Political Diversity

[svendlarose]

Please answer with your actual political affiliation. this is a non-public poll, so those with unpopular viewpoints need not be skittish about answering with those in the poll. This poll, along with others conducted among other YR activists, will assist the new NYRA National Research and Education Office (Research and Education Director = me) in demonstrating the diversity of activists who work toward YR related causes.

[Yasha]

You left out an option for me. You also gave varieties of Socialism and Communism, but not of Libertarianism, etc. Your poll is incomplete I think.

Another political persuasion you left out was the various varieties of Anarchist. I know that's a popular one for more than a few NYRA members.

[Crazed123]

Socialist - Peace and Freedom. This includes economic freedom.

[Yasha]

According to who? There are quite a few people with other political inclinations that would dispute that blanket claim. At the very least economic freedom needs to be defined better there.

[Dr. Feelgood]

Traditional Values Republican, here.

[svendlarose]

Anarchist would qualify as "apolitical" since they promote the absence of government, and politics is the process of determining how a people will be governed.

[Yasha]

That's an easily disputable interpretation of politics Svend. I don't think of it as correct.

[svendlarose]

I was not aware of any factions in the Libertarian party, the same way I was in the Socialist and Communist party groups (usually one for each persuasion). If there are any such factions, please post them here.

[Yasha]

Well there are moderate libertarians of the Glenn Reynolds, Virginia Postrel and others mold. There are Neo-Libertarians of the http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=1330 type. There are strict ideological libertarians. There are libertarian conservatives. There are liberal-libertarians. Etc.

I'm sure some of the libertarians around here could speak up and add some more, but I'd say those are some of the main factions.

Also, you still don't have an option for me. I agree with moderates at times... liberals... libertarians... conservatives... neoconservatives... etc. I respect and integrate aspects of each, but am staunchly Independent. I am not undecided or apolitical.

[svendlarose]

Most Moderate Libertarians would either be Libertarian or Democratic (Independent) in the affiliation sense. Most Independents would be Unaffiliated (which I grouped with Undecided for space purposes), with whatever type of leaning seems most predominant. For a wide-ranging centrist independent, Unaffiliated (moderate predominant) is usually most appropriate.

[Yasha]

Um no. You give 32 flavors of Marxist but lump every Libertarian in the same boat? There are probably more Libertarian Republicans than Libertarian Democrats anyway. Your political classifications make no sense.

[svendlarose]

I gave as many flavors as I knew about. If I would have known that then, I would have written them in. Feel free to edit out the "Unaffiliated/undecided" options and replace them with other persuasions.

I included 4 types of Communism and 3 types of Socialism because there are HUGE differences between the three types (National Socialism, by the way, refers to the German National Socialist Party, or Nazis for short; P&F runs Leonard Peltier every four years, and SPUSA ran Eugene V. Debs in 1912 and 1920 when he won over a million votes).

[Euripus]

Don't worry yourself over Jason's political identity. Jason won't define himself politically, but he will offer some lengthy description that offers no specifics whatsoever.

Jason, until you find a label you are comfortable with, you can just ignore these polls. You don't like labels anyway.

From his own statements and given his choice of President, we can safely place him in the Neoconservative sympathetic slot, if he's not himself a neoconservative.

He's no Buchananite. He favors Immigration. He fancies us as being "one world" and views Iraqis as our siblings. He claims to be about free speech, privacy, Youth Rights, and so many other paleoconservative/libertarian causes. He believes in Government schooling. He thinks "it levels the playing field" -- the same nonsense that they spoke about at the turn of the last century, which has yet to put the Proletariat on even keel with the Bourgeois, and never will.

For one, it is irrational to attempt the feat. For the other, impossible.

The only fighting chance the World gives you is the one you give yourself. Jason believes benevolent saviorism is facilitated by the Welfare State. I believe the faceless nature of the bureaucracy forestalls and prevents struggle where it works "as intended," disserving those it is intended to be helping, and where it doesn't, the resources diverted to it are subverted and placed back in the hands of the already-wealthy.

There is yet to be a Government contract, be it for guns, butter, or Federal Housing which has failed to make the contractors providing it money on the deal.

The poor are the excuse to hand over the check. Make no mistake of whom is the real beneficiary of the arrangement is. I will give you the hint that it probably is not the same disadvantaged people you started out with.

They generally remain disadvantaged unless working their way out of it -- there are no handouts.

You put out food for the birds; the squirrels eat it.

You kill the wolves preying on your livestock, the vultures feast -- and the wild herds overpopulate themselves, starve, and die of disease.

We live in a natural system which operates on humans with the same balancing effects it does all other living things in the great equilibrium.

There are no free meals -- reduced-cost, but only when you pay enough attention to make sure they actually receive the meal.

Jason believes in free meals. I believe in jackals. One of us is right, the other is dreaming.

I am willing to state my ideology, and apply the nearest-applicable label, and one I identify specifically with. I am a Libertarian. Capital L because I am with the party of the same name, and back them as they exist and for what purposes they are assembled.


Bush Jr. has presided over the worst reign of censorship the FCC has brought about in the history of the agency. Reagan's FCC was a lamb's whimper compared to the aggressive muzzling of all media we observe from the agency today, thanks to George Walker Bush.

Thanks to those who voted for him.

The invasion of privacy of young people at school, the creep of the Federal Government into (already bad) Goverment Education systems at the local level and the increased prosecution of the War on Drugs are all features of the Bush II presidency.

Bush supporters are too busy farting around in Iraq and Iran to notice.

They don't know the definition of a "Free Speech Zone."

They weep for the Syrians who protest, and they themselves could care less how Bush has in this country curbed dissent. They weep for Iraqis with inkstains on their thumbs. Don't talk to them about election irregularities or outright fraud in our country.

We'll have "Democracy" in the Middle-East if it kills us, or them, more likely, and we will just ignore the profoundly undemocratic way in which the last two elections were decided.

They worry about student revolutions in Iran. They vote for Fascists and Fundamentalists in our own country, though, who go on to implement the same sort of policies the students are first trying to overthrow in Iran here in America.

Are they sick? Unlike Bush and his pharmacuetical backers, I am not one prone to say so, howsoever tempting. Are they uninformed, wrong, and mistaken? All three. Or they believe in Fascism. There is no middle ground.

You are either with them or you are against them, after all.

[KPalicz]

Well I really don't think we need 4 different types of Communists. We probably don't have that many anyhow, and should just create one category of Communist. We are more likely to have some Socialists, so we can keep the categories for that. Lemme try reworking the list a little bit. Everyone can contribute till we have a list we can agree on. Remember we only have 25 choices. It might help to list individuals for each category. I'll take a shot, but most likely will be wrong in where I place people (and categories I create), so feel free to correct me, just please do it politely.

Progressive Democratic - Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Liberal Democratic - Sen. Ted Kennedy
Regular Democrat - John Kerry
Centrist Democrat - Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman
Moderate Republican - Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lincoln Chafee
Traditional Values Republican - Trent Lott
Regular Republican - George Bush, Bill Frist
Libertarian Republican - Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater
Green
Independent - Socially liberal, interventionist on foreign policy and conservitive economically
Independent - Socially conservative, interventionist on foreign policy and liberal economically
Moderate Libertarian
Libertarian
Anarcho-Capitalist
Anarcho-Socialist
Socialist -- Peace and Freedom
Socialist -- Democratic Socialist (SPUSA/YPSL)
Socialist -- National Socialist (NSM)
Communist
Reform - Ross Perot
Populist - Pat Buchanan
Constitution/American Independent
Unaffiliated/undecided, many undecided viewpoints
Totally apolitical

Its a start

[katydid]

Arnold is a moderate republican? I guess if you're taking out independant republican then that makes sense...

[greaternyrania]

Libertarian on social issues (except abortion), protectionist/liberal on economic ones.

[SciVille]

Svend, you suck at making polls.

Liberal.

[svendlarose]

I'm a pinko! Didn't you hear I was even getting the quintessential call sign (KP1NKO)? It is so cool!

Who are the other SPUSA socialists here?

[Fabuluke]

What about me? I'm pro-market, but support government intervention when there are social abuses, am a complete social liberal, support privatisation for the most part...I'm a registered Democrat, but I see myself as more independent. I tend to emphasise individual liberties unless they infringe on another person's liberties...

[Crazed123]

According to who? There are quite a few people with other political inclinations that would dispute that blanket claim. At the very least economic freedom needs to be defined better there.

Economic Freedom - Having whole or partial control of the economic means to a good standard of living.

In practical terms can mean several things: being able to pay your heat, electricity and water bills and rent/mortgage while having a say in the job that enables you to pay them (democracy in the workplace), wholly or partially owning the utitlities and owning the place you live (ownership / democracy of utilities).

In my opinion the best answer that doesn't involve the government running everything (thus destroying economic freedom) is cooperatives. The modern for-profit corporation should have its place taken by worker-owned, democratically run cooperatives. The chartered purpose of these should not be to make a profit but to enhance their workers' standard of living and to hire new workers. In the case of such things as utilities consumers should be owners, as well.

Note that sole proprietorships and partnerships should not disappear or convert to worker cooperatives until they are no longer based on the personal initiative of the owners.