• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

So what's your Favourite Colour?

What political ideology do you believe in?

  • I belive in Communism/Socialism.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I belive in Left-Wing ideology.

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • I'm a Swinger.

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • I believe in Right-Wing Ideology.

    Votes: 8 25.8%
  • I belive in Fascism/Theocracy (religious rule)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Politics?! Yuk !!1!

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • Total voters
    31

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
So what is your favourite colour? Red or Blue or Purple?


Are you Left-Wing (represented by Red everywhere except for the USA where they are Blue)
or
Are you Right-Wing (represented by Blue everywhere except for the USA where they are Red).
or
Are you a Centrist (sometimes refered to as Swingers), they could be Purple.


If your not sure of these terms, then here they are.

~Left Wing:
Describes a group or person that is not closely bound to traditional ways and is supportive of government intervention to cure social ills. Basically, they believe in change/ reform/ revolution to better society.
They belive in Progessive thinking/ ideology.

The extreme forms of Left Wing government are called Socialism and Communism.

~Right Wing:
Describes a group or person that supports the existing social, economic and political order. Or longs for a return to an earlier time. Typically supportive of laissez-faire economic policies, a robust military and like religious/ conservative social values.
They believe that society is either good the way it is or they long for earlier values and practises.

The extreme forms of Right Wing government are Fascism and Theocracy.


Basically, What is your political affiliation (belief)?
and if you answer, then why is your affiliation better than the other?
 

Rabidmunchlax

Well-Known Member
I like h e theoretics behind communist government, however, in practice, it hardly ever works out. That is the reason that I am not full on Left wong. I do agree with several of Marx and Stalins ideas, for instance, abolition of religion.
 

Ash-kid

Ash-kid
I believe in democracy than a dictatorship, for example.
It also gives everyone the freedom to do what he wants, with limit law.
 

Katipunero

Eye in the Sky
And i thought this be a favorite color discussion :p
I vote Democracy!Its run of the people,by the people,and for the people
 

Poliwag2

ship it holla
None of the above.

I believe in liberty and free market Capitalism. But I suppose that this stance is firmly right wing.

Central planning is inherently flawed, republics are almost as vulnerable to corruption and democracy does not work because of conflicts of interest. No political system is out-rightly desirable, therefore governments should be as small as possible, and have their power well defined and tightly limited (which is the point of having a constitution).
 
Last edited:

Empoleon Bonaparte

Well-Known Member
I'm agnostic when it comes to politics. There are facists who say horrible things but offer good solutions for something, while it's the same thing with communists.
I care not how one thinks, I care how he helps the people.

But when I have to vote, I think left has an advantage with me, because that's how I was raised.
 

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
@ Empoleon Bonaparte: If a party could solve a countries ills, attempt to restore it's former glory, make it's citizens generally a bit happier and more proud and lift many of it's people out of poverty, but did so at the slaughter of millions of other people, would that be justifiable?

That was what Hitler did for Germany, until 1941 though.
 

GolemGuy

Better Than Thou
I'm pretty sure that the Soviet Union and China did equally horrible things, Vermehlo.

As for mine? Reread Poliwag2's post. That's me.
 

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
China = 80 million killed
Soviet Union = 45 million killed
Nazi Germany = 12 million killed

Notice anything?

HINT= Communism has killed far more people. But the Liberalist Media dosn't want you to know.
Anyway, Empoleon, that's how I interpreted your post. I'm sorry for misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
Libertarian Socialism, you didn't list my favorite color so I can't vote. Besides I'm sure you're talking about institutionalized/Americanized "communism"/"socialism" which in itself isn't really socialism or communism. But hey, whatever.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Um...I dunno what I am on your poll. Extreme liberal? I support some conservative values. You might say I'm confused or I just aim really high.

I support:

- gay rights (I believe gay marriage should be a federal right)
- pro-choice on abortion (I may be libertarian on this though, I say states should vote on it)
- medical marjuana (just medical marajuana)
- universal healthcare (Not what Obama is proposing anymore, see below.)
- individual gun rights
- respecting unpopular opinions such as pro-life, anti-gay rights or 9/11 truth
- I share the "try terrorists as regular people" perspective with current democrats.

I'm against:

- ridiculing Republicans on television daily
- bailouts (let them fail, let new buisinesses rise)
- mandatory health insurance
- indefinate detention

And I'm an isolationist, meaning I'd like us to get the heck out of the Middle East.

I wouldn't mind your opinion this time, Steele. What do I seem like to you?
 
Last edited:

Krake

Flabebe's Kids
I'm not that much of a political person. Every political side has their flaws and having an affiliation with either of them cause a condescension between people.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
^agree, a mix of both good points would be perfect..
 

Deoxytwo

Riddle in an Enigma
None of the above.

I believe in liberty and free market Capitalism. But I suppose that this stance is firmly right wing.

Central planning is inherently flawed, republics are almost as vulnerable to corruption and democracy does not work because of conflicts of interest. No political system is out-rightly desirable, therefore governments should be as small as possible, and have their power well defined and tightly limited (which is the point of having a constitution).

Agreed.

I would consider myself pretty right-wing. If I were to run for office, I'd probably run as a Republican even though much of the party has socialist tendencies these days.

Why do I think my PoV is better?
I'd say because it offers the greatest freedom with the smallest government.
 

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
I'm sorry that the poll couldn't extend to to varied political beliefs, you don't have to vote, just post.

I should have made it a tad clearer, like a you very Left or partly Right etc.


@SunnyC: I like everything you put foward except ...

SunnyC said:
I support:

- ***
- ***
- ***
- ***
- individual gun rights
-***
- I share the "try terrorists as regular people" perspective with current democrats.

I'm against:

- ***
- ***
- ***
- ***

And I'm an isolationist, meaning I'd like us to get the heck out of the Middle East.

Do you really believe that a nation as jumpy as the US should have guns right now?
Recession, terrorism, high unemployment and a volatile extreme political enviorment (i.e, Conservatives killing doctors who practise abortion)
You probably mean for security, which is valid, but they some weirdos out there. <cough> Oklahoma bombings (not guns, but there could be guns in the future) and Colombine High <cough>

"Try terrorists as normal people" Are you serious? You can't treat Muslims extrememist scum as normal people, they'll just use democracy and freedom of speech to their own ends. They aren't rational people, they are fanatics who can't be reasoned with. Lock them up or excecute. Simple.

I like the idea of the US letting China, Iran and Russia coming foward and earning some global enmity for being strong and a 'Player', like what the US has long-suffered merely for caring about the worlds stability, but leave the Middle-East? Uh, your energy security, terrorism, Iran, Hamas, Israel (support for), nuclear arms-race in the Mid-East and the severe human rights violations other in the Middle-East are all reasons why the US has to stay there.

I think you may have ment Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a success, for now. But Afghanistan should see our troops leave, but replaced by a strong Western-backed and guided Afghani government and Army to destroy the Taliban filth. Afghanis are rather intolerant of outsiders and they see this as US/European Imperialism despite how illogical Imperialism by the West in the 'AfPak' region would be. This idea of pulling troops out but supporting Afghanis in their fights worked when the Soviets pulled out in the '80s and they left a strong, unified Afghani adminstration and a well-trained and equipped Army of Afghanis. It didn't last due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
 
Last edited:
Could you elaborate? Because this is an oxymoron.

The two are mutually exclusive. When the state redistributes wealth through Socialism, it violates the liberty of those who created the wealth.

"Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

Why "Libertarian"?
It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.

Why "Socialism"?
Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

What about the American "Libertarian Party"? Don't they already use the word "libertarian"?
The word "libertarian" has been widely used in conjunction with the word "anarchist" and anti-authoritarian strands of socialist organisations, groups, and individuals since the turn of the century. For example, in the US, Sam Dolgoff started the still-running anarcho-syndicalist publication "Libertarian Labor Review" in the late 1980's, and Noam Chomsky has repeatedly spoken about a libertarian socialist solution to the oppression of workers worldwide. In France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium there are separate anarchist publications and/or groups all currently using the name "Libertarian Alternative". In London, England the Soliderity group published a series of periodicals since 1960, one of the most recent entitled "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism", and George Woodcock wrote "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" in 1962 (some 9 years before the creation of the US Libertarian Party.) In Cuba in 1959 there existed an anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation called the "Libertarian Association of Cuba". In the 1950's George Fontenis published "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism". In New York City, July 1954 Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed the Libertarian League, of which for a short time Murray Bookchin was a member. Erlier, in 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff initiated the Libertarian Book Club just before he died in 1950."
 
Last edited:

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Do you really believe that a nation as jumpy as the US should have guns right now?
Recession, terrorism, high unemployment and a volatile extreme political enviorment (i.e, Conservatives killing doctors who practise abortion)
You probably mean for security, which is valid, but they some weirdos out there. <cough> Oklahoma bombings (not guns, but there could be guns in the future) and Colombine High <cough>

Yes, I do. We already have guns. *is Californian*. And, the U.S. is the most placid it's ever been...barring sensationalist news reporting. With a charged topic such as an abortion of course an incident like that would be all over the news. As far as I know, abortion doctors aren't dropping left and right. And those townhall rallies people carry loaded guns to just to assert that they have the right to own them, you have to admit, they show themselves to be very conscientious to parade their guns and at the same time, not a single instance of them going off was reported in the media.

As for school shootings, guns aren't allowed in schools. It's horribly ironic that you look on MSN and find kids being apprehended for squirt guns and half inch lego toy guns (because the mere idea of projectiles is not welcome in a school setting), yet there is a new school shooting to talk about at least every few months. Similarly, almost everyone in my high school class did pot, yet you can't take Advil. We have an iron-fist security that can't even accomplish anything. Don't get me started on the horrible mismanaging of public schools...it seems to me like my nation flat-out forgot how to take care of its children.

"Try terrorists as normal people" Are you serious? You can't treat Muslims extrememist scum as normal people, they'll just use democracy and freedom of speech to their own ends. They aren't rational people, they are fanatics who can't be reasoned with. Lock them up or excecute. Simple.

I simply disagree. There's nothing any more dangerous about someone who's committed a large-scale atrocity than a native-born serial killer. They wouldn't have weapons, they would be guarded. And it's not like they're going to talk their way out of inevitably being jailed or executed again. What will be their defense? "I hate America, I plead guilty, I think you should all join Al Qaeda?" Putting them through the regular system, they will be sorted out as hardened criminals like the rest. Freedom of speech and democracy will not belong to them anyway.
 

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
Ah, now things are making sense now. While I get a clearer picture on your view on terrorists, I still consider it better to give life imprisonments to Islamic extremists (or any religious/ideological radical) if they commited/attempted a terrorist attack. They want to kill innoncents, fine. You go to prison as excecuting them is too light and death is what Abdul Extremism wants.

Your assessment of your education system is rather creepy. Yet I don't doubt it's true.

I point out the gun-culture because of the seemingly high death rate in the USA.
 
Top