This thread is permanently archived
/new/ affiliations
| It's okay. Take away the context indicators, and they all end up sounding the same anyway.
| I'm probably certain a few libertarians are in here too.
| Does it matter, really?
| A little from column A, a little from column B.
| I'm center right in libertarian on the chart.
| >>529653
LOL. If you take away the "context indicators" everyone and everything ends up sounding the same way. It's human language.
I think it's pretty pointless to take away the "context indicators".
But I know what you want to say. You are one of these self declared "moderate, centrist pragmatics", that notoriously tries to put leftists on the same level as rightists, which is nothing but downplaying the threat and stupidity from right and denouncing left ideas at once.
| >>530105 >>529947
Libertarianism is not really a thing. It's just an idealization of neoliberalism a.k.a. market fundamentalism that often flirts with ideas like social darwinism, nationalism and sometimes even cultural racism. At least "libertarians" accept that the current form of capitalism has many issues, but their answer is only more/true capitalism. They just don't accept the idea that there are issues with capitalism itself. Their liberty is only the liberty of the rich.
| What are these fancy terms. We could solve world hunger and cure cancer if we all worked together for a year under in my USA dictatorship
| Yeah, sure. You got me. Im one of those "self declared centrist pragmatists" because I feel that any ideology is useless without practical implememtation with regard to long term consequences. I found both left and right "extremists" quite lacking in this.its not that I think they are one in the same, but that I find both equally unappealing. I firmly beleive in compromise(a foundation of democracy) and hybrid systems.
| Lefties, I do believe.
>>531171
People treat the question of government is like any other. They want to believe there's a simple, reliable answer, & when it fails it's someone else's fault.
| >>531171
>I firmly beleive in compromise(a foundation of democracy) and hybrid systems.
The problem is that your kind lost the ability to make compromises. Most pragmatics/centrists are not really "moderate". They are market fundamenalists that if their stuff doesn't work preferably let right extremists do the job. Hybrid systems sound good, but in practice it seems impossible to tame the mechanisms of capitalism on the long term.
| >>531205
Any government larger than a small city degrades over time. The difference is that hybrid systems seem historically to be more resistant to that rot. Compare the collapse of th USSR after less than 75 years to the US or UK. Though the latter governments are in flux today, they've lasted as long as they have through incorporating elements of monarchy, republic, aristocracy, kritarchy, dictatorship...
| >>531288
Any government larger than a small city degrades over time. The difference is that hybrid systems seem historically to be more resistant to that rot.
I agree. But I would distinguish between political and economically systems. The differences is, that an economic system in a globalized economy only works global and only can be changed global, while different political systems can coexist. The USSR only managed to change political systems but not the economical.
| The US or UK existed for so long, because they were a driving force behind a (global) economical revolution: the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
Russia was still stuck in feudalism when the so called "communists" did their revolution. In fact they established also capitalism in a special (mostly inneficient and stupid) way.
This thread is permanently archived
| Is this board hosting more lefties or natsoc niggas? Ive never been able to tell tbh