TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- A Serious Political Question
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
A Serious Political Question
I don't really visit many other forums besides TA so I figured I might as well ask this here, despite the fact that I do anticipate some nonsensical replies. So, here goes:
Though I am quite certain of what I believe as far as politics go, I've begun to wonder exactly how I might classify what I believe. I thought about this when I was talking to my friend and he said he was a closet Marxist and he also thought meritocracy was cool and I thought "Why don't I know names for the stuff I believe?" So after some research I've thought that maybe I believe somewhat in social liberalism, but then classical liberalism seemed close, then socialism for whatever reason. Though I know the cor isn't the most helpful bunch I'm asking for a bit of help anyway.
So I believe that a class system is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the classes help each other out, everyone has a role in making society work. The lower classes seem to be the work force, the people who work at jobs that require some sort of labor. The upper classes have money, the way they got that money is unimportant for my current purposes. So I think that the upper classes should financially support the lower class as they are the ones who actually have the ability to do so. The lower classes they support benefit from this because they can continue to do the work that the upper classes do not do. In this way, everybody works for the good of everyone else. I know that it's a bit idealistic but that's not the point of my question. I believe that the government should only really be there to enforce this cycle, to ensure that those at the top of the social structure (upper class) supports the foundation (lower class) so that the foundation can continue to support the top. I feel that if the top does not help, the foundation becomes weak and the structure crumbles. If the foundation simply accepts the support but does nothing with it, the top becomes weak and again, the structure crumbles. I suppose I just think that (and I'm really just rephrasing the first sentence) classes are fine but only if the classes help each other.
It's very vague but it really is the core of my belief. I suppose this type of government would be somewhat capitalistic (despite my dislike for it) because only then can there really be a class system. It's not that I like capitalism I just see other methods (like communism) as impractical in our current society.
I do not mean for this to be a political debate, I'm not asking if one belief is better than another. I'm just wondering, how would I classify what I believe?
Yes, ideally we should all live in perfect symbiosis.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jennypie Yes, ideally we should all live in perfect symbiosis. |
WHY POLITICS SUCK
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
Col. Writ. 12/5/04]
When I think of politics, I think of a politician -- an odd one, I'll admit -- and not even an American.
I think of Charles De Gaulle -- the tall, big-nosed French general who became the first president of France's Fifth Republic. Why him? Well, in truth, he barely nudges out the great political scientist, Machiavelli; but both gave us deep insights into the world of politics.
De Gaulle though, gave what seems like the best definition of a politician when he said: "In order to become the master, the politician poses as a servant." (He also wrote in a letter, the great line: "Politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians").
In those two, brief lines, De Gaulle provides both the problem and the solution; the problems are the politicians; the solution -- not the politicians.
I think, for millions of folks, there's the very deep feeling, maybe even the knowledge, that politicians will say virtually anything to get elected, and, once in, proceed to betray those who voted for them. I'm convinced that it is precisely that inner knowledge -- that gut knowledge -- that keeps millions -- perhaps 50+ million Americans -- from voting at all. They know better.
They know that politicians are the tools of the wealthy -- and that they spit on the poor and impoverished.
Remember those so-called 'debates?' (OK -- I use the term loosely). But wasn't it interesting that the poor, or working people, were never mentioned? How their concerns didn't even merit a mere moment during a 2-hour debate?
That's because they are invisible to the rich guys who run, or are run in, the political system. It really doesn't matter if we discuss Republicans or Democrats. It's the same.
Do you know how many folks contribute to election campaigns?
Just 4%. 4%! Most political dough comes from corporate coffers. So, who do you think they serve? That's where the $4 billion bucks came from to pay for the U.S. presidential campaign in 2004.
So -- the political system sucks. But, guess what? It was designed to suck (at least for people like us).
The rich men who wrote the Constitution hated and feared the common people, whom they called 'the Mob'; and, not surprisingly, the common folks hated them back. Consider the words of New Jersey's Governor, who, in 1765, lamented: "The Mob had set down no less than fifteen Houses... the houses of some of the most responsible persons in the Government. It has now become a War of Plunder, of general leveling and taking away the Distinction of Rich and poor" [From Jerry Fresia's Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution & Other Illusions (Boston: South End Press, 1988), at p. 28]. And this wasn't simply New Jersey -- such attacks took place in Boston, in Pennsylvania, in New Hampshire and beyond. They hated the rich snobs who lorded over them then -- and I'd guess it's not very different now -- it's just far less visible. We now see a government dedicated to the proposition that all rich folks matter -- and no one else.
The recent election crystallized that truth.
Politics sucks today because it is, for most folks, a burden -- and a lie. It promises, every few years, to change things for the better, yet the only 'change' one gets, if from bad to worse. Thus, millions of people no longer play the game.
It sucks because people learn, even when they participate, that it's not a fair game. Votes are 'lost'; votes are stolen; voters are intimidated, and the politicians are bought and sold like stocks on Wall Street.
It sucks because people feel trapped, and want to be free.
Let's start a new religion then. PKC can be the leader.
Could try PDD Forum
They sometimes talk about politics that aren't in the US, conspiracy theories and current events... but not often
I think it should be renamed the DP forum. So many unnecessary letters.
Im not sure exactly what you mean by the upper classes �supporting� the lower; this is done already via wage labour.
From an industrial relations perspective, part of your belief could be loosely classified as pluralist
edit, sorry i meant unitarist.
| quote: |
In unitarism, the organization is perceived as an integrated and harmonious whole with the ideal of "one happy family", where management and other members of the staff all share a common purpose, emphasizing mutual cooperation. Furthermore, unitarism has a paternalistic approach where it demands loyalty of all employees, being predominantly managerial in its emphasis and application. Consequently, trade unions are deemed as unnecessary since the loyalty between employees and organizations are considered mutually exclusive, where there can't be two sides of industry. Conflict is perceived as disruptive and the pathological result of agitators, interpersonal friction and communication breakdown |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jennypie I think it should be renamed the DP forum. So many unnecessary letters. |
Lol, excellent.
From a sociological perspective, you might be called a functionalist.
Politically, you're conservative in one respect (i.e. preserve the existing class structure, because it all works fine).
If you're advocating redistribution of some sort, you might be called a big-government conservative.
Re: A Serious Political Question
| quote: |
| Originally posted by floyd741 I don't really visit many other forums besides TA so I figured I might as well ask this here, despite the fact that I do anticipate some nonsensical replies. So, here goes: Though I am quite certain of what I believe as far as politics go, I've begun to wonder exactly how I might classify what I believe. I thought about this when I was talking to my friend and he said he was a closet Marxist and he also thought meritocracy was cool and I thought "Why don't I know names for the stuff I believe?" So after some research I've thought that maybe I believe somewhat in social liberalism, but then classical liberalism seemed close, then socialism for whatever reason. Though I know the cor isn't the most helpful bunch I'm asking for a bit of help anyway. So I believe that a class system is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the classes help each other out, everyone has a role in making society work. The lower classes seem to be the work force, the people who work at jobs that require some sort of labor. The upper classes have money, the way they got that money is unimportant for my current purposes. So I think that the upper classes should financially support the lower class as they are the ones who actually have the ability to do so. The lower classes they support benefit from this because they can continue to do the work that the upper classes do not do. In this way, everybody works for the good of everyone else. I know that it's a bit idealistic but that's not the point of my question. I believe that the government should only really be there to enforce this cycle, to ensure that those at the top of the social structure (upper class) supports the foundation (lower class) so that the foundation can continue to support the top. I feel that if the top does not help, the foundation becomes weak and the structure crumbles. If the foundation simply accepts the support but does nothing with it, the top becomes weak and again, the structure crumbles. I suppose I just think that (and I'm really just rephrasing the first sentence) classes are fine but only if the classes help each other. It's very vague but it really is the core of my belief. I suppose this type of government would be somewhat capitalistic (despite my dislike for it) because only then can there really be a class system. It's not that I like capitalism I just see other methods (like communism) as impractical in our current society. I do not mean for this to be a political debate, I'm not asking if one belief is better than another. I'm just wondering, how would I classify what I believe? |
Re: Re: A Serious Political Question
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Comrade Stalin State Capitalism |
I'm afraid you'll need to articulate your political beliefs a little more fully before anyone can accurately help you classify them. The social welfare system you describe is a mainstay of several political ideologies including; Conservatism, socialism, fascism, corporatism, etc. You seem to indicate that you want the state's only responsibility to be administering the transfer of wealth; however, there really is no established ideology that is so limited in it's scope. The closest to what you're talking about would be libertarian socialism, which is a bastardization of two ideologies and largely unworkable (IMO), but somehow I imagine that your beliefs likely run deeper then what you've described.
Don't try to fool me, boy. I been reading all about the communiss. You a comuniss, boy?
I also think you're wrong to use the term "class system". The classes are not static and unchanging things. In a free society people are free to move up or down the ladder as they make good or bad financial decisions. The only time people are truly "stuck" is when their station in life is institutionalized as with the caste system in places like India.
Why bother classifying your belief system at all? So you feel like you're better able to fit in somewhere? Yours is unique to you, be content with that.
I'd have to agree with PivotTechno here.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PivotTechno Why bother classifying your belief system at all? So you feel like you're better able to fit in somewhere? Yours is unique to you, be content with that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter I'd have to agree with PivotTechno here. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by couch-potato Gee, so he can term it easily and thus have a discussion with his friends? Share ideas? Get input? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PivotTechno a.k.a. " So you feel like you're better able to fit in somewhere?" |
Of course it is. Alternative people suck.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN everything in politics has some form of classification or another. perhaps the OP is just curious and wants to learn more about his own beliefs. he could do worse than starting with a few basic definitions. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.