<ideology name> means to me ....(xxx)

[ll74]

Pick a political or other ideology and tel everyone what it means to you.

This would work best without back and forth IMHO, but I won't be policing it as I have on other threads.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

 

[ll74]

Conservatism means to me law and order and values. It depends on honesty and integrity and above all the will of the people.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

I belong to both the Get Off My Lawn and the You Leave Me Alone, I Leave You Alone parties. We don't vote much but we do have wild mixers where we all stand around for a minute, say "fuck this" and go home.

 

[ffish1]

Pick a political or other ideology and tel everyone what it means to you.

This would work best without back and forth IMHO, but I won't be policing it as I have on other threads.

jaw-dropping, your lack of insight....

you talk about having to police threads, or about ideologies
when you're the biggest spammer on Lit.

 

[JohnEBbad]

Socialism

What the American Left has come to embrace as The Road to Utopia...

Friedrich von Hayek wrote that one under the white-oppression title of The Road to Serfdom.

 

[JohnEBbad]

jaw-dropping, your lack of insight....

you talk about having to police threads, or about ideologies
when you're the biggest spammer on Lit.

*chuckle*

He doesn't police threads –– he polices posts (/posters mainly).

 

[ll74]

jaw-dropping, your lack of insight....

you talk about having to police threads, or about ideologies
when you're the biggest spammer on Lit.

Excellent contribution.

Thanks for your insight

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Conservatism means limited government, low taxes, strong military, originalist-textualist interpretation interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[adrina]

Conservatism means limited government, low taxes, strong military, originalist-textualist interpretation interpretation of the Constitution.

Very close. It actually means the facade, the appearance of those. Without the reality. I've got to give props to the conservative propaganda marketing crew. They did a bang up job.

The actual reality is intrusive government and policies favoring the very wealthy.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Conservatism is the favoring or the conservation of traditions/culture and status quo over new or experimental ideas, whatever those traditions maybe. OR..... or.... a return to a tradition that was left behind.

A "conservative" varies by society/nation...... for example, Russian conservatives want the USSR and socialism back, US conservatives tend to look at the USA's classical liberal roots for what they think should be and it's the "progressives" who are pushing for socialism.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Conservatism means limited government, low taxes, strong military, originalist-textualist interpretation interpretation of the Constitution.

Only in the USA.

In, other nations conservatism can mean something totally different, communism even.

Very close. It actually means the facade, the appearance of those. Without the reality. I've got to give props to the conservative propaganda marketing crew. They did a bang up job.

The actual reality is intrusive government and policies favoring the very wealthy.

The intrusive government and policies favoring the very wealthy are not part of conservatism as an ideal.

Those are the side effects of corruption from both sides, and if anyone is favoring the very wealthy lately it's been the "progressive" Democrats, you know, the party of Wall St. big pharma and now even the military industrial complex as they become the pro-war party.

 

[JohnEBbad]

There has never, ever been a society where the wealthy were not favored.

Even Communism produced "wealthy."

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Liberalism...... liberalism is a political ideology that promotes, enhances and protects both civil and individual liberties over various forms of authority and control.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

There has never, ever been a society where the wealthy were not favored.

Even Communism produced "wealthy."

Yes, that's what makes socialist lefties so fucking dumb. They think the degenerate junkie in the street is of the same value as Elon Musk....because all humans are the same!! EQUITY ABOVE ALL ELSE!!!! And of course the only way to help the bum is to DESTROY THE RICH!!!! TAKE EVERYTHING FROM THE FARMERS AND FACTORIES!!!

This is why they ALWAYS end up starving themselves to death and turning their society/nation into a third world shit hole.

 

[JohnEBbad]

Agreed.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes, that's what makes socialist lefties so fucking dumb. They think the degenerate junkie in the street is of the same value as Elon Musk....because all humans are the same!! EQUITY ABOVE ALL ELSE!!!! And of course the only way to help the bum is to DESTROY THE RICH!!!! TAKE EVERYTHING FROM THE FARMERS AND FACTORIES!!!

This is why they ALWAYS end up starving themselves to death and turning their society/nation into a third world shit hole.

Socialism does not equal communism.

In most developed countries, socialism means supporting the unemployed, the sick, and the elderly from Taxation while still allowing capitalism to thrive. They all have a variable support mechanism and greater or lesser freedom for companies to grow and develop. True socialism would nationalise all means of production and that has been found to be very inefficient. The profit motive is much more likely to produce a balanced economy.

Socialism only equals communism in the US right-wing's terms of abuse, and they don't understand that socialism can be a part of government without stifling capitalism.

Pure Communism has never been tried in any country because it doesn't work. The Soviet collective farms were the worst-run part of teh USSR's agricultural production because no one had any interest in making it profitable. They were directed from above with no recognition of local circumstances. They had production norms to meet despite adverse weather or labour shortages.

 

[JohnEBbad]

I side with von Mises in that Socialism and Communism are economically the same system.

He wrote a wonderful book about it, Socialism.

 

[oggbashan]

I side with von Mises in that Socialism and Communism are economically the same system.

He wrote a wonderful book about it, Socialism.

And both he and you are wrong. Venezuela is often claimed to be the result of socialism. It isn't. It is the result of greedy politicians grabbing what they could and letting their people struggle.

That is what has been wrong with some attempts at socialism (or communism). The few benefit while the people are exploited.

But socialism as practised in the Uk and European countries is nothing like Venezuela or so-called communist states. In them, there is a mixed economy that provides support for the needy while allowing capitalism to thrive. But in the US 'socialism' is a dirty word even though it has many 'socialist' policies such as welfare and the VA.

 

[JohnEBbad]

That's an excuse. It's a poor excuse.

Socialism fails because it concentrates power and it is the ambitious and ruthless who are most attracted to power.

Yeah. Be honest. England had to pull back from Socialism because it almost killed you as a viable country.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Socialism does not equal communism.

No but communism IS the flavor that socialism at a national level in the environment of modern nations and politics tends to favor.

Modern nations either have to allow dissenters and non-participants to exist and compromise so we can all live together, in which case you'll likely get a mixed economy where some level of social programs are funded by what are largely market economies. I think most modern 1st world nations have figured this out.

OR if they're really intent on forcing all socialism all the way to 11!!!! They will have to get coercive and that seems to be a rather damning path to take a nation down, historically speaking.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

And both he and you are wrong. Venezuela is often claimed to be the result of socialism. It isn't. It is the result of greedy politicians grabbing what they could and letting their people struggle.

That is what has been wrong with some attempts at socialism (or communism). The few benefit while the people are exploited.

But socialism as practised in the Uk and European countries is nothing like Venezuela or so-called communist states. In them, there is a mixed economy that provides support for the needy while allowing capitalism to thrive. But in the US 'socialism' is a dirty word even though it has many 'socialist' policies such as welfare and the VA.

Oh you're one of those "REAL socialism has never been tried!!" types... JFC...

Venezuela is absolutely socialist.....and their system failed because socialism sucks.

The fact that systems like socialism are so prone to corruption doesn't make them not socialist, it makes socialism not so great.

And mixed economies = not socialist economies. Social welfare supported by capitalism isn't socialism....it's a mixed economy.

 

[oggbashan]

No but communism IS the flavor that socialism at a national level in the environment of modern nations and politics tends to favor.

Modern nations either have to allow dissenters and non-participants to exist and compromise so we can all live together, in which case you'll likely get a mixed economy where some level of social programs are funded by what are largely market economies. I think most modern 1st world nations have figured this out.

OR if they're really intent on forcing all socialism all the way to 11!!!! They will have to get coercive and that seems to be a rather damning path to take a nation down, historically speaking.

Where are the countries that meet your OR? North Korea?

That isn't communism. That is hereditary autocracy. The leader is the son of the previous leader and the population can starve, can't leave, and must comply so that the rulers can live in luxury. That isn't communism or socialism. That is rule and exploitation to benefit just a very few.

Democratic socialism is nothing like communism. All it does is provide for the weaker members of the community, without state ownership of a command economy which are part of the essentials of communism.

 

[oggbashan]

Oh you're one of those "REAL socialism has never been tried!!" types... JFC...

Venezuela is absolutely socialist.....and their system failed because socialism sucks.

The fact that systems like socialism are so prone to corruption doesn't make them not socialist, it makes socialism not so great.

And mixed economies = not socialist economies. Social welfare supported by capitalism isn't socialism....it's a mixed economy.

Oh, so you're one of those who believe the US right's bullshit about socialism.

It hasn't -because it doesn't work. Nor does communism.

Venezuela SAYS it is socialist. It has some of the attributes but it was fucked up because the politicians were money-grabbing swine. They were a rich oil-producing country but the politicians bribed the electorate with benefits the country couldn't afford while destroying its wealth-producing oil industry.

Even under the Democrats, the US has no prospect of trying socialism. There might be some tweaking of the welfare and health systems, but nothing significant will change.

The US right is so terrified of 'socialism' that they see it under every bush.

They are afraid of something that will never happen and use the term to attack the Democrats.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Supply side economics is the ideology that tax cuts for the rich will balance the budget, and eventually pay off the national debt. No amount of failure persuades Republican leaders that this is not true.