[recurnal]

I should start out by saying that I'm in large part apolitical. I'm irked by much of the domestic chatter that goes on here in the United States: the bigots touting ideals of open-mindedness, the insecurities and the polarization and the constant projection, etc. Political ideas here undergo quite a bit of simplification, and for a time I outright rejected politics for this reason. I feel, however, that I was partly wrong in doing so.

I have one belief which is readily apparent: I believe physical violence beyond the confines of self-defense is unwarranted. Not for any logically or morally well-established reason, really, besides an almost biblical 'turn the other cheek' philosophy. If pressed for justification I would say that violence and, by extension, hatred are simply admissions of an enemy's control over us and expressions of weakness. We should only use violence when we must.

I've considered libertarianism, but an unregulated market doesn't hold much appeal for me. I hate to see social relations dissolve into market relations and for someone's worth to be considered solely in terms of his economic output. On the other end of the [economic] spectrum, communism doesn't hold much appeal either. It strikes me as a zero sum game, a way of trading oppression for oppression. I realize the dangers of capitalism, though, and would be open perhaps to the nonviolent, gradual establishment of a new economic order. Then again, I wonder how unrealistic such expectations are.

Socially and in matters beyond the simple use of force, I find the current organization of society to be problematic. Our continual sensory saturation and the like are simply ways of ignoring the threat of nihilism, and our dogmatic belief in tolerance has given way to an indiscrimination which in turn has forced some of our more creative aspirations 'inside' and widened the schism between what is felt and what is expressed.

I wonder if we've reached an absorbing state, and if liberal-individualist society constitutes some sort of historical 'end'. I hope not.

Anyway, that's as much as I can say politically; I must have contradicted myself several times in the process of saying it. Is there an ideology which would at least provide a cursory fit for me?

[Saeko]

How disgusting.

Going solely by my level of queasiness, I'd say you're a left-libertarian.

[recurnal]

How disgusting.

What? Was it the indecision, or the nonviolence, or both?

Eh. I guess you can't please everybody.

Going solely by my level of queasiness, I'd say you're a left-libertarian.

It's funny that you should say that, because for a while I was nearly the opposite: I sympathized with certain aspects of fascism and was quite close to considering myself a fascist.

I don't really see how left-libertarianism applies to me now, though.

I don't exactly support multiculturalism, nor even democracy, necessarily, and I do believe in the existence of social ills that go beyond discrimination (I probably should have said that in the OP).

[Eauz]

You sound like you're influenced by the new left and neoliberalism. That is a very dangerous ideology. Probably worse than anything the fascists could cook up.

[recurnal]

You sound like you're influenced by the new left and neoliberalism. That is a very dangerous ideology. Probably worse than anything the fascists could cook up.

What would you say are the points on which I'm influenced the most by the new left and neoliberalism?

[Eauz]

Well, you're fairly non-confrontational in terms of violence, but will support war and violence when necessary. You are opposed to laissez-faire & communism, but want to transition to some form of non-violent economy, without confronting the existing establishment.

Maybe contemporary anarchism?

[recurnal]

Perhaps. I feel almost as if I'm straddling some line between fascism and anarchism, if there even is such a line.

[Eauz]

Perhaps. I feel almost as if I'm straddling some line between fascism and anarchism, if there even is such a line.

Yes, you're a National Anarchist.

[mikema63]

I suggest rehab.

[recurnal]

Yes, you're a National Anarchist.

That's certainly an interesting ideology. I followed a few links and now I'm taking some looks at corporatism and syndicalism and the like.

I suggest rehab.

No, please. Anything but those sterile walls and those suffocating smiles. I'd give anything never to go there again.

[Deutschmania]

I have heard of some who claim to be anarcho-fascists. But I do not know enough about your exact views on the role of the state, to be able to give a valid analysis of your ideology. You could be anything from a left-libertarian mutualist , to a run of the mill social democrat , whom supports the social market.

[Saeko]

I have heard of some who claim to be anarcho-fascists. But I do not know enough about your exact views on the role of the state, to be able to give a valid analysis of your ideology. You could be anything from a left-libertarian mutualist , to a run of the mill social democrat , whom supports the social market. :?:

Anarcho-fascists!?

[Decky]

Consider Stalinism.

[Cromwell]

Here are some questions to help us get a handle on you:

Would you have more likely sided with the Nationalists or the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and why?

Do you, in any way, identify with the spirit of the French Revolution?

Is there a distinction, in your mind, between legitimate and illegitimate government? If so, what is it?

Do you subscribe to any particular philosophy of history?

How much influence would you say social class has on a person's life chances?

Where do you stand, broadly-speaking, on the Israel-Palestine conflict?

Did you (or, would you have) consider/considered the collapse of the Soviet Union a good or bad thing, overall?

Did you support the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

[recurnal]

I have heard of some who claim to be anarcho-fascists. But I do not know enough about your exact views on the role of the state, to be able to give a valid analysis of your ideology. You could be anything from a left-libertarian mutualist , to a run of the mill social democrat , whom supports the social market. :?:

Hmm. My views on the state are quite muddled.

I can say that I don't quite support the classical-liberal social contract, wherein the individual is given his privileges in exchange for subservience to the state, because I find it hard to believe that the actual involvement of consent exists from birth.

Nor do I support a Rawlsian contract in which the state affords each individual the maximum degree of freedom compatible with the same degree of freedom of others.

I think the state derives its 'legitimacy' not from any necessarily noble means, but instead from the peaceful and gradual acquisition of power, or perhaps a violent and sudden such acquisition, depending on the circumstances.

Do I support this? I don't really know. The state can be morally 'illegitimate' (as can anything else) without remitting its control over people and their lives. And practically, I don't see the emergence of a large-scale stateless society happening any time soon.

I'm quite biased in favor of many of the rights given to people who live in liberal democracies, but that's because I've lived in one my entire life and can't imagine existing without them.

I guess I remain very conflicted. I am a naturally peaceful being, but don't really see any inherent 'legitimacy' to peace. The only path to legitimate peacefulness is a sort of contented Buddhistic self-abnegation, wherein violence, being a 'commitment', is shunned in favor of inaction.

I simply don't see myself living that way.



Cromwell, thank you for the questions! This makes things a little bit easier.

Would you have more likely sided with the Nationalists or the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and why?

Preferably such a war wouldn't have taken place; I wouldn't have supported the Nationalist coup in the first instance.

Do you, in any way, identify with the spirit of the French Revolution?

No, not especially. I don't much identify with any revolution at all, because revolution forces those rebelling to appropriate the measures of their enemies.

Is there a distinction, in your mind, between legitimate and illegitimate government? If so, what is it?

Yes and no. A stateless society seems the only 'legitimate' society, but there is nothing necessarily wrong either, in my mind, with an 'illegitimate' government. Of course, this depends on one's definition of legitimacy.

Do you subscribe to any particular philosophy of history?

I think history is a big indeterministic mess, and I don't see it reaching an 'absorbing state' any time soon. Each regime is a handful of sand, and to press for an ideal society isn't ever to press for some end-all-be-all of humanity.

How much influence would you say social class has on a person's life chances?

Quite a lot! People are in large part a concoction of circumstance, and so our basic economic and social conditions have a great influence on our opportunities. This isn't to say, however, that similar conditions produce similar people.

Where do you stand, broadly-speaking, on the Israel-Palestine conflict?

I don't think I'm well-informed enough to give a comprehensive answer.

Did you (or, would you have) consider/considered the collapse of the Soviet Union a good or bad thing, overall?

I would have considered it a good thing, overall. I'm not so much in support of communism; and political turmoil, too, is a natural consequence of ill-advised compulsion. The nuclear arms race wasn't such a good thing, either.

Did you support the legalisation of same-sex marriage?

I think institutions shouldn't be forced by the government to accept X, Y, and Z simply because of prevailing social norms. So a religious institution shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples, but civil unions should be an option. Apologies if I don't really understand the issue all too well.

[recurnal]

this is an effort to merge my posts

[mikema63]

I think institutions shouldn't be forced by the government to accept X, Y, and Z simply because of prevailing social norms. So a religious institution shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples, but civil unions should be an option. Apologies if I don't really understand the issue all too well.

Religious institutions are not being forced to marry people, the only change is in the legal institution.

[recurnal]

Religious institutions are not being forced to marry people, the only change is in the legal institution.

Ah, I see. Sorry about that; I truly am emerging from a bit of a political slumber. I haven't payed attention to much in the past couple of years.

[Cromwell]

Preferably such a war wouldn't have taken place; I wouldn't have supported the Nationalist coup in the first instance.

It was impossible not to pick sides. Whether you supported the coup or not, the die was cast and War was there. It's likely that, if the Right had won the election, there'd have been a rebellion from the Left. Spanish civil society was at an impasse. Should I take your answer to me that you'd have supported the Republicans, as representing the duly elected government?

No, not especially. I don't much identify with any revolution at all, because revolution forces those rebelling to appropriate the measures of their enemies.

But the spirit, itself... Do you identify with the desire for liberté, égalité, fraternité? Constitutional republicanism? Democracy?

Yes and no. A stateless society seems the only 'legitimate' society, but there is nothing necessarily wrong either, in my mind, with an 'illegitimate' government. Of course, this depends on one's definition of legitimacy.

Is a dictatorship any more or less legitimate than a democracy?

I think history is a big indeterministic mess, and I don't see it reaching an 'absorbing state' any time soon. Each regime is a handful of sand, and to press for an ideal society isn't ever to press for some end-all-be-all of humanity.

So, you would reject dialectical materialism?

Quite a lot! People are in large part a concoction of circumstance, and so our basic economic and social conditions have a great influence on our opportunities. This isn't to say, however, that similar conditions produce similar people.

Should the government act to mitigate the effects of social class on a man's life? Should it redistribute wealth?

I don't think I'm well-informed enough to give a comprehensive answer.

That's fair enough. But, what does your gut tell you?

I would have considered it a good thing, overall. I'm not so much in support of communism; and political turmoil, too, is a natural consequence of ill-advised compulsion. The nuclear arms race wasn't such a good thing, either.

What do you think of Adlai Stevenson II? Would you have voted for him?

In fact, who's your favourite president?

I think institutions shouldn't be forced by the government to accept X, Y, and Z simply because of prevailing social norms. So a religious institution shouldn't be forced to marry same-sex couples, but civil unions should be an option. Apologies if I don't really understand the issue all too well.

This is not a meaningful distinction. The legal definition of what constitutes a marriage is distinct from the issue of discrimination by religious institutions.

The civil union argument, when directed at gays alone, is a compromise not a ideological precept.

...

All in all, you shouldn't be looking into fascism. The one constant I can identify in your belief system is pacifism. You'll not find such an attitude amongst fascists. "The Socialists ask what is our program? Our program is to smash the heads of the Socialists." - Benito Mussolini

[recurnal]

I'm trying to construct a response but can't seem to uncover any definite opinions of my own, so I'll go with my 'gut', as you requested.

(Perhaps I'm simply apolitical; when trying to infer my ideology from available evidence I'm met with a slew of indifference. I still realize that politics is unavoidable, and I guess I'd like to deal with it to the minimal extent that it involves the redemption of the human race.)

It was impossible not to pick sides. Whether you supported the coup or not, the die was cast and War was there. It's likely that, if the Right had won the election, there'd have been a rebellion from the Left. Spanish civil society was at an impasse. Should I take your answer to me that you'd have supported the Republicans, as representing the duly elected government?

I think I would have supported the Republicans.

But the spirit, itself... Do you identify with the desire for liberté, égalité, fraternité? Constitutional republicanism? Democracy?

Liberty, yes. Equality, not necessarily. Fraternity? That seems rather vague.

I guess I support both constitutional republicanism and democracy, but I'm open to suggestions of other 'arrangements'.

Is a dictatorship any more or less legitimate than a democracy?

No; either relies on the imposition of force, which I consider as the crux of illegitimacy. I'd consider a democracy more desirable than a dictatorship, however.

So, you would reject dialectical materialism?

Certainly. An ideal society is one which fits the time, so to speak. The time changes.

Should the government act to mitigate the effects of social class on a man's life? Should it redistribute wealth?

I imagine I believe in redistribution to the extent that it prevents desperation and unmanageable suffering and spiritual sloth.

I don't, however, presume to know how much redistribution actually does the trick.

That's fair enough. But, what does your gut tell you?

A compromise should be reached as soon as possible to prevent further violence. Besides that, I really don't know.

What do you think of Adlai Stevenson II? Would you have voted for him?

In fact, who's your favourite president?

If I were pressed into a corner and a vote were squeezed out of me it probably would have been for Stevenson.

I don't really have a favorite American political figure, let alone president.