Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain’t dead. Remember, don’t downvote for disagreements.
Im left leaning on many social issues but pronouns was never a necessary social construct hill we needed to die on.
I think that useless fight got us the full hard swing to the right.
Especially because you shouldn’t give a fuck about how people perceive you. You should be whoever you are and not care about labels.
I’m mostly an anarchist. But.
I think that there needs to be some degree of authoritarian, arbitrary power. Mostly because I’ve been in anarchist groups in the past, and when everyone has input into a decision, shit gets bogged down really fast. Not everyone understand a given issue and will be able to make an informed choice, and letting opinionated-and-ignorant people make choices that affect the whole group is… Not good.
The problem is, I don’t know how to balance these competing interests, or exactly where authoritarian power should stop. It’s easy to say, well, I should get to make choices about myself, but what about when those individual choices end up impacting other people? For instance, I eat meat, and yet I’m also aware that the cattle industry is a significant source of CO2; my choice, in that case, contributes to climate change, which affects everyone. …And once you start going down that path, it’s really easy to arrive at totalitarianism as the solution.
I also don’t know how to hand the issue of trade and commerce, and at what point it crosses the line into capitalism.
You can be Jewish and even support the idea of a Jewish homeland while also being fervently appalled by the actions of the state of Israel (Netanyahu, West Bank settlements, unarmed Palestinians shot/killed, houses being bulldozed).
- permanent revolution;
- that parties should be democratic institutions;
- that burocratization leads to deformed proletarian states.
I’m anarchist left, but I do think every human should have the right to defend themself and thereforce should be able to bear arms
I’m not american if anyone’s gonna ask
I’m going to expect a lot of dislikes for this one…
Neutering/Spaying is animal abuse.
Freedom of speech for absolutely everyone, especially people I disagree with and that disagree with me
I believe that the vast majority of people are inherently good, and that tribalism and political divisiveness are some of the biggest issues we have to face.
Political differences arise mostly from different values, fears, education (or lack thereof), etc, but most people if you get to know them believe what they do because they believe it is genuinely good. But increasingly politics is focused on vilifying others, instead of trying to understand each other.
Y’all don’t need to keep adding things to lgbtq or lgbt+. The q or + takes care of everything
I believe that the stance against nuclear power (specifically, nuclear fission, as opposed to radioisotope power used by spacecraft) by greens undermines the fight to stop global warming, and that many of the purported issues with nuclear power have been solved or were never really issues in the first place.
For instance: the nuclear waste produced by old-gen reactors can be used by newer generations.
the anti-work movement has been a blight on communism
Do you see it as a waste of time or a distraction? I see it as a gateway drug.
I feel like it has the wrong name. But it is a baby step for many toward anticapitalist ideals.
Work is good, and can be beneficial. Working a job you hate because if you don’t you’d starve is awful and should be done away with.
The invention of money was a blight on our society. Abolishing it immediately is the first step to proper environmental recovery.
What the systems of getting people their food, supplies would look like, I don’t know, but having corporations hoarding wealth and polluting everything needs to stop.
Idk how we’d get rid of money, but it needs to be done. We’re literally the only species on the planet with this concept and we’re suffering for it.
Yup. We’re producing the goods, we need the goods, why the hell are we doing this with shareholders and money?
Oh right, cause human time is limited and automation isn’t good enough.
Humanity also just can’t coexist peacefully with anything. We ruin everything we touch. Our hubris will be our downfall and I take comfort in the fact that the Earth will heal after we extinct ourselves.
Money can and should be abolished, but the best way to do so is to work towards a fully publicly owned and centrally planned economy and work of of labor vouchers, which are destroyed upon first use. Eliminate production for profit and replace it with production for use.
A few related thoughts.
- Money, capital, and profit are not the same things.
- Labor vouchers are a form of money.
- Every time you give fiat money back to the government which owns the “money printer,” that money has been in effect destroyed.
- I’m not of the opinion that money should be abolished, not even necessarily “eventually.” Maybe a time will come when it makes sense to, but I don’t have the foresight to speak meaningfully to that.
I think it’s important to understand that “money” as it exists within markets exists in a manner to be exchanged and accumulated. Labor vouchers are a type of "currency,” but as they can’t really be accumulated in the same manner money for exchange can be, may make sense in the far future.
It’s mostly a moot point because we lilely won’t make it to the level of centralization necessary for such a system in our lifetimes though, and our successors can figure out potentially an even better system.
I see the sentiment that money should be abolished here all the time, but this is the first time I’ve actually seen a proposed replacement. It’s an interesting idea.
If anyone wants do go deep into non-monetary economic systems, I haven’t read/listened-to much of their work but economists and computer scientists like Cockshott have researched planned non-money economies.
A summary: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/paul_cockshott_cyber_communism.html
It’s Marxist, so you can go to Marx for more on that, though he didn’t spend much time describing how he thought Communism would function.
Humans aren’t going to evolve towards intelligence. We’re a pretty short-sighted stupid species. We’re going to continue to devolve and kill ourselves off, one way or another.
I like the idea that people should be able to choose their representatives based on how they live, rather than where they live.
You sign up as a “gamer,” or a “farmer” or a “soccer mom.” Whatever you decide for that term. Your representative then wheels and deals and votes for laws that help you.
Any group that had 0.5% of the population willing to sign up would get their voice in the Legislature.
This is exactly the political description described in Ann Palmer’s “Terra Ignota.” Government by consent, irrespective of geography. People would join with up to one Hive – some embodied idealist motherly traits like the Cousins, others were strictly about the nationstates of old, like the European Union. It’s four volumes, but is an interesting tale of 25th century political science.
Very cool. Thanks, I’d never heard of that book.
Robert Heinlein worked on some real political campaigns back in the day and it shows in his writings.
Another fun political writer is Ross Thomas. He was a WW2 veteran who went from being a Washington reporter to a crime novelist.
“The Fools In Town Are On Our Side” is about a plan to clean up a small Southern city by making it " so corrupt that even the pimps will vote for reform."
“The Porkchoppers” is about a Nixon era Union election. It’s all about the nuts and bolts of running a dirty campaign.
Is this different than proportional representation?
It would be proportional, but instead of your representation being based on your address it’s based on a choice you make.
Think of it this way; you’re a computer programmer who works from home in Hayseed, Iowa. Everyone lese in your town is a farmer or working in farm related business. Your voice will never be heard by the Congressperson.
Under the new system, your address would be irrelevant. You’d be voting for a computer person who knows exactly what you need.
That’s one example. You might want to be part of the ‘teachers’ or ‘gun owners.’
The original idea comes from a novel, “Double Star” by Robert Heinlein. He doesn’t provide an actual constitution, but I do think it’s a nice idea to play around with.
This sounds very much like the German electoral system, except in the German system your address and your preferred “group” are relevant. You get two votes, one is for a local representative, the other is just for a party (so you could freely vote for the “gamer” party if it existed), and both votes contribute seats to government.
But the reason it’s based on address is because the person you vote for has power over that location. In this system, what would that person have power over?
The idea is briefly mentioned in the book “Double Star” by Robert Heinlein. He doesn’t provide an actual constitution.
Governors and mayors would still run the local area, but the national laws would be passed by a legislature composed of people all elected ‘at large.’
The Congressmember from Texas has no power in his state. He can’t force anyone to do something. They can go to Washington and vote for a law that’s enforced by the police.
Yes. You might have a version of it in which every group gets one representative, whether it’s “people who have visited Vietnam at least once” with 0.5% of the population or “customer service workers” with 20% of the population
It seems like the atmosphere is changing now but I’ve been saying this for years.
The language of privilege is backwards and counter productive.
