#40386 - 07/17/10 10:19 AM
Political Compass
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
This is kind of a generic "forum" quiz that's popular to pass around, but I'm posting it here as more than just a springboard for water-cooler talk. I am genuinely interested in getting a rough demographic survey of the political affiliations of Satanists. I found Lewis's study interesting, but not really in-depth enough to give me a concrete idea where Satanists (as a rule) stand politically. I certainly have a good hypothesis based on observation, but I'd like more data, if you will indulge. You've probably seen it before, and may have your results saved somewhere. If you've never taken it, I recommend it; it's fun. 
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Yes, I am aware that many of the threads here ask for rough approximate affiliations, but I find them deficient. Satanists are notorious hair-splitters, and the definition of any political term (anarchist, democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, fascist, totalitarian, libertarian, authoritarian) can be used to mean just about anything depending on who wields it. We wouldn't call ourselves Satanists if we didn't think the use of terms was flexible. I like this quiz because, regardless of the label you affiliate with, it will give an objective measure of where you stand relative to others. I fondly remember that, in one high school class in which I encountered this quiz, most of the "democrats" and "republicans" were, in fact, populists, and there was little to no discernible difference between those who called themselves one or the other.
My results:
Economic Left/Right: 10.00 (Laissez-Faire Capitalist)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.74 (For individual freedom)
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40391 - 07/17/10 12:00 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Fnord]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
Mine landed about where I thought it'd land, although I expect my Economic Left/Right should be closer to 8 or so. I might have picked apart the questions too much.
I do the same darn thing. I spent forever deliberating over
"Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers."
Someone on either end of the spectrum may "strongly disagree" with that for a completely different reason than another. It's too middle-road of a statement to indicate anything without qualification. For one, it says "mothers" instead of "women," which suggests a woman may be career-oriented if she chooses not to have children. It also allows for the possibility that mothers may have careers. A hardcore social conservative may strongly disagree if for no other reason than he thinks a woman's only career is being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen vacuuming under his ass and making him a sammich. An extreme social liberal, on the other hand, would resent the idea that mothers can't have their cake and eat it too, or that men can't be "Mr. Mom," and also may strongly disagree. It would be really hard to tell which one was intended by "disagree." :P
I also wondered about whether some of the statements were at all relevant to my political position. I mean, what does my opinion about the definition of "art" have to do with my politics? As for social issues, I'm hardcore libertarian when it comes to actual implementation of policy. The law, in my mind, should live and let live unless someone's life is at stake. But oftentimes the quiz asks for my personal opinion on social matters without attaching it to any issue of policy, and I wonder how that may affect my score. For example, I don't think people with serious genetic problems should be reproducing, so I may click "strongly agree," but I also don't think it's any of the state's business whether they do or not. So though my personal opinion may be more on the fascist eugenics side of things, my political position is far more libertarian. :P
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40443 - 07/18/10 03:53 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: ta2zz]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.
~T~
Facebook and MySpace quizzes are usually shallow, poorly designed, and give really generic, vague answers that would be applicable to anyone. This quiz, I feel, is accurate and informative enough to actually indicate something relevant.
"Which Disney princess are you?" may be cute, but it has no impact on people's lives. The Political Compass gives people a clearer idea of where they stand overall in regards to the issues and what political parties actually serve their interests. It can radically alter a person's self-perception.
I've known a lot of people who simply vote straight ticket for whatever party their family happens to belong to, without actually giving any thought as to why they vote the way they do or whether this party serves their interests or principles. In my opinion, this quiz is useful for introspection.
And as I said before, I'd actually like to get an idea where Satanists stand politically, for my own purposes. I'm not just asking for the hell of it.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40490 - 07/19/10 02:58 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
Fnord
active member
Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 718
Loc: Texas
|
And as I said before, I'd actually like to get an idea where Satanists stand politically, for my own purposes. I'm not just asking for the hell of it.
It will make for an interesting study I think.
I've interacted with folk online who claim to be Satanists but vote for increasing spending on social programs (ie left side of the spectrum).
To my mind, it's difficult to be a fierce individualist with a pull yourself up by the bootstraps mentality, who supports taking the earnings of one member of society and giving it to a weaker member of society. Of course I've illustrated my point in a simple manner, but I can't see much on the fiscal side of the left that I can support.
Redistribution of wealth via heavier taxation on a selected few?
I can't get behind that unless I'm willing to say that I think it's right to punish achievers.
Health care, the bailouts, this new bullshit nanny state garbage about monitoring people's BMI's... it's all overhead that the tax payer will ultimately shoulder the burden for. I don't see how any of it is compatible with fierce individualism.
If you get very far into this or decide to write something up, I'd like to read it.
Edited by Fnord (07/19/10 02:58 PM)
_________________________
Scratching Peace Symbols on Your Tombstone
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40494 - 07/19/10 03:31 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Fnord]
|
6Satan6Archist6
senior member
Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2233
Loc: Oregon
|
The problem with social programs like welfare is that it is meant to be temporary assistance until people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps but far too many people make being on welfare their job. I know a guy who actually admitted to me while he was drunk that the reason he keeps having kids is for the tax credits and welfare. Not long after that I stopped hanging out with him.
I could probably get food stamps right now if I wanted, but I don't. Not only would I prefer to make it on my own but I am in no danger of starving and it would be rather hypocritical of me, an Individualist Anarchist, to beg for help from the system that I so despise.
Even so I am still glad that Oregon has a free state health insurance plan. I myself have no insurance, whether from the state or private company, which is why I don't seek medical attention unless it is absolutely necessary. However, my sister recently got pregnant and that coupled with the fact that she is a working student makes her eligible for Oregon Health Plan. She is by no means a societal leech; she works full-time as a cook and a small town cafe and goes to school full-time at Portland State University pursuing a Master's in History so she can be a museum curator.
I like knowing that her and my future niece or nephew will be taken care of should anything bad happen. As far as most of the rest of the world I care not one bit for them or their well being. Fuck you, what have you ever done for me anyway! 
Taxes? Fuck taxes, the government has no right to forcibly take money from those who have earned it. That being said I never did understand why "the rich" got to pay lower taxes. If they are going to take money from people it seems logical that the more you make, the more would be taken from you. In the end, however, I still "fuck taxes!"
And it is at this point that we come to a little problem of logic. On one hand I am staunchly against taxation but on the other I am for my sister's ability to receive health insurance which is paid for by, you guessed it: taxes. Very hypocritical and contradictory a position I hold. I see no way that these two very different opinions can hold as strongly as they do within my own mind but they do none-the-less.
Issues like these are seldom black and white. And the example I have just provided is proof of that. This test, while probably not totally inaccurate, should be seen as nothing more than a novelty. I couldn't pin myself to either side of the political spectrum; I have many varying views that intersect with both sides and as an over all I despise the authoritarian system that created this "political division" to begin with.
Just some random thoughts that your post, Fnord, got me mulling around in my head.
/free form rant
Edited by 6Satan6Archist6 (07/19/10 03:35 PM)
Edit Reason: Mechanics
_________________________
Ultimate Satanic Bad Ass of Ultimate Satanic Bad Assery PhD Esq. LLC Inc.^∞ DCLXVI°
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40516 - 07/19/10 06:03 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Fnord]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
As for social programs, I think that private charities and programs work better. Maybe it's naive of me to think so (one could certainly argue that), but there you have it. Not only do public support programs create opportunities for abuse, but they also create a sense of complacency on the part of individuals that the government will take care of these issues, so they don't need to do anything about it themselves.
Private nonprofit organizations have independent and direct discretion to discern whether an individual is genuinely a hardworking, honest individual in need of a hand up or a leech. They also have to establish a track record of low overhead to keep the reputation they need to get more donations.
Public programs, on the other hand, are subject to political pressure and have to answer to higher-ups who are depending on appealing to voters more than they are to running efficiently and effectively. They can't afford to be subject to allegations of "discrimination," whether these allegations are legitimate or not. As such, public programs have cookie-cutter standards that allow people to "qualify," which enables abuse more readily. Once there are clear standards for what it takes to qualify, people can try and meet those standards themselves, like the "ex friend" who conceived for the sake of generating welfare checks.
For that matter, a lot of assistance can come out of the self-interest of the giver. A university may decide to give me a loan on my education if it decides I'm a promising individual. After all, if my education there increases my earning capacity considerably, giving me a student loan is simply a good investment. It's been my experience that giving out of self-interest is far more likely to help a sincere individual than a social parasite.
I think that any type of assistance should act as a "safety net" to try and catch people if they understandably slip (we all do sometimes.) The issue becomes when the safety net is so comfortable people decide to use it as a hammock.
Some people seem to think the government is this big, looming "other" that just eats up people's money. What they don't necessarily realize is that it may well be their own demands that drive up taxes. Yes, occasionally politicians may embezzle or overspend on their own paychecks or benefits, but far more often, I think, it's taxpayers that end up driving up government spending by always begging for more. And politicians often spend like crazy because cutting programs can make them really unpopular when re-election rolls back around.
The problem is that the government is a buffer that prevents citizens from directly feeling the impact of what they spend. If I buy an item, I have to write out all the 0's on the check myself, or put down each bill myself, and make note of how much lighter my wallet is because of it. That stings, and it makes me be more careful to ensure that I'm spending wisely. But part of the reason people abuse credit cards more than cash is because they don't directly feel the impact; it's like anesthetic. People abuse the government in the same way; they don't get the immediate impact of the cost to themselves on government spending. They only notice the goodies the government gives them, and they want more goodies. They don't necessarily stop to think about what their share of the cost for those goodies is, because they don't necessarily know what their taxes were paying for.
(Btw, it's this very same "buffer" effect that drives up the cost of private health insurance. If healthcare covers a certain percentage of the cost of an item, people are more likely to get more expensive drugs and procedures because "they're covered" than they would if they were paying directly out of pocket. Then they bitch about how much their coverage costs... gee, I wonder why?)
On that note, I think "tax receipts" would be an excellent idea. When people's paychecks indicate how much was deducted for taxes, I think they should get a receipt for where it went. It may make them think a bit more about holding government accountable for its spending. It may also help them reconsider whether or not the goodies are really worth what it costs them.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40523 - 07/19/10 06:25 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
ceruleansteel
member
Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 549
|
I think the reason this thing put me where it did was simply because I do think that government's job is to regulate certain areas of business. The federal government is supposed to regulate foreign affairs and the income tax was originally (read: constitutionally) supposed to come from business and foreign business done by Americans. Constitutionally, big brother only exists to handle those things that are out of the scope of the individual states, the states cover what the counties can't handle, and on down the line to city level. Living in any society requires a certain amount of collectivism just to make things work properly, but my belief is that ALL government should have VERY limited powers and that for the most part, people should sink or swim according to how much effort they put into living.
To be more specific, if I start a business and said business fails, that's my problem. I don't have health insurance because I don't feel like I need it. (In one year I spent more on insurance than if I would have paid all medical out of pocket for me AND both my kids.) and no, that wont save us if the big shit happens, but with a family deductible of 500-1000$ and insurance payments of 400+ per month, neither will insurance. To answer the question of Obamacare...well hell, now it's just a matter of principal to me: I don't want the shit; I don't care if it's ten dollars a year with zero deductible, no one has the right to force me to buy something I don't want. Most things that go on in a hospital I am prepared to handle on my own: illness from whatever happens to be going around at the time, suturing wounds, I could even set a break and cast it as long as it's not too hairy. So unless I'm thrown from my truck at 65 mph, chances are high that I'm not going to consider it worth a trip to the hospital in the first place. There is even a place in my town where you can go to order your own blood tests (for whatever, give them the blood and tell them what to look for and they do it for less than 50$ on average) and a place where you can order your own x-rays. I have very little need for a doctor, which is just the way I like it.
I think minimum wage is bullshit as well as affirmative action, government subsidization of farming, bailouts, and many other programs that are going on these days. But it seems that because I do think that government has the right to set standards that control pollution, the quiz has put me on the left side.
If people were made to depend on themselves more, it's my opinion that everyone would benefit from it. We were a stronger nation in the 50's than we are today, and there's a reason for it.
P.S., without going to a copy-paste and reiteration, I agree with X above me regarding social programs versus private charities, also.
Edited by ceruleansteel (07/19/10 06:28 PM)
Edit Reason: .PS....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40528 - 07/19/10 10:14 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: ceruleansteel]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
I think minimum wage is bullshit as well as affirmative action, government subsidization of farming, bailouts, and many other programs that are going on these days. But it seems that because I do think that government has the right to set standards that control pollution, the quiz has put me on the left side.
The quiz is, unfortunately, an issue-by-issue series of questions that leaves a lot of issues out. Standards that control pollution seem relatively reasonable compared to a lot of the other issues you mentioned, so I do think it was a bit inaccurate for it to place you on the left. I considered making my own quiz, but I wanted something separate and objective.
It was my hypothesis that Satanists would be relatively Libertarian & Capitalist (bottom-right) like myself, and so far a lot of the results seem to confirm that. 6 out of 6 (this is including the results from the MCoS) have been on the socially liberal side of things. That makes sense; we don't have the same traditional sense of "morality" that Xians typically do. The fact that a good number of the questions on the quiz referred to religion specifically certainly contributed to that.
As for the reason Satanists lean towards capitalism, I think that Fnord explained it just about as well as I could. Responsibility to the responsible; need I say more?
It's common, though, for certain reactionary Christians to assume that Satanism is communist or socialist, or, alternately, that said economic philosophies are "Satanic." Why? The Cold War had people railing against communism. Noting that communists were atheists, the public linked Christianity and capitalism together as "American values." Despite the fact that Christianity is very collectivist and ascetic, the idea of capitalist as a "Christian" idea is cemented in the minds of the American people. Since they see capitalism as Christian, they reason Satanism must be for the opposite.
Yet everything I've seen from Satanists, from quotes from LaVey about water "seeking its own level," to the ideals of individualism, elitism, meritocracy, and harshness, all seem to point to an ideal society in which you succeed or fail based on your own abilities.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40530 - 07/20/10 01:10 AM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
I could not imagine a more socialist ideology than christianity, nor a less socialist ideology than Satanism. I think whatever christians you are imagining haven't read the words attributed to their Savior re- camels and the eye of a needle, nor much else in the communist manifesto that is the new testament.
Haven't read the words attributed to their savior? That would be most of them around here. There are Xians who read about how "GOD HATES FAGS," and there are Xians who read about how he loves everyone, but I'm yet to meet a one that actually reads the whole Bible in its entirety. Either way, it's a matter of having their concept of god conform to their own opinions instead of the other way around.
There were a couple of hellfire and brimstone Southern Baptists on campus hollering about who god hates, and they had a sign listing it all: Feminists, gangster rappers (?), fornicators, masturbators, homosexuals, pagans, atheists, evolutionists, and yes, socialists were listed. When I asked what his justification was for the "socialist" part of that, he claimed that the Bible endorsed capitalism in 2nd Thessalonians 3:10, where it says, "He who shall not work shall not eat." (Apparently, his understanding of socialism/communism is a system in which some people sit back and accept handouts for doing nothing.) I shot back that Lenin said the same thing, and he got this "first principle of socialism" from the Bible. I actually managed to stun him for a split second, before he returned to his default track of "REPENT, heathen!" It's like talking to a brick wall with a loudspeaker attached.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40546 - 07/20/10 02:49 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: TheInsane]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
I see where you are coming from ideologically. However most Satanists tend to promote an ideology not on the basis of how much it resonates with his or her personal philosophy but instead with the ideology that makes the individual Satanist thrive. I would say, depending on the circumstances, it could be any ideology really.
Edit: I did both tests. The political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -6.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13
The political survey:
1 left/right -0.9560 (-0.0575)
2 pragmatism -0.7711 (-0.0464)
Whatever :P
I've read similar things (self-serving ideology instead of ideology based on self-serving principle) from the Satanic Reds. They essentially claim that socialism is a self-serving system.
I can't say I really understand how they came to that conclusion. I've tried reading their socio-political articles. They're such stream-of-consciousness spiels that I really can't follow their train of thought at all. I guess that would explain why there are only a few of them, so far as I can tell.
I'm usually pretty good at following my opposition's train of thought, even if I don't agree with it. After all, I get where the "Christianity & Capitalism" mentality comes from even though I see the flawed logic. But the Satanic Reds... I just don't get it. :?
As far as I understand things, I don't think a socialist system would serve anyone's interest. I think such systems are ultimately unsustainable and doomed to collapse. There's substantial evidence to show that, despite the "inequity" in a capitalist society, even the poorest of the poor are still better off under a free market. Many would argue that it's the poor implementation, and not the system itself, that is the problem with socialism. To that I'd have to say that the poor implementation is inevitable due to human nature, and any system that fails to account for that is never going to be realized. Sure, we can all think about what would go on in an "ideal world," but in the meanwhile we have to deal with what we have here and now.
You do seem to be a bit more articulate than the Satanic Reds, and I'd like to be able to understand why a Satanist would support a more controlled economy. A lot of other people here have explained their reasoning behind their position, and I'd be interested to hear yours, especially since it's unique.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40549 - 07/20/10 03:18 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1357
|
After all, I get where the "Christianity & Capitalism" mentality comes from even though I see the flawed logic. But the Satanic Reds... I just don't get it. :?
I have made the remark on other topics multiple times that concerning Satanism, words such as theistic, atheistic, spiritual, progressive,.. are nothing more then indications of a persons position towards metaphysics.
The way I see the "Satanic reds" is at the same level. They consider themselves Satanists who share the ideas of Socialism. They link Satanism with socialism. Nothing wrong with it and justifieable (in their view at least) to certain extends if a few of their ideas are being read. Just not my slice of the cake.
Edit: scrolled a bit trough the website, they gave me the impression of yet one of those other groups who got ass-bitten decades ago. Had quite a laugh with their "Nine Satanic Statements reviewed", resembled a bit the blackwood grotesque. Hardly worth mentioning IMO..
Edited by Dimitri (07/20/10 03:28 PM)
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40552 - 07/20/10 04:21 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: Dimitri]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
I have made the remark on other topics multiple times that concerning Satanism, words such as theistic, atheistic, spiritual, progressive,.. are nothing more then indications of a persons position towards metaphysics.
The term "Satanist," as it is used, doesn't necessarily indicate any particular metaphysical stance because those who call themselves "Satanists" run the gamut of metaphysical positions. There are monists, dualists, pluralists, materialists, spiritualists, monotheists, polytheists, suitheists, agnostics, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc who all identify themselves as "Satanists." If someone introduces himself to me as a "Satanist," I can't assume anything about his position on metaphysics without qualification.
While the metaphysics of "Satanism" are, for practical purposes, up in the air, I thought that I at least could make a rough assumption about the ethics of Satanism. Satanists are egoists, individualists, elitists, and intellectuals. (At least, they consider themselves such.) Though I've met self-identified Satanists with every metaphysical position imaginable, I've consistently found that the essential approach to ethics is what Satanists have in common.
And in all fairness, the "S.R." crowd do espouse the same ethical root (egoism) that I've seen most all Satanists support. Given that assertion, though, I don't see how it meshes with the rest of what they say. If we remove the word "Satanic" and just call them what they call themselves, "Egoist Socialists," I still can't wrap my mind around it.
Do they matter? Probably not, as a whole, to the Satanic community. But they're the only extant "political" Satanist org I'm aware of. So within the realm of "Satanic politics," they're relevant so far as they're the only "Satanists" who are actively promoting a particular political position.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40555 - 07/20/10 04:51 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
Dimitri
veteran member
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 1357
|
The term "Satanist," as it is used, doesn't necessarily indicate any particular metaphysical stance because those who call themselves "Satanists" run the gamut of metaphysical positions. There are monists, dualists, pluralists, materialists, spiritualists, monotheists, polytheists, suitheists, agnostics, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc who all identify themselves as "Satanists." If someone introduces himself to me as a "Satanist," I can't assume anything about his position on metaphysics without qualification.
Is it relevant to you to know how ones position is at beforehand on metaphysics? Mine hardly is (now at least), and it can only numb down discussions who could have been otherwise productive.
Admitted I only came across 2 persons with a theistic view who could compose complete and rational sentences.
Though I've met self-identified Satanists with every metaphysical position imaginable, I've consistently found that the essential approach to ethics is what Satanists have in common.
That's why I prefer to only hear the term Satanism instead of "atheistic Satanism, theistic,..". Ethics being the golden wire troughout it all makes things such as the sharing of "metaphysical view/political stance/other"+Satanism quite irrelevant. Which is exactly my point.
But they're the only extant "political" Satanist org I'm aware of. So within the realm of "Satanic politics," they're relevant so far as they're the only "Satanists" who are actively promoting a particular political position.
I encounterd a few times fascist Satanists, quite a laugh these guys, mainly consisted out of your local wannabee gothics, metalheads and social retards. My best guess is there are probably more such political orgs but are hardly spoken off since Satanism hardly mangles with pure politics (and tend to give the practioner a bad profile when it comes to voting).
_________________________
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40563 - 07/20/10 05:39 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
TheInsane
member
Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
|
To be fair The Satanic Reds do not use the same definition of socialist as every other socialist does. They do have their own spin on things. The basics are covered in their FAQ: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/faq.html
For me personally I don't care for the politics in particular but the metaphysical writings (the dark doctrines) of some of the members of the group are indeed very good (even if Tani tends to rant to much).
And in all fairness, the "S.R." crowd do espouse the same ethical root (egoism) that I've seen most all Satanists support. Given that assertion, though, I don't see how it meshes with the rest of what they say. If we remove the word "Satanic" and just call them what they call themselves, "Egoist Socialists," I still can't wrap my mind around it.
A Satanic Reds member position on egoism: http://www.satanicreds.org/satanicreds/egoism.html
You do seem to be a bit more articulate than the Satanic Reds, and I'd like to be able to understand why a Satanist would support a more controlled economy. A lot of other people here have explained their reasoning behind their position, and I'd be interested to hear yours, especially since it's unique.
Well, I am not in agreement with The Satanic Reds, nor am I a socialist, and it was a long time since I read their political material so I cant relate my views to it. My basic critique of a free economy has already been discussed in this thread: http://www.the600club.com/topic35106.html No need to start the same discussion here again.
But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the enviroment.
Edited by TheInsane (07/20/10 05:47 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40568 - 07/20/10 07:14 PM
The Satanic Reds
[Re: TheInsane]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
6) Is the SR capitalist, socialist, or communist?
==================================================
We are sort of both. Dirigist capitalism is a form of Socialism!...Anyone who is TOLERANT is labeled a Red! Anyone who is in favor of women's rights, feminism, gay rights, and against racism is called a Red! In fact, anyone in favor of tolerance toward alternative religions is called a Red or a "pinko commie." This is not new! And so, we call ourselves REDS!
I do understand the concept of "Dirigist capitalism" (Dirigisme or socialism-lite). But social issues (gay rights, feminism, non-racism, religious tolerance) have nothing to do with being a "red." The fact that other people ignorantly fling around a term without understanding its meaning doesn't mean it actually means that.
When I refer to egoism, I'm referring to an ethical stance. The best I can glean from this word salad is that he sees egoism as some sort of epistemological position. :? Obviously they aren't on the same wavelength I am, so it would be difficult to have any sort of discussion about it.
But my basic critique of a too free economical system is that money becomes the new god and for me personally I wish to live in a society that shifts the focus on income and concentrates on other things which I deem more important for the well being of me, my friends and the environment.
I went over your posts in that thread. It seems regarding social issues, you talk about the problems caused by various factors (individual ownership of firearms, drug use, etc) and thus say they should be legally limited or prohibited. My issue with that is that history shows prohibition and gun control don't work. It's only great in theory to ban things; in reality, bans are ineffective and often counterproductive. Just because there's a problem with one system doesn't mean the other system has the solution.
As for the economy, a free market is a system in which the government interferes minimally (if at all) with the economy. You go on about how such a system values money and profit over human and environmental interests. But a free market is a POLICY, not a value system. You seem to have equated capitalism with consumerism. They're not the same thing at all.
You also mention how, in a free market, sometimes companies do unethical things (exploit their workers, pollute, deceive the public, etc). This is true, but again, that doesn't mean that implementing regulation is going to solve these problems. Again, history has demonstrated that attempts at interference inevitably result in corruption.
Simply put, you've demonstrated that capitalism and individual liberty are imperfect/flawed, i.e. they fall short of realizing a utopia. But all of the proposed "solutions" to this problem end up creating a bigger mess than the original problem in question. The "cure" is worse than the disease. I don't think my policy preferences would result in a perfect world; simply the lesser of two evils.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40571 - 07/20/10 08:17 PM
Re: The Satanic Reds
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
TheInsane
member
Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
|
I will not try t defend The Satanic Reds. I am not a member and I do not agree with them politically.
On politics, I'd rather not go in deeper into the topic again since it's already been done. But I would like to comment on some things.
1. Gun control does work. Statistics show that less murders and accidents caused by guns occur in countries where it is illegal or restricted to own/carry a gun.
2. The policy of a free market does create a certain value system automatically even if it may not be part of the original policy. A free market capitalism creates consumerism. There is no way around it if the market is free.
3. Yes, government interference can result in corruption. I never said it was without faults. I do however believe it is better that it can be controlled rather than having it free and thus out of control for everyone.
4. I am not surprised that you consider "the cure worse than the disease". Its only natural. I think the same way but about your system. Its called having different opinions
Basically I've been through this discussion before on this board and unless there are new perspectives to add to it I feel no need to comment much further on it. We would have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40577 - 07/20/10 10:05 PM
Re: The Satanic Reds
[Re: TV is God]
|
MatthewJ1
member
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 529
Loc: Australia
|
I was a member of the Communist Party years ago when I was interested in trying new things out and acquiring a stronger awareness of the political and economic.
Let me just say the Communist Party and I didn’t really make much sense together and I left, but I did spend a long time studying Marx, Engels and Lenin etc.
One thing I will say about the Communists: they never really got over Stalin, and over the collapse of the USSR.
The “iron laws of history” haven’t exactly played out as Marx thought they would. The relegation of all human beings into either the camp of the bourgeoisie or the camp of the proletariat hasn’t really happened, and the necessary collapse of the capitalist mode of production hasn’t happened either.
I am interested in Dialectical and Historical Materialism, but one has to be careful with these concepts.
There is very little which is Satanic in Communism.
The whole premise of the thing is based on controlling and stopping water from seeking its own level.
The whole national productive apparatus is coordinated and controlled from a central point. What will be produced, how much will be produced, who will get what and how much is all determined by some faceless bureaucrat in some grey building somewhere else.
It reminds me of the sort of world Kafka wrote about in The Trial, it’s just a nightmare.
The Communists attempted to put an end to classes, but instead they merely put the bureaucracy and the engineers in charge. It was and is a clanking, grinding machine with everybody in their assigned place and ready to take orders, and the whole economy and society is orchestrated by a handful of bureaucrats in some bureau somewhere. It’s a nightmare.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#40599 - 07/21/10 02:38 AM
Re: The Satanic Reds
[Re: TV is God]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
I don't feel the state providing some of its own production is a form interfering with private business.
OK, I can try and take this one on. What you're essentially talking about is the state providing a "public option" within a particular industry, whether it's shipping (U.S. postal service), education (public schools), or healthcare.
Here's why I would take issue with that.
In sectors with a "public option," the government can subsidize its businesses with taxes, thus artificially lowering prices to levels that private businesses simply can't compete with, and driving its competitors out of business. The public option monopolizes the lower-income demographic. Think of the school system; only the rich and picky can afford to go to private schools.
Why is this a problem?
Well, compare it to a sector that's exclusively private, like the restaurant industry. Even if you're poor, there are still a variety of options available; there's competition. Don't like McDonald's? Go to Burger King, or White Castle, or Jack in the Box, or Wendy's. When you have a public option, however, there's only one option available at the low income level. It's like prison food; you take what's available or you simply go without. The reason all private schools are outlandishly expensive nowadays is because a cheap private school wouldn't be able to compete with FREE public schools.
I think the state should be able to produce in the interests of its people. If the "socialist" option doesn't work it'll die off like any other business.
That's just the thing; it won't. It's supported by taxes and thus prevented from going out of business. It's got its own built-in bailout system. Look at what a mess Amtrak is. It can't turn a profit, it can't get business, and it keeps getting millions in government money.
When the problem is a fucked up healthcare system it makes sense to me for government to try and provide a better alternative without interfering with the private.
The problems with our health care system stem from government interference in the first place. Because tax incentives make it far cheaper to get health care through one's employer instead of independently, people just take whatever their employer offers instead of "shopping around" for the best deal. If people bought their health care directly from the company instead of getting it via their employers, companies would be made to compete, and consumers would get better deals. It would certainly be simpler and easier to phase out government interference in the health care industry than to implement a "public option," but I'm not holding my breath.
Another issue I mentioned before in this thread (see quote below) is the fact that health insurance isn't really insurance; it's a buffer system for health care costs. Insurance covers unexpected expenses. Your car insurance covers things like wrecks or engine failure, not routine costs like car washes or gasoline. Theoretically, health insurance would cover unexpected illness or injury, not routine check-ups, vaccinations, and the like.
If I buy an item, I have to write out all the 0's on the check myself, or put down each bill myself, and make note of how much lighter my wallet is because of it. That stings, and it makes me be more careful to ensure that I'm spending wisely. But part of the reason people abuse credit cards more than cash is because they don't directly feel the impact; it's like anesthetic...it's this very same "buffer" effect that drives up the cost of private health insurance. If healthcare covers a certain percentage of the cost of an item, people are more likely to get more expensive drugs and procedures because "they're covered" than they would if they were paying directly out of pocket. Then they bitch about how much their coverage costs... gee, I wonder why?
P.S. I could address TheInsane's points, but I think you've made it pretty clear you don't wanna debate the issue any further, so I'll let it slide for now.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41333 - 08/02/10 07:43 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: ta2zz]
|
SODOMIZER
pledge
Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
|
It is shit like this that truly smells of Facebook or Myspace.
Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.
Even more, those questions are horribly leading. "Women should stay at home and be homemakers: yes or no" is far too simple. It doesn't give you the ability to address related conditions or exceptions.
And of course, many political viewpoints aren't represented. Where do you put monarchists/feudalists/traditionalists?
_________________________
SC / O9A
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41347 - 08/02/10 11:09 PM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: SODOMIZER]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
Yeah, it didn't make any sense to me. Trying to cherrypick items makes little sense because at some point, there's a type of society (much less political system) you desire.
Yes, I recognize the deficiencies of the quiz, as I've noted before. It's bound to be simplistic by attempting to reduce political opinions to a numerical scale. I suppose a more qualitative approach, asking open-ended questions issue by issue, would be far more accurate, but it would also be tougher to demonstrate a concrete trend.
My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels. Case in point: I know a "Latter Day Saint" who drinks, fornicates, and does goodness knows what else they aren't supposed to be doing. Ask him if he agrees with this or that quote from J. Smith (Eden in Missouri, origins of Native Americans) and he'll wriggle around about how that's not "official doctrine." Apparently, nothing Mormons believe is "official doctrine." So when someone tells me he's a "Republican," what am I supposed to make of that? Who knows if his meaning of the term in any way conforms to my understanding of it?
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41365 - 08/03/10 09:15 AM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: XiaoGui17]
|
SODOMIZER
pledge
Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 61
|
My main point in trying to use something objective (if weak) is the frequent disconnect between people's personal meanings of labels.
I agree that this is a big confusion.
It seems to me that people view political outlooks as labels or categories, and don't realize that each has a core idea -- the big picture -- which determines what its viewpoint will be on each detail.
For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.
For another example, why leftist topics like gay rights, anti-racism, etc. tend to cluster with socialist or communist views -- the left is primarily an egalitarian philosophy.
When you look at it from the highest level of organization, things become clear that are invisible when you're comparing labels.
_________________________
SC / O9A
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#41403 - 08/04/10 12:35 AM
Re: Political Compass
[Re: SODOMIZER]
|
XiaoGui17
member
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 310
Loc: Austin, TX
|
For example, why the right necessarily opposes gay marriage and protected political groups -- it's a Social Darwinist philosophy.
I get the general idea of Social Darwinist philosophy, but I don't see how it relates to traditional conservatives or opposing gay marriage. As a libertarian, I can definitely see how libertarianism is philosophically social darwinist: leave everyone to their own devices with minimal government intervention and let those who so well for themselves prosper!
But where liberals feel the need to protect people from society (anti-discrimination laws, state benefits), *social* conservatives feel the need to protect people from themselves. Banning allegedly "dangerous" or "immoral" activities is one of their favorite social policies. I say, let people do dangerous/immoral things so long as they're only risking their own lives; that's Social Darwinism in progress right there.
_________________________
'Tis only daylight that makes us sin.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, Mercury_Templar, fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Morgan, Bacchae, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
But it got me thinking though. As for one question being about different civilizations and cultures, I think cultural differences will have a great impact on a survey like this, since as a Norwegian I don`t really feel that my individual rights is being affected by "counter-terrorism". I have to delve into more political literature too as well, with time. 
