What Political Persuasion Are You?

[loveme4whoiam]

Dunno how to edit the poll choices, can a mod or someone help me out with that? To my mind, Far Left is Communist/Anarchist, Left is Liberal (true liberal, not like the Lib Dem party in the UK), Centre is I suppose independents, people who have a mix of beliefs, Right is Conservative views (or Labour views :dry:) and Far Right is Fascist. Of course, people might disagree with my definitions - if so say why please :D

 

By this, I mean that Communism is pie in the sky. No country or political state can have real equality when someone needs to be running the place, and therefore will inevitably be superior to others. And richer. And I understand this - some people have to be more "equal" than others. I don't like it, but it is a necessary evil.

 

Not true, at least in my opinion. In a true Communist society (which has never existed so far) there is no one person running things, or the concept of money. The process of direct democracy does away with any need for a representative, as the people can express their own wishes clearly. At the most there would be delegates; people who would be asked to put forward the arguments of one group in a committee, sort of like diplomats for countries now are delegates. They cannot change the beliefs of the country they represent, only argue those beliefs to others.

 

I like your sig by the way, is it a quote from a book? I'm sure I've read it somewhere.

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

 

I thought this was a ben Franklin quote, decrying conservatism and nationalism. It hardly defines liberalism, quite the opposite in fact. It can be applied to any Western society today in my opinion, especially the US with their Patriot Act *spits*.

 

And I'm sorry karkarinus, but those categories are totally off in the modern political landscape of the UK. The Conservatives are right-wing, the Labour Party (which as you say, should represent the working class and the left) is now New Labour and is as right-wing as the Tories, and the Lib Dems are drifting to the right in order to pinch votes from the Conservatives. The Left has no voice in British politics, unless you count the Solidarity party, which is frankly useless.

 

I join you in liking Lord Sutch, a great man. ANyone whose defence policy is to dye all the grass in Britain blue so we blend in with the sea is truly a man worth admiring :D. I think that the Monster Raving Looney party is now run by his cat, as per his will.

 

EDIT:- To take into account Alanador's post -

It seems politics gets overlooked as a profession in which someone can do massive amounts of good on a larger than your community, even on a global scale

 

That's because, unfortunately, it isn't an arena in which you can do large-scale acts of good. The system is too bent and broken for a single person to do ANYTHING productive. Which is whyyou join a party, which then makes you do thigns there way... And you get nothing done. However, I totally agree that political awareness is not given enough priority in education these days. The study of Sociology should be pushed so much more, as while it doesn't guide your beliefs, it does teach you to think and to question for yourselves. Of course, it never will be pushed for those exact reasons :dry:

[Alanador]

Goodmorning Karkarinus & Loveme, and anyone else reading (had a hard time continuing without saying hi). Well the definition I got for liberal specifically stated protection of civil liberties. The Civil Liberties issue is the core of my focus. Partiot Act I & II, the OHIO version of the Partiot Act, Army Order 210-35 (Civil Inmate Labor Program), the recent abuses of Emminent Domain for non public use. Army order 210-35 has some peculiar implications on liberties if abused, but unlike some other constitutionalists I can't see the direct adverse effects. You can search for it yourself at the Army's own website. Maybe we'll start another thread on it. The Patriot Acts are another issue. They are in fact using it in a case against a pedophile in Florida. Now I am torn, because I would heart, body and soul support sending this guy to whatever fate waits for him after his last breath is taken on this side of life. I wish it was used on a lesser crime that I could not feel so torn over it. I am sitting next to the 167 page collection now (HR 3162). Man....that's a whole other thread...

 

No biggy on the poll choice, at least we can figure it in after. I was hoping to see more voting goin on, maybe now that it's a little clearer more folks will kick in.

 

Ben Franklin used the quote in 1759 in "An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania". That is not to say he was not the author originally, but it's first use is credited to the assembly, though it is generally accepted that he is the author. So we are both right :)

[karkarinus]

"And I'm sorry karkarinus, but those categories are totally off in the modern political landscape of the UK. The Conservatives are right-wing, the Labour Party (which as you say, should represent the working class and the left) is now New Labour and is as right-wing as the Tories, and the Lib Dems are drifting to the right in order to pinch votes from the Conservatives. The Left has no voice in British politics, unless you count the Solidarity party, which is frankly useless.".

 

 

 

I do apologise. I have been away from Blighty since before Blair got into power. I was born under Jimmy Callaghan and brought up under the Thatcherite regime, when everything was a little more black-and-white. There were only really 3 parties worth mentioning: Left - Labour, Centre - Liberals, and Right - Tories. Is the new right-wing labour party still usuing the red rose as its avatar?

 

I like your sig by the way, is it a quote from a book? I'm sure I've read it somewhere.

 

 

 

David Rappaport as Randall in Time Bandits :happy:

 

I join you in liking Lord Sutch, a great man. ANyone whose defence policy is to dye all the grass in Britain blue so we blend in with the sea is truly a man worth admiring :D . I think that the Monster Raving Looney party is now run by his cat, as per his will.

 

 

 

It is currently run by Melodie "Boney Maroney" Staniforth, although the official leader is Alan Hope.

 

And what do you all think about a 99p coin "to save on change"? ;D

 

 

 

I am now going to open my heart to to all and state that I haven't even voted on this poll yet, and probably won't either. I can opine all day long, but IMHO politics are a waste of space, as are politicians a waste of money. I quote from the OMRLP's (Official Monster Raving Loony Party's) manifesto: "Withdrawal of MPs' £118,000 expenses allowance, and the money "in future be distributed to the poor and needy so that they can waste it instead."

 

Not that I'm an anarchist, or really anti-establishment, but it's all hipocracy. The only ideal regime, the only fair one, can never exist.

 

='loveme4whoiam',a true Communist society (which has never existed so far)

because it can never exist. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and said link is human nature. There will always be someone looking to line their pockets, or go on a power trip. It's just the way some people (all too many) are.

 

P.S. Good evening, Alanador. ;)

[Alanador]

You are 99% correct of course. History will back you up over and over and over...however I disagree on one point...don't give up, please don't give up! Look at what the young french citizens just accomplished. They eventually have to listen...here's another slightly more powerful quote...

 

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," the 21-year-old said. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." Mario Savio, Sproul Hall Steps, December 2, 1964.

[karkarinus]

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even tacitly take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," the 21-year-old said. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." Mario Savio, December 3, 1964.

 

 

 

I feel moved and touched by that quotation, as it perfectly describes how I feel a lot of the time. But are we to start acting like a bunch of crazed anarchists to achieve our goals?

 

Look at what the young french citizens just accomplished. They eventually have to listen

 

Do we really have to vandalise half the country to reform a law we don't agree with? IMO the perpetrators of those riots should be kicked out of the country in the case of the immigrants, and the natives be put in prison. Does that make me a fascist? I think not. "Chaotic Good", I fancy. Admittedly, the rioters could also be classed as Chaotic Good, but what I cannot stand is that innocent people, hardworking business owners and honest tax-payers should suffer for the sake of a stupid law. Its stupidity should be presented in a non-stupid way if we are to gain the respect and the attention of those who have the power to reform it. Otherwise we become worse than any of them. I quote Nicolas Sarkozy, French Interior Minister "When you fire real bullets at police, you're not a 'youth', you're a thug."

[Alanador]

I agree. The folks who damaged property should be held accountable in a court of law. We have civilized and uncivilzed folks in every walk of life, and just as some of these riot participants used their anonimity to get away with what they did, some folks on the other side of the scale use their power to get away with what they can. No specific examples given, but I'm sure you can find an instance to relate. We cannot stop that aspect since we cannot guide how behavior will evolve from any given standpoint in time. But the speech has a figurative element, and throwing your self upon the gears doesnt always mean to rage and riot. But if massive collections of people took a week off from work, and purchasing...think of the impact that has. Really, that is probably the most docile way to stop the machine...quit feeding it. There are others that are willing to physically throw themselves into harms way...like the 19 year old student who stood and front of a tank in Tiananmen Square and stared down the kind of barrel of a gun that should send a chill down every person who reads this posts spine. Then there are fools that will abuse the cause...they are unfortunately unaviodable. But you can do alot (maybe more) without damaging property.

 

Incidentally, Mario Savio was at the forefront of the Free Speech Movement in the late 60's in the San Fransico Bay Area. He lead many student demonstartions...sit-ins...non-violent protests. "Savio spoke and hundreds of people occupied the administration building overnight, leading police to make the largest mass arrest in of students in U. S. history and shocking a public accustomed to campus conformity."

 

Here's an interesting link

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...CMGP08OOFI1.DTL

 

It's to a San Fransico News Paper.

 

Here's a link to the video of that speech, which links to Berkeley University Online, unfortunatley it requires Real Player. I'll try to provide a link directly to the video, then one to the page that has it on it.

 

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/FSM.html#sound to the page.

 

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/VideoTest/msavio.ram directly to the video.

 

Sorry, the date of this speech was Dec. 2, 1964, not the 3rd as I earlier stated.

 

As for the french protests...they did not all end in riots. Yes I think those who participated in a just manner have achieved something significant and I hope that their government will continue to hear them and work with them.

[karkarinus]

I expressed myself unclearly. I was referring solely to the vents in France when I mentioned violence. I in no way related Mario Savio's speech with violent acts. He seems a very wise man indeed.

[loveme4whoiam]

because it can never exist. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and said link is human nature. There will always be someone looking to line their pockets, or go on a power trip. It's just the way some people (all too many) are.

 

Ah, but how can someone line their pockets when there is no money? Or increase their power in a a system of direct democracy, where their are no "leaders"? Human nature is a very debatable thing - through my studies of Psychology (not very conclusive, just two years of A levels) I'd say that it is definitely a grey area. There have been studies on children who behaviour exceedingly altruistically when give an altruistic model to copy - the only reason the majority of people are arseholes now is because the society we live in rewards those people for their behaviour. Make a society geared towards aiding one another, and thats what the majority of people will do.

 

Is the new right-wing labour party still usuing the red rose as its avatar?

 

I don't believe so. I fact, I've paid such little attention to the Party Broadcasts that I can't even tell you what they DO use :blush: And you are right, back then politics was definitely much more clear-cut. And then New Labour was invented, and the Left was abandoned :(

 

Alanador, that is a cracking quote. His guy sounds like a very wise man - mobilising the power of students (who are probably the most receptive to the idea of political change) was brilliant - too bad more people have not learned from his example. I shall take a look at your links with great interest. Too many people focus on Che Guevara as a symbol of popular revolution.

 

As for the French riots, I am slightly disappointed by them. As I have argued many many times with like-minded people, violence is not a good support-winner. It allows the media to portray the actions of a group, not the beliefs of them. Which is exactly what happened with the France riots - until I did research myself I had no idea why they were protesting, since the medai could totally attack them without stating why they were doing it.

[karkarinus]

I say again: Pie in the Sky. A beautiful, idyllic idea that can never be. I would love to see a Brave New World were there is no money, no leaders, a land of peace and harmony. But what chance have we? It woul dtake a holocaust to wipe out everything we know - our systems of government, armed forces - everything. And then there would have to be enough survivors of our same persuasion to build a civilisation from scratch, where one man grows carrots and swaps some for a haircut. An entirely self-sufficient people who always agree. Nice, but I can't see it happening.

[loveme4whoiam]

Who says they have to agree? Communism is about individualism, your right to do and to think how you as an individual wish.

 

And not a holocaust, a revolution. And why is removing the present system of government and oppression such a hard task? When the masses are united in their wish to remove them, how can such a small minority win?

 

As for self-sufficiency - well, we as a global nation produce more than enough food to feed the population of Earth - some estimates put it as being between 2 and 6 times what it would take to feed us all. The idea of a gift economy is one that can and will work, if you open your eyes from the capitalist smokescreen that keeps people from realising.

 

But I agree with you - I don't see this in sight any time soon. The material conditions and the awareness of the people has not reached nearly great enough levels for this to begin to be considered a possibility in our immediate future. But, it is possible, and it can and will happen when enough people believe it can.