Post your political compass and 3 facts about your political views here!

Post your political compass and 3 facts about your political views here!
1: I believe in a strict but trustworthy government
2: I believe the majority of people, the environment and the average worker are our top priorities
3: Im strongly against religious, especially Islamic extremism and am disgusted that Sweden is letting in refugees at the rate it is.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=eVXLw0bKs9Y
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Libertarian right wing reporting in

*tips top hat*

You sound like a goddamn commie.

...

Enjoy getting gang-raped by rapscallions

moderate libertarian

I believe that if you are not hurting someone else, you should be legally allowed to do literally anything.

I believe all levels of government should actively be downwards-accountable.

I believe that Fair Tax would work and should be implemented.

>Implying thats not already happening in our happy "democracy".

I'll take structural violence over anal violence any day. At least you can manage some illusion of self-respect.

1. Gulag reactionary capitalists who attempt to sabotage achieving full communism.

2. Completely agnostic state. Citizens allowed to gold religious beliefs but no government officals.

3. Worldwide communism.

maybe I am
youtube.com/watch?v=eVXLw0bKs9Y

gulag fixes everything, user.

Sounds like someone is afraid to defend themselves.

...

damn you're one average motherfucker

get off Sup Forums

the dubs have spoken

bump

1. I believe it is the state's job to combat poverty, not the individual's responsibility to fight for their wages.

2. I believe that preventing any sane individual who is not a threat to themselves or others from possessing a firearm is wrong.

3. I believe that both the concepts of benevolent dictatorship and democracy are flawed for the same reason: too many dumb people in this world will ruin it either way.

>there is no greater hindrance to freedom than poverty
>the government serves the people, not the other way around
>workers, not the bourgeoisie or the state, should control the means of production

...

distribute those trips evenly among the commune you filthy kulak

1. Jesus Christ our lord and savior is above the law.
2. Jesus Christ our lord and savior is the only thing above the law.
3. Socialism is an attempt to prevent people from getting what's coming to them, which is why it will always fail. In nature things tend toward the lowest energy level, so (human, nonhuman) nature will always chip away at forced equality.

>muh human nature meme
Human nature is a product of environment

An environment which has bred humans to fight for their own prosperity. You cannot have prosperity when everyone is forced to be equal, and you cannot have a government that won't cheat its own system for benefit.

...

...

>all government is inherently corrupt
>privately owned multinational corporations are ok tho

Left libertarian.

1. Said Bernie should run since I heard him speak on the Iraq war and Iran in 2003, basically exactly the same positions

2. I love capitalism in the 1950s model, so absolutely not anticapitalism. Just feel that capitalism should be, as intended, a force that moves us away from feudalistic society rather than towards it

3. Voted libertarian in the past (Ron Paul, Bob Bar, Gary Johnson) and Obama the first time

>You cannot have prosperity when everyone is forced to be equal.

Fucking this

>all government is inherently corrupt
I didn't say that, i said people were competitive and greedy. We can put systems in place to minimize their effect on the larger system.
>privately owned multinational corporations are ok tho
I took this test a few months ago to get the result i posted, so i don't know if i answered in favor of multinational corps either. Probably did. I believe in regulating them to as little degree as is necessary for a pleasant world, which is why i'm only about halfway across the chart rather than at the end of it.

>we can put systems in place
*checks was probably a more familiar word to use here.

Green square, so Libertarian Left.

1. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
2. Capitalism needs some regulations, unless you want to see society be ruined by sociopaths. (more than it already is.)
3. You can believe whatever objectively untrue fairy tale book you want. You cannot force me to do the same, whether through outright statements or by tainting the laws with your views.

1. War should be made only as a last resort and in self defense
2. Quality health care should be a right in a civilised society, not a privilege for those able to pay
3. Taxes should fall most heavily on the wealthy as they are the most able and the least harmed by paying them.

ayy

Capitalism began as a philosophy after the French Revolution overthrowing the Louis dynasty. In France at that time, there was no meritocracy - that is, it did not matter how hard you worked; you could not get ahead. The work you produced was confiscated by the Crown. The aristocrats had all the money and all the power; the people existed in this system, apparently, to enrich the landed gentry.

--

John slaves away in Bob's field, dreaming of equality. No matter how much work he puts in, he cannot get ahead because Bob controls his land and collects the fruits of his labor by force. Bob has the power to confiscate his goods, keeping him in poverty. Meanwhile, Bob collects the fruits of Jim's labor and lives an opulent wealthy life without actually producing any of his own wealth. However, Jim's only opportunity to sustain a reliable income and guarantee food and shelter for himself and his family was to acquiesce; to surrender to the system and let Bob rule him.

__

The anger at this system - a form of slavery - boiled over until the people revolted, overthrew the King, sent him to the guillotine, and put in place the system of capitalism. The means of production - the factories, the wheat that would become bread - were to be considered private property, owned by the people who invested in them or bought them. With hard work one could advance - he could start as a poor man but through hard work could become very wealthy.

The idea, again, was meritocracy - that wealth and success should be granted to those who work for it rather than those who inherited it, and that every person should be free from indentured servitude to aristocracy.

As capitalism's principles took root across Europe and spread out to America - the idea that man should be free to create his own destiny and succeed or fail based on his merit - some began to see problems with capitalism. The dynamics of capitalism remained too similar in their view to the feudalism that preceded it.

__

John slaves away in Bob's factory, dreaming of equality. No matter how much work he puts in, he cannot get ahead because Bob controls his wages. Bob has the power to fire him and to withhold benefits, keeping him in poverty. Meanwhile, Bob collects the fruits of Jim's labor and lives an opulent wealthy life without actually producing any of his own wealth. However, Jim's only opportunity to sustain a reliable income and guarantee food and shelter for himself and his family was to acquiesce; to surrender to the system and let Bob rule him.

__

This was the way they saw Capitalism; in their view, the system remained materially equivalent; the changes in society were merely cosmetic. The anger at this system - a form of slavery, in their estimation - boiled over until the people revolted, overthrew the Bourgeroisie, sent them to the gulags, and put in place the system of communism. The means of production - the factories, the wheat that would become bread - were to be considered public property, owned by the people who for whom the products were created. This was to become the system that Capitalism failed to become - one in which labor was appropriately rewarded and every person would be free from indentured servitude to aristocracy.

a lot of fucking libtards and commiefags itt!

All of you need to get off the Internet and get lives

1. Fuck niggers
2. Fuck faggots
3. Fuck kebabs

1. All human interaction should be voluntary.
2. Because the state is inherently violent, it is morally wrong.
3. Without a state, by current western beliefs, with time, any significant population that abolishes the state in the west would tend towards what is referred to as "anarcho-capitalism."

Comrade John slaves away in the State's factory, dreaming of freedom. No matter how much work he puts in, he cannot get ahead because the State controls his wealth. The State has the power to assign him a role in life which he cannot move out of. Meanwhile, the State collects the fruits of Comrade John's labor and those in political power live opulent wealthy lives without actually producing any of their own wealth. However, John's only opportunity to sustain a reliable income and guarantee food and shelter for himself and his family is to acquiesce; to surrender to the system and let the State rule him.

_______

The problem is not capitalism; the problem is not communism; the problem is not feudalism; the problem is not socialism. The problem is that power corrupts.

The extreme end of capitalism is that even people can be personal property; the extreme end of Socialism is that property does not rightfully exist. Most will find it logical that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. It seems that the cause of every revolution by the People has been to throw off the shackles of inequality and servitude, pushing for greater freedom and less control over their lives by those who would control them in one way or another, usually by forcing them into indentured servitude - - whether government, slave owner, bank, or business. If the ultimate goal is to maximize individual freedom and autonomy,

it seems that no system devised will be absolutely perfect; power structures can and always will be corrupted by the greedy and power-hungry.

Upton Sinclair's book "The Jungle" did a brilliant job of showing this principle in action under a capitalist system. Long hours of backbreaking work for poverty wages is basically indistinguishable from the indentured servitude of Feudalism. In what way, after all, are there effective differences in the life of the workers? If you work very hard, have no realistic opportunity to advance, and can only cover living expenses with no money left over – what is the actual difference between what you do and slavery?

...

uh im actually a nihilist

Most economic systems believe the principle that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” and capitalism is no different. That is to say that success “spills over” onto others. When a car company does well, for instance, its profits are shared among its employees in the form of raises and bonuses. These employees are then able to spend more money – they might buy new furniture or appliances, hire someone to give their kids music lessons, etc – and thus the “rising tide” of success has lifted multiple “boats.” The car company’s success has now contributed to the success of appliance salespeople, furniture makers, and music teachers who can in turn afford more things… and the cycle continues. This is the ideal at the heart and soul of the concept of capitalism.

There are, however, two theories about how this system is best created and how its successes are best achieved. Traditional capitalism held that the more money was given to those who demanded goods, the more demand there would be. After all, it is demand which necessitates supply, and nobody will rush to create a supply of things for which demand does not exist. Traditional capitalism is also known as “bottom-up” capitalism, because in this model wealth is created by the working class – those producing the actual goods and those buying the actual goods.

To bolster and support this type of capitalism, both Democrats and Republicans since the Great Depression and up until Ronald Reagan applied the same strategy: enact economic policies that focused on the poor and working class. At one point – under a Republican no less – the highest earners were taxed at over 90% (of course with loopholes it was more like 50%)! The more money the more people had, the more they would be able to spend; the more money turns hands, the healthier the economy. This principle is known as “velocity of money,” and countries with high velocity of money have strong economies. A surge in buying led to greater wealth among employers (they were still filthy rich and got richer), a surge in entrepreneurship, and even the formation of mega-corporations. In the meantime the lower class – the ones buying and creating the goods – saw their material wealth and standard of living increase exponentially.

Post your compass. Nihlists can end up with all sorts of conclusions about politics, probably because their decisions are so arbitrary and worthless.

The other, newer idea of capitalism is a distortion and a reversal of this dynamic. Called “Supply-Side economics,” “Trickle-down,” or “Reaganomics,” this modern theory holds that economic policy should not be focused on the workers and buyers (the “demand side”) but rather on the employers (the “supply side”). The theory held that the more money and freedom the employers had, the more they would be able to produce. With less taxation, cheaper, more abundant goods would flood the market and goods would be more affordable. Plus, increased profits from a company would affect its workers positively by means of pay raises (“profit-sharing”). Cheaper goods and higher wages – what could go wrong?

1: People need to do what they're told and get over their silly problems with authority.
2: The Nation serves The People
3: The People serve the Nation

A system like Reagan’s would only work if the cost of living went down or if wages rose commensurate to the cost of living, and only if those that produce the goods did so using American labor. However, wages are allowed to stagnate and the goods in question are not produced here. And furthermore, increasing the supply of something is no guarantee that demand will exist. For demand to exist for a good, customers must first be able to afford the good. Why on earth did they try to fix something that wasn’t broken?

>capitalism is the best economic system
>republic is the best political system
>i don't care what you do, just so long as it's not hurting anyone and it's on your property
>abortion should be monetized outside of rape and health complications, it's not my fault you're a slut
>the medical industry should be public, including pharmacies, and everyone deserves basic health care but there are better alternatives based on what you can pay
>laws should be based on you preventing harm to others, not preventing harm to yourself
>the bill of rights is essential
>if you have genetic defects you shouldn't be aloud to reproduce

Reaganomics does not in any way represent conservative values or capitalism. Here is why:

-Capitalism was envisioned to be beneficial for all people, a step away from the dynamics of feudalism. As demonstrated, Reaganomics does the opposite of this. It is therefore not capitalism but a corporate type of feudalism. Even Ron Paul has said as much.

-Conservatism seeks to limit waste, but Reaganomics drives homelessness and poverty – things that are very expensive to deal with. This is not only wasteful to the economy itself, it increases government spending.

-Capitalism is about entrepreneurship, competition, and self-determination; but entrepreneurs cannot compete against mega-corporations who undercut them. Entrepreneurship is down dramatically because, among other reasons, new businesses fail far more often than they used to. Despite the charge that Democrats favor socialism, the fact remains that since the advent of Third Way economics, bottom-up capitalism exited the mainstream and Reaganomics took its place. This shift away from economic policy that favors Labor and toward favoring Supply-Side is precisely the opposite of socialism. By means of illustration, Bernie Sanders, when confronted over his self-description as a “socialist,” said he was “not quite so socialist as Eisenhower.” And Eisenhower was a Republican!

oh and socialism is the worst idea, i don't want to be equal at the bottom

Are you me?

uh idk
i can't really side with anything because they're all stupid in their own way
nd u kno like nothing even matters that too u kno dood

So what is this Democratic Socialism that I believe in?

1. An economic system practiced by FDR, Eisenhower, and Truman, in which economic policy is leveraged to advance velocity of money, with the understanding that the more that more people can spend the greater the economy will be and the lesser the burden of welfare will be to support the under-class; and

2. A philosophy of civics that focuses on allocating tax money on public works projects that benefit the public as a whole, with an understanding that convenience saves taxpayers time and money, and that taxpayers should see a return on the money they pay into the system.

It's just old school capitalism rather than neoconservatism, is what it is.

...

So there, I'm done. Sorry for all the text.

The point is that the point of capitalism was to create a meritocracy. If we have feudalism and wage slavery and oligarchy instead, capitalism is not doing its job.

I believe in capitalism, but I don't believe in market anarchy. There's a reason they passed the Sherman Anti-Trust act, and there is a reason they're ignoring it today. Follow the money... and next time, vote for a Bernie Sanders.

Says the guy on the fucking internet. Get off the internet and go to the gulag reactionary fuck.

Socialism/Communism doesn't mean equal poverty. Congrats on be living the capitalist and bourgeois propaganda and brainwashing. Socialism/Communism means equal prosperity. Together we thrive. Divided we die.

...

a chain is as strong as it's weakest link, i will not provide for those who will do nothing

i don't know anyone in that picture but they are probably artists and whatnot, it's a little less than one percent of artists that actually make enough to live

Oh see there's another misconception you capitalist sheep think. You think socialists are okay with people not working. On the contrary. Most socialists believe in punishment for those who refuse to work for the greater good because they are no better than capitalist leeches and are in a roundabout way exploiting the workers. In my opinion, those who are able to work and are given opportunities to work (which in ideal socialism the state would provide many of those) but refuse to work go to gulags for forced labor. The capitalists and reactionaries would most likely be the ones who refuse to work because they'd have such an issue with giving to the greater good and not being selfish fucks so they deserve forced labor.

Bernie Sanders guy from above here.

And I'm against the socialism/communism you describe. There is a flaw in actual socialism in the Marx/Engels dialectics and that is that human beings like to achieve things and they like independence. If you remove all independence and you try to make sure nobody has more - because personal property doesn't exist - you have removed all motivation for many people. Not all, but a good number of people.

What drives me crazy about communists - and capitalists - is that it seems communists can only detect the horrors of private enterprise and can only notice oppression when it comes from business. And capitalists can only freak out about government interference but never notice the wage slavery that their jobs and health care costs have forced them into. Pisses me right off.

Too much power in government is bad. Too much power in industry is bad. There needs to be capitalism, but there needs to be strict controls on it or it will spiral out of control into oligarchy.

>a strict but trustworthy government
Anybody in a position of power is not trustworthy

The motivation is a better life for all. Don't know why you point out that you're a Sanders supporter. You aren't anywhere near a socialist so don't claim you're a DemSoc. If anything you're a social democrat which is a waste of time.

Exactly... how do you give government "strict" power and then expect to keep it trustworthy? You surrendered all your oversight power by allowing them "strict" power. Derp.

and yet every socialist state that has implemented this idea has failed. you cannot force people to work otherwise there is no drive to do so, no drive to better yourself. socialism is an idea told by the power hungry and believed by the lazy

Every socialist state has improved the life of those in the country compared to how they lived before socialism by insane amounts. Most of them failed because of capitalist sabotage mainly from the USA because it's the Murican way or no way. Seriously fuck the USA.

...

I consider myself a democratic socialist and leftist libertarian. I understand the motivation is a better life for all, and you and I can operate on that motivation; but don't base a system off of it because the general human being is not on the same wavelength. A good portion of human beings are acquisitive or have that Ayn Rand / Nietzsche "Ubermensch" mentality.

It's great to imagine a system such as you describe, but it's not realistic because that's how ENLIGHTENED people think, and the number of people who are not enlightened are.... there's a lot of 'em. You gotta account for reality when building a system.

You're thinking of nepotism and inheritance. Where'd that money come from in the first place?

Perfect example is the USSR which went from practically late 18th century peasant state to a global superpower in the matter of about 20 years. Something the USA took hundreds of years of exploitation to get to.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah

You know you're a national socialist, right?

And where did the food shortage meme originate from, was it America? Oh no that's right, it was the USSR.

You are not a Democratic Socialist. Go to any actual far-leftist and they'll tear your shit up for claiming that. Also, humans don't operate on that same wavelength? That's what proper education is for, not bourgeois lies that force generation upon generation into serving the bourgeois interests.

I am a fascist. It's weird, but upper left corner for me.
1. What people want can generally be boiled down to "a bigger whatever than the neighbor." So to return to real family values, I'll give everyone what they need: a steady job with livable pay and decent hours, and enough time and money to be with family.
2. People are a herd of animals. They need security, stability, and choices to be happy. When they cannot choose to be a useless fuckbag, they will not.
3. Imperialism is bad. I am for paying worldwide sources fair prices for their product because we can succeed when everyone succeeds.

North Korea really is best Korea.

Food shortage brought upon by environmental issues and the Kulaks destroying at least 50% of the food they were outputting. Again, sabotage is the only thing that's haulted socialism.

Both inherent in capitalism. Implied. Like exploitation, racism, and sexism.

You've swallowed quite a bit of kool aid friend.

I learned about this from my liberal as hell Econ professor; the choice was made to focus on industrialization at the cost of the people.

Nope, late 18th century which comparatively looking at Russia in 1916 to the US in 1916, that's what it looked like.

The 19th century Russian tsardom was no worse off than 19th century Germany, Austria, Sweden, or China today (minus tech levels). Explain why Britain, Europe's defender of capitalism, has always been better off than Russia.

The USSR inherited the Russian Empire they didn't start out as 13 little colonies with a couple million people

1. Who the fuck cares
2. No matter what side or what you believe in you'll never get it the way you want it
3. Politics is just another form of distraction to keep you guys busy with circle jerking while the elites plot all against you

Communists can still have houses. It's not like, the peoples house, the people's alarm clock, the people's fucking dining room table. You can still have shit. You just cannot amass enough to put others into poverty.
If you're only motivation is to have more than someone else, than you are human cancer.

Right people for a right world :)

Yes there was rapid industrialization but I'm not drinking fucking kool-aid you dumb shit. It's well known that the Kulaks destroyed at least 50% of their crops because they did not agree with the collectivization. You're a waste of my time.

>inherent in capitalism

u fokn wot m8

Even if we viewed capitalists as the scum you think they are, would they really care if a black guy would make them more money than a white guy? Of course not, it's all about profits.

How fuckin old are you anyway? You have the ideological consistency of a goldfish.

"Proper education"

Meaning dissent is seen as a mental disorder. Reeducation camps. Freedom of thought and speech curtailed.

You want everybody on the same wavelength thinking the same thoughts, that's craziness. It's not cool and it's highly authoritarian.

I'm on the left but I am also strongly libertarian. I will take Bakunin over Marx any day... You can criticize bakunin for being too anti-authoritarian, but don't tell me I'm not actually leftist. you are conflating authoritarianism with leftism.

So your country faces a food shortage, why focus on food production amirite?

Filthy fucking commies.

Center left is the only true scale.

It's being a contemporary moderate; a centrist who acknowledges the rights of people.

I don't get why you'd try to be anything else, it's as sensible as it gets without having some extreme backswinging ideology.

1. the state is an institution feeding off the fear and greed of the populace, and must therefore be heavily restricted

2. corporations are not people, but are subject to the same amorality; they must be heavily regulated so as to ensure they work for the
betterment of the society in which they reside

3. the civil liberties with which we hold dear are not to be infringed upon by both those of malicious intent nor those of benevolent intent; freedom is the ultimate precipice from which a truly prosperous society can emerge

Forgot pic.

Perhaps it was, but the nationwide food and distribution failure was a direct result of power struggle within the party. The problem was that the people had ceased to be the government and vice versa - the most real and devastating problem to any government system.
Take the mass starvation of Ukraine for instance - there is no proof that Stalin had any idea that was even happening. That is NOT like Stalin to do and any reading of non-American sources can tell you that.

Fucking exactly.

What am I Sup Forums?

Meant to be a response to the well educated comrade.

>not like Stalin to do

Come on man, we're talking about the guy who left his own son to rot in jail? Who purged the entire political and military class of Russia?

Fucking come on.

They did. They had a collectivization policy on food. The Kulaks sabotaged it. Read. A. Book.