I was just wondering what everyones favorite political party was. Because I know that everyone is from different countries, I will keep it to left wing right wing.

In my country both sides are equally useless. The right is fragmented to the point that they're completely powerless and their too stupid/stubborn to join together and offer real opposition. The left has been in power so long having no significant threats that the normal checks and balances have been eroded. Basically the left suffer from absolute power and all the trappings that come with it.

Anyway, canada is a good example of how meaningless the ideas of left and right really is. A party in power will be as left or right as the populous demands, whatever keeps them in power.

hmm... tough question, Jack_Quack
Anyhoo, I live in Canada, and I like the Liberals, which advocates change. but the Conservatives are not bad either. As a matter of fact, I don't see much difference between the two parties fundamentally.
I choose moderate/middle

I would agree that the conservative and liberal sides in America have very much become the same party, just with different names and different self-absorbed quests. The left corrodes away the foundation of society and the conservatives gradually give in to their demands or posit an alternative that is almost identicle. I am moderate to all political ideas because I am young and would rather see how the world functions before I jump on some bandwagon. I think the parties in the US are awful: they don't address real issues, they have no firm idealogy, they simply throw things out in the air that will garner the most votes.

None, so where's that option?

Communist is such a loaded term, I support Libertarian-communism, not to be confused with authoritarian socialism. Unfortunetly there is no party in Britain that I know of so I could vote accordingly.

As to american politics, i would have to go against whoever is starting wars. In this case Dubya. I dont agree with many of the things that he has done, like caving in to large corporations, and high military spending. I am totally against him going to war both in Iraq and in Afganistan. I would therefor vote for kerry, just because he is the best chance at kicking George's ass out of the White House.

It would depend on weather I was ruling power or not. If I was it'd be fascist...but since I'm not it's moderate.

I don’t know what Libertarian-communism is, but as to communism I have a few comments. Communism never works. There has never been true communism, and there never will be. The leaders always become corrupt, and mistreat their citizens. There is also no will to work. Why work hardest, when you will not be promoted, and you will see no further benefits. Competition drives people to do better/best. As to fascism, well that is just evil. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". I will not comment on the other 3 for now.

There has never been true communism
There has been no TRUE democracy or republics or any other kind of government. They are all political theories, which can never be truly achieved in reality.
Other than that, I agree that Communism is an utopia. and it's unlikely that it could work for a long time in the modern society

As to fascism, well that is just evil.
I don't think "evil" is the proper word to describe fascism, it's jsut very controlling and restricting, not a lot of people are happy in a fascist society. But it is very efficient, I must admit.

I believe that democracy is the best kind of government we have yet, though its original definition can never be accomplished in real world, it still makes the most people happy.

I picked moderate, really anyone who is wiling to categorize themselves so easily as left/right, communist/fascist are ideological, and anti-intellectual by nature (no offence to anyone). I think we always have to keep our minds, and ideas open. Neither side is right, they are both equally wrong the same issue, the only thing we hope for is that one can avoid the most damage. Right/Left literally mean nothing, they are way too broad to accurately tell the movements within their wings. Some hard knock republicans voted for Nader believe it or not. What scares me is that the left and right essentially are saying the same thing, with a different set of rhetoric's. Communist/fascist are both too extreme for any modern population. Communism in her purest form would have to defy our taught human nature (I don't believe it is innate), Fascism is too extreme in the sense that it will almost always end in a blood bath, from which it came. Neither communism/fascism will ever get into power without a serious economic/political crisis, I meanserious . So the best thing for humanity is too be pragmatic and be moderate imo. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Right/left must mean something for without them there's no moderate position available. Right/left give definition to the moderate. The left and right are not saying the same thing. There’s a huge difference between, say, a position to maintain forests for future generations and a position to convert most of them to lumber on the pretext of preventing forest fires (that occurred naturally with no long-lasting damage for as long as forests have existed). And that’s just one huge difference among hundreds or thousands. The overall difference is that a righty is considerably more selfish than a lefty.

Right/left must mean something for without them there's no moderate position available.

True, but even moderate is very hard to define? What is moderate, btwn Communist and a Democrat? Btwn a Fascist and a republican and so on? Consider that a Democrat compared to a Communist is a rightist, so really what is the difference? Imo not much.

There’s a huge difference between, say, a position to maintain forests for future generations and a position to convert most of them to lumber on the pretext of preventing forest fires (that occurred naturally with no long-lasting damage for as long as forests have existed).

Well left in some places could be characterized as rightist. I am sure there are rightists, who support environmentalism, so does that mean they aren't rightists? There are the "log cabin republicans" you know those Gay republicans, or even the pro-abortion republicans. Right/left is heavily skewed in their definitions, and I don't put too much water into them.

The overall difference is that a righty is considerably more selfish than a lefty

In some instances it is opposite, really we can't say with any authority what is what.

I don’t know what Libertarian-communism is, but as to communism I have a few comments. Communism never works. There has never been true communism, and there never will be.

It all depends on the scale. Communism is an example of a form of government that doesn't scale well. I would be very surprised if communism in a small group (less than 50 people) where everyone supported the ideals failed in any reasonable timeframe...

The leaders always become corrupt, and mistreat their citizens.

That's what computers are for :)

There is also no will to work. Why work hardest, when you will not be promoted, and you will see no further benefits.

You're right. Normal people who don't buy in to the communism WILL break it. But if everyone buys in, if everyone says "this is what we need to do to survive" (and there's position cycling so people don't get bored with doing the same thing forever) then I do think that it would work fairly well.

Competition drives people to do better/best.

Only if there's some end benefit (even if its only to say "I'm better than you, "OMGWTFHAX J00 SUXOR", or whatever). People won't compete if they get no foreseeable benefit...

As to fascism, well that is just evil. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

meh. Perhaps, perhaps not. Different philosophies have their uses, they are tools, nothing more. Tools are not inherently evil.

I picked moderate, really anyone who is wiling to categorize themselves so easily as left/right, communist/fascist are ideological, and anti-intellectual by nature (no offence to anyone).

Now now undecided, thats a very provocative statement you got yourself there and people will take offence to it. I cant help but have my views and you can help but have yours. To make a personal remark that anyone that shows a leaning is an idiot is just wrong and will cause offence. Just because I voted communist doesnt mean I havnt thought about it, its just my views.

I showed that I have an understanding that left/right isnt as clear cut, indeed, the political spectrum is three dimentional, I even stated that there is no party I could vote for because no such party exists in Britain. So I vote for the moderate parties. Indeed, this poll doesnt say that you cannot vote according to ideals and I took it that way.

I cant help but have my views and you can help but have yours.

I never asserted otherwise, and I agree with that statement. I am not stating my opinion as the almighty truth, that's impossible. But I think my opinion is a very reasonable one. I hope you would disagree ;)

To make a personal remark that anyone that shows a leaning is an idiot is just wrong and will cause offence.

I didn't call anyone an idiot, I called people anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectualism is when you are incapable of listening or even reasoning with another persons perspective. The Bush administration is anti-intellectual isn't it? Wasn't the Politburo of the USSR anti-intellectual? Of course, and they both share one common thread, ideology. As an ideologue you sometimes have to deny reality (shown most vividly with Zionists), or do things that go beyond logic, and reason. As an ideologue you automatically put yourself in a position, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, etc. Yet you are against those things because someone else tells you to be against those things, and even if x was better it can't be because of your ideological tinge. Being an anti-intellectual doesn't mean you are an idiot, what it means is that you are closed minded, and devoted to cause that may just be wrong. I guess I am being very nihilist.

Just because I voted communist doesnt mean I havnt thought about it, its just my views.

I never said you didn't, what I am saying to you is; if you are wiling to so easily define yourself as a communist then you automatically put yourself in a position. Something I would not want to happen to me, I agree with some communist ethos but I am not a communist because some things are just too bizarre for me. Dissention imo is necessary for rational human thought, once an ideologue you aren't rational anymore. Pragmatic truth is human truth according to James, and I tend to agree.

I didn't call anyone an idiot, I called people anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectualism is when you are incapable of listening or even reasoning with another persons perspective. The Bush administration is anti-intellectual isn't it? Wasn't the Politburo of the USSR anti-intellectual? Of course, and they both share one common thread, ideology. As an ideologue you sometimes have to deny reality (shown most vividly with Zionists), or do things that go beyond logic, and reason. As an ideologue you automatically put yourself in a position, anti-capitalist, anti-fascist, etc. Yet you are against those things because someone else tells you to be against those things, and even if x was better it can't be because of your ideological tinge. Being an anti-intellectual doesn't mean you are an idiot, what it means is that you are closed minded, and devoted to cause that may just be wrong. I guess I am being very nihilist.
Yes, maybe i did jump to conclutions with the whole idiot thing.

Your assuming that I agree with the USSR and that the USSR was communist. Neither is true, I dont believe in the ideals of stalinism which is Authoritarian communism, a totalarian dictatorship.

Yet you are against those things because someone else tells you to be against those things, and even if x was better it can't be because of your ideological tinge. Being an anti-intellectual doesn't mean you are an idiot, what it means is that you are closed minded, and devoted to cause that may just be wrong. I guess I am being very nihilist.
No, Im not against those things because someone has told me to be against those things, Im against those things because I see those things as being wrong. Thats just my opinion.

There are really only two types of parties, Fascist And Communist everyone else is either close to them or in the middle of the timeline
F----------Democracy----R---Radical Republican-------C

Your assuming that I agree with the USSR and that the USSR was communist. Neither is true, I dont believe in the ideals of stalinism which is Authoritarian communism, a totalarian dictatorship.

I know the USSR was almost anti-thetical to the teachings of Marx; state capitalism is not your thing I would fathom. There has never been a communist state, that's a certainity. But I didn't assume anything about you and the USSR, all I was saying is that the USSR like the modern US are anti-intellectual in their nature. Both started out as intellectual states full of opportunity, with the ideas of the enlightenment and romantic eras, but as the ideology has been perverted by the masses, the end of the dream begins. The masses are brutes... and that’s why I oppose the masses following a ideology.

No, Im not against those things because someone has told me to be against those things, Im against those things because I see those things as being wrong. Thats just my opinion.

But I very highly doubt you would know why you are against those things if it weren't for Marx and the gang (do tell me if I talking smack). Consider, would you be just in angst if Marx wasn't around to guide you? I personally believe that anyone (not just you) who is wiling to label themselves so easily and so devotedly is rather anti-intellectual, and an ideologue. They are easily swayed by the messages of the "messiahs" (Lenin, Reagan, etc) because it's always easier to follow then to lead.

Individualism is over-rated. Theres nothing wrong with faith in a mass ideology, it keeps you in society. People are unintelligable outside of society.

And Marx didnt invent communism, im a communist (sometimes), but i wouldnt look at his writings as guidance. The essence of communism is co-operating for a greater benifit, and people have done that since time immemorial.

Depends on the Issue. Both sides have good ideas and some really bad ones.
Overall im on the Right. I just cant agree with the Left on Gun Control.

Individualism is over-rated. Theres nothing wrong with faith in a mass ideology, it keeps you in society. People are unintelligable outside of society.

Mass ideological movements have always ended up in disasters. The US, the UK, these powers have maintained their status as great powers because of the individualism they extol. Although that era is slowly but surely coming to an end in the US with the ideological swing towards "hybrid fascism", the downfall of the US seems a certainty I am not a libertarian, nor am I a socialist. But I agree that there has to be a certain gov't intervention in the social affairs of the population, but that the individual should always have a right to have rights. Mass ideological movements bringing in the masses (sans culottes) will always end up as an anti-thetical movement. From the French revolution to the Russian revolution the ideals of those revolutions were destroyed by the meek and ignorant masses. If a state goes into mass ideology I weep for the future, the dialectic should not die.

Once again im going to have to agree with Undie....
What is this world coming too?

They don't call it Armageddon for nothing...

I’d say that anyone claiming that the left and right in America are too similar to be really distinguished from one another needs to pay a little more attention. I’ll readily admit that in big campaigns, presidential campaigns especially, the candidates generally make a mad dash for the center, in an atempt to appeal to a broad base of voters, but when you look at what our elected officials are up to while in office, pay attention to what your representatives are saying, and what your own president is doing, then the difference becomes quite clear.

At the moment, the American Right wing, is dominated by so-called neocons (hell bent on American military domination of the world. . . and if that sounds a bit reactionary or grandiose, check out their own site http://www.NewAmericanCentury.org ). Meanwhile the religious conservatives seem hell bent on sending America into the dark ages, and asserting Christian dominance over the US. Bush is both a neocon and an evangelical Christian, and his policies have very much reflected that, and as this election year really swings into gear he panders to his base more and more. Be it funding faith based organizations with public money, banning stem-cell research, funding only abstinence-only sex “education” programs in public schools, or attempting to ban, on a constitutional level, same sex marriages, Bush, his administration, and the religious Right Wing have been clear in their message to the rest of America: We’ll stop at nothing to turn our morals into your law.

As always, the American right is still highly organized, to the point where it seems that conservative pendants as well as the rank and file must be receiving faxes of speaking points from the white-house every morning. Accusations of the American right wing of being Fascist have perhaps never been so accurate as they are under the current administration. So far reaching is their power right now, that calling someone leftist, or liberal is considered an insult, and even a dirty word.

The more left leaning people and parties in America, on the other hand are, as always, a bit more disorganized, and not quite so unified. Though through this entire election the Democrats have seemed to be pulling together much more than usual. I think we have Howard Dean to thank for the fact that the DNC candidate, John Kerry is able to talk negatively about Bush’s handling of Iraq, and honestly it’s about time the Democrats found a little bit of backbone. Kerry is by no means a liberal, of course, certainly his politicos are a bit left of center, but standing up there in the spotlight he’s doing his best to stay fairly vague, and hard to place, and really has yet to find any sort of message or appeal other than “I’m not Bush”. This, however, may well be enough, as while Bush is busy running his own campaign, his constant blunders and mishandling are also driving the Kerry campaign, as essentially at this point the Kerry campaign is nothing more than the fact that Bush is a complete ass (and so far that puts Kerry in the lead). There’s not a whole hell of a lot that we can be certain about when it comes to Kerry at the moment, except a few vague implications that he wants a broader coalition, and possibly UN involvement to help settle down Iraq, and that he might want to repeal Bush’s tax cuts. I don’t think we can accuse him of playing his cards too soon, but he’d better give us a better idea of what he’s all about sometime soon, I’d hate to see him try and run on resentment toward Bush alone.

Aside from the DNC proper there seems to be a wonderful resurgence of liberal activity in the US of late. There have been pro-choice rallies in Washington, and the civil rights battle for same-sex couples is still in full swing. This can be a bit dangerous for Kerry, however, especially with the more clearly liberal Ralph Nader running. At this point I think most rational minded liberals must realize that no matter how tempting it may be to vote for Nader we just can’t afford to bother paying him any heed in this election; there’s no chance that he’ll win, and if too many votes go his way then it’s another four years for Bush, and then we’ll all be in a real mess.

In short, the American right is run by radical fundamentalist wackos hell bent on building a Christian nation, and US dominated world, and the left is either sick to death and screaming murder, or trying to play it cool and ride the wave of resentment right into the white-house. For everyone’s sake I certainly hope that it’ll be enough to oust Bush, even if Kerry is just another slimy politico, he doesn’t seem the type to try to hold the threat of perpetual war over our head to get his way, or start lying to the nation to go to war. Kerry also doesn’t seem to be as against homosexual rights as Bush, and that’s really a sore point for me in particular (being that I’d like to finally see a president who’s in favor of homosexual rights), but you can’t win them all, and at least Kerry isn’t the sort of man to drive me into a murderous rage at being so hopelessly pig headed, and outright evil.

The essence of communism is co-operating for a greater benifit, and people have done that since time immemorial.

Unfortunately your description is far too vague to accurately or usefully describe communism. In fact it's actually a better description of society in general than anything else, as a capitalist society could be described in the exact same terms. Capitalism would be a system whereby people work together under agreements of mutual agreement to mutual benefit. I suppose the primary difference in communism is that the agreement to benefit others is compulsory, and rather than working for your own benefit you’re always working for the benefit of others. Sort of sounds like a few jobs I’ve had, in my life, though, ha.

The great aryan race must be preserved, so fascism is the best option.

We can only survive as a monolithic body.
A collective.
The best party is wes!
All hail wes!
We are wes, Wes is we.

I bet you all would disagree with fascism if that was your current government. You would have no rights, and would be surprised and controlled. It is definitely the worst choice.

We can only survive as a monolithic body.

WESDOUBLEPLUSGOOD! WES SAYS: COMRADES! WES LEAD U INTO NEXT CENTURY! WESGOOD! VAPORIZENONWES! WEAREWES! WESISWE! HAILWES!

I bet you all would disagree with fascism if that was your current government. You would have no rights, and would be surprised and controlled. It is definitely the worst choice.

Ha, we are getting pretty close to a fascist regime, and a lot of people are up in arms about it.

Ha, we are getting pretty close to a fascist regime, and a lot of people are up in arms about it.
Who is we?

WESDOUBLEPLUSGOOD! WES SAYS: COMRADES! WES LEAD U INTO NEXT CENTURY! WESGOOD! VAPORIZENONWES! WEAREWES! WESISWE! HAILWES!
Doubleplusgood, i love that book. I have heard of you wesians. I will have to fight your regime, by, well in the end really nothing. And upon returning to society loving wes. Now how does that poem go again?

I'm moderate, although I prefer the term Independant. That way I'll still exist without the left or righties. :p

- N

Political parties are all the same because they all have the same supervisors. There is only one political party and that is the media party. The right thinks the media is left and the left thinks the media is right. Both are right and both are wrong. The media plays both sides. All politicians must answer to the media. The monolithic mass media is at the top of the power structure, or as some would say, the top of the food chain.

your partly right, you just have the biggest and second biggest dangers backwards.

I say bring back the whigs.

Really, all the parties have their pros and cons, the biggest problem that inevitably occurs is entrenched bureacracy. The "ideals" for which each party supposedly stands fades away in time and the main function is to maintain the status quo. An interesting concept applied in some communist countries is to never end the revolution. Maintain the status quo by never admitting that the status quo has been established in the first place. China is probably the most successful at this method. Court the young, because that is where revolutionary fervor lies, and point them at the target of your choice. All in the name of revolution... that is the status quo. Here in America, we simply inundate our children with pleasurable pasttimes to attempt to hold off the revolutionary zeal, reduce their attention span so that they won't have the wherewithal to carry the revolution farther than shoplifting or other antisocial behavior.

I agree with buffys about the dangers of the press. Something must be done eventually, unfortunately I have no idea just what should (could) be done. Nationalising the press is definitely not the answer. And it certainly seems we can't depend upon the benevolence of those who own the media. All they want is more money. Journalistic integrity is a thing of the past. If it was even real back then and not just media hype. :p

Now how does that poem go again?

Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree

An interesting concept applied in some communist countries is to never end the revolution. Maintain the status quo by never admitting that the status quo has been established in the first place. China is probably the most successful at this method. Court the young, because that is where revolutionary fervor lies, and point them at the target of your choice. All in the name of revolution... that is the status quo.
The concept of the never-ending revolution is quite the opposite of what you've described here. There is a difference between claiming a revolution has never ended to suppress dissent and the concept of an ongoing revolution.

Are you inquiring as to parties or philosophies?

I'm a secular conservative, what an abomination!

Regardless I think political parties generally suck and I don't associate with one.

The concept of the never-ending revolution is quite the opposite of what you've described here.

Ok, I believe you. I have never studied politics and have only a layman's knowledge. What is wrong with my description? Which am I actually describing? Am I just mixing my terms? Which is the case that exists in China, in your opinion? A little more input would be helpful.

I agree with buffys about the dangers of the press. Something must be done eventually, unfortunately I have no idea just what should (could) be done.

I think you misunderstood, I do think the press can be dangerous but I wouldn't change a thing. A free press is crucial and one of the greatest strengths of a democracy. 10 years ago I might have had a different view but with the internet, much of the power of the monolithic media outlets has been dramatically eroded. They may control tv, radio and newspapers now but it doesn't really matter anymore. 5 or 6 years ago I got 90% of my international and national news from the major media players, now it's more like 10%.

What we have today IMO is the closest we've been to a truly free press in history, mostly because of the diversity of information available on-line.

I thought you meant that changing the press was the greatest danger, and the press in it's current application was the second greatest. My mistake.

Ok, I believe you. I have never studied politics and have only a layman's knowledge. What is wrong with my description? Which am I actually describing? Am I just mixing my terms? Which is the case that exists in China, in your opinion? A little more input would be helpful.
The theory of permanent revolution can be summed up more or less as the idea that the working-class seizing power in a country is not the end of a socialist revolution, as ultimately socialism must spread to the entire world to be fully realized.
I'm assuming this what you were refering to.
I don't know anything about the Chinese take on permanent revolution, or whether or not its part of their ideology. As I understand it, Chinese communism(Maoism) holds that it is the peasants not the working-class that leads the revolution and this would be hard to apply on an international level as developed countries don't have a class of peasants in general.
China today isn't really communist, by anyone's standards, and if they're talking about ongoing revolution in order to keep people in line its nothing more than a propaganda tactic. I'd be interested to read more about the Chinese take on this. Is there a link to where you heard about China using "ongoing revolution" talk to maintain the status quo?
9.* The conquest of power by the proletariat does not complete the revolution, but only opens it. Socialist construction is conceivable only on the foundation of the class struggle, on a national and international scale. This struggle, under the conditions of an overwhelming predominance of capitalist relationships on the world arena, must inevitably lead to explosions that is, internally to civil wars and externally to revolutionary wars. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such, regardless of whether it is a backward country that is involved, which only yesterday accomplished its democratic revolution, or an old capitalist country which already has behind it a long epoch of democracy and parliamentarism.*

10.* The completion of the socialist revolution within national limits is unthinkable. One of the basic reasons for the crisis in bourgeois society is the fact that the productive forces created by it can no longer be reconciled with the framework of the national state. From this follow, on the one hand, imperialist wars, on the other, the utopia of a bourgeois United States of Europe. The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word; it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet.* http://www.internationalist.org/whatis.html

Well, what I was talking about was the Cultural Revolution, the way they harnessed the young and indoctrinated them into continuing the revolution by turning in their parents or schoolteachers or whoever might be guilty of crimes against the state. I'm not fully up on Chinese history anymore, so I'm not entirely sure how often this tactic was used. It seems that the modern day Chinese are not as susceptible to this as their forebears. The Chinese youth of today are expressing their angst against the state rather than for the state. I've never actually heard of a concept of continuing revolution from China, I just inferred it from the Cultural Revolution and references to continuing revolution from other countries. I wouldn't say China has, or had, an interest in spreading communism to the world. China has always been more concerned with it's own interests rather than the outside world. It is true that they aided, if not instigated, the communist regimes in Korea and Vietnam. But I see this as more of an attempt to reduce American (western) influence in the immediate area. I have no links to any of this, I learned most of my Chinese history in high school, and since have only added bits and pieces from varied sources. I'd be interested in a Chinese take on this as well, the greatest challenge we face in these kind of things is getting past the propaganda of our own educational systems.

I have seen references to a continuing revolution when it comes to the Cuban brand of communism. This revolution also had to do solely with issues inside of Cuba itself and not the world at large. There are always more capitalistic or imperialistic influences within the confines of their own country to eradicate, even if they must be manufactured. Although they did send Che Guevara off to carry the fight to South America, I don't think they ever made any serious efforts in this regard. I also am not fully up on Cuban history, I learned far less about Cuba than China in school and most of my sources for this are scattered.

oh, that makes sense then. I understand where your comment was coming from now The cultural revolution consisting of attacks on percieved bourgeois influence and internal threats from, for example, the intelligentsia, could very well be described as a never ending revolution that channels people's energy into attacking the enemies of the status quo.
Thats not to say that there is anything revolutionary about this practice in reality.
I don't know too much about Castro's ideology either, but I'm sure his struggles with the US are viewed as part of the revolutionary struggle.

Using talk of an ongoing revolution to suppress dissent is not a part of communist theory, but I guess it is part of the ideology of the state's that call themselves communist today.

Communism is all well and good for your small communities - but I think the far right wing holds better solutions for large countries.

One thing that really bugs me about today's life is the complete lack of disciplin in everyday culture.

I didn't vote, no choice for me was included. I'm a (radical capitalist). I realize that capitalism is not a political idealogy but an economic one, however it's the best one and the most moral one we've ever have attempted to implement.

The US was not founded as a leftist nor a rightist, not a democracy but a republic, with check and balances and a limited democratic idealogy to choose elected leaders and some laws.

I believe just as we atheist attain that there should be separation of church and state, as a capitalist there should also be seperation from econmics and state. A truly laizes-faire capitalist society has never existed on planet earth, though we were very close to it in the industrial revolution of the US, but then corrupted by the state, which it quickly became a mixed economy. That is what the US practices now.

On the freedom of the press (which someone mentioned) or the power of the press today, well if your too much in tune with Fox, I feel sorry for you, however it has become very bias in this country, they are not telling you the whole truth, however they sell cars and bars of soap pretty good, they become cridible by claiming that every other news source such as independent news sources to be, nothing more than conspiracy theorists. Theyr lies and deceptions are utterly becoming ovious, and the theorists break out news worthy of reading way before (Corporate) news sources start broadcasting i.e. "the abuse pictures, the coffins on the plane", to mention just a few, I was looking at weeks before they became public news!!.

Godless.

I don't know anything about the Chinese take on permanent revolution, or whether or not its part of their ideology. As I understand it, Chinese communism(Maoism) holds that it is the peasants not the working-class that leads the revolution and this would be hard to apply on an international level as developed countries don't have a class of peasants in general.

Well, take my avatar for instance. Pol Pot was an avid fan of Mao, who gave him the idea for his own permanent revolution. The permanent revolution is a system to control the people and to never bring the socialist state into an actual communist system. The idea is that by promoting the 'white terror', and constantly purging members to invent an enemy that isn't there, you can have hysterical control of people at all times so that true communism is never established. It goes like this:

1. Destroy the crops and millions will starve. Then blame it on someone in the party. They must be spies for the Westerners!

2. Hold fake trials for the members and then execute them.

3. Encourage children to spy on their parents. Then kill their parents.

4. Endlessly ban and destroy art and literature that is 'unrevolutionary'.

In Orwell's 1984, this permanent revolution was taken to its most extreme level. Ingsoc invented a war that was never happening in order to keep the people in a constant state of subservience. In Cambodia, you could be killed for holding hands, because it was counterrevolutionary. The whole idea is to never reach a goal.

One thing that really bugs me about today's life is the complete lack of disciplin in everyday culture.

There is a pathetic lack of discipline. People can't even eat right. When an old person says "you don't know how good you've got it", they are telling the truth. Western civilization is dead.

There is a pathetic lack of discipline. People can't even eat right. When an old person says "you don't know how good you've got it", they are telling the truth. Western civilization is dead.

According to a study by the National Sleep Foundation, the average employed American works a 46-hour work week; 38% of the respondents in their study worked more than 50 hours per week.

in 1940, 38.6 hrs/wk.
1950, 40.5 hrs/wk
1975, 39.4 hrs/wk

oh yeah, it's just free sailing these days.

EDIT: not to mention the fact that in the 40's, 50's and 60's the average family could survive with only one parent working. That's almost impossible today. Western civilization may well be in trouble but it's not because we aren't working hard enough, it's because we're working too hard and at the cost of everything else.

When an old person says "you don't know how good you've got it"...

I wonder what their grandparents told them. ;) It's true, though. My great grandmother moved to Kansas in a covered wagon. She died in the 90's. Imagine the changes her outlook of life had to undergo.

In some ways we have it much better. Better technology, easier lives, less sickness and disease. But there are adaptations we are forced to make to live this way. The world comes at us at ever-increasing speeds. Just when we learn something, it's obsolete. Marketing scumbags have all of psychiatry's tricks at their disposal and no shame in using any ploy to get the results they want. Good and bad. Plus and minus. There are no absolutes, only shades of grey.

Natural Law Party = #1

EDIT: not to mention the fact that in the 40's, 50's and 60's the average family could survive with only one parent working. That's almost impossible today. Western civilization may well be in trouble but it's not because we aren't working hard enough, it's because we're working too hard and at the cost of everything else

True, I should rephrase it. People work hard, but they work hard at nothing. They don't value anything but money, so that's all they strive for. There is also a generation gap: the young have everything they could want, so they are not exposed to the struggle their parents put fourth to get them there. Even lower class Americans are filthy rich compared to somone living in Congo. That is the great paradox of existence: we struggle to have everything we need and when we have it we have nothing else to struggle for.

Nothings changed. The working people of the 1930s were always being told to look at those of the 1880s and 1890s, and being told of how ungrateful they were. The proportionate wealth of the working class has actually gone down since the end of world war two. All this "the world is so different", its crap. The people of the thirties marvelled at the mass produced motor car just like we do at the computer. New gilt cages for new generations of unfulfilled workers.

The proportionate wealth of the working class has actually gone down since the end of world war two.

As have prices, they have evened out, if that were an absolute truth we wouldn't nearly have all the luxuries we have today.

Yeah, but what im trying to say is that the workers of the victorian age had perhaps one set of clothes, the workers of the 1930s had three or four, the victorian had no heating, some in the 1930s did, the victorian didnt have running water, the 1930s worker probably did. Things change, but never so much that the workers get out of their position in society. And when you say "hey, how come we arent all the same yet?" you get told "but we are, look at all you have etc..." and all of a sudden your in the wrong.

Yeah, but what im trying to say is that the workers of the victorian age had perhaps one set of clothes, the workers of the 1930s had three or four, the victorian had no heating, some in the 1930s did, the victorian didnt have running water, the 1930s worker probably did. Things change, but never so much that the workers get out of their position in society. And when you say "hey, how come we arent all the same yet?" you get told "but we are, look at all you have etc..." and all of a sudden your in the wrong.

What do you want? There has to be the proletariat class as long as money exists, as long as there have been products. Somebody has to make the crap we buy, and yes it is rather a disgusting commentary on the capitalist system that there are the bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, but in even in the most basic of structures (the family) there is a hierarchical order. In order to be all the same the modern world economy must collapse, and a massive communist revolution must occur (must be worldwide). This is why I support Globalization, because it re-distributes the wealth of the world on a more equal basis. You should find this thread interesting (shameless self promo) (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36611).

(appologies for backtracking)

... Western civilization may well be in trouble but it's not because we aren't working hard enough, it's because we're working too hard and at the cost of everything else.

I agree, I would not argue that many people are hard working - but if you look at state schools (in the United Kingdom) and probably in the equivilent counterparts in the States you will see little to no work ethic. It's all effing 'ip 'op and 'up the school' for the better part.

Culturally speaking, we are being invaded and degraded.

[QUOTE=Undecided]What do you want? There has to be the proletariat class as long as money exists[QUOTE] - I would propose its abolition, so....

Whoever set this poll up has been brainwashed by the American political system. Politics is not a one-dimensional spectrum, where you're either liberal on the left or conservative on the right or somewhere in between.

There's another axis, which measures how much of what you believe should be enforced by the government, and how much by free people and free markets. It's "authoritarian" at the bottom and "libertarian" at the top.

There are plenty of left-wing and right-wing dictatorships in the world. On the other hand there aren't many countries that have crawled up out of the muck into a condition of expanded liberty with extremely limited government. The last I heard, New Zealand came the closest.

I have no idea where Kiwis stand on the liberal/conservative axis. How do they feel about women possessing their bodies including the contents, consenting adults doing whatever they want that doesn't directly harm other people, peaceful people having the right to migrate freely, military forces being staffed entirely by volunteers who are paid market wages, governments being able to collect fees only for services they provide, corporations having no sacred legal status, and any individual, organization, or country that initiates violence or fraud against another being held accountable by the entire world community?

Just as a side note, I have a web site that view from time to time to see where politicians stand based on their voting records. It's called "On the Issues", and it incorporates the second axis you mention. They rate politicians on a four-point compass with a nice graphical representation and boatloads of detailed reporting. Some say it's a bit biased to the left, but it's always seemed fair to me.

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

I picked moderate, really anyone who is wiling to categorize themselves so easily as left/right, communist/fascist are ideological, and anti-intellectual by nature (no offence to anyone). I think we always have to keep our minds, and ideas open. Neither side is right, they are both equally wrong the same issue, the only thing we hope for is that one can avoid the most damage. Right/Left literally mean nothing, they are way too broad to accurately tell the movements within their wings. Some hard knock republicans voted for Nader believe it or not. What scares me is that the left and right essentially are saying the same thing, with a different set of rhetoric's. Communist/fascist are both too extreme for any modern population. Communism in her purest form would have to defy our taught human nature (I don't believe it is innate), Fascism is too extreme in the sense that it will almost always end in a blood bath, from which it came. Neither communism/fascism will ever get into power without a serious economic/political crisis, I meanserious . So the best thing for humanity is too be pragmatic and be moderate imo. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
Well put. I voted the same way.

Blind subscription to partisan dogma is so utterly bereft of any critical thought that I'm in favor of you not voting at all, if you're so inclined.

There's another axis, which measures how much of what you believe should be enforced by the government, and how much by free people and free markets. It's "authoritarian" at the bottom and "libertarian" at the top - on the old spectrum i come somwhere with the Stalinists, when i couldnt think of anything i'd less like to be!