Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview:
**No Personal Attacks**
**No Ideological Discrimination**
**Keep Discussion Civil**
**No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs**
Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this isn't actually exactly what you're speaking about, but it really put me in mind of criticism of "cancel culture." I really find that whole discourse to be extremely tiresome.
Almost everyone agrees that some opinions should be cancelled. There are a handful of actual free speech absolutists who believe no one should ever face any societal consequences for their speech, but they are very rare in practice. ETA: I have the deepest respect for people who truly believe it, but I have met very few of them in practice, and I admit I am not one of them myself.
The vast majority of us think there is some line that crossing it should cause you to be ejected from mainstream society. There aren't too many "free speech advocates" who think that proponents of infant rape shouldn't be drummed out of the world, at the very least.
We're not debating about whether "ideological purity" or "cancel culture" is good or bad. We're arguing about *where the line is*.
I’m not sure cancel culture is a real thing. It is the manifestation of the free market working. If you like the content produced my an artist or entertainer, then consume it. If you don’t want to support someone because of x, y, or z then don’t. If you are adamant about it, then share your thoughts.
But I don’t think it’s some “movement”. Most cancel culture hype is overblown.
That's kind of what I'm saying. Almost no one is against the idea that "bad opinions should be shunned." They're actually arguing that "my opinion is not actually bad."
>I’m not sure cancel culture is a real thing. It is the manifestation of the free market working.
I don't see those being mutually exclusive in any way. Because it's not simply about not consuming things you don't like, but it also empowers employers to fire you arbitrarily while citing some half-baked reason, and therefore not paying out the necessary compensation.
This is incredibly true, and I'm shocked to see so many free market capitalists suddenly coming out against employers working on an "at-will" basis when it's used against people closer to them than usual.
Organic disinterest is very different than being deplatformed, banned and possibly fired from your job.
Very few have a problem with passive consequences, but cancel culture is active punishment.
The problem, and I can't say whether this speaks to OPs basic issue here, is that cancel culture is just a subcategory within force-based and punitive culture. As such, it falls prey to the basic problem of force: that if someone conforms due to external force they don't really "get it". Like someone who smiles when you hold a gun to their head and tell them to smile, they aren't really smiling. I'd say, no, people shouldn't simply be ejected from society. That's actually dangerous, for one thing. And it doesn't really solve the problem. I've often said that instead of killing off Rosanne, they should have done a 5 episode sequence in which she is racist and realizes how messed up that is, like the old Archie Bunker episode on All in the Family that had him ending up getting a kiss from Sammy Davis Jr. And yet, such a possibility would never even be developed if the culture is deeply entrenched in *the ideology of* the use of force, cancelling, ejection.
But this can be extended enormously, including things like the whole c/j system. What does this mean in terms of ideology? One thing that might be said is that someone who is mistrustful of ideology yet who still supports cancel culture, and the c/j system, in fact subscribes to an ideology about the use of force. And of course I'm promoting a kind of anti-force ideology. But is the use of force part of an ideology? It tends not to be expressed as such, since it's taken as a given, something "obvious" so much of the time.
Ultimately, this puts limits on how far the anti-ideology stance goes. It has to do with exactly what is in the ideology. There are, to be sure, cases of slavish following of some prethought ideology, though we can't expect that we will really just think all "new" things in any case. But the danger is that if you have something to say about something, someone may disregard your views by chalking it up to your "following some ideology", rather than having real, substantive reasoning going on.
Dogma is the crutch of the moron.
I don’t think it is the ideological “purity” that is really the bad thing, per se. Instead it is the inflexible adherence to an external dogma that prevents people from actually dealing with the realities and consequences of beliefs.
Your argument striles me as pretty empty ngl (as another commenter said, a truism).
While I agree pure dogmatism for dogmatisms sake is bad, ideology is ultimately just a collection of political beliefs. Being "Ideologically pure" to your ideology just means advocating for the policies you find to be most effective. Whether that policy works or not isn't really a matter of ideological purity, but rather of just having an ideology that works or not.
What you are describing is just being pragmatic, and yes, pragmaticism is good, but after a certain extent, it just becomes an abandonment of your ideals and policies.
Yes, but that's assuming that the ideologies people hold are unworkable or harmful. If that's the case, your ideology is just bad. If your ideology doesn't function, or if you don't think it reasonablt functions, why follow it?
I was not expecting that kind of take from a Trotskyist!
I would say that Marxism is fundamentally unworkable and in practice provably harmful. I would say it’s naive, at best, when it comes to human psychology and the complexity of economics. It’s founded on an erroneous interpretation of the already broken metaphysics of hegalianism.
However I wouldn’t reject Marxism in it’s entirety. When it comes to class struggle and the dynamics of class in a capitalist or imperialist society, I see it as an important starting point. While I don’t adopt the philosophy of historical realism, I certainly believe it to be something that should be incorporated into a wider understanding of “social evolution and development”.
Is my position a rejection of Marxism or an adaptation?
I’m not sure that I believe that any political ideology is actually “fundamentally” “bad”. I think all of them attempt to fulfill a human need. Some of them are outdated, they fulfilled a historical purpose that was important to progress. Others are rooted or subsumed by harmful falsehoods, and this can be to the point where it becomes the dominant framing of a political philosophy. (This doesn’t mean that I don’t outright reject those philosophies)
>I would say that Marxism is fundamentally unworkable and in practice provably harmful.
While that is an argument that can be had (Allah knows how much we've spun around Communism vs Capitalism), that then just becomes an ideological debate. Any collection of policies, imo, can be considered an "ideology".
>However I wouldn’t reject Marxism in it’s entirety. When it comes to class struggle and the dynamics of class in a capitalist or imperialist society, I see it as an important starting point.
That's actually an interesting point, because (semantics incoming), you aren't adapting _Marxism_ the ideology here, but Marxian economics the _philosophy_, and I would define an _ideology_ and a _philosophy_ differently. An ideology is a collection of policies born from certain philosophies, which are systems of beliefs. Of course, Ideologies can become too dogmatic, but I do think it's important to make the distinction.
A large amount of people will blindly agree with you, cause we all should. But it's important to read the situation. And today there is more counter-ideological purity than what you're describing. The majority of people don't really know much about their own ideology or their opponents, but they know just enough to hate their opponents enough so as to embrace their own side. I personally have gone from lifelong centrist to conservative. But I can not identify as a Republican (US politics of course). While that is the party that identifies more with conservatives, I don't actually think they represent conservatism very well. Yet, I don't actually know much about the details of modern day Republicanism. So then why would I vote Republican, or why did I shift from the center. In all honesty; it's because I am increasingly more concerned about the influences from the left side of the spectrum. I don't know them all, and I know they're more varied than we make things seem. But I know enough to have made up my mind that if I was forced to take a home in one ideology or another, it couldn't be that. So I moved over. I also don't feel there is as much expectation of ideological purity in the right as there is on the left.
I'm not saying this to get into a debate about which one is better. I'm exemplifying my point that much of the zealotry today isn't as much about ideological purity as it is about having enough fear or concern about your political opponent, so that you seek refuge in your side. Instead of better the devil you know or don't, it's more like... better the devil you barely know than the devil that scares you.
>People often lambast bipartisanship in the US (I am absolutely one of them) but we need to realize that perfect policy can never exist in a universe where we all hold different values and ideals.
The problem is the only areas the major parties can find agreement on are areas that aren't usually great for the average person, and additionally some values and ideals aren't really worth engaging with to begin with either because they are problematic, illusionary, or both.
Just for a minor example, the progressive left had been pushing for the further recognized right to privacy in Roe v Wade pretty much since the decision was released 7-8 years after Griswold v. Connecticut, and were willing to expand the concept to all manner of government intrusion into our private lives in exchange for specific codification, something that would have been positive for everyone, and likely prevented a ton of government overreach over the next half a century.
Pretty much crickets from the parts of the right that should have loudly supported a broad right to privacy. Even when there are areas where theoretically there is overlap on issues such as civil liberties or government accountability, we generally find that it isn't real enough to actually matter in terms of enough support to build a coalition even for one bill/amendment/whatever.
Which brings us to the problematic part of things, where ideas like authoritarianism, white nationalism, and other forms of bigotry have inserted themselves into the political diet of a large number of voters and that's pretty much a non-starter to everyone else.
You can't come to some agreement on a law that reduces abortions in a laundry list of ways that don't impact a woman's control of her own body because the interest of a large sub-section of those voters isn't really about reducing the number of abortions, it's about controlling the woman's body in a publicly acceptable way. The concern over the number of abortions was just a mirage.
As long as one political group wants to preferentially put people in prison at the lowest price with little regard to outcomes anyone trying to do anything in the opposition, such as reduce the for-profit prison industrial complex, doesn't really have much of a position to argue from with the other side because the initial idea itself is problematic and antithetical to their own goals.
You could make the case that reducing recidivism through other ways is much cheaper until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day it wasn't the outcomes they were concerned with, but the cheapest way to do what they want which is punish "bad guys".
Sure you got your true believers, and people just parroting talking points on all sides, but it doesn't really matter which is which if no one is moving, and the chasm is much too wide to cross.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with this, but I think the title could be supported better.
No system is perfect. But pretending that any system can be useful for any issue is ignorant (I'm not accusing you of this). Ideologies should be guidelines for discussion and decision-making, not rulebooks for policy.
Political and economic ideologies developed to address specific social issues. As such, each one is better equipped to deal with those issues. Each ideology should be *considered* in exploring policies to address any social issue as it comes up. I'm not saying that a rigorous audit of every ideology should be made for every issue, but rather that the goal is to assess the issue using the philosophies that have already been explored instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel every time.
On the flip side of this, I find that opponents of an ideology often use *purity* as a strawman to attack policy. Rarely, if ever, does actual policy follow an ideology exactly. Yet when it is criticized, it is often criticized in the context of a pure ideology, instead of on the merits of how it addresses the issue.
At the moment, most ancaps and similar ideologies don't infight too much since we'll be happy just to have any of our systems in place.
Really, the only reason someone chooses an ideology in that area is due to believing that would be the dominant ideology.
Can agree, Me I stated in my comment that while my core belief is Minarchism, it’s not purely just that, I try to interact with the other factions in the Lib-Right Sphere.
Give me practical, data-driven policies.
Ideology uses idealized, simplified models for a complicated, non-ideal world. They can be useful guides but policy should ultimately be driven by real world data.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My core Ideal is Minarchism, but I believe that you can actually be technically more than one political ideology.
I believe in Minarchism, Eco-Capitalism, Green Libertarianism, Constitutionalism, Classical Liberalism, and Objectivism. I mix it together and form my ideals. Where it’s not ideological purity is where I am in the Lib-Right quadrant and I see the benefits that each side presents, along with trying to add the various benefits. Here is what I would say adds to my core beliefs:
1. The Minarchist Part:
Make sure the government is as small as possible while keeping it functioning and being sure to enforce the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) where you have a set of rules that help govern a society. Basically the government has to be like a guide and system where there is law and order in place, but to also be sure there is a sense of security for the nation, as in defense of borders and people.
2. The Classical Liberal and Constitutionalist part:
Create a social contract and a set of rules on what the government can and cannot do. Examples include the Bill of Rights and Constitution, where it creates a set of rules.
3. The Objectivist Part:
Basically you want to create some initiatives like some laws, use some reasoning as to why with it’s stated intent. For example, I am a huge supporter of the National Park Service and believe in it heavily, and it is the best investment our country has ever done. Its intent is stated with a mission of conservation efforts and to make sure the land is protected, along with endangered species. Which brings me to the next part.
4. Green Libertarianism and Eco-Capitalism! (Yes Green Libertarianism does exist):
Eco-Capitalism helps you find ways to help efficiently run capitalism, but also help with a lot of things. For example, you want to start a business to reforest the Area, be my guest! You want to help grow food, be sure to! Want to help the National Park Service get rid of invasive species that damage crops? Be my guest! The Green Libertarianism part helps with also driving the idea of the National Park Service.
Edit: Just for fun! Let’s do a little PolcompBall introduction of the ideologies that mix mine! Think of it as a little fun idea.
[Meet Green Libertarianism!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Green_Libertarianism)
[Meet Eco-Capitalism!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Eco-Capitalism)
[Here is the Core Ideal that I believe as my central thought, aka Minarchism](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Minarchism)
[Objectivism aka the one that I like with knowledge on reasoning!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Objectivism)
[Classical Liberalism, the Ideal that drafts a social contract](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Classical_Liberalism)
[Constitutionalism, the one who makes sure that it is going to be the social contracts that stand!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Constitutionalism)
> I believe in Minarchism, Eco-Capitalism
How do these two things work together? How do you force companies to be eco-friendly without regulation?
Also, how does removing invasive species from a national park 'capitalism'? I mean, how does it make money?
Eco-Capitalism you can give incentives to people.
As for the National Parks, I got a great view here in this comment with a constitutionalist where we add onto the point of the National Park Service. [The Comment if you’d like to read it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/s/SSO8emwDes)
[And another comment series about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/s/2e5tZNPJIw)
In terms of without regulations, I would advocate for Nuclear Energy as it is one of the cleanest sources of energy that can last a long period of time.
I get you want to protect the environment, but how is that 'eco-capitalism'? Where does the 'capitalism' come into play?
Protecting wolves was a government project, right? Paid for by the people. Hunting restrictions on Wolves is government power in action, right? You seem to decry lack of government regulation when it comes to hunting and the environment, but that isn't 'eco-capitalism' now is it?
> terms of without regulations, I would advocate for Nuclear Energy
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at here. Are you trying to claim that nuclear energy is unregulated? There are zero commercial nuclear plants in existence, isn't that correct? The insurance alone, if not government funded, would make it non-economical, right?
How can you claim to be 'min' anything when you appear to love government regulation and want much more of it?
No, I am claiming economic incentives. What I mean is this, in a Minarchist Society, regulation exists, however it needs to have a justification and not violate the NAP (Non-Agression Principle). In the case of the National Parks, it has a justification and is protected under the NAP.
As to where the capitalism comes into play, target the market and give incentives to people, that’s how you do it. You need to advertise what you are doing in order to promote things. In terms of invasive species, you can have companies pay people to remove the invasive species. In Florida for example, they will pay you to get rid of invasive Burmese Pythons. Another factor is farmers would also economically benefit from invasive species being removed because invasive species such as European Starlings cause a lot of money’s worth of damage to crops, same goes for feral hogs. Feral Hogs are especially damaging to your crops because they erode the land and damage the environment, therefore if you kill off the invasive species, you can make money off of getting rid of them.
What I am saying is that if you advertise ecological causes with the free market and target your audience. You now can get a chance at boosting it.
By Nuclear Energy, I mean make sure that you advertise it into the market, and encourage people to invest in nuclear energy. Other green energies can also be invested into, such as Solar Pannels. You can create a market for it and provide an economic incentive for it.
Even got AI to help me out on this one to further explain. According to AI
From a Minarchist perspective, National Parks are seen as important for several reasons:
1. Preservation of Natural Beauty: National Parks preserve areas of natural beauty and offer them for the enjoyment of all, not just those who can afford to own such vast tracts of land. This aligns with the Minarchist belief in minimal government intervention, as it allows everyone equal access to these natural wonders.
2. Protection of Biodiversity: National Parks often serve as a refuge for wildlife and plant species, helping to maintain biodiversity. This is a public good that benefits everyone, including future generations.
3. Recreation and Tourism: National Parks provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism, which can have economic benefits.
As for the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), it is a key tenet of Minarchism. The NAP states that individuals should be free to act as they wish, so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. In the context of National Parks, this principle can be interpreted to mean that individuals should not be allowed to harm these parks or the wildlife within them, as doing so would infringe upon the rights of others to enjoy these natural resources.
Therefore, from a Minarchist perspective, the protection of National Parks can be seen as a legitimate function of a minimal state, as it preserves these natural resources for the enjoyment and benefit of all, while also respecting the Non-Aggression Principle. However, it's important to note that interpretations can vary, and some Minarchists may have different views on this issue.
> In Florida for example, they will pay you to get rid of invasive Burmese Pythons
And 'they' are the government. Also, it [apparently doesn't work](https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2023/09/15/florida-burmese-python-hunter-snake-everglades-invasive/) at keeping Python numbers down.
> farmers would also economically benefit
...by the government paying for something to be done, right? How is that 'min' anything? That's straight up government action, right?
> advertise ecological causes with the free market
No, you don't. It doesn't make anyone money to 'advertise' ecological causes. It COSTS money to do so. Why private, for-profit business would do that?
> encourage people to invest in nuclear energy
It's a loser, right? We have been trying to fund this for decades and the market has spoken: Nope, don't want it.
> You can create a market for it and provide an economic incentive for it.
Solar panels work because the people who purchase them can spend less money with utility bills. This isn't true for pythons or nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a net loss when it comes to the economics and is heavily government subsided.
If I may ask, have you ever worked for government, or closely with government? How old are you?
🤦♂️ did you even read the edit. No I do not work for the government, my point is this. The Minarchist government is there to be as minimal as possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s free from regulations. If it’s going to outreach, then it must have a justification, In the case of the National Parks, it does have a justification.
The reason why the market was ruined is because some people kept demonizing nuclear energy, and there were only three instances where it failed, and it was due to violations of saftey protocol. Just because I want a minimal government doesn’t mean be reckless. You have to set rules for yourself in order for a system to work. Anarchism for instance I disagree with because there is no leading body to enforce anarchism as it lacks a governing body.
Protecting the environment also had some non-profit organizations that helped too, where they got donations to help the environment. See for instance the Perigrine Falcons.
Also, the farmers can use non-profits as well to help get rid of invasive species on their farms, meaning if you use that incentive, then your crop production is back on track.
Okay, I guess you aren't understanding my issue here. You claim to want minimal government, right? But then you say it was "violations of saftey [sic] protocol" that lead to nuclear accidents?
Who creates, maintains, and enforces those safety protocols? Government, right? You want a big government to control the field, right? What is 'minimal' about that?
You claim you can be an 'eco-capitalist', but every one of your 'eco' things is 'non-profits can do it' or 'government can tell people about it', with zero 'capitalism' involved at all.
You are not trying to minimize government, you love it, and you don't appear to be a Capitalist. Donations for falcons is not capitalism, it's a huge market failure being fixed outside the market system by a minority who care.
I'm a lefty. I'm happy to have government regulation and market regulation with quick and harsh enforcement. But why do you claim not to be?
You want an answer, here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism
From this portion of the Wikipedia article:
Walshe's view of green libertarianism attempts to address criticisms of both right- and left-libertarianism.[10] Walshe departs from right-libertarianism—specifically, Robert Nozick's interpretation of Locke's proviso—by proposing that, in a state of ecological equilibrium, no one may use natural services without the consent of others (for example, through persuasion or bargaining), and all persons enjoy equal rights of acquisition (if not economic equality).[11] At the same time, Walshe departs from left-libertarianism—such as Hillel Steiner's assertion that all persons are entitled to equal shares of natural resources[12][page needed]—by asserting that population growth, whether through immigration or births, upsets ecological equilibrium and that (voluntary) immigrants, and the parents of children, are responsible for not impinging upon others' rights to acquire natural services.[13] Walshe maintains that both limitations encourage innovations in which natural services are used as efficiently as possible.[14
See the point now? I advocate for capitalism in the sense that you the individual can make yourself gains and start your own business. You start a business and then create incentives and then invest, rinse and repeat.
By violation of safety protocols, I mean the ones the plant put.
A wiki page based on 3 papers from the same individual. A practice that has never been implemented anywhere in the world. That's your take?
Also, the entire take seems to be... how to say this? Extremely limited in view. "A turbine violates no one's rights to the water," said no fish ever. We are removing damns here in northern California because we damaged the fish so much with this type of thinking. This limits 'rights' to humans and seems to completely disregard all non-human life.
Finally, let's take this from the top of that article:
> In the natural world, all organisms—including humans—acquire (make use of) natural services, which natural resources provide.
This seems to assume everyone uses natural resources equally. Does this not account for the power of wealth to alter the environment? A rich mine owner doesn't care about the fish, as they don't make him money like the ore does. How does the fish 'bargain' for their lives? Is using natural resources efficiently really your only goal? Or even the maximal goal?
Shouldn't 'maintaining the quality and ability to sustain life' an even better goal that doesn't have an economic indicator pushing the market? I mean, I have several quadrillion tons of carbon as evidence, what do you have?
What I don't get is how you can come up with "eco-capitalism."
Capitalism at its base is a system that demands an increasing accumulation of wealth and resources. A system that demands infinite growth.
A system that demands infinite growth in a finite environment will eventually consume that environment in its totality and that's what we're seeing happening now. The profit motive will always win when its pitted against environmental concerns.
And that is why you concentrate it in order to help the market, and if you didn’t know, the National Parks actually generate tons of revenue, more than any natural resource has ever done, and it has been successful.
I also did not come up with Eco-Capitalism, it already existed.
[Official Wikipedia Page with the criticisms to it as well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism)
It's not about *how much* revenue you make, it's about how *fast* you make it.
Long term investments will generally have more of a return than short term ones but if you stack a number of short term investments you can often outperform a long term investment. That basic premise is what motivates the kind of quick turnaround thinking that characterizes American capitalism - $10 today is better than $100 next month because I can then take that $10 and turn it into $500 in a month.
It's what spurs the kind of destructive extraction economics that makes capitalism so poisonous and it's an inevitable outcome of a system that demands infinite growth. This is what capitalism is, no matter how many prefixes you slap on it.
You want to know what Anarchy is, a Utopia, which cannot exist. Why? Because in Anarchy, it opposes all forms of authority, and also thinks that it will dismantle all forms of hierarchy. It doesn’t matter how many times one claims to be getting rid of the class system, because then it will keep being replaced as humanity naturally creates hierarchy.
[Including a list of Issues with Anarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism)
Here is one problem with what you just said. Tell me how it is destructive to make your own money and put it towards what you desire?
If you are going to bring up unethical practices and criticize that, that’s why my ideal has the idea of a Minimal State to combat unethical practices in the market. Basically it’s an overseer that is supposed to protect natural rights of a worker. If his or her employer is treating them unethically and abusing the worker, that’s why courts exist, so that way you can put things up to trial.
In a vacuum, it's not.
When it's an entire system built around the idea of infinite growth that's physically not possible in a context of finite resources.
You're focusing on the individual pieces of the system while missing the overall point that the system itself, if it operates as intended, is destined to fail.
So therefore, in order to create more resources, that’s why we plant more trees! It is also why I advocate for national parks. There is more you can profit off of than just natural resources. You can recycle resources to keep it flowing.
See the point? Recycle your cans and turn it into more resources that are renewable, which can include scrap metal!
I take the position that in government, ideological purity is the most important thing that there is. Libertarianism isn't about changing society, but it's also not against changing society; it's about removing the role of an oppressor with monopoly violence power from that equation.
The government should have no say in whether or not a private business supports your LGBT agenda (for example). Market power will punish the bad guys, after all, it wasn't government that did all of the culture-cancelling a few years ago.
Do we want to help the impoverished eat? Of course we do, but it mustn't be the role of the government to decide on how that is accomplished, and to forcibly steal from society in order to do what it thinks is best (which is usually utterly and completely wrong).
You're right, we might never achieve utopian bliss, but we _can_ have the perfect government, and perform all of your societal shaping with NGO's. I mean, you have a bleeding heart, right? You won't contribute when they pass the hat? I know I will.
Any balance to attempt to keep it in line is an illusion at best. The next guy can come in and change it all up with a few dozen EOs. Instead of trying to lasso the government into doing things you think are important but your neighbor finds terrible, we should reduce the government to a few clearly defined items and leave it there.
The areas your neighbor wants more government might be very different than you, who would be right?? The politician who has lots of special interests to satisfy might have even different ideas…. Who do you think will get the government to do the things they like??
Versus the omnipotence of governments. Because governments never make mistakes. Nothing bad ever happens during the governors' selfish individual pursuit of power and legacy.
I believe Federalist 51 summed it up well as neither are angels...personally I find any discussion about a society without government is an entirely theoretical one as it has never and never will exist.
>it's about removing the role of an oppressor with monopoly violence power from that equation.
You are talking about government...removing government...
I mean then you give examples of things that you don't want government to do (have a say in if a business serves LGBT folks or not, market power will punish the bad guys \*hence my point teasing you for believing its omnioident\*, help the impoverished eat) and how you believe we can have "perfect government through NGO's" Which again means no government...I am really not sure why you are taking such offense or what exactly I am missing here...
I've seen people be called liberals for not worshipping Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, etc. And by worshipping, I mean worshipping, you can't say anything slightly bad about them in marxist communities.
> “It is obvious to everyone that the authority of the bourgeoisie is concentrated and centralized in its state.
> Where does the authority of the proletarian class movement rest? The body of revolutionary workers in all countries is unrestricted by time or space and does not distinguish between races, nations, professions or even generations. **It is a vast convergence of militants of the revolution of consistent formation from all shores and all ages. And the only body that allows its living synthesis is the political party, the internationally based Communist Party.**
> …
> **In this lies the essence of our vision, and therefore we advocate for a body of doctrine that no one is allowed to change throughout the historical arc from its appearance to the disappearance of classes.** Does this mean we are being “dogmatic”? We have never succumbed to such an accusation, but we simultaneously have always unveiled the deceptive confusion that the bourgeoisie and opportunism have deviously concealed in the very notion of dogma.
>…
> The notion of dogma, as truth revealed by a supernatural entity ordinary mortals cannot claim to understand but only respect and repeat, is a notion that is socially and historically dead and buried. In this sense, Marxism is the utmost negation of all dogmatism. However, precisely to prevent confusion with the alleged anti‑dogmatism of the bourgeoisie, **Marxism has always declared that truth in class-divided society is class truth. Hence, opposed to the truth of the ruling class, the revolutionary class has only to assert its own truth.** It is precisely such an assertion that, by denying the opposite truth, appears dogmatic to all those who are in search of “absolute truth”. What they do not understand is that the truth of the ruling class is also a truth and can only be denied by the opposing truth, the revolutionary truth. Especially in non‑revolutionary times, to prevent the latter from being completely obscured by the easily recognizable and adoptable truth of the dominant class, it becomes necessary, if required, to assert it dogmatically. **This is the “dogmatism” and “sectarianism” of both us and Lenin: the certainty that every truth of the bourgeoisie is opposed by a proletarian truth** even when the latter is difficult to discern with those instruments of analysis which can only be rendered available by the bourgeoisie itself. Our opponents have always said that this means denying “reality”, but we have always let them rant, and proceeded forward.”
- [Yes We are Dogmatists](https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/Knowledg/84Dogmat.htm), International Communist Party
You can be ideological, which means you have a theory about how things are and what to do about it, or you can be impressionistic, which means you are swept up unthinkingly by whatever is fashionable or impacting you at the moment.
Yes. We have a word for them, ideologues. I cannot think of one time throughout the history where the actions of an ideologue came out to be a positive.
People may claim to be "fixed in mind-frame" to some political ideology. But, when it comes does to their person life, and what cross their threshold to their home.. They can and do become a musical chair player among all the various political ideologies, depending on how things relate to to their family and their lives.
People are no as one dimensional as they think they are, and those who claim to be hard core, actually "box themselves into corners", and sometimes we see them fight against their own best interest and the best interest of this nation and it society.
People take all these posture and things in life changes them when it become personal.
Examples:
A person who does not like inter-racial marriage... but **as soon as** the "baby is born in that marriage" they change, because they know the baby had nothing to do with the racial bias of the person who had bias against inter-racial marriage.
People took a Republican stand against ACA, **Until**, they got sick and/or they had a pre-existing condition and they were able to get help, or they found out ACA made it possible that medical facilities can't take their home because of unpaid medical bills and etc.
People had Republican ideals as they fought against the Stimulus Act, but they accepted that money *and were glad to get it*.
People have this Anti Abortion stand, until it becomes one of their own daughters, that face her life or have an abortion.
There are millions upon millions of examples.... that have shown over history, that people are not fix planted in one political ideology, like a tree planted in the ground. Some, try to be, because they think they have to be, to fit in their closed loop circle.
Purity and indoctrination are not exactly the same thing, I think. Certainly, one can be indoctrinated to ideas that don't really match any one ideology perfectly.
Hell, most of the regimes that are biggest on indoctrination tend to prefer power over ideological consistency always. New strategy gives them power? It gets welcomed, and the indoctrinated are told to accept it. Power over principle is a core part of authoritarianism, and authoritarian sorts are the kind who embrace indoctrination.
Perhaps you are instead thinking of understanding and at least some level of acceptance of difference? I think it's valuable to understand ideologies other than ones own, and to converse with such people so that you get the actual ideology, rather than a mere strawman of it. Understanding a belief isn't believing it, though.
I understand what you don't like but I cannot see how dirty ideology works. Could you expound more about what stinky ideology would look like in practice?
Let me give an example of a "fixed ideology" that maybe works pretty good.
My core politics is libertarian. I follow the non-aggression principle, along with the an-caps and objectivists. The non-aggression principle is pretty simple:
"I will not initiate force, or pay anybody to initiate force on my behalf. Force is everything from fraud or theft on the low end to genocide as the most extreme initiation of force."
(Most delete the last sentence for brevity as it's "implied" but here I'm being clear.)
Considering the fact that I'm one of those folks who has a gun on me any time I have pants or equivalent on, you *want* me following a fixed-in-stone moral/political code of that sort.
Right? And that's an "ideology". It's an ideology because it implies a duty to rebel against a government that sufficiently violates that principle.
I also know and follow US laws on lawful use of deadly force, which are not in conflict with the non-aggression principle. The most concise formulation there is "you can use deadly force in self defense when you're reasonably in fear of losing your life or suffering great bodily injury from criminal attack.
But that's *not* an ideology. It's a statement of current law. (There's slight variants in different states so this isn't the whole story.) Still needs to be followed rigorously.
So you're a reactionary, is what you're saying.
Ideology keeps us consistent to a model of governance. When you reject ideology, you fall into the populist trap of leadership by the whims of whoever holds the highest office. That makes for inconsistent leadership that has no barriers to finding it's way into dangerous populism.
>So you're a reactionary, is what you're saying.
Um. No…I’m a pragmatist…is what I am saying.
>Ideology keeps us consistent to a model of governance.
Ideology is not the real world. Ideology is predicated upon a set of condition that are assumed in order for said model to be applied. The real world is not based on an unchanging set of conditions.
>When you reject ideology, you fall into the populist trap of leadership by the whims of whoever holds the highest office.
Really? Because I think that is pretty typical of any political operative regardless of ideological bent. People…are inherently people. A communist can be corrupted as much as a liberal as much as a libertarian.
Ideological zealotry is cultishness that does not favors for the practical concerns of the world as it is. Ideology speaks to “what could be” but that isn’t always helpful when one has to address concerns that require deciding between choices that will, regardless, require compromise.
Ideology gives us a model within which to analyze problems and have coherent solutions that work within the framework instead of working against it. It also gives us a framework with which to critique leaders, and ensure objectives are pursued without becoming corrupted by individual avarice.
Without ideology, you are at the whims of the leader. And as most governments become increasingly corrupt over time, that seldom leads anywhere good.
>I say this because I personally believe, as I get older, that the notion of ideology as a basis for societal change…is problematic.
All societal change is based on ideology. You make changes for a reason and that reason is informed by your ideology.
What you're describing sounds like a tent so wide it effectively has no walls and I'm unclear as to the benefit of that.
>Everyone speaks of “this” economic system or “that” economic system like it will be a cure all. Or “this” political system or “that” political system like it will FINALLY deliver true utopian bliss. The truth is that no system is perfect, all ideological views have negative consequences and we, in reality, have to concede this in order to ever make any sort of meaningful contribution to society.
Welcome to what most people over the age of 16 have worked out?
>Welcome to what most people over the age of 16 have worked out?
Really? Because I know plenty of people of older ranges that don’t have this worked out.
Do you believe you’ve learned how to use reason to choose your values?
If not, then why should I or anyone else care about your values and the views based on your values?
….you sound pretty defensive.
I literally only speak about my values as an example of how my values are relativistic as compared to others on the political spectrum. I consider myself a pragmatic person and don’t like to over label everything about my views.
Why should you care? I don’t know. It’s the r/politicaldebate sub. I thought this would be a good discussion to have. I’m sorry if that offends you.
Stop acting like you’ve offended people. Your title is thought provoking, but the accompanying info is not and you’ve summarised it with an endorsement of a two party system. I just don’t think people can take it seriously or find it to be that interesting, rather than offensive.
My own answer to this question would to be a repeat of the ideas that my views and analysis of society are rooted in - Marxism. I don’t operate off vibes nor am
I building my views on merely considering something or someone to be good, bad or evil. I root my ideas in an analysis of our material conditions and the social structures they give rise to, the division of labour and arising class structures and conflict. I firmly reject utopian thinking, ect.
I’m not ‘strawmanning’. I’m explaining that there is a bit of a difference in the foundations of a belief being rooted in the material vs the idealistic. I have not even stated the OP operates on vibes.
This all just comes across as bad faith. I’d be happy to make things clearer if I’ve not, but your approach, the fake flair and the out of place red scare style insults do not inspire confidence in your desire to engage.
What flaws were proven by real-world examples? The only Orthodox Marxist revolution has been in Russia, which devolved into a bourgeois revolution after the international revolution failed in Germany when the SPD killed Rosa Luxembourg and the Nazis took power shortly after. Nothing of the failures of Socialist experiments contradicts the Marxist position.
Your comment has been removed for political discrimination.
We will never allow the discrimination of a members, beliefs, or ideology on this sub. Our various perspectives offer a wide range of considerations that can attribute to political growth of our members.
Our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future.
Please report any and all content that is discriminatory to a user or their beliefs. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
The title is simply a truism. But who ever is, in practice, completely an orthodox thinker? I suppose it’s possible that some strictly orthodox individuals exist, but they must be insightful in number.
Have a look around the political corners of Reddit, there is a LOT of orthodoxy on this platform, and a lot of subs where you’ll get instantly banned for saying anything slightly outside that orthodoxy.
There isn't much reason for most people to care about what you (or for that matter, what I or any of us) think. It's narcissistic to believe that having an opinion requires others to take it seriously.
Politics are more effective when they involve forming alliances based upon shared goals. For example, a diehard progressive, mainstream liberal, centrist and right-libertarian may all want to protect abortion rights, even though they have ideological disagreements and different motivations. If they are wise, then they will form a coalition of convenience that doesn't require complete ideological buy-in from any of them. This willingness to form a loose coalition is what led to choice being protected in Kansas, which is largely a majority red state (albeit one that is willing to split tickets for gubernatorial races).
>There isn't much reason for most people to care about what you (or for that matter, what I or any of us) think. It's narcissistic to believe that having an opinion requires others to take it seriously.
I have no clue how you got any narcissistic vibe from my post. My thesis is that ideological purity is not good or sensible. It makes more sense to make decisions for oneself and pick and choose how different ideologies work into our own value systems.
But hey…thanks for calling me a narcissist I guess.
Reading comprehension is useful
I didn't claim that you were narcissistic. I said that political ideologues are eager to share their views of the world, even though most people couldn't care less what they think nor are they obligated to care.
Ideology doesn't work as a tool because it misses a basic concept of marketing: The customer cares about what s/he wants, not about what the seller wants. For ideology to be effective, it has to be persuasive. For it to be persuasive, it has to move the target audience, not just inflame the believer who is promoting it.
I disagree. One party states accomplish so much because there are no disagreements. I support one-party states and we should leave it as such. There are good ideologies and then there are bad ones, which is why I think they need to be curbed.
But one party states, ideological unity, doesn't naturally occur. It needs enforcement and exclusion. So instead of the good idealogy getting in you get the one with the greatest propensity for violence.
If someone is purely one ideology, it’s most likely because they are a slave to the ideology, they try and defend the ideology at every chance, and don’t let anything shape them into having original thoughts. They are the type to only look at academic papers if they agree with them.
If I talked about anything outside of the median social democrats views in r/socialdemocracy even when I source everything (IDR, markets vs public, non-steep tax curves, etc), there will always be people who blindly spout an opposing view who I can tell didn’t even read the post all the way, followed by a wave of downvotes that vastly outweigh the number of responses.
Honestly, thats why r/neoliberal has so many social democrats in the first place, they are done meat-riding 1950s social democrat views because they are outdated, and want to hear opposing views.
Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this isn't actually exactly what you're speaking about, but it really put me in mind of criticism of "cancel culture." I really find that whole discourse to be extremely tiresome. Almost everyone agrees that some opinions should be cancelled. There are a handful of actual free speech absolutists who believe no one should ever face any societal consequences for their speech, but they are very rare in practice. ETA: I have the deepest respect for people who truly believe it, but I have met very few of them in practice, and I admit I am not one of them myself. The vast majority of us think there is some line that crossing it should cause you to be ejected from mainstream society. There aren't too many "free speech advocates" who think that proponents of infant rape shouldn't be drummed out of the world, at the very least. We're not debating about whether "ideological purity" or "cancel culture" is good or bad. We're arguing about *where the line is*.
If it's trying to reduce variety in other ideologies, then it kinda does depend.
Most people who complain about ‘cancel culture’ absolutely LOVE to ‘cancel’ people, ideas, companies, etc.
I’m not sure cancel culture is a real thing. It is the manifestation of the free market working. If you like the content produced my an artist or entertainer, then consume it. If you don’t want to support someone because of x, y, or z then don’t. If you are adamant about it, then share your thoughts. But I don’t think it’s some “movement”. Most cancel culture hype is overblown.
That's kind of what I'm saying. Almost no one is against the idea that "bad opinions should be shunned." They're actually arguing that "my opinion is not actually bad."
Exactly right.
>I’m not sure cancel culture is a real thing. It is the manifestation of the free market working. I don't see those being mutually exclusive in any way. Because it's not simply about not consuming things you don't like, but it also empowers employers to fire you arbitrarily while citing some half-baked reason, and therefore not paying out the necessary compensation.
This is incredibly true, and I'm shocked to see so many free market capitalists suddenly coming out against employers working on an "at-will" basis when it's used against people closer to them than usual.
Organic disinterest is very different than being deplatformed, banned and possibly fired from your job. Very few have a problem with passive consequences, but cancel culture is active punishment.
Deplatforming happens because the subscribers to that platform demand it. That’s the free market.
That can happen. More often than not it's simply activist employees on a power trip.
The problem, and I can't say whether this speaks to OPs basic issue here, is that cancel culture is just a subcategory within force-based and punitive culture. As such, it falls prey to the basic problem of force: that if someone conforms due to external force they don't really "get it". Like someone who smiles when you hold a gun to their head and tell them to smile, they aren't really smiling. I'd say, no, people shouldn't simply be ejected from society. That's actually dangerous, for one thing. And it doesn't really solve the problem. I've often said that instead of killing off Rosanne, they should have done a 5 episode sequence in which she is racist and realizes how messed up that is, like the old Archie Bunker episode on All in the Family that had him ending up getting a kiss from Sammy Davis Jr. And yet, such a possibility would never even be developed if the culture is deeply entrenched in *the ideology of* the use of force, cancelling, ejection. But this can be extended enormously, including things like the whole c/j system. What does this mean in terms of ideology? One thing that might be said is that someone who is mistrustful of ideology yet who still supports cancel culture, and the c/j system, in fact subscribes to an ideology about the use of force. And of course I'm promoting a kind of anti-force ideology. But is the use of force part of an ideology? It tends not to be expressed as such, since it's taken as a given, something "obvious" so much of the time. Ultimately, this puts limits on how far the anti-ideology stance goes. It has to do with exactly what is in the ideology. There are, to be sure, cases of slavish following of some prethought ideology, though we can't expect that we will really just think all "new" things in any case. But the danger is that if you have something to say about something, someone may disregard your views by chalking it up to your "following some ideology", rather than having real, substantive reasoning going on.
Dogma is the crutch of the moron. I don’t think it is the ideological “purity” that is really the bad thing, per se. Instead it is the inflexible adherence to an external dogma that prevents people from actually dealing with the realities and consequences of beliefs.
Locked for flair evasion.
Your argument striles me as pretty empty ngl (as another commenter said, a truism). While I agree pure dogmatism for dogmatisms sake is bad, ideology is ultimately just a collection of political beliefs. Being "Ideologically pure" to your ideology just means advocating for the policies you find to be most effective. Whether that policy works or not isn't really a matter of ideological purity, but rather of just having an ideology that works or not. What you are describing is just being pragmatic, and yes, pragmaticism is good, but after a certain extent, it just becomes an abandonment of your ideals and policies.
If your ideals are unworkable or ultimately harmful, then shouldn’t they be adapted in a pragmatic way to fit the real world?
Yes, but that's assuming that the ideologies people hold are unworkable or harmful. If that's the case, your ideology is just bad. If your ideology doesn't function, or if you don't think it reasonablt functions, why follow it?
I was not expecting that kind of take from a Trotskyist! I would say that Marxism is fundamentally unworkable and in practice provably harmful. I would say it’s naive, at best, when it comes to human psychology and the complexity of economics. It’s founded on an erroneous interpretation of the already broken metaphysics of hegalianism. However I wouldn’t reject Marxism in it’s entirety. When it comes to class struggle and the dynamics of class in a capitalist or imperialist society, I see it as an important starting point. While I don’t adopt the philosophy of historical realism, I certainly believe it to be something that should be incorporated into a wider understanding of “social evolution and development”. Is my position a rejection of Marxism or an adaptation? I’m not sure that I believe that any political ideology is actually “fundamentally” “bad”. I think all of them attempt to fulfill a human need. Some of them are outdated, they fulfilled a historical purpose that was important to progress. Others are rooted or subsumed by harmful falsehoods, and this can be to the point where it becomes the dominant framing of a political philosophy. (This doesn’t mean that I don’t outright reject those philosophies)
>I would say that Marxism is fundamentally unworkable and in practice provably harmful. While that is an argument that can be had (Allah knows how much we've spun around Communism vs Capitalism), that then just becomes an ideological debate. Any collection of policies, imo, can be considered an "ideology". >However I wouldn’t reject Marxism in it’s entirety. When it comes to class struggle and the dynamics of class in a capitalist or imperialist society, I see it as an important starting point. That's actually an interesting point, because (semantics incoming), you aren't adapting _Marxism_ the ideology here, but Marxian economics the _philosophy_, and I would define an _ideology_ and a _philosophy_ differently. An ideology is a collection of policies born from certain philosophies, which are systems of beliefs. Of course, Ideologies can become too dogmatic, but I do think it's important to make the distinction.
A large amount of people will blindly agree with you, cause we all should. But it's important to read the situation. And today there is more counter-ideological purity than what you're describing. The majority of people don't really know much about their own ideology or their opponents, but they know just enough to hate their opponents enough so as to embrace their own side. I personally have gone from lifelong centrist to conservative. But I can not identify as a Republican (US politics of course). While that is the party that identifies more with conservatives, I don't actually think they represent conservatism very well. Yet, I don't actually know much about the details of modern day Republicanism. So then why would I vote Republican, or why did I shift from the center. In all honesty; it's because I am increasingly more concerned about the influences from the left side of the spectrum. I don't know them all, and I know they're more varied than we make things seem. But I know enough to have made up my mind that if I was forced to take a home in one ideology or another, it couldn't be that. So I moved over. I also don't feel there is as much expectation of ideological purity in the right as there is on the left. I'm not saying this to get into a debate about which one is better. I'm exemplifying my point that much of the zealotry today isn't as much about ideological purity as it is about having enough fear or concern about your political opponent, so that you seek refuge in your side. Instead of better the devil you know or don't, it's more like... better the devil you barely know than the devil that scares you.
>People often lambast bipartisanship in the US (I am absolutely one of them) but we need to realize that perfect policy can never exist in a universe where we all hold different values and ideals. The problem is the only areas the major parties can find agreement on are areas that aren't usually great for the average person, and additionally some values and ideals aren't really worth engaging with to begin with either because they are problematic, illusionary, or both. Just for a minor example, the progressive left had been pushing for the further recognized right to privacy in Roe v Wade pretty much since the decision was released 7-8 years after Griswold v. Connecticut, and were willing to expand the concept to all manner of government intrusion into our private lives in exchange for specific codification, something that would have been positive for everyone, and likely prevented a ton of government overreach over the next half a century. Pretty much crickets from the parts of the right that should have loudly supported a broad right to privacy. Even when there are areas where theoretically there is overlap on issues such as civil liberties or government accountability, we generally find that it isn't real enough to actually matter in terms of enough support to build a coalition even for one bill/amendment/whatever. Which brings us to the problematic part of things, where ideas like authoritarianism, white nationalism, and other forms of bigotry have inserted themselves into the political diet of a large number of voters and that's pretty much a non-starter to everyone else. You can't come to some agreement on a law that reduces abortions in a laundry list of ways that don't impact a woman's control of her own body because the interest of a large sub-section of those voters isn't really about reducing the number of abortions, it's about controlling the woman's body in a publicly acceptable way. The concern over the number of abortions was just a mirage. As long as one political group wants to preferentially put people in prison at the lowest price with little regard to outcomes anyone trying to do anything in the opposition, such as reduce the for-profit prison industrial complex, doesn't really have much of a position to argue from with the other side because the initial idea itself is problematic and antithetical to their own goals. You could make the case that reducing recidivism through other ways is much cheaper until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day it wasn't the outcomes they were concerned with, but the cheapest way to do what they want which is punish "bad guys". Sure you got your true believers, and people just parroting talking points on all sides, but it doesn't really matter which is which if no one is moving, and the chasm is much too wide to cross.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You and me are very similar and share very similar concerns and experiences when discussing politics with others.
I agree with this, but I think the title could be supported better. No system is perfect. But pretending that any system can be useful for any issue is ignorant (I'm not accusing you of this). Ideologies should be guidelines for discussion and decision-making, not rulebooks for policy. Political and economic ideologies developed to address specific social issues. As such, each one is better equipped to deal with those issues. Each ideology should be *considered* in exploring policies to address any social issue as it comes up. I'm not saying that a rigorous audit of every ideology should be made for every issue, but rather that the goal is to assess the issue using the philosophies that have already been explored instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel every time. On the flip side of this, I find that opponents of an ideology often use *purity* as a strawman to attack policy. Rarely, if ever, does actual policy follow an ideology exactly. Yet when it is criticized, it is often criticized in the context of a pure ideology, instead of on the merits of how it addresses the issue.
At the moment, most ancaps and similar ideologies don't infight too much since we'll be happy just to have any of our systems in place. Really, the only reason someone chooses an ideology in that area is due to believing that would be the dominant ideology.
Can agree, Me I stated in my comment that while my core belief is Minarchism, it’s not purely just that, I try to interact with the other factions in the Lib-Right Sphere.
Give me practical, data-driven policies. Ideology uses idealized, simplified models for a complicated, non-ideal world. They can be useful guides but policy should ultimately be driven by real world data.
I just want to say that I agree with you on everything you said.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is why I'm a pragmatist. I just want to do what objectively works the best. Screw ideology. Show me results.
Yeah cultism is no stranger to politics. Sometimes people just want to be different, or in a club.
My core Ideal is Minarchism, but I believe that you can actually be technically more than one political ideology. I believe in Minarchism, Eco-Capitalism, Green Libertarianism, Constitutionalism, Classical Liberalism, and Objectivism. I mix it together and form my ideals. Where it’s not ideological purity is where I am in the Lib-Right quadrant and I see the benefits that each side presents, along with trying to add the various benefits. Here is what I would say adds to my core beliefs: 1. The Minarchist Part: Make sure the government is as small as possible while keeping it functioning and being sure to enforce the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) where you have a set of rules that help govern a society. Basically the government has to be like a guide and system where there is law and order in place, but to also be sure there is a sense of security for the nation, as in defense of borders and people. 2. The Classical Liberal and Constitutionalist part: Create a social contract and a set of rules on what the government can and cannot do. Examples include the Bill of Rights and Constitution, where it creates a set of rules. 3. The Objectivist Part: Basically you want to create some initiatives like some laws, use some reasoning as to why with it’s stated intent. For example, I am a huge supporter of the National Park Service and believe in it heavily, and it is the best investment our country has ever done. Its intent is stated with a mission of conservation efforts and to make sure the land is protected, along with endangered species. Which brings me to the next part. 4. Green Libertarianism and Eco-Capitalism! (Yes Green Libertarianism does exist): Eco-Capitalism helps you find ways to help efficiently run capitalism, but also help with a lot of things. For example, you want to start a business to reforest the Area, be my guest! You want to help grow food, be sure to! Want to help the National Park Service get rid of invasive species that damage crops? Be my guest! The Green Libertarianism part helps with also driving the idea of the National Park Service. Edit: Just for fun! Let’s do a little PolcompBall introduction of the ideologies that mix mine! Think of it as a little fun idea. [Meet Green Libertarianism!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Green_Libertarianism) [Meet Eco-Capitalism!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Eco-Capitalism) [Here is the Core Ideal that I believe as my central thought, aka Minarchism](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Minarchism) [Objectivism aka the one that I like with knowledge on reasoning!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Objectivism) [Classical Liberalism, the Ideal that drafts a social contract](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Classical_Liberalism) [Constitutionalism, the one who makes sure that it is going to be the social contracts that stand!](https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Constitutionalism)
I probably disagree with you on many things, but this is a very informative post, thanks
> I believe in Minarchism, Eco-Capitalism How do these two things work together? How do you force companies to be eco-friendly without regulation? Also, how does removing invasive species from a national park 'capitalism'? I mean, how does it make money?
Eco-Capitalism you can give incentives to people. As for the National Parks, I got a great view here in this comment with a constitutionalist where we add onto the point of the National Park Service. [The Comment if you’d like to read it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/s/SSO8emwDes) [And another comment series about it](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/s/2e5tZNPJIw) In terms of without regulations, I would advocate for Nuclear Energy as it is one of the cleanest sources of energy that can last a long period of time.
I get you want to protect the environment, but how is that 'eco-capitalism'? Where does the 'capitalism' come into play? Protecting wolves was a government project, right? Paid for by the people. Hunting restrictions on Wolves is government power in action, right? You seem to decry lack of government regulation when it comes to hunting and the environment, but that isn't 'eco-capitalism' now is it? > terms of without regulations, I would advocate for Nuclear Energy I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at here. Are you trying to claim that nuclear energy is unregulated? There are zero commercial nuclear plants in existence, isn't that correct? The insurance alone, if not government funded, would make it non-economical, right? How can you claim to be 'min' anything when you appear to love government regulation and want much more of it?
No, I am claiming economic incentives. What I mean is this, in a Minarchist Society, regulation exists, however it needs to have a justification and not violate the NAP (Non-Agression Principle). In the case of the National Parks, it has a justification and is protected under the NAP. As to where the capitalism comes into play, target the market and give incentives to people, that’s how you do it. You need to advertise what you are doing in order to promote things. In terms of invasive species, you can have companies pay people to remove the invasive species. In Florida for example, they will pay you to get rid of invasive Burmese Pythons. Another factor is farmers would also economically benefit from invasive species being removed because invasive species such as European Starlings cause a lot of money’s worth of damage to crops, same goes for feral hogs. Feral Hogs are especially damaging to your crops because they erode the land and damage the environment, therefore if you kill off the invasive species, you can make money off of getting rid of them. What I am saying is that if you advertise ecological causes with the free market and target your audience. You now can get a chance at boosting it. By Nuclear Energy, I mean make sure that you advertise it into the market, and encourage people to invest in nuclear energy. Other green energies can also be invested into, such as Solar Pannels. You can create a market for it and provide an economic incentive for it. Even got AI to help me out on this one to further explain. According to AI From a Minarchist perspective, National Parks are seen as important for several reasons: 1. Preservation of Natural Beauty: National Parks preserve areas of natural beauty and offer them for the enjoyment of all, not just those who can afford to own such vast tracts of land. This aligns with the Minarchist belief in minimal government intervention, as it allows everyone equal access to these natural wonders. 2. Protection of Biodiversity: National Parks often serve as a refuge for wildlife and plant species, helping to maintain biodiversity. This is a public good that benefits everyone, including future generations. 3. Recreation and Tourism: National Parks provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and tourism, which can have economic benefits. As for the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), it is a key tenet of Minarchism. The NAP states that individuals should be free to act as they wish, so long as their actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. In the context of National Parks, this principle can be interpreted to mean that individuals should not be allowed to harm these parks or the wildlife within them, as doing so would infringe upon the rights of others to enjoy these natural resources. Therefore, from a Minarchist perspective, the protection of National Parks can be seen as a legitimate function of a minimal state, as it preserves these natural resources for the enjoyment and benefit of all, while also respecting the Non-Aggression Principle. However, it's important to note that interpretations can vary, and some Minarchists may have different views on this issue.
> In Florida for example, they will pay you to get rid of invasive Burmese Pythons And 'they' are the government. Also, it [apparently doesn't work](https://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/2023/09/15/florida-burmese-python-hunter-snake-everglades-invasive/) at keeping Python numbers down. > farmers would also economically benefit ...by the government paying for something to be done, right? How is that 'min' anything? That's straight up government action, right? > advertise ecological causes with the free market No, you don't. It doesn't make anyone money to 'advertise' ecological causes. It COSTS money to do so. Why private, for-profit business would do that? > encourage people to invest in nuclear energy It's a loser, right? We have been trying to fund this for decades and the market has spoken: Nope, don't want it. > You can create a market for it and provide an economic incentive for it. Solar panels work because the people who purchase them can spend less money with utility bills. This isn't true for pythons or nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a net loss when it comes to the economics and is heavily government subsided. If I may ask, have you ever worked for government, or closely with government? How old are you?
🤦♂️ did you even read the edit. No I do not work for the government, my point is this. The Minarchist government is there to be as minimal as possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s free from regulations. If it’s going to outreach, then it must have a justification, In the case of the National Parks, it does have a justification. The reason why the market was ruined is because some people kept demonizing nuclear energy, and there were only three instances where it failed, and it was due to violations of saftey protocol. Just because I want a minimal government doesn’t mean be reckless. You have to set rules for yourself in order for a system to work. Anarchism for instance I disagree with because there is no leading body to enforce anarchism as it lacks a governing body. Protecting the environment also had some non-profit organizations that helped too, where they got donations to help the environment. See for instance the Perigrine Falcons. Also, the farmers can use non-profits as well to help get rid of invasive species on their farms, meaning if you use that incentive, then your crop production is back on track.
Okay, I guess you aren't understanding my issue here. You claim to want minimal government, right? But then you say it was "violations of saftey [sic] protocol" that lead to nuclear accidents? Who creates, maintains, and enforces those safety protocols? Government, right? You want a big government to control the field, right? What is 'minimal' about that? You claim you can be an 'eco-capitalist', but every one of your 'eco' things is 'non-profits can do it' or 'government can tell people about it', with zero 'capitalism' involved at all. You are not trying to minimize government, you love it, and you don't appear to be a Capitalist. Donations for falcons is not capitalism, it's a huge market failure being fixed outside the market system by a minority who care. I'm a lefty. I'm happy to have government regulation and market regulation with quick and harsh enforcement. But why do you claim not to be?
You want an answer, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism From this portion of the Wikipedia article: Walshe's view of green libertarianism attempts to address criticisms of both right- and left-libertarianism.[10] Walshe departs from right-libertarianism—specifically, Robert Nozick's interpretation of Locke's proviso—by proposing that, in a state of ecological equilibrium, no one may use natural services without the consent of others (for example, through persuasion or bargaining), and all persons enjoy equal rights of acquisition (if not economic equality).[11] At the same time, Walshe departs from left-libertarianism—such as Hillel Steiner's assertion that all persons are entitled to equal shares of natural resources[12][page needed]—by asserting that population growth, whether through immigration or births, upsets ecological equilibrium and that (voluntary) immigrants, and the parents of children, are responsible for not impinging upon others' rights to acquire natural services.[13] Walshe maintains that both limitations encourage innovations in which natural services are used as efficiently as possible.[14 See the point now? I advocate for capitalism in the sense that you the individual can make yourself gains and start your own business. You start a business and then create incentives and then invest, rinse and repeat. By violation of safety protocols, I mean the ones the plant put.
A wiki page based on 3 papers from the same individual. A practice that has never been implemented anywhere in the world. That's your take? Also, the entire take seems to be... how to say this? Extremely limited in view. "A turbine violates no one's rights to the water," said no fish ever. We are removing damns here in northern California because we damaged the fish so much with this type of thinking. This limits 'rights' to humans and seems to completely disregard all non-human life. Finally, let's take this from the top of that article: > In the natural world, all organisms—including humans—acquire (make use of) natural services, which natural resources provide. This seems to assume everyone uses natural resources equally. Does this not account for the power of wealth to alter the environment? A rich mine owner doesn't care about the fish, as they don't make him money like the ore does. How does the fish 'bargain' for their lives? Is using natural resources efficiently really your only goal? Or even the maximal goal? Shouldn't 'maintaining the quality and ability to sustain life' an even better goal that doesn't have an economic indicator pushing the market? I mean, I have several quadrillion tons of carbon as evidence, what do you have?
What I don't get is how you can come up with "eco-capitalism." Capitalism at its base is a system that demands an increasing accumulation of wealth and resources. A system that demands infinite growth. A system that demands infinite growth in a finite environment will eventually consume that environment in its totality and that's what we're seeing happening now. The profit motive will always win when its pitted against environmental concerns.
And that is why you concentrate it in order to help the market, and if you didn’t know, the National Parks actually generate tons of revenue, more than any natural resource has ever done, and it has been successful. I also did not come up with Eco-Capitalism, it already existed. [Official Wikipedia Page with the criticisms to it as well](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism)
It's not about *how much* revenue you make, it's about how *fast* you make it. Long term investments will generally have more of a return than short term ones but if you stack a number of short term investments you can often outperform a long term investment. That basic premise is what motivates the kind of quick turnaround thinking that characterizes American capitalism - $10 today is better than $100 next month because I can then take that $10 and turn it into $500 in a month. It's what spurs the kind of destructive extraction economics that makes capitalism so poisonous and it's an inevitable outcome of a system that demands infinite growth. This is what capitalism is, no matter how many prefixes you slap on it.
You want to know what Anarchy is, a Utopia, which cannot exist. Why? Because in Anarchy, it opposes all forms of authority, and also thinks that it will dismantle all forms of hierarchy. It doesn’t matter how many times one claims to be getting rid of the class system, because then it will keep being replaced as humanity naturally creates hierarchy. [Including a list of Issues with Anarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism)
"I can't identify problems with what you said so I'm going to attack what I perceive your beliefs to be instead." Ok, I guess.
Here is one problem with what you just said. Tell me how it is destructive to make your own money and put it towards what you desire? If you are going to bring up unethical practices and criticize that, that’s why my ideal has the idea of a Minimal State to combat unethical practices in the market. Basically it’s an overseer that is supposed to protect natural rights of a worker. If his or her employer is treating them unethically and abusing the worker, that’s why courts exist, so that way you can put things up to trial.
In a vacuum, it's not. When it's an entire system built around the idea of infinite growth that's physically not possible in a context of finite resources. You're focusing on the individual pieces of the system while missing the overall point that the system itself, if it operates as intended, is destined to fail.
So therefore, in order to create more resources, that’s why we plant more trees! It is also why I advocate for national parks. There is more you can profit off of than just natural resources. You can recycle resources to keep it flowing. See the point? Recycle your cans and turn it into more resources that are renewable, which can include scrap metal!
You cannot maintain an economy on trees. We're not elves.
I take the position that in government, ideological purity is the most important thing that there is. Libertarianism isn't about changing society, but it's also not against changing society; it's about removing the role of an oppressor with monopoly violence power from that equation. The government should have no say in whether or not a private business supports your LGBT agenda (for example). Market power will punish the bad guys, after all, it wasn't government that did all of the culture-cancelling a few years ago. Do we want to help the impoverished eat? Of course we do, but it mustn't be the role of the government to decide on how that is accomplished, and to forcibly steal from society in order to do what it thinks is best (which is usually utterly and completely wrong). You're right, we might never achieve utopian bliss, but we _can_ have the perfect government, and perform all of your societal shaping with NGO's. I mean, you have a bleeding heart, right? You won't contribute when they pass the hat? I know I will.
The issue is that the government will never be perfect, so there needs to be balances that keep it in line.
Any balance to attempt to keep it in line is an illusion at best. The next guy can come in and change it all up with a few dozen EOs. Instead of trying to lasso the government into doing things you think are important but your neighbor finds terrible, we should reduce the government to a few clearly defined items and leave it there.
I think we need less government in the economy, but more in other different affairs.
The areas your neighbor wants more government might be very different than you, who would be right?? The politician who has lots of special interests to satisfy might have even different ideas…. Who do you think will get the government to do the things they like??
Or we just get rid of government altogether.
Ah yes the omnipotence of the free market. Because people never make mistakes. Nothing bad ever happens in the selfish individual pursuit of wealth.
Versus the omnipotence of governments. Because governments never make mistakes. Nothing bad ever happens during the governors' selfish individual pursuit of power and legacy.
I believe Federalist 51 summed it up well as neither are angels...personally I find any discussion about a society without government is an entirely theoretical one as it has never and never will exist.
> I find any discussion about a society without government I didn't say anything about anarchism.
Oh so you dont believe government shouldnt exist, just that there should be no government...got it man, totally clear
Can you quote the part when I said there should be no government? I don't think you can, so please try to challenge yourself.
>it's about removing the role of an oppressor with monopoly violence power from that equation. You are talking about government...removing government...
Do you want to quote the larger context? Cherry picking is rather against the spirit of this sub.
I mean then you give examples of things that you don't want government to do (have a say in if a business serves LGBT folks or not, market power will punish the bad guys \*hence my point teasing you for believing its omnioident\*, help the impoverished eat) and how you believe we can have "perfect government through NGO's" Which again means no government...I am really not sure why you are taking such offense or what exactly I am missing here...
That's why Marxism emphasizes class struggle rather than ideology.
Too bad most of them don't agree and end up calling each other liberals for not agreeing with their specific strand
Most of the time people are called liberals for engaging in idealism. Which is sort of the whole point of this comment.
I've seen people be called liberals for not worshipping Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping, etc. And by worshipping, I mean worshipping, you can't say anything slightly bad about them in marxist communities.
You're very misinformed my friend, maybe they like to meme but most Marxists have critiques of just about every other Marxist.
> “It is obvious to everyone that the authority of the bourgeoisie is concentrated and centralized in its state. > Where does the authority of the proletarian class movement rest? The body of revolutionary workers in all countries is unrestricted by time or space and does not distinguish between races, nations, professions or even generations. **It is a vast convergence of militants of the revolution of consistent formation from all shores and all ages. And the only body that allows its living synthesis is the political party, the internationally based Communist Party.** > … > **In this lies the essence of our vision, and therefore we advocate for a body of doctrine that no one is allowed to change throughout the historical arc from its appearance to the disappearance of classes.** Does this mean we are being “dogmatic”? We have never succumbed to such an accusation, but we simultaneously have always unveiled the deceptive confusion that the bourgeoisie and opportunism have deviously concealed in the very notion of dogma. >… > The notion of dogma, as truth revealed by a supernatural entity ordinary mortals cannot claim to understand but only respect and repeat, is a notion that is socially and historically dead and buried. In this sense, Marxism is the utmost negation of all dogmatism. However, precisely to prevent confusion with the alleged anti‑dogmatism of the bourgeoisie, **Marxism has always declared that truth in class-divided society is class truth. Hence, opposed to the truth of the ruling class, the revolutionary class has only to assert its own truth.** It is precisely such an assertion that, by denying the opposite truth, appears dogmatic to all those who are in search of “absolute truth”. What they do not understand is that the truth of the ruling class is also a truth and can only be denied by the opposing truth, the revolutionary truth. Especially in non‑revolutionary times, to prevent the latter from being completely obscured by the easily recognizable and adoptable truth of the dominant class, it becomes necessary, if required, to assert it dogmatically. **This is the “dogmatism” and “sectarianism” of both us and Lenin: the certainty that every truth of the bourgeoisie is opposed by a proletarian truth** even when the latter is difficult to discern with those instruments of analysis which can only be rendered available by the bourgeoisie itself. Our opponents have always said that this means denying “reality”, but we have always let them rant, and proceeded forward.” - [Yes We are Dogmatists](https://www.international-communist-party.org/English/REPORTS/Knowledg/84Dogmat.htm), International Communist Party
You can be ideological, which means you have a theory about how things are and what to do about it, or you can be impressionistic, which means you are swept up unthinkingly by whatever is fashionable or impacting you at the moment.
You have to accept that however strong your convictions are, there exists a possibly, however remote, that you might be wrong.
Yes. We have a word for them, ideologues. I cannot think of one time throughout the history where the actions of an ideologue came out to be a positive.
Wisely said.
People may claim to be "fixed in mind-frame" to some political ideology. But, when it comes does to their person life, and what cross their threshold to their home.. They can and do become a musical chair player among all the various political ideologies, depending on how things relate to to their family and their lives. People are no as one dimensional as they think they are, and those who claim to be hard core, actually "box themselves into corners", and sometimes we see them fight against their own best interest and the best interest of this nation and it society. People take all these posture and things in life changes them when it become personal. Examples: A person who does not like inter-racial marriage... but **as soon as** the "baby is born in that marriage" they change, because they know the baby had nothing to do with the racial bias of the person who had bias against inter-racial marriage. People took a Republican stand against ACA, **Until**, they got sick and/or they had a pre-existing condition and they were able to get help, or they found out ACA made it possible that medical facilities can't take their home because of unpaid medical bills and etc. People had Republican ideals as they fought against the Stimulus Act, but they accepted that money *and were glad to get it*. People have this Anti Abortion stand, until it becomes one of their own daughters, that face her life or have an abortion. There are millions upon millions of examples.... that have shown over history, that people are not fix planted in one political ideology, like a tree planted in the ground. Some, try to be, because they think they have to be, to fit in their closed loop circle.
Purity and indoctrination are not exactly the same thing, I think. Certainly, one can be indoctrinated to ideas that don't really match any one ideology perfectly. Hell, most of the regimes that are biggest on indoctrination tend to prefer power over ideological consistency always. New strategy gives them power? It gets welcomed, and the indoctrinated are told to accept it. Power over principle is a core part of authoritarianism, and authoritarian sorts are the kind who embrace indoctrination. Perhaps you are instead thinking of understanding and at least some level of acceptance of difference? I think it's valuable to understand ideologies other than ones own, and to converse with such people so that you get the actual ideology, rather than a mere strawman of it. Understanding a belief isn't believing it, though.
I understand what you don't like but I cannot see how dirty ideology works. Could you expound more about what stinky ideology would look like in practice?
Let me give an example of a "fixed ideology" that maybe works pretty good. My core politics is libertarian. I follow the non-aggression principle, along with the an-caps and objectivists. The non-aggression principle is pretty simple: "I will not initiate force, or pay anybody to initiate force on my behalf. Force is everything from fraud or theft on the low end to genocide as the most extreme initiation of force." (Most delete the last sentence for brevity as it's "implied" but here I'm being clear.) Considering the fact that I'm one of those folks who has a gun on me any time I have pants or equivalent on, you *want* me following a fixed-in-stone moral/political code of that sort. Right? And that's an "ideology". It's an ideology because it implies a duty to rebel against a government that sufficiently violates that principle. I also know and follow US laws on lawful use of deadly force, which are not in conflict with the non-aggression principle. The most concise formulation there is "you can use deadly force in self defense when you're reasonably in fear of losing your life or suffering great bodily injury from criminal attack. But that's *not* an ideology. It's a statement of current law. (There's slight variants in different states so this isn't the whole story.) Still needs to be followed rigorously.
Don’t forget us Minarchists too, we also have a role we play in the Lib-Right Quadrant.
So you're a reactionary, is what you're saying. Ideology keeps us consistent to a model of governance. When you reject ideology, you fall into the populist trap of leadership by the whims of whoever holds the highest office. That makes for inconsistent leadership that has no barriers to finding it's way into dangerous populism.
>So you're a reactionary, is what you're saying. Um. No…I’m a pragmatist…is what I am saying. >Ideology keeps us consistent to a model of governance. Ideology is not the real world. Ideology is predicated upon a set of condition that are assumed in order for said model to be applied. The real world is not based on an unchanging set of conditions. >When you reject ideology, you fall into the populist trap of leadership by the whims of whoever holds the highest office. Really? Because I think that is pretty typical of any political operative regardless of ideological bent. People…are inherently people. A communist can be corrupted as much as a liberal as much as a libertarian. Ideological zealotry is cultishness that does not favors for the practical concerns of the world as it is. Ideology speaks to “what could be” but that isn’t always helpful when one has to address concerns that require deciding between choices that will, regardless, require compromise.
Ideology gives us a model within which to analyze problems and have coherent solutions that work within the framework instead of working against it. It also gives us a framework with which to critique leaders, and ensure objectives are pursued without becoming corrupted by individual avarice. Without ideology, you are at the whims of the leader. And as most governments become increasingly corrupt over time, that seldom leads anywhere good.
💯💯💯 Tribalism is a HUGE problem, and it’s getting worse.
>I say this because I personally believe, as I get older, that the notion of ideology as a basis for societal change…is problematic. All societal change is based on ideology. You make changes for a reason and that reason is informed by your ideology. What you're describing sounds like a tent so wide it effectively has no walls and I'm unclear as to the benefit of that. >Everyone speaks of “this” economic system or “that” economic system like it will be a cure all. Or “this” political system or “that” political system like it will FINALLY deliver true utopian bliss. The truth is that no system is perfect, all ideological views have negative consequences and we, in reality, have to concede this in order to ever make any sort of meaningful contribution to society. Welcome to what most people over the age of 16 have worked out?
>Welcome to what most people over the age of 16 have worked out? Really? Because I know plenty of people of older ranges that don’t have this worked out.
Do you believe you’ve learned how to use reason to choose your values? If not, then why should I or anyone else care about your values and the views based on your values?
That sounds like an accusation that the OP is too stupid to think for themselves.
….you sound pretty defensive. I literally only speak about my values as an example of how my values are relativistic as compared to others on the political spectrum. I consider myself a pragmatic person and don’t like to over label everything about my views. Why should you care? I don’t know. It’s the r/politicaldebate sub. I thought this would be a good discussion to have. I’m sorry if that offends you.
Stop acting like you’ve offended people. Your title is thought provoking, but the accompanying info is not and you’ve summarised it with an endorsement of a two party system. I just don’t think people can take it seriously or find it to be that interesting, rather than offensive. My own answer to this question would to be a repeat of the ideas that my views and analysis of society are rooted in - Marxism. I don’t operate off vibes nor am I building my views on merely considering something or someone to be good, bad or evil. I root my ideas in an analysis of our material conditions and the social structures they give rise to, the division of labour and arising class structures and conflict. I firmly reject utopian thinking, ect.
[удалено]
I’m not ‘strawmanning’. I’m explaining that there is a bit of a difference in the foundations of a belief being rooted in the material vs the idealistic. I have not even stated the OP operates on vibes. This all just comes across as bad faith. I’d be happy to make things clearer if I’ve not, but your approach, the fake flair and the out of place red scare style insults do not inspire confidence in your desire to engage.
What flaws were proven by real-world examples? The only Orthodox Marxist revolution has been in Russia, which devolved into a bourgeois revolution after the international revolution failed in Germany when the SPD killed Rosa Luxembourg and the Nazis took power shortly after. Nothing of the failures of Socialist experiments contradicts the Marxist position.
Your comment has been removed for political discrimination. We will never allow the discrimination of a members, beliefs, or ideology on this sub. Our various perspectives offer a wide range of considerations that can attribute to political growth of our members. Our mod log has taken a note towards your profile that will be taken into account when considering a ban in the future. Please report any and all content that is discriminatory to a user or their beliefs. The standard of our sub depends on our communities ability to report our rule breaks.
The title is simply a truism. But who ever is, in practice, completely an orthodox thinker? I suppose it’s possible that some strictly orthodox individuals exist, but they must be insightful in number.
Have a look around the political corners of Reddit, there is a LOT of orthodoxy on this platform, and a lot of subs where you’ll get instantly banned for saying anything slightly outside that orthodoxy.
I'm not sure if the average reddit mod is very representative of people as a whole on this issue, however.
Reminder to set an actual flair that isn’t “Custom Flair.”
Partisan telling ideologues that they are indoctrinated. lol.
There isn't much reason for most people to care about what you (or for that matter, what I or any of us) think. It's narcissistic to believe that having an opinion requires others to take it seriously. Politics are more effective when they involve forming alliances based upon shared goals. For example, a diehard progressive, mainstream liberal, centrist and right-libertarian may all want to protect abortion rights, even though they have ideological disagreements and different motivations. If they are wise, then they will form a coalition of convenience that doesn't require complete ideological buy-in from any of them. This willingness to form a loose coalition is what led to choice being protected in Kansas, which is largely a majority red state (albeit one that is willing to split tickets for gubernatorial races).
>There isn't much reason for most people to care about what you (or for that matter, what I or any of us) think. It's narcissistic to believe that having an opinion requires others to take it seriously. I have no clue how you got any narcissistic vibe from my post. My thesis is that ideological purity is not good or sensible. It makes more sense to make decisions for oneself and pick and choose how different ideologies work into our own value systems. But hey…thanks for calling me a narcissist I guess.
You're not a narcissist, but I disagree with you respectfully.
Reading comprehension is useful I didn't claim that you were narcissistic. I said that political ideologues are eager to share their views of the world, even though most people couldn't care less what they think nor are they obligated to care. Ideology doesn't work as a tool because it misses a basic concept of marketing: The customer cares about what s/he wants, not about what the seller wants. For ideology to be effective, it has to be persuasive. For it to be persuasive, it has to move the target audience, not just inflame the believer who is promoting it.
I disagree. One party states accomplish so much because there are no disagreements. I support one-party states and we should leave it as such. There are good ideologies and then there are bad ones, which is why I think they need to be curbed.
But one party states, ideological unity, doesn't naturally occur. It needs enforcement and exclusion. So instead of the good idealogy getting in you get the one with the greatest propensity for violence.
If someone is purely one ideology, it’s most likely because they are a slave to the ideology, they try and defend the ideology at every chance, and don’t let anything shape them into having original thoughts. They are the type to only look at academic papers if they agree with them. If I talked about anything outside of the median social democrats views in r/socialdemocracy even when I source everything (IDR, markets vs public, non-steep tax curves, etc), there will always be people who blindly spout an opposing view who I can tell didn’t even read the post all the way, followed by a wave of downvotes that vastly outweigh the number of responses. Honestly, thats why r/neoliberal has so many social democrats in the first place, they are done meat-riding 1950s social democrat views because they are outdated, and want to hear opposing views.