Understanding Your Political Ideology

i have recently come across some people on this board who i will not name who seem to have the ludicrous idea that if i describe myself using a specific label, that i automatically have to justify everything that this label entails. for example, if i describe myself as a liberal, i must accept and justify Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson as important figures within my ideology, even if i believe personally that both of them are idiots. this is some of the stupidest logic i have ever heard and it is just as stupid to assume that if i am a conservative i must be an apologist for the pro-life position, even if that is not the case (my father is an example of a conservative who is more pro-choice than me, his radical left-wing son). and while this was only one thread i saw this in, and only a handful of people thought this way in that thread, this re-affirms my belief that many (if not most) people in the US, including those on these boards, have absolutely no clue what their political ideology is truly about, and have this obscure belief that everyone is either a conservative or a liberal and that the opposite ideology automatically believes exactly what they are opposed to and are their mortal enemies. this leads me to believe that if i ask most people to succinctly and precisely describe their political ideologies, 1. multiple people of the same political affiliation will have widely varying definitions of the same ideology, and 2. rather than succinctly defining their ideologies they will list a few hot button issues that their party currently pushes even though historically, or in other nations, their ideology may have represented the exact opposite viewpoint.

that said, i would like to use this thread to do a bit of an experiment:

-in your comment, let people know how you align yourself politically and define your political ideology succinctly and precisely (no more than a short paragraph). if you do not use labels to define yourself, let us know that, but still try to define your political ideology as succinctly and precisely as possible.

-DO NOT respond to anyone else's definitions. even if someone else has posted and, in your opinion, poorly defined your ideology, do not respond to them, but rather give your own definition.

-if you can't seem to define your ideology succinctly or precisely, then it is likely that you have never thought critically about your ideology. i recommend that you think critically about it and try your hardest after brainstorming to do so.

it is my hope that we get an idea of which people do not truly understand their ideologies, and maybe this experiment can provoke those people to dig a little deeper and think more critically about what they believe.

since i started the thread, i will begin...

political ideology: mutualism - a form of libertarian socialism

libertarianism - the idea that any form of authority (ie: the state, various forms of hierarchy, etc.) must meet a burden of proof to justify the necessity of its own existence and, upon failing to meet that burden of proof, should be replaced by more egalitarian structures.

socialism - workers' control over the means of production

more specifically, mutualism is a form of socialism in which workers control the means of production either as individual artisans/merchants/sole proprietors (without employees working for them) or as worker-owners within a larger worker cooperative (business which is directly owned and operated on an equal basis by its work force) through a free market.

reply to post by eboyd


People just say stupid things to get you going.

People like us, who are "awake" and concerned about the long-term social goals and do not care about what category we belong in, will eventually hold ground in the political sphere.

I wouldn't even worry about someone's point-of-view unless they point a gun at your head and demand compliance. It's OK to be in the middle, and it's OK to change your mind if someone brings forth a new idea, or better science.

Originally posted by badconduct
reply to post by eboyd

 

People just say stupid things to get you going.

People like us, who are "awake" and concerned about the long-term social goals and do not care about what category we belong in, will eventually hold ground in the political sphere.

I wouldn't even worry about someone's point-of-view unless they point a gun at your head and demand compliance. It's OK to be in the middle, and it's OK to change your mind if someone brings forth a new idea, or better science.

edit on 10-4-2012 by badconduct because: (no reason given)

very thoughtful post, and i largely agree. i realize that this thread was very emotionally charged on my part. there will be no progress if the minds of the people are stagnate. it enrages me so much that the majority of people (as far as what i have observed) have confined themselves to an argument between neo-liberal and neo-conservative ideologies and have forced themselves to think so one-dimensionally.

i am not the type of person who denies that there are legitimate differences between the left and the right, as i am a student of classical politics and personally a proponent of a left-wing ideology, but people who refuse to use their intellect and humble themselves enough to concede to an argument from the "other side" make social and political progress next to impossible.

It's a pattern here on ATS

Repeat the same things over and over, make people
scared and then reenforce the fear with new expansions of fear.

As far as the person you are talking about...

It is simple manipulation

He asks you to prove and defend things he has made up.
The bait is, he makes it sound like you believe in that
stuff in the first place, which convinces you to engage
in a "discusion", that is designed to reinforce the things
he made up in the first place.

Look, I can do it

"Since all of you love homosexuals and Muslims, why
are you always so racist? Is that why you hate freedom?"

He's a Neocon, par for the course dude

reply to post by eboyd


Can't do it.

To many variable and life is complicated as it is.

Ok...color me lazy

As an anarchist I believe violence by the state can't be justified, its coercive practices have gone on for too long as a stain on human civilization and I hope dearly one day hierarchical establishments that declare themselves a jurisdiction for the monopoly on violence will be destroyed.

I believe that property is theft, what a worker does with his colleagues shouldn't be for sale until they agree to it; while no you can't argue me about how much your toothbrush is your property it's a hygienic issue don't be daft.

I think signal wants to be free and that trademarks and copyright, patents and lawyers stand in the way of human progress.

So, in short I believe what other anarchists believe because they told me so, and I'm a free thinker.