in a true socialist society, as every action should be carried out with consensus for the good of the people, by the people.
You are perhaps confusing socialism, with the modern socialist democratic parties.
Communism is not "an extreme version of Socialism". Communism (according to Marx) is a necessary step in the evolution of history to achieve a socialist society. It is the dictatorship of the proletarian. An interim period achieved through revolutionary means to lead to the perfect government less and classless society.

Perhaps the only main difference between Socialism and Communsim is that Communists prefer to use violence to achieve their ends. And no, I was not thinking of the modern Democratic parties. By chance, YOU wouldn't happen to be a Communist would you? (going by your avatar and such)

I thought Marx had it the other way round, communism as the goal you described and socialism as the step in between.

This thread all of a sudden is giving me the squits

flashleg8 wrote:
I think you have to define your terms more carefully.
Socialism is the utopian concept of a society in which everything is in common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. The means of production is controlled by the workers. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. Everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. A socialist society would be the ultimate expression of democracy in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. No government is required in a true socialist society, as every action should be carried out with consensus for the good of the people, by the people.
You are perhaps confusing socialism, with the modern socialist democratic parties.
Communism is not "an extreme version of Socialism". Communism (according to Marx) is a necessary step in the evolution of history to achieve a socialist society. It is the dictatorship of the proletarian. An interim period achieved through revolutionary means to lead to the perfect government less and classless society.

Perhaps I read the manifesto wrong or don't remember correctly, but your definitions of socialism and communism are backwards. Socialism is seen as the necessary step between capitalism and communism, in which the State owns and controls everything, while (in practice) giving mere lip service to the people.

Communism is a return to hunter/gatherer or primitive agrarian society where everyone just helps everybody else and lives in perfect harmony with nature, etc.

Democrats (NOT liberals, whatever they say) would be mild-to-moderate socialists. As long as the government owns you, we'll all be okay. We'll take just about all of your money without your consent and give it to corrupt African warlords so that they'll do something about hunger and AIDS.

Republicans (NOT conservatives, whatever they say) are mild-to-extreme fascisti. As long as the government controls everybody else, we'll be alright. And, sir, drop your pants. Just a routine ethnicity/background check.

GeneralUnderhill wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:
I think you have to define your terms more carefully.
Socialism is the utopian concept of a society in which everything is in common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. The means of production is controlled by the workers. Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. Everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. A socialist society would be the ultimate expression of democracy in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. No government is required in a true socialist society, as every action should be carried out with consensus for the good of the people, by the people.
You are perhaps confusing socialism, with the modern socialist democratic parties.
Communism is not "an extreme version of Socialism". Communism (according to Marx) is a necessary step in the evolution of history to achieve a socialist society. It is the dictatorship of the proletarian. An interim period achieved through revolutionary means to lead to the perfect government less and classless society.

Perhaps I read the manifesto wrong or don't remember correctly, but your definitions of socialism and communism are backwards. Socialism is seen as the necessary step between capitalism and communism, in which the State owns and controls everything, while (in practice) giving mere lip service to the people.

Communism is a return to hunter/gatherer or primitive agrarian society where everyone just helps everybody else and lives in perfect harmony with nature, etc.

Democrats (NOT liberals, whatever they say) would be mild-to-moderate socialists. As long as the government owns you, we'll all be okay. We'll take just about all of your money without your consent and give it to corrupt African warlords so that they'll do something about hunger and AIDS.

Republicans (NOT conservatives, whatever they say) are mild-to-extreme fascisti. As long as the government controls everybody else, we'll be alright. And, sir, drop your pants. Just a routine ethnicity/background check.

I have to say I agree with you on Communsim, but not necessarily (I know I spelled it wrong, brain fart right now) on Republicans and Democrats. Not all Republicans may be Conservative, and Democrats liberal, but many Republicans ARE Conservative and Democrats liberal. Socialism(going into Communism) and Fascism are (I hate repeating myself) considered to be the extreme versions of Conservatism and Liberalism.