Which ideology do you consider the most dangerous? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Which ideology do you consider the most dangerous?

Communism/Marxism
19
14%
Socialism
2
1%
Anarchism (leftist)
6
4%
Centre-left (Left-liberalism, Social democracy)
9
7%
Centrism
1
1%
Centre-right (Conservatism)
1
1%
Classical liberalism (Smith)
1
1%
Neoliberalism (Friedman)
27
20%
Anarcho-capitalism
11
8%
Extreme nationalism (far right)
50
37%
Other
9
7%
By wat0n
#13539204
All of these are dangerous, but in order of potential hazard (same number = equally dangerous):

1) Extreme nationalism (far right)
1) Communism/Marxism
2) Anarcho-Capitalism
2) Anarchism (leftist)
3) Neoliberalism (Friedman)
By wat0n
#13539236
Combination of socio-economic policies, denial of basic human rights, overall fanaticism of their followers and the popularity they had at their time of glory. Of course, only considering how these develop in practice as theory can stand pretty much anything.

Why?
By wat0n
#13539252
How else would you know that non-existent international communism is dangerous?


Sorry, I'm not up for this game. Of course, you could argue that the fact that the proletariat revolution didn't develop like Marx predicted doesn't really say anything about communism. Except, of course, that it can't really be implemented.
User avatar
By LehmanB
#13539488
The ClockworkRat wrote:I voted for neo-liberalism because we can see the effects here and now.

So you say your current living under a neo liebertarian and authotorian-capitalist world is the worse you could get.

Wat0n wrote:you could argue that the fact that the proletariat revolution didn't develop like Marx predicted doesn't really say anything about communism. Except, of course, that it can't really be implemented.

The ClockworkRat wrote:How else would you know that non-existent international communism is dangerous?

Communism rely on a total control of a state over the individual. Otherwise it will leak quickly tword some form of capitalism. In that sence, this type of rejime have succeded to form.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13539508
I said that neo-liberalism is the most dangerous because we can, at this time, see how it is ravaging the planet and societies. Communism relies on massive cultural revolution, along with a change in the ownership of production. I can not claim what direction this will or should take because I don't know.
User avatar
By LehmanB
#13539550
You don't have to wait for an ultimate revolution to see results.

I care less that this have economicly failed, as I care that either globaly or localy communism depands on a too strong monarchy. And I know what such monarchy can cause.

If you care for ecologics, communists and socialists have equally destroyed the planet as capitalists. It is true that green parties are socialists, yet green individuals are often neo liebertarians; but since we know neo liebertarians are bad politicians, the green shouters are the socialists.

You reckon neo liebertarianism destroys societies- well, it is breaking the old society and the old known and stable monarchies and grouping, thats for sure. Is it such a loss?
User avatar
By drivethruwhale
#13539579
In terms of ideology alone, I see anarcho-capitalism as the most dangerous ideology ever conceived. But thankfully, there is no real anarcho-capitalist movement in the world.

In terms of actual damage, neo-liberalism and extreme nationalism tie.

LOL @ LehmanB.
User avatar
By LehmanB
#13539588
Free and uncontrolled market is naturaly capitalist.

As you ultimate the socialism- you must ultimate the central controling.
User avatar
By Cheesecake_Marmalade
#13539615
Lehman, do you just input hebrew into a translator program and hope that the English is good enough?
User avatar
By LehmanB
#13539654
no, I try to write the way I will be understandable, knowing my English couldn't compete a Californian.
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13539673
TCR, you're being daft- we can judge based on how communism has developed in the past, to speculate on how it would develop in the future. Furthermore, we can speculate based on economic history the effects of a global, centrally-planned referendum economy. It doesn't look good. :knife:
User avatar
By Cartertonian
#13539674
LehmanB wrote:knowing my English couldn't compete a Californian.
Thankfully, LehmanB, the English language is not the preserve of Californians. ;)
By BassHole
#13539683
It may sound silly, but Centrism.

Its proponents masquerade as "sensible" and "wise" (I'm looking at you, Carter :lol: ). However, it is little more than a way to preserve the current order by claiming that beneficial changes are "not viable" or "not in the public interest". It is a tool for making people docile, and accepting whatever the government tells them is "necessary".

:D
User avatar
By Figlio di Moros
#13539697
That's because, holocaust aside, I generally agree with how fascism developed. Do I believe it should be tweeked here or there? Yeah, but I don't sit around and claim "No true fascism has ever existed, and we can't claim to know what true fascism looks like because it's enver existed."
User avatar
By LehmanB
#13539700
BassHole wrote:It is a tool for making people docile, and accepting whatever the government tells them is "necessary".

Extremists doesn't use the very same tools to make people docile?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Will @skinster insist on her demand of watching […]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]

Jared Kushner is inspired by the real estate pote[…]

Or maybe you are simply wrong. :roll: Ya[…]