What is your politics?

Wouldn't that be an oxymoron?

 

^^ That's pretty much how I am as well...

 

Marxist/anarchist all the way....

 

The examples in brackets were just that ... examples

 

WTF is this? How can you be in favour of military intervention and yet be against government intervention?

*scratches head*

 

IDEOLOGYRadicalLiberal ModerateConservativeReactionaryGovernment involvementMoreMoreSome involvementLessLessSpeed of changes in governmentRapidGradualSlow to no changeNo ChangeReturn to the pastPolitical PartiesCommunists Socialists Dem. Centrists Rep. Conservatives
← Independents → *ISSUESRadicalLiberal ModerateConservativeReactionaryTaxesHigh taxes for high level of government services. State control over economy.Mixture of both sides depending on individual convictions and political expediency.Low taxes or large tax cuts. Reduction in government services and regulation.EducationGovernment subsidizes public education through college level.Government turns control to local agencies. Vouchers OK.DefenseReduce government spending on military. Interventionist foreign policy.Increase spending on military readiness. Reduce U.S. involvement in world conflicts.Environment Regulate business to protect natural resources. Steer away from nuclear, coal, oil fuels.Support exploration of federal land for new energy sources. Reduce government regulation.* Dem. = Democrats; Rep. = Republicans

 

Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.


Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation’s citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.


Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people’s views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a “go-slow” or “wait-and-see” approach to social or political change.


Conservative: People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson’s view that “the best government governs least.”


Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were—the “good ol’ days.” Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.

 

I love the wording of "Extreme right wing (National socialism, Nazism)". The biggist irony was that the Nazis started off as a workers rights party, and through Hitler, they developed into a largely fascist regime. I dont think that "National Socialism" even fits into that catagory.

Me, Im a Left wing (Labour movement, Democrat, Utopian socialism) - from the examples, I would say that I stand behind Utopian socialism, cause this is what Im fighting for

 

True enough but all parties will say that they support a particular group. The original party was socialist and Hitler led them into his way of thinking. The NAZI's supported the workers by scapegoating the Jew, Catholic, Gypsy etc. They then went on to ban unions and betray the workers in favour of the corporations who funded them.

 

Libertarian (better known as "crazy right wing nut" on the UK forum)

 

I completely agree with what you are saying, but the result of the Nazi Party was not "Left wing (Labour movement, Democrat, Utopian socialism)" [I dont think Utopian socialism makes sense, its more on the lines of anarchy], it was what we came to know.

I am trying to say that the meaning of National Socialism has been grossly shadowed by the Nazis, but they should NOT be considered the same thing

 

I noticed this too, not just on this board but with other people I know who claim to be hippie. Many of the young people in the U.S. today don't realize how conservative and authoritarian they really are, even though they claim to be hippie. It's part of the way they've been raised in today's well-to-do, follow-the-rules society.

One can divide the political spectrum into liberal to conservative on a horizontal axis, and libertarian to authoritarian on a vertical axis. People like Bush are on the upper right (conservative,authoritarian). People like Gandi are on the lower left (liberal, libertarian). Saddam is on the upper left, liberal (secular)/authoritarian.

I tend to be liberal and libertarian.

In general, hippies of the 60s were liberal and libertarian. Today, one can say that other hippie-type groups exist, but on the different end of the spectrum. For example, White Separatists can be considered libertarian and conservative, what some people might refer to as 'right-wing' hippies (lower right of spectrum).

It's almost impossible to declare anyone of an authoritarian nature a 'hippie' in the traditional 1960s sense of the word. Hippies always had an anti-establishment nature that goes against authoritarian type thinking.

 

But it is the same thing. Whether you like to accept it or not, to advocate social policy for one group of people to the detriment of another is all that National Socialism is ... and that was the general ideal of Hitler, who invented the phrase when he renamed the "German workers party" to "National Socialist German Workers Party"

Look it up Here or Here