What is your political ideology and how did you arrive at it?

What is your political ideology and how did you arrive at it?

Does anyone else not really know where they stand politically?

I tend to read mostly Marxist thinkers, simply because they put out the most theory. But I also like reading and listening to conservatives like Roger Scruton. I'd probably consider myself libertarian Marxist, but at the same time I have quite a few traditionalist/conservative views. I'm also an atheist but I can see the value of faith.

I can sympathise with pretty much any politic I read, but when I put the book down I don't know where I stand.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ph1Oepre4mg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In other words, "the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

>Does anyone else not really know where they stand politically?

Yes. Currently flirting with geolibertarianism.

libertarian/conservative, I always envied the united states and hated my country so the school brainwash doesnt worked with me and I learned everything on youtube and forums

Have you considered that the places you go to learn things might be too insular?

Broadly Marxist. It is pretty clear that libertarian-authoritarian is a tactical solution and situational choice, rather than conviction.

Generally, Soviet sympathies are common in Russia, but I embraced the ideology itself in the university, although, entering adulthood and job, I further realised its validity in practice.

I'm a fuckin Nazi my dude

I've been at every point of the political compass. At one point I was an LGBT+-loving, marxist, jew-sympathising faggot who thought he knew everything.

Over the years, the more I found out about the world and people, the more I realised how many social veils we live under. I realised how the math didn't add up in saying that blacks were our equals. 200,000 years and they invented nothing, years later, presented with all the technology in the world, and they've only managed to huff poop and kill each other. Nothing will ever convince me that they're my equals.

I learned that there has not been a single anti-nationalist movement or event in which a jew did not take part. How a minority that makes up less than 1% of the population can be involved in the affairs of the world is curious enough, but that their very religion emphasises loyalty to their creed over any nation, and that they were universally hated in every country they lived in is indicative enough of the insidious nature of their people.

That democracy is a fickle institution dependant only on the contingent opinion of masses that can be swayed at the slightest emotional provocation, to elect people loyal only to themselves and the people who fund them who will say anything to keep their position, is enough for me to reject it outright.

Finally, I read through Mein Kampf, saw the success and happiness of Nazi Germany, and saw that all the things Hitler deemed ill in his nation were happening in my own. That was when the final shutter fell from my eyes, and the truth became clear.

tl;dr heil Hitler

Constitutional Convservative

Tea Party movement has helped to shape USA future in a very good way

Brexit supporter abroad

Seig heil my British friend. Let's make our countries better places.

>tfw you miss the 1488 get

Sounds like you've hopped from one ideology to another without giving much thought to any of them, finally landing on something which offers easy, superficial answers. Just my opinion desu

Need I say more?

What is constitutional? Are there somebody anticonstitutional? Or is it just a random "good" word like "progressive", "for prosperity" etc?

It wasn't really hopped, mate, this happened over the course of years and years, one step at a time. I didn't just jump from 'I

'Constitutional' implies that it must adhere to the Constitution of the United States, you know, the thing with all the ammendmemts and laws and shit our forefathers made and died for.

Interpretation of the Constitution lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is why it's such a big deal to get people like Neil Gorsuch on there, among others.

Anarcho fascism

Constitutional refers the "founding fathers" vision of America who wrote America's founding documents (Declaration of Indepence, Constitution, Bill of Rights)

USA is a Constitutional Republic

Self-Governance by (Christian) virtuous citizens

"judges like Neil Gorsuch"

amen countryman

>I further realised its validity in practice

Oh look, a total idiot.

>Anarcho fascism
mfw this is a real thing

How the fuck do you reconcile anti-statism and hyper-statism into one ideology?

circulation of elites - vilfredo pareto

>What is your political ideology
Nationalist Liberal

>How did you arrive at it
For ensuring the survival and prosperity of a nation and it's people and ensuring its values and its morality are not subverted in the process, I considered the past and found it all subject to the whims of the people and that no amount of checks and balances can undo evil committed by the people of the time.

Therefore for me the most important thing is the preservation of Christianity and it's institutions and teachings should be fostered and encouraged. They are the solution to the cries for social justice and at the same time enforces the need for order and civility.

To that end the People and the State serve each other. Liberty is granted by the State and the People submit their liberties to the interests of the Nation.

The UK came close to what I would consider Nationalist Liberal. Then fucked it all up after the two World Wars.

You willingly submit to a small group or tribe with the same values. There is no State making any law's. It's a Utopian meme politics anyway but I don't really care for anything in today's political spectrum. It's very primal and has the essence of a natural order in it.

Nowadays I'd consider myself a NRx faggot. Reading Hoppe and realising Ancapistan is literally impossible outside of maybe one or two cultures in the world (think Luxemburg and Switzerland) and very unique political situations (Kowloon) will do that to you.

No, what I was asking how labeling yourself a "constitutionalist" makes you different from someone else, and what does it have to do with American constitution.

>Constitutional' implies that it must adhere to the Constitution of the United States, you know, the thing with all the ammendmemts and laws and shit our forefathers made and died for.

So, do the democrats hate George Washington and want to annul the American constitution then?

>Interpretation of the Constitution lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, which is why it's such a big deal to get people like Neil Gorsuch on there, among others.

I'm fully aware. Supreme court is a conservative (not by ideology, but by nature) mechanism in American state: they, basically, maintain status quo and balance between different factions. Judge Gorsuchschschs is important not because he will somehow defend the constitution, but because he will represent the agenda of those who appointed him: Trump and the republicans, and do so for many years.

Libertarian National Socialist or something similar to it I'm kinda like you OP just with a more NatSoc outlook on things
that said though you can't always go through life without a firm belief in something otherwise you end up not really being confident in yourself and begin to start conforming to what others want you to be and not what you actually are
you may lose some friends along the way and even some family members but remember that if they hate you for your beliefs then they weren't really your friends anyway people should like each other for personality not political beliefs

>What is your political ideology

I have no fucking idea. I know what I believe but there's no label that completely describes it.

>It's a Utopian meme politics anyway
Oh great, so yet another ideology that has no possibility of successful practical manifestation?

Ideologies are systems. They only stand any possibility of working if EVERY point of the manifesto is implemented, which is never possible.

So why bother with an ideology

OP, forget ideology. It's the modern form of religious thought.

Start from principles that you know are unassailable. Forget the ideology meme, If you've relinquished all ideology then you're on the right path.

Marx is fantastic, though often wrong, in his analysis and criticism of the past. His work is well worth reading for that.

His ideas of what should come in the future are where he went off the rails. The same as every other ideologue ever.

>You have a different opinion so you are a fagget
You are a smart guy, it seems.

>libertarian Marxist.
Such a thing does not exist. Coercion is a spook.

Not Him but Less nullify and more "interpret with their own views on the world" where as many who describe them selves as "Constitutionalist" would rather interpret the constitution as it is written word for word

>I realised the practical validity of an ideology that has spectacularly failed, in theory and practice, in every single one of the dozens of attempted implementations worldwide.

Ignorance and narcissism. The two vital ingredients of Marxism.

I it has had realistic implementation all over Europe for instance, pre Roman Empire etc. Like every advanced civilization, even our global one, will fall at some point and then it's back to basics. It's basically just the starting brick to rebuild and form civilization again.

>Communism in underdeveloped countries didn't work

You don't say.

You would have to be dense not to know that socialism in the 21st century western world would be more successful.

We're already heading toward post-scarcity.
Communism doesn't necessarily have to realise itself through revolution. As a political arrangement which necessarily has Capital as its preceding form, me may simply slide into communism through having plenty.

Christian conservative here m8s

Pacifist Anarchist. Democracy is death to any country and war is slavery. Enlightened when I was 12 and the labour party gave up CND support just to get power and still failed.

>Ignorance and narcissism. The two vital ingredients of Marxism.

If someone is ignorant, it is only you, my friend.

Marxism is a founding ideology of almost every Labour and Social-democratic party in Europe, and was instrumental in setting up its modern system.

Marxism allowed Russia to catch up economically, become a superpower and a pioneer in science and technology.

Marxism allowed China an extraordinary rapid and stable development, almost to the status of superpower as well.

It retains a major influence in politics and academia all over the world.

Many of its' policies are universal. E.g. progressive tax and labour rights.

Its' performance is spectacular indeed, although it didn't fail, quite the opposite as a matter of fact.

The Soviet Union was not Marxist. The closest to Marx was China and that is at a stretch. Founder my fucking arse. Wanner-be plagiarist who lost his way when his friends decided not to share their ideas anymore.

Oops, wrong responce.

What I can't wrap my head around, is who is not constitutionalist. The only way to not be one is to break the constitutional law (or call for it), really, and nobody does that.

->

Conservative reactionary here.

I believe in rationality, no neverland-fag deportation solution to real-world problems.

Having a political ideology would require me to become a myopic idealogue. Labels are the weapon of left, and the left eats it's own so no thanks. Funny, isn't it, how ideologies have replaced religion? So strange to see things evolve this way, maybe mankind does have some biological inclination towards hardline beliefs after all.

You can't just say "I believe in rationality", retard. You don't get to decide whether or not you're rational. Do people identify as "irrational"? No.

>Labels are the weapon of the left

Was the irony of this statement lost on you?

It worked in pre-Roman times because tribal populations were small. Can it conceivably work in populations of over a few thousand?

Frankly even that number is way too high for a system with no central planning, consolidation of power or law-making body. These systems are inevitable once populations grow past a certain number.

This system would optimally work with a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred people per community, assuming that they're in a vacuum with no external threats to consider.

You're right that it could work if we went "back to basics" but that would also imply that the majority of the population has been wiped out. Not entirely undesirable, I'll admit.

>You would have to be dense not to know that socialism in the 21st century western world would be more successful.

You would have to be dense to think that economic inertia, and dictatorial control enjoyed by elites, in communist societies would be lessened given 21st century tech. You'd also have to be dense to forget that even Marx realised his system could only work globally.

20th century communist implementations proved that there is no such thing as equality and there never will be.

Western democracies, whose neo-liberal, globalist nature is inherently Trotskyist, have also proved that there is no such thing as equality. Power always coagulates, even more so with any attempt at socialism.

Any attempt at pursuing equality necessitates inequality.

youtube.com/watch?v=ph1Oepre4mg

youtube.com/watch?v=ph1Oepre4mg

Post-scarcity is nonsense. Scarcity is relative. Power is scarce and is the ultimate desire of all people. Control over social-relations, yes comrade?

There will always be people with more power, always people with more resources, always people who make decisions over your life that you will never be able to affect. Communism/socialism/marxism only magnifies this.

Marxism cannot eliminate the innate hierarchical laws of nature.

>>You would have to be dense not to know that socialism in the 21st century western world would be more successful.

Whoops see

Authoritarian Centrist. Basically, I'm willing to consider many options to solve different problems without the usual left/right partisanship, but I'm also know how important it is the preserve the culture, traditions and ethnic integrity of a nation and willing to go far in order to do so.

yeah well nobodies really a non-consitutionalist it's just that people interpret it in a different manner with some choosing to believe that those who wrote it wanted it to be interpreted differently as time went on and values changed and some saying that what is written is written and that it's meaning doesn't change simply because our viewpoints did

Centrist 'cus I think realpolitik is the only thing that matters

Explain the "realpolitiks"?

What in the absolute fuck is a libertarian marxist?? That's like being a fascist antifa.

Not at all. Communism for Marx was ultimately meant to be without government. The dictatorship of the proletariat. Anarcho-communism.

Libertarians were originally left anarchists.

After the left stole the word 'liberal' off modern day libertarians, we stole the word 'libertarian' from them.

But yeah, left anarchists aren't actually anarchists.

Left anarchists have always advocated for a more decentralised approach to communism or similar societies rather than orthodox Marxists.

Orthodox Marxists basically believe in three stages

Capitalism
to
State Communism
to
Full Communism (without government)

Libertarian Marxists just cut out the middle stage

ethnic libertiarian, maybe ethnic social market ( like Chile but with little leftist faggots)

>libertarian Marxist

You need to read more books. A lot more books.

>libertarian marxist
aka. filthy hippie with cognitive dissonance everywhere low IQ
weeeed and shieet

Essentially, yes.

Except they never get to 'full communism' unfortunately.

I thought what he said was fairly coherent, even though I don't agree with his conclusion.

I wish. I'm over-educated if anything. Like I said I don't have a solid ideology, that's just where most of my beliefs put me politically.

If you don't think that the terms libertarian and Marxist are compatible then you misunderstand them well enough I'm afraid.

I don't smoke weed, I think its mindrot. And I think hippies are ridiculous.

If you met me you'd probably think I was a centrist or conservative.

Communists/marxist social democrats and anarcho-communists have the same view of an ideal society.

However, anarcho-communists believe that the said society will, somehow, magically appear, while the Marxists assume that is is immediately impossible, and their task is to facilitate a smooth transition, implement some practical principles or simply manage a society well in the meantime.

>social democrats
Um no, social democrats are capitalists who want to "level the playing field" through government intervention in the economy.

Ancoms (which I don't identify as) believe that revolution will come about in much the same way as regular coms: Revolution. Just without a governmental stage. You can critique this of course.

Marxists, contrary to what you wrote, actually DO believe that communism is immediately possible. They believe that Capitalism has produced the means for Communism. Capitalism, as you should know, is a necessary stage in communism because (at the cost of alienation, suffering etc,) produces the means for a communistic society.

The above reason is why communism failed in your country. Because you lacked the means and had to accelerate industrialisation.

China's 'miracle' occurred when it dropped the strict Marxism and embraced the market.

>Flag
>Labour party.
>Marxist and partially a member of communist international.

>Marxists, contrary to what you wrote, actually DO believe that communism is immediately possible.
Marx:
>Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

In general, Marx believed that a fully mature capitalist society will start growing into a socialist one, and when that is reached, it will transform into a communist one. So no.
Lenin:
>The NEP is in earnest and long-term
Thus, he believed that even capitalism will persist in Russia for more than a lifetime.
Mao believed that it would only be possible in several hundred years.

>The above reason is why communism failed in your country.

It could not succeed as in reach communism itself. But the government fell because it lacked proper cadre rotation and plurality.

How is it any less strict now than then though?

Why do developing countries without any Marxism at all fail to replicate that miracle that you've put in quotation marks?

You read marxist thinkers, yet you are posting a picture of Roger Scruton

I'm basically a liberal (libertarian) at heart, but recognize the validity of value pluralism and the concomitant necessity of a leap of faith when it comes to human life. We have to chose, without any good rational, a certain way of life that is no more valid than some other, and use this position as a stake.

(This position doesn't lead you to an immigrant friendly outlook.)

The very quote of Marx you used proves my point.

The premises of communism are already in existence. Abolishing the state of things means reestablishing our relation to them. So no, Marx did not believe in a gradual movement into socialism, he believed in a (near) immediate one. This is the point of revolution. This is why the Communist Manifesto was written and disseminated in Marx's and Engels's lifetime

As for Lenin and Mao, we are not talking about them. Leninism and Maoism are not to be conflated necessarily with Marxism. They are two interpretations, not dogmas.

In the OP I wrote that I also read conservatives such as Scruton. Read it again.

I'd encourage you to read some of Ludwig von Mises' writings on the economics of Marxism.

He argued that without a price system, efficient resource allocation is impossible under socialism/communism.

If the material manages to change your mind and you want to continue looking at market economics, I'd suggest looking up neoclassical authors as Mises and most of the Austrian school have been largely superceded.