Support NeoGAF

[SquiddyCracker]

Where the hell do I fall on the political spectrum?

I'm pro-life.

I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm in favor of a complete rework of America's immigration laws to be more humane.

I'm in favor increased sex education and access to contraceptives and birth control.

I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of America's foster/adoption system to provide for the increased number of children that would inevitably happen due to the dramatic decrease in abortion.

I want a Planned Parenthood type thing to provide all the services women might need but without abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I think if women had a better option other than abortion or the shit system we currently have they might choose the other option.

I'm in favor of a reduction in defense spending to help pay for that foster/adoption system.

Any other hot-button issues I'm missing? It's late.

It sounds to me like you are a dirty leftist (following the american left-right political spectrum).
You might be pro-life in a moral sense, but still accept pro-choice legislation as that would be seen as a greater compromise than banning abortions (in the former case, pro-lifers aren't forced to abort; in the latter case, pro-choicers are forced to give birth).

 

[JzeroT1437]

Being an independent myself, it seems GAF has always leaned very far into the left.. Why is this?
Is it an age thing? Younger people tend to be more liberal
Is it a location thing? More gaffers on the west and east coast?
Is it an ideology thing? Anti-religion

I feel that both parties have very stupid stances on certain issues and that the only way this country can move forward is if we govern somewhere in the middle. The two sides have become so distant from each other. I pray a relevant 3rd party makes it onto the scene at some point.

Much of GAF is international, and if you've traveled or know anything about the non-US world, you would find that both major US political parties lean right of center. Many of the people who are "leftist" on the boards are actually from non-US countries, living in places that are, in many ways, much freer and more supportive of their people than we in the US.

I lean waaayyyyy left, but I've also been jaded to hell and back by the modern US capitalist system.

 

[beastmode]

No, socialism does not necessarily imply a classless society as communism does. Communism is a socialist ideology of sorts but you cannot be a socialist and still want all the means of production to be privately owned.

Since there was nothing in that list that indicated a preference of who should own what, there is nothing there that indicates that he is a socialist. (There is nothing that indicates that he isn't a socialist either, mind you.)

Note: maybe the word means different things in america like "liberal" does, i'm going with the european use of the word here.

The core of socialism is worker's self-ownership and self-management with protection of stakeholders. For the public sector, that means real democracy.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Where the hell do I fall on the political spectrum?

I'm pro-life.

I'm in favor of gay marriage.

I'm against the death penalty.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare.

I'm in favor of a complete rework of America's immigration laws to be more humane.

I'm in favor increased sex education and access to contraceptives and birth control.

I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of America's foster/adoption system to provide for the increased number of children that would inevitably happen due to the dramatic decrease in abortion.

I want a Planned Parenthood type thing to provide all the services women might need but without abortion except in cases of rape or incest. I think if women had a better option other than abortion or the shit system we currently have they might choose the other option.

I'm in favor of a reduction in defense spending to help pay for that foster/adoption system.

Any other hot-button issues I'm missing? It's late.

A social justice progressive with a religious bent, probably Catholic.

 

[maharg]

Why socialist? There was nothing there about public ownership of the means of production. I don't see anything in that list that would make me call him socialist. He'd fit just as well in a swedish right wing party as in a left wing party with that set of opinions. Except for the abortion stuff obviously since that is a complete non-issue here.

This is also in response to your later post, but I'm too lazy to double quote right now. Wanting universal health care is an opinion on public ownership of the means of production since to achieve it some aspect of health care delivery (whether it be insurance or delivery itself) must be state owned or at least state 'planned'.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to pretend that social democracy and democratic socialism don't have their roots in socialist thought. Socialism is, at this point, a rather wide umbrella for a lot of different ideas. Social democracy is, in particular, more or less an alternative to revolution in the evolution of a socialist society.

Even so, I'm inferring some things from the collection of facts he gave and extrapolating. I could be wrong.

I’ve always wondered why in the US, the proponent and opponents of abortion feel the need to call themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life". Implicitly implying that if you belong to the other camp you are either anti-life or anti-choice.

In Europe, you’re just pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
Just calling it as it is would make for more neutral debates I think, without emitting a judgement before even starting a discussion…

I used to agree with this line of thinking, but the labels do actually make a lot more sense than you think. Or at least, pro-choice does. Pro-choice is an advocacy of freedom to have/perform abortions, not an advocacy of abortions themselves. Many many pro-choice people would never have an abortion themselves and would prefer that fewer be had, but still recognize that when abortion is banned people die from botched abortions and risky births.

Likewise, pro-life is an advocacy of a foetus' validity as human life on equal footing with that of its mother. Unlike pro-choice and pro-abortion, pro-life and anti-abortion aren't really as far apart in meaning, but I still see why they choose this label.

 

[jorma]

This is also in response to your later post, but I'm too lazy to double quote right now. Wanting universal health care is an opinion on public ownership of the means of production since to achieve it some aspect of health care delivery (whether it be insurance or delivery itself) must be state owned or at least state 'planned'.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to try to pretend that social democracy and democratic socialism don't have their roots in socialist thought. Socialism is, at this point, a rather wide umbrella for a lot of different ideas. Social democracy is, in particular, more or less an alternative to revolution in the evolution of a socialist society.

Even so, I'm inferring some things from the collection of facts he gave and extrapolating. I could be wrong.

What you say is definately true about an early 20th century social democrat - they were reformative socialists. And you could never have asked any one of them what their political views were without getting a lenghy reply on whom should own what.
None of that remains today, and there is nothing socialist about a contemporary social democrat.
Universal healthcare (or as we tend to call it, healthcare ) is so deeply rooted in our european collective minds that not even the most right winged right winger thinks it has anything to do with socialism. The Swedish means of production are almost exclusively owned by private citizens or domestic/foreign private corporations and that has never really been different, not even 30 years ago when our welfare state was a lot more expanded.

We currently have a right wing government and they'd drag you outside and shoot you if you called them socialist

 

[Hitokage]

What you say is definately true about an early 20th century social democrat - they were reformative socialists. And you could never have asked any one of them what their political views were without getting a lenghy reply on whom should own what.
None of that remains today, and there is nothing socialist about a contemporary social democrat.
Universal healthcare (or as we tend to call it, healthcare ) is so deeply rooted in our european collective minds that not even the most right winged right winger thinks it has anything to do with socialism. The Swedish means of production are almost exclusively owned by private citizens or domestic/foreign private corporations and that has never really been different, not even 30 years ago when our welfare state was a lot more expanded.

We currently have a right wing government and they'd drag you outside and shoot you if you called them socialist

You know, you're not really arguing against his point. It being the new normal doesn't really refute anything.

 

[Devolution]

I remember hearing a good explanation of just how the concepts of Nationalism and Socialism were supposed to be blended in that case, but I forget what it was exactly.

Regardless, the Nazis had a really REALLY weird mix of ideology in general.

It's because of their fucked up end goals.

 

[Stumpokapow]

From a historical context, social democracy self-identified as socialist. It's not really up for debate that that's the historical origin of the term.

We currently have a right wing government and they'd drag you outside and shoot you if you called them socialist

This doesn't mean the label isn't accurate. Republicans consider themselves to be the political centre (or centre-right, according to some). The fact that they're off radically to the extreme in a global context--and this doesn't mean they're right or wrong, simply where they're situated globally--doesn't change how they label themselves.

European "liberal"/right parties are generally reform liberals or social democrats. European "conservative"/Christian democrat parties are generally reform liberals or social democrats with some element of traditional values injected. European social democrats are also social democrats by and large, although some might better be described as socialist. There are virtually no classical liberal parties in Europe.

 

[maharg]

You know, you're not really arguing against his point. It being the new normal doesn't really refute anything.

In fact, if anything, it points to just how successful social democracy has been as a movement, that people could now be considered right wing or even reactionary who support its aims in part.

In stark contrast, Marx' original notion of socialism has been a dismal failure if for no other reason than that it led to premature revolution. The evolution of modern democracy has certainly enabled revolution-by-other-means in a way that Marx probably didn't really foresee. The western world was still quite feudal overall when he was writing.

 

[jorma]

From a historical context, social democracy self-identified as socialist. It's not really up for debate that that's the historical origin of the term.



This doesn't mean the label isn't accurate. Republicans consider themselves to be the political centre (or centre-right, according to some). The fact that they're off radically to the extreme in a global context--and this doesn't mean they're right or wrong, simply where they're situated globally--doesn't change how they label themselves.

European "liberal"/right parties are generally reform liberals or social democrats. European "conservative"/Christian democrat parties are generally reform liberals or social democrats with some element of traditional values injected. European social democrats are also social democrats by and large, although some might better be described as socialist. There are virtually no classical liberal parties in Europe.

The Swedish right wing is not Socialist, it's not really up for debate. You cannot label them socialist. They do not advocate public ownership of our means of production, in fact they are quite busy selling off the last few remains of state owned production facilities.

There is nothing in that original list that indicates socialism. Advocating UHC does not make you socialist, in fact the worlds very first universal health care program was instituted by Otto von Bismarck, and he was definitely Not A Socialist. From my perspective it's not something we connect with socialism. At all.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

It's not that we lean left.

It's that the right leaned far far far right.


Here is what used to a major leader of the republican party, and a former republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, had to say about religion and government...


"I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

in 1981


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

in 1994

Needless to say, anyone who says that today would be considered a left wing nutjob by the current GOP.

 

[Arksy]

Believe it or not there are a lot of moderate conservatives out there. It's just that the radical wing of the conservative party in the US has taken over the party platform. In other countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, conservative politics is a completely and utterly different beast.

I have disagreements with the left, the right, the liberals, authoritarians and libertarians on a number of issues. Politics is far too complex to shoehorn people into a single platform.