/lit/ - Literature

Communist

Marx
Zizek
Harvey

>>1637491

how unexpected

>>1637491
I do not much like Marx's work
They are somewhat primitive compared to the writings of the the recent marxist schools, in my opinion.

>>1637491
Fucking tool. If communism is so good then why the fuck has it failed over 9000 times. Oh wait, why would you even care. You're probably some 15 year old douche who thinks communism is all deep and edgy. You sir, are an imbecile.

>>1637491
This. I'm not really a fan of Harvey though.

>>1637497

>They are somewhat primitive compared to the writings of the the recent marxist schools, in my opinion.

You must admit that Capital is still an amazing piece of text.

>>1637498

You seem upset.

>>1637507

Harvey is a bit moderate, but he knows his stuff and is quite sharp.

>>1637511
How can anyone think communism would work if its proven to be a failure so many times?

I share identical political ideology with my favorite political theorist, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz

>>1637498 LOL you sounded a lot more like a retarded 15 year old than that guy. If you're wondering, communism failed because it was meant for countries who had a strong capitalist base, so that it would be advanced enough to survive. Russia was far from being an established capitalist society, and Lenin knew this, and when addressed about it he said that Russia would start the revolution and other more suitable countries would follow. However, what happened is communism became synonomous with dictatorship in places like China and Korea. YOU sir are an imbicile.

Aristocratic Radicalism

Oh, boy...
>let's talk about politics
>Marxism
>BUTTHURT, BUTTHURT everywhere.

>>1637498
Yeah, like if communism ever really happened.
Protip: A cow with a postick with "cat" written on it is not a cat.

>>1637523
So he started it in Russia even though he knew it would fail? If it would have failed, why would any other more suitable countries follow? Why would he even think that other countries would change their political structure? derp?!

And its "IMBECILE" genius.

>>1637530

Anarcho-primitivism

>>1637511
I am not deny its revolutionary insight and value OF ITS TIME.
However, it no longer presents a viable solution to current problems.

>>1637536
Communism is supposed to work if ALL proletarians do the revolution, not a country. First learn what communism is, then try to argue. I'm not a commie, but your arguments are so retarded.

ALSO COMMUNISM HAS NEVER BEEN PRACTICED BY A NATION, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE FAILED.

EHUEHUEUHEUUHEUHUEUHEUHUE

>>1637488

My own, but it's highly derivative and I don't pretend otherwise.

>>1637543

so you want to bang kids right

>>1637543
Reactionary detected.

>>1637558
>My own, but it's highly derivative
then how is it your own

Moral egoist here. Max Stirner is probably my fav.

>>1637530
>>1637543
Interesting perspectives.
The rest dull, gay or both.

>>1637567
>anarcho primitivism
>interesting beyond its absurdity

>>1637557

Technocratic Constitutional Monarchy

>>1637566

Philosophy is like literature: all of it is derivative with a few new innovations added or reinvented every now and then.

I couldn't imagine the society I envision without the works of people who both agree and disagree with some of my premises.

>>1637572
I just said interesting.
(But yeah)

>>1637584
I'm sorry, I overstepped myself.

>>1637577
Are you spanish?

Anarcho-syndicalism

Sure is high school communists in this thread. Read 'In Defense of Lost Causes' if you wan't to make people jelly of your contrarian intellectual prowess. Make sure you carry it around in public places to get all the hipster girls moist.

>>1637581
>Philosophy is like literature: all of it is derivative with a few new innovations added or reinvented every now and then.
Yeah. But how is your political ideology derivative and yet your own?

>I couldn't imagine the society I envision without the works of people who both agree and disagree with some of my premises.
Yeah people tend to write things that go against what other people have written. it has happened a few times in the history of thought I believe. I am surprised you noticed it tho.

>>1637518

>>1637605

>Yeah people tend to write things that go against what other people have written. it has happened a few times in the history of thought I believe. I am surprised you noticed it tho.

I see you are one of those pretentious hipster fags who has to manufacture a back and forth argument simply because one isn't being had. I suppose you chose your trip ironically too.

>Yeah. But how is your political ideology derivative and yet your own?

It is my own in the sense that any author's book is his or her own, even though it follows or incorporates at least one of the handful of basic stories, and all of that author's characters can be viewed as derivative of similar characters from other works.

That said, I am likely being far too humble. I will expound upon my thoughts and explain what I believe when I return from getting food: ramen is necessary for philosophical discussion.

>>1637620
>: ramen is necessary for philosophical discussion.
self K.O. so you can't get whooped by d&e, very clever.

>>1637552

>I am not deny its revolutionary insight and value OF ITS TIME.

You either haven't read Capital or you vastly misunderstood it.

>>1637587

British.

John Rawls.

What politics should be is a group of well educated, highly respected rulers who live together in an area, are given the means to live comfortably but aren't paid money. Their interests are solely in ruling justly. They would be in a sense outside of society, aren't involved with all the things the people are, and only have to worry about ruling their country.

>>1637631
It's infinitely more helpful to, you know, elaborate on your position.

>>1637639

>>1637620
>I see you are one of those pretentious hipster fags who has to manufacture a back and forth argument simply because one isn't being had. I suppose you chose your trip ironically too.
I'm not manufacturing anything here. There's no argument going on here buddy cool down.

>It is my own in the sense that any author's book is his or her own
They're legal authors? They've got copyright? How do you copyright an idelogy lol.

>it follows or incorporates at least one of the handful of basic stories
It's okay bro none of us are morons no need to dumb the language down here friend we know you mean 'archetypes' or 'myths'
Anyway basically all you've said amounts to a toddler's explanation of Intertextuality. Language is dialogic, no shit.

>I am likely being far too humble
Nice way to say 'willfully stupid'

>I will expound upon my thoughts and explain what I believe when I return from getting food
Please, don't; you've demonstrated a profound lack of grasp of even the most basic concepts intrinsic to the discussion of any ideology or concepts whatsoever. I don't want to hear about whatever hokey bullshit you have to say.

>>1637645
Plato?

>>1637660
He means 'Capital' is a critique of Capitalism that doesn't once mention the word 'Communism' or 'Socialism' inferring you haven't read it.

>>1637667
>I don't want to hear about whatever hokey bullshit you have to say.
Said the tripfag.

>They're legal authors? They've got copyright? How do you copyright an idelogy lol.
I bet he meant that authors don't keep their point of view for themselves and write about pure theory.

Talk more about your aristocratic ideal society and troll less.

>>1637667

>They're legal authors? They've got copyright? How do you copyright an idelogy lol.
You force everyone to pay you depending on their idea systems, whether existential or materialistic. Although it would be logistically impossible to keep track of the constantly shifting ideas and ideals of the numerous individuals of a population, I guess you could do it. People have done stupider things.

>>1637675
>implying I mentioned communism or socialism, either
I am not quite sure what all this hubbub is about.

>>1637694
>People have done stupider things.
Yeah I suppose it's not entirely beyond belief. Apparently there are some idiots out there who actually think an idea can be stolen after all.

>>1637689
Sorry no thanks it would be like trying to teach a dog algebra, waste of time for me and the dog.

>>1637714
not the same guy
but uh
could I hear?

>>1637639
I like Rawls. I hate his style of writing though.

>>1637714
Oh, you're so deep and edgy.

>>1637747
Who isn't?

>>1637747
Who isn't?

>>1637714

>Yeah I suppose it's not entirely beyond belief. Apparently there are some idiots out there who actually think an idea can be stolen after all.

Postmodern theory would counter that no ideas are original. Everything is just a bricolage of previous ideas and forms, constantly recycled and re-imagined.

>>1637577
Like the Kingdom of Edan??

>>1637766
>Everything is just a bricolage of previous ideas and forms, constantly recycled and re-imagined
Yeah I got enough of that in structuralist literary theory; the critic is a "bricoleur".

Nice way of shitting on the critic.

>>1637772

No, not like the Kingdom of Eden. Having a technocratic democratic assembly under a constitutional monarch.

>>1637786

>Nice way of shitting on the critic.

It also decreases the value of the artist. Postmodernism is increasingly getting on my nerves, not saying that modernism was any better. Roland Barthes is such an asshole.

>>1637786

the critic is a faggot and deserves to be shat on, sorry

A mix of Distributism, Technocracy, and Monarchism.
'The Servile State' by Belloc,
'Ethics and the National Economy' by Pesch
'Beyond Capitalism and Socialism' by Lanz
'Liberty or Equality' by Kuehnelt-Ledihn
'Sovereignty' by de Jouvenel

>>1637797

also fuck the value of the artist, the artist is $2.99 at subway, what is this "value" shit

>>1637788
Hmmm. Some group calling itself the Kingdom of Edan (with an 'a') writes online about Feudal Technocratic Distributism (they write on some of the Distributist blogs I read); they, essentially, promote a constitutional monarchy where the aristocracy is technocratic (i.e., technocratic merit = knighthood/etc.). Interesting, but I don't know much more about it.

>>1637667

I have returned with ramen.

I see you your replies. I see also that while you posted that you ascribe to aristocratic radicalism you chose not to expound upon it due to a misplaced sense of superiority. You are a critic who does not open himself to criticism, and that is the worst kind of critic. I have seen your threads and your posts, and I have seen nothing of value contributed. There is no conflict between us, but I find you distasteful.

>>1637630

You I have trolled before. Very successfully. Think back.

I will type things up, by consider my hat to still be in the metaphorical ring.

>>1637846

Once again... typo.

Michael Oakeshott Rationalism in Politics

In my youth, I held to the idea of a class based fascist society. This is something I no longer believe in, but it served as a starting point for other ideas. Portions of it were similar to the ideal republic as described by Plato, with various things I drew from other sources, including my interpretations Locke and several of his contemporaries.

Life would be thus: one is born casteless, and you have the opportunity to rise through the castes, or choose not to rise through them, as per your preference and aptitude. In order to rise beyond a certain level, you had to show both the ambition to seize the opportunity to do so and pass whatever test was necessary in order to pull it off.

There would be four primary castes one could test into, although you had to start at the bottom. A person's life begins at the Bronze caste, which where most citizens would likely end up remaining. Eventually they could work their way up to the silver caste if they had enough ambition and talent. With enough talent and ambition, they could reach the Gold caste. Outside of these three classes is a Platinum class of arbitrators and evaluators. They serve to administer testing and evaluate the quantifiable contributions people make to society.

cont

>>1637898

Here's where social contract comes in: advancement through the murder of your superiors, given sufficient justification, is acceptable. Why the hell should we allow this? In a social contract between people and leaders, things are skewed in favor of the ruler rather than the ruled. As such, the penalty for betraying the social contract should be extraordinarily steep, and there should be great incentive to do so, or no would be leaders would acquiesce to such a thing. However, if the slayer was proven to have carried out his actions on false grounds or with too little evidence, he himself was subject to the same punishment. The idea is to root out corruption

In the breach, the practice would be commonplace among the Gold Caste and upper echelon of the Silver Caste, but relatively rare among the Bronze Caste and lower echelons of the Silver Caste. I do not think it would be common among the Platinum Caste, as it operates outside of the hierarchy, and the Platinum Caste itself handles the justice system in addition to evaluations.

cont

>>1637898
Your society is described (with exactly the same names for each caste) on Jane Jensen's book.

Communism doesn't work because it is in direct conflict with human nature. Duh.
Libertarian OP. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't fuck up someone else's day.

>>1637905

(Yes, I realized that after the fact, but I disagree with Jensen on certain things. Or did anyway: I no longer hold to those views.)

>>1637907
Only intelligent person in this thread.

>>1637920

Samefag spotted. Libertarianism doesn't work either.

>>1637907
Did you know communism never even existed?
What's that human nature you know so much about?
inb4Chomsky's bullshit

BTW I'm not a fucking commie. I like Nozick's and Stirner's theories.

>>1637901

I also recognize that some would fraud this system: that is okay. If the person acting is ruthless enough and talented enough to thoroughly frame their own superior, murder them, then get away with it, I think it would be less harmful for someone so ruthless to be allowed to achieve their ambition and move up to a place where their talent can do some good rather than take action outside of the socially sanctioned system of advancement.

Further, currency would be eliminated. There would be value assigned to labor, and to goods and services by the Platinum Caste. One would expend value on goods and services, but no money would change hands, value would simply be expended. This means that the Platinum caste is also responsible, in tandem with the Gold and Silver Castes, for controlling economic conditions within the society.

cont.

>>1637932
General idea of communism: "LET'S SHARE EVRYONE"
General human: Greedy-ass motherfuckers.

Deal with it.

>>1637927

"doesn't work"

to do what?

>>1637933

Given the way monetary values are assigned in this society, there is no need to create a distinction between government jobs or private sector jobs: only social arrangements of some sort that bring together people to perform a series of tasks needed to produce things of value are truly necessary, and it matters little what form it occurs in: this is purely a question of aesthetics.

At the highest level of government, there should be an emperor. This emperor should, by his very nature, have proven himself to be the most ambitious and capable individual at a given time. The council just below him should be the next most capable and ambitious individuals at any given time. They should all be at one another’s throats, balancing on a razor’s edge but just short of making a move against each other, at all times. I suspect that neither emperors nor council members will be particularly long lived, as the job is both stressful and dangerous due to the sheer number of daggers pointed at their backs.

cont.

>>1637846
>You are a critic who does not open himself to criticism, and that is the worst kind of critic
Why would I open myself to criticism when I already know no legitimate criticism could be made of me.

>I have seen your threads and your posts, and I have seen nothing of value contributed
Not a surprise to me seeing seeing as what superior and inferior individuals value are worlds apart.

>>1637943

As a functional system when implemented. Failure to check corporations is not a good thing.

>>1637949

Sure.

>>1637938

>General human: Greedy-ass motherfuckers.
I'm not a "greedy-ass motherfucker", I'm an egoist but I'm not a materialist and I (seriously) don't want privileges.
General humans are greedy because a greedy system rules the world. Not all tribes and cultures have always been capitalists.
Human nature or occidental modern human system?

>>1637488

I'm not a great fan of democracy, but I don't pretend that a return to aristocracy or oligarchy is possible. I'd prefer that an enlightened oligarchy of philosophers rule, while a gentlemanly class presides over the great masses of commoners. I detest the bourgeoisie, but as ship owners and such even they have their place.

Allan Bloom
Plato

>>1637963

Shop owners*, excuse me

>>1637950
I assume you mean the whole "corporations cut corners and fuck people over to score some swag" but under my kind of libertarian country, that shit would be treated criminally.
Poison a water supply that people drink with sewage?
An attempted murder charged with every individual affected.
In any way try to fuck someone over with contracts etc.?
Charged with fraud immediately.
Once again, do what you want without fucking up someone else's day.

>>1637948

I envisage multiple ends to this society, and I believe that if you are going to deliberately craft something, you should build an ending into it so that it may fall gracefully and slowly while people transition to something else. Separation of church and state is a necessity so that some level of dissent and friction between the two may be maintained. This is one possible end I envisage for such a society. Another is that a sudden knight of long knives will wipe out a large portion of the upper class, and their replacements will not be up to the task of governing. Another I can foresee would be such a society falling to revolutionaries acting on ideology: the Platinum caste would be an excellent place for such a thing to find roots.

However, I no longer believe in a Meritocracy based Fascist state. I do not believe it to be necessary, and I believe now that there are better alternatives. This was the philosophy of an angry young man that once believed himself to be of a superior class of human beings who fancied himself the first emperor.

>>1637961
Jesus Christ. Which came first? Chicken, or the egg?
How would a greedy system take root in the very first place? It stems from the desire to survive. Logic dictates that the more food I have, the more likely I won't starve to death. If suddenly I need some other form of wealth to acquire that food, I want that. This translates over to other shit too.
Get in a time machine and go back to the first homosapiens and hold out a shiny diamond and I will bet you my testicles that they will start killing themselves over it.

>>1637969

Not possible to execute in a libertarian system. If you hold a libertarian attitude, it is unlikely you could maintain the political will to have a set of laws and the layer of bureaucracy necessary to maintain the regulatory force to monitor or sanction corporations, especially in the face of lobbying, collusion, and fraud, and even if you did that wouldn't fit some people's definition of libertarianism.

Corporations will always fight to protect their interests so long as there exists the profit motive and the opportunity for profit in sufficient amount. No allowances need be made for large firms, as they also have the resources necessary to defend themselves when motivated. Libertarianism is redundant, and the attitudes it reinforces prevent government from protecting its people from social harms.

>>1638000
Well, it does stem on people not being fucking retarded and actually taking up initiative to handle this kind of shit: boycotting shady business, bringing attention to authorities, etc.

>>1638015

You are arguing then that the market will sanction corporations? Or are you making an argument for a particular brand of CSR?

>>1637982
Paleolithic homo sapiens?
Did you know the 90% of their time was occupied having sex/playing/doing nothing in particular?
I bet mine they would happily exchange the diamond for a lamb carcass.

>>1638026
I'm arguing that I sincerely hope the market would sanction corporations.
Fact is, and I know this, most of the fucktarded illiterates int he world these days have no idea what the words "personal responsibility" mean.
But let's be honest here, nothing else has worked so far. I say give it a go. Plus, I 'd rather enjoy not having a Big Brother government. I'm really sick of this shit.

>>1638000
>minimal state
Usury or taking monopoly over basic products can be seen as a crime against all individuals.

>>1638043
Thank you.
Not fucking up someone's day can be interpreted very broadly, think about it.

>>1638000
Also:
>Libertarianism is redundant, and the attitudes it reinforces prevent government from protecting its people from social harms.

>Anarchism is redundant, and the attitudes it reinforces prevent government from protecting its people from social harms.

fixed
There's a difference.

>>1638038

There is no big brother government. There was never a single national database established in order to hold the information of United States Citizens, so the private sector was driven to create three of them due to the credit industry. It isn't big brother you should be worried about, it is a series of littler brothers that are far less regulated than any singular government database would be, which are not directly responsible to the people whose information they hold.

>>1638043

This matters how? How are you going to gather the political will to maintain the tools needed to keep a monopoly in check in a libertarian state? For that matter, what are you even trying to say?

>>1638061

No. You have merely used a trick of semantics to dodge the issue and given yourself a pat on the back for it. Nothing more.

leave the politics for the kids. us enlightened folk are above it.

>>1638080
Business should be feared less because when they start doing shit people can just stop buying from them.
They probably won't but there is a choice. With government, they force you into shit.
How do you know there isn't a fat database somewhere?

>>1638080
whatever you say.movement ivisse
But according to Nozicks theory, a minimal state would prevent people form some social harms.

>>1638080
whatever you say.
But according to Nozicks theory, a minimal state would prevent people form some social harms.

>>1638094

Market sanctions are ineffective: the market has secondary concerns and incentives to which ethics takes a backseat. While people can make a decision not to buy from a corporation at times, barriers to entry and competition often mean that alternatives are hard to come by or expensive. This leaves us with CSR, which operates in the space between the market and government.

Governments are build upon coercive force, that is true, but the government is answerable to its citizens in a democracy, and is held to higher standards of transparency than a corporation. In order to effectively sanction a corporation citizens must persuade their government to do so by gathering the necessary political will, and government must have the tools to do so; libertarianism is not conducive to either of those things.

>>1638099

Nozicks can suck a cock.

>>1637491

F**k communism and all such stuff. I'm for monarchy.

I now think that a long suppressed shift in the cost of energy will be one of a series of shifts that lessens the profit motive, leading to an abandonment of the corporate model. I think that work will be motivated by a combination of duty, social status, and various other social mechanism that will supplement the profit motive or replace it.

That said, we are a long ways off from that, and in the meantime the transition will be gradual and probably filled with strife, and the best we can do is help to ease the pressure.

isaiah berlin, ernest gellner, raymond aron

liberalism ahoy! without being free market assholes

>>1638113
>the government is answerable to its citizens in a democracy.
Coose: Republitards or Democunts?
Which one would be worse?
>transparency
what about the media? they can be owned by a corporation or by the government... don't know what's worst.

In a libertarian society there wouldn't be lobbies (after applying the principle of distributive justice), just the fruit of free association. And without the cooperation of an international market (regulated by some states), companies wouldn't grow like they've done.

>>1638212

Democracies have problems, no one denies that. If you think federal elections and a choice between Republicans or Democrats is the sole capacity you have for government participation, your attitude and ignorance is a part of the problem.

The media is profit driven, and you have no idea what it is like to live in a country where propaganda is pervasive. For fun, look up some Chinese public addresses and talk to people who have lived there in the current era: that will give you an idea of how such mindsets work.

>In a libertarian society there wouldn't be lobbies (after applying the principle of distributive justice), just the fruit of free association. And without the cooperation of an international market (regulated by some states), companies wouldn't grow like they've done.

There would be lobbies. You mentioned regulation, but it wouldn't happen if those states were libertarian, and that's assuming they even have the capacity to do so. The rest of this is largely irrelevant or its own can of worms.

>>1638231
>a choice between Republicans or Democrats
I was being (obviously, I thought) ironic: you can vote others but in a bipartite system nobody cares.
>There would be lobbies. You mentioned regulation, but it wouldn't happen if those states were libertarian
there COULD NOT. Libertarianism wouldn't be absolute instant freedom to do whatever you want with your current property. First there should by applied (by the state) a regulatory principle of distribution (Basic income guarantee). You simply make assumptions about something you don't know shit about (loled about that "Nozick can suck my dick")... It's boring to discuss with you.

Absolute Monarchy.

>>1638264

>I was being (obviously, I thought) ironic: you can vote others but in a bipartite system nobody cares.

Ignorant it is then. No one said shit about third parties. You are a part of one of the variants of social cancer eating our country, congratulations.

>there COULD NOT. Libertarianism wouldn't be absolute instant freedom to do whatever you want with your current property. First there should by applied (by the state) a regulatory principle of distribution (Basic income guarantee). You simply make assumptions about something you don't know shit about (loled about that "Nozick can suck my dick")... It's boring to discuss with you.

You don't seem to know much about... jack shit. Our exchange is entertaining to me and likely to a few of the lurkers on this thread (hi lurkers!), but ultimately you are uninformed about how international trade and the relationship between government and business works.

If there's one thing I hate, it's the idealization of third parties by dumbasses who dislike the current political system.

FACT: the existence of a third party is not going to change the political views of American voters, and therefore is not going to have a profound effect on the American political world. If you want to change shit, convince the people of your views, don't view THIRD PAAAAARTY as some panacea. A third party (1) is basically impossible to establish (2) won't change shit

>>1638276

Again, no one said anything about third parties except for the anon I was replying to (was it you?). If you don't understand how you can participate meaningfully in government beyond voting in national elections, then either our education and library systems have failed, or you have simply failed to utilize them.

Anarchism

Kropotkin
Bakunin
Striner

Although, like all political philosophies, I have some doubts and misgivings about anarchism.

>>1638282
Otheranon seemed to be bitching about the two-party system and people who lionized third parties generally annoy me.

>>1638288

Ah, I understand. Agreed then. The rest of my comment was directed at the other anon.

There is no ideal system

i've that as favorite political terrorist

>mfw this thread
Took 4 classes on political theory for my undergrad - classical, modern, contemporary, and American.

Richard Hofstadter (more of a historian but had important contributions)
Herbert Marcuse
Jurgen Habermas
Alisdair MacIntyre
John Stuart Mill

*not saying I agree with all of these thinkers or their ideas, just that they're my favorites

Wow. Only 1 post before the thread descended into malice and crassitude.

>>1637889
>Oakeshott
>>1637963
Bloom
>two thinkers I never expected to see among any e/lit/ist's favorites. Not that Bloom wasn't an elitist heh heh.

Islamic Nationalism

Yassar Arafat
Gamel Nasser
Khalil al-Wazir

Haters going to hate

Anarcho-capitalist

Rand (lol)
Rothbard

>>1638340
Habermas is an interesting guy but his ideas just seem so unsustainable to me.

>>1638351
Yeah they are. Political theory hasn't really ever been much of a realm of practical ideas. His writing makes my head hurt sometimes too (lolgerman->englishtranslation). The fact that I'd heard The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere referenced by my political theory prof, a media critic, an academic blogger, and a sociology prof definitely made me realize it was an important read.

>>1638177
Bravo

>>1638351
Seconded

>>1637974

And where will the outsiders and hermits fit in this society? What will be done about those who simply want to be left alone?

>>1639108

They could always move somewhere reclusive, or just do a bit of work, get payed, and go somewhere remote for a while, repeating as necessary.

However, I no longer subscribe to that fascist and silly view.

Democratic socialism

>>1639116

What do you believe in now?

>>1639128

Any world or system I could envisage and seek to implement would move by unexpected paths during the course of it's implementation, even if it were successful. I recognize that nothing I might bring about would fail to look anything at all like how I envisioned it.

That said, I imagine something like a democracy, or rather a series of democracies that spins out institutions and social classes as needed, and allows them to fall by the wayside when they are no longer needed. Thinking of how to describe it... organic democracy maybe?

>>1639142

Wow... that was ass backwards, but you get my gist.

I don't want people to be adversely affected by the system in which they live.

Wether that system is the government or the market or some combination thereof, if it has in some way prevented people from living a happy life/wasting their time in horrible situations here in this life, then I demand the system be changed until humans can freely and happily go about the business of living and creating.

That is not to say I am against struggle. Struggles and setbacks can be good for people. But those struggles should not come from a government or boss deciding their life is less important.

In our current society, the individual and the collective are at odds with each other, the political landscape favoring one over the other. I believe that they should work together.

How, I have no idea. I'll get there eventually.

That's what I want.

>>1639228
So Communism right?

>>1639228
>>1639261
I actually have no idea what it is. Communism/Socialism just merges the individual into the collective. I don't think that's what it is.

What is it people? Has anyone done my work for me and made an actual ideology like this?

bump

freud

>>1639304
I think libertarian (or anarcho) socialism comes pretty close to being that.

>>1639304
>>1639304
You believe what most political activists who I know that identify themselves as socialists believe. Whether you know it or not that makes you one of ours.

Me:
Revolutionary Socialist-
Marx
Engles
Trotsky
Rosa Luxembourg
Chris Harman
Richard Seymour
Séan Mitchell

extreme moderate here. i really don't care who rules this fucking world because i will do what i do regardless.

if anything i'd like a direct democracy. then there are too many votes to be bought. but then again tv and the net can brainwash motherfuckers.

>>1640805
cont. if people are talking economic ideology, then i like the idea of equal enterprise. free market but if you hire then that person has an automatic equal stake in the business. if you don't want to give that up, then don't hire the person and do the job yourself. if you feel they are necessary to your business then treat them like it.

i like our socialist overtones on a capitalist system. capitalism with progressive taxation isn't so bad. but people do cut corners and abuse it.

>>1640781
Socialism does seem like the only ideology that goes after "the system" as a whole. Libertarians just think the government is bad and capitalism is just human nature. But Socialists are still collectivists at the end of the day, the common good is the goal for them. If an individual wants to see the business go in a different direction and the other workers reject it, he's just going to have to deal with it, even if his idea would benefit the business better.

The best government is no government at all, and when humanity is- hopefully- ready for it, that is precisely the government they shall have. Government at the present needs to be a self balancing and checking system for maintaining order, freedom, education, and humanitarian advancement until such a day arrives as when it is unnecessary.

>>1641961
>The best government is no government at all, and when humanity is- hopefully- ready for it, that is precisely the government they shall have.

That's not a political theory, that's a religious theory.