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?
Silky Johnson
Yes, ideally we should all live in perfect symbiosis.
floyd741
quote:
Originally posted by jennypie
Yes, ideally we should all live in perfect symbiosis.
I suppose I should repeat: I don't want to know if this is ideal or whatever, I just want to know what this sort of belief might be classified as.
igottaknow
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.
Silky Johnson
Let's start a new religion then. PKC can be the leader.
Lilith
Could try PDD Forum
They sometimes talk about politics that aren't in the US, conspiracy theories and current events... but not often
Silky Johnson
I think it should be renamed the DP forum. So many unnecessary letters.
pkcRAISTLIN
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
igottaknow
quote:
Originally posted by jennypie
I think it should be renamed the DP forum. So many unnecessary letters.
AA s Arguing forum
Silky Johnson
Lol, excellent.
NoError
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.
Comrade Stalin
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?
Sounds like...
Libertarian Socialism
Democratic Socialism
Market Socialism
State Capitalism
