What is your Favorite Ideology?

Left libertarian for the most part.

I also got Libertarian Socialist in the 8values test thing
My percentages were:
78% Socialist
68% Peaceful
71% Liberal
82% Progressive

The 8values is rather weak I believe, I was put very high on globalization even though I believe it is the biggest evil in the world.

I'd Consider myself a free market Libertarian. In the same vein of Classical Liberalism,but the government can only ban or restrict things that can hurt others.

Basically I don't think the government should restrict trade or establish social programs like healthcare or minimum wage. My ideology is a little radical and often gets many angry responses and while I'd rather not get into a debate I can defend free market libertarianism pretty well.

I lose faith in democracy every time I see it work. Call me a cynic, but I am starting to like the idea of a single-party state with tight economic controls and an otherwise conservative mindset.

BigMacArthur wrote:The 8values is rather weak I believe, I was put very high on globalization even though I believe it is the biggest evil in the world.

I see what you mean, however, I feel a similar way about Globalism, and was also deemed very Globalist, but I think that's because I tend to oppose Globalism in its modern form, but I do think that it could work eventually. For example, I'm not neccesarily against Globalism as a concept, but I tend to oppose it, as I fervently disagree (on many other issues), with many individuals who favor Globalism today, if that makes any sense.

COMMUNISM! Workes Rise!

Cold War Communist wrote:I lose faith in democracy every time I see it work. Call me a cynic, but I am starting to like the idea of a single-party state with tight economic controls and an otherwise conservative mindset.

The capacity of the average person is irrelevant. If you create an unpopular single-party state then it will fall by popular revolution eventually. Democracy is merely an outlet for their rebellious nature. If you destroy that outlet then you simply provoke a democratic revolution.

DavidlVofGeorgia wrote:

Cold War Communist wrote:I lose faith in democracy every time I see it work. Call me a cynic, but I am starting to like the idea of a single-party state with tight economic controls and an otherwise conservative mindset.

The capacity of the average person is irrelevant. If you create an unpopular single-party state then it will fall by popular revolution eventually. Democracy is merely an outlet for their rebellious nature. If you destroy that outlet then you simply provoke a democratic revolution.

Perhaps it will, and perhaps it won't. Perhaps it will make all parties irrelevant, and perhaps it will ensure that every person is on the same page when it comes to "the issues" of the day, and there won't be bickering over how far right or left someone is. If they're in the party, they're however far right or left they need to be in order to remain in the party, end of.

If democracy was an outlet for something, more people would participate. They don't. An outlet would be a revolution. Revolutions, especially violent ones, are how one might arrive at my kind of ideology.

I support authoritarian capitalism, social conservatism and free trade (with a few exeptions). I see this ideas as very good means for nation building, since social conservatism gives the people an identity, authoritarian capitalism destroys possible threats and free trade gives a possibility for a more diverse market and easy wealth.
In the past i used to be a socialist, but i just want you to se a photo of the times when my country had the ideas i mentioned VS my country after 12 years of socialism

r3volutionr0ck wrote:For you can have an idea of what i'm talking about, this is the city i live in Curitiba. A regional metropole responsable for Volvo, Renault, Electrolux and Many others in South America.  The City HDI stands around 0,850 (very high). But you know, third world is messed up, this two places are around 20 minutes away from each other by car. First one is that very european small town alike houses, big apartament buildings and all. And The other one is this Lagos like Shanty Town (you can see in the horizon the developed urban center). This formed my opinion on politics, Brazil is one of the fastest growing economics of the last decade, the 8th in the world, we have like EVERYTHING you can name it. Gold, Oil, Diamonds, Iron, Coffee, Culture!But Look At This. Like Who wouldn't be a little marxist?

This doesn't really prove anything. Other capitalist countries are doing fine, whereas some are quite poor. Despite this, virtually all communist and socialist states have been poor all around.

Economy: 50% (Centrist)
Diplomacy: 77.1% (Nationalist)
Civil: 38.8% (Statist)
Society: 62% (Traditional)

My ideology is Right Wing Populism

CptCrape wrote:

r3volutionr0ck wrote:For you can have an idea of what i'm talking about, this is the city i live in Curitiba. A regional metropole responsable for Volvo, Renault, Electrolux and Many others in South America.  The City HDI stands around 0,850 (very high). But you know, third world is messed up, this two places are around 20 minutes away from each other by car. First one is that very european small town alike houses, big apartament buildings and all. And The other one is this Lagos like Shanty Town (you can see in the horizon the developed urban center). This formed my opinion on politics, Brazil is one of the fastest growing economics of the last decade, the 8th in the world, we have like EVERYTHING you can name it. Gold, Oil, Diamonds, Iron, Coffee, Culture!But Look At This. Like Who wouldn't be a little marxist?

This doesn't really prove anything. Other capitalist countries are doing fine, whereas some are quite poor. Despite this, virtually all communist and socialist states have been poor all around.

Aren't Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, and Ireland all largely Socialist-leaning nations? I know that Venezuela and Cuba are often used as examples of Socialist/Communist nations that have failing economies, but I would like to point out that those are largely underdeveloped nations that are still recovering from centuries of colonialism, and have GDPs per capita that are similar to their capitalistic neighbors.

AltHistNerd13 wrote:

CptCrape wrote:

r3volutionr0ck wrote:For you can have an idea of what i'm talking about, this is the city i live in Curitiba. A regional metropole responsable for Volvo, Renault, Electrolux and Many others in South America.  The City HDI stands around 0,850 (very high). But you know, third world is messed up, this two places are around 20 minutes away from each other by car. First one is that very european small town alike houses, big apartament buildings and all. And The other one is this Lagos like Shanty Town (you can see in the horizon the developed urban center). This formed my opinion on politics, Brazil is one of the fastest growing economics of the last decade, the 8th in the world, we have like EVERYTHING you can name it. Gold, Oil, Diamonds, Iron, Coffee, Culture!But Look At This. Like Who wouldn't be a little marxist?

This doesn't really prove anything. Other capitalist countries are doing fine, whereas some are quite poor. Despite this, virtually all communist and socialist states have been poor all around.

Aren't Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, and Ireland all largely Socialist-leaning nations? I know that Venezuela and Cuba are often used as examples of Socialist/Communist nations that have failing economies, but I would like to point out that those are largely underdeveloped nations that are still recovering from centuries of colonialism, and have GDPs per capita that are similar to their capitalistic neighbors.

No, all of those countries officially define themselves as capitalist. They may have more socialized systems within them, but they are capitalist. Even the US has socialist systems, and a free market economy.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-capitalism.html

Also, as for the comparisons you made about Venezuela and Cuba I would like to those are not the only socialist/communist countries. China was a communist state up until the 80's/90's and before it began to become capitalistic, it was extremely poor and it's economy was essentially stagnant, imagine North Korea, but with a population of Billion. However after the death of Mao, the economy boomed as the CCP began allowing free trade. Today, the life of an average Chinese Person has drastically improved under capitalism.

Now, "pure" capitalism is something I don't want, but in general, as we have seen in the west, capitalism with socialist themes is best.

My ideology is one that I am pretty sure has never existed. It could be described as a hybrid of democracy and fascism. In this government, elections are held every ten years. Whoever gets majority of votes assumes the office in question. This person now has absolute power in their field, but of course is limited. They may not enact any laws that 1: Cause them to directly or indirectly obtain more power than they already have, 2: Increase their standard term or mitigate the political power or term of another person(s) 3: Prevent or interfere with an election. Additionally, routine investigations may be carried out, and can also be launched upon public request. If corruption or other crime is found, the person will be removed from office and tried in public court.
Before anyone can run for an election, they must have passed a comprehensive psychological test, background check, and be free from any addictions, such as drug abuse, alcoholism, ect.
When major policies are in question, the leader chooses, but the choice can be vetoed via mass public support to the contrary.
Additionally, no leader may infringe on constitutional rights, which happen to be identical to those in the US constitution.
Leaders may be removed from office and replaced if over seventy percent of the population desires it.
Economically, it is basically the United states.

Cobius wrote:My ideology is one that I am pretty sure has never existed. It could be described as a hybrid of democracy and fascism. In this government, elections are held every ten years. Whoever gets majority of votes assumes the office in question. This person now has absolute power in their field, but of course is limited. They may not enact any laws that 1: Cause them to directly or indirectly obtain more power than they already have, 2: Increase their standard term or mitigate the political power or term of another person(s) 3: Prevent or interfere with an election. Additionally, routine investigations may be carried out, and can also be launched upon public request. If corruption or other crime is found, the person will be removed from office and tried in public court.
Before anyone can run for an election, they must have passed a comprehensive psychological test, background check, and be free from any addictions, such as drug abuse, alcoholism, ect.
When major policies are in question, the leader chooses, but the choice can be vetoed via mass public support to the contrary.
Additionally, no leader may infringe on constitutional rights, which happen to be identical to those in the US constitution.
Leaders may be removed from office and replaced if over seventy percent of the population desires it.
Economically, it is basically the United states.

I don't really get how that is "fascist" considering that's basically the US.

Right wing nationlism.

Look at this... all center haha, yeah I knew it, but still it's not accurate enough.




Funny, because in my opinion I don't fit with any ideology at all, at least for now...

deleted

I consider myself as a centrist. Socially im liberal(although not as progressive as the left) and economically I favor free trade and economic freedom, but I still think that there are certain areas that cant be left in charge of the private sector, such as health, education, etc. The private sector and the state working together is the best system.
But one of the things that i most value in politics is pragmatism, the ability to choose the good ideas from both the left and the right, without "swearing fealty" to any of the 2 sides. Thats a pretty centristic thought.

Here's my Political Compass results as well.

Economic Axis: 54.9 (centrist)
Diplomatic Axis: 54.8 (Balanced)
Civil Axis: 56.65 (Moderate)
Societal Axis: 67.78 (Progressive)

Ideology: Liberalism
https://imgur.com/yyqWf0j
so that's that

I believe ideologies are destructive as a hole. Each state has its own problems. All ideologies propose a one-trick solution to them all.

Depending on a situation both privatization and nationalization, nationalism and multiculturalism, democracy and a dictatorship can all work well depending on a situation. But many people choose only one of this options, just because traditionally people who loved an increased freedom of speech, for example, also loved free trade.

So my answer would be, I don't have one.

Holmskiy wrote:I believe ideologies are destructive as a hole. Each state has its own problems. All ideologies propose a one-trick solution to them all.

Depending on a situation both privatization and nationalization, nationalism and multiculturalism, democracy and a dictatorship can all work well depending on a situation. But many people choose only one of this options, just because traditionally people who loved an increased freedom of speech, for example, also loved free trade.

So my answer would be, I don't have one.

Wouldn't not having one be an ideology in it's own right?

Anarcho Communist. I first found my way into Marxism as a joke in my 10th grade world history test but then I started reading up on Marxism more and more I began to become I guess a libertarian social democrat. Then through 11th grade a friend introduced me to syndicalism and ever since I've been an Anarchist (tho I'm not a syndicalist any more).