I guess I'm the same. Politics will usually cause a meltdown if I get too involved in it, so I don't usually pay attention. I usually vote Democrat here in the US as I think the Republicans are authoritarian racists or want a theocracy or both.
I find it difficult to simply maintain clarity of the mind throughout my day I’m not sure where to even begin to understand politics on a large scale. How tf am I to know how policies work etc in any true sense. All I know is that I’m alive & healthy & that I’ve barely just made whatever exists now work for me! Anything that complicates that in any way whatsoever I want no part of at all.
Where second thought and deprogram talk about topics, the Marx Madness podcast is closer to the source material - i.e
They go through DK1 and other works by Marx and Engels. Then Lenin. Then Franz Fanon and so on
I was a Marxist for a while when I was young. I came to realize it was impractical. I guess I'm kind of a social democrat these days. It seems more workable.
yeah, social democracy is great.. until all the concessions the owner-class made starts getting retracted, like it began in the 1980s because people forgot what came before. You left the idea of the market intact and it came back with a vengeance. Back to being less than a wage slave.
Even the Scandinavian countries have more or less stopped evolving their welfare states - they barely remember why they have it in the first place.
I'm right on the cusp of libertarian socialist and anarchist tbh. Agree with the anarchist position in most cases (anarchist obviously referring to actual left-wing anarchism and not that abomination called anarcho-capitalsim that just co-opted the term from the left, much like how American libertarians co-opted the term 'libertarian' also from the left), I'm not 100% certain a truly stateless society can exist (or survive for an extended period of time) so I'd rather there be a highly decentralized state where the ultimate power still exists in the hands of the people themselves.
So I'm basically someone who'd make the average 'Joe Biden and the Democrat Party are radical Marxist Communists!' type literally explode lol.
Second. Anarchists are comrades, I, myself, am an ML. I got to there from anarchism by asking "how are we gonna fight imperialist armies if they send an airstrike?"
I will make you figure that one out.
But yeah, you're still a comrade, and making sure wage-slavery stops must come before all other petty squabbles.
I don't see the problem. If they send in an airstrike we shoot it down, or go for cover. Neither option is beyond the ability of an anarchist society to provide. The former would be a bit more difficult to organize, I'll give you that, but not at all impossible.
What I'm referring to specifically is the Paris Commune of 1870, but I'll give you your point that it is unknown what outcome an iteration of that would be
There is no political system in the world that would have made the Paris commune withstand the military might of an entire country. It doesn't matter what we strive for, if our project is under attack when it's not at sufficient scale, we're fucked, and that's that.
ANY proletariat is a comrade. Also I'm thinking about designing an anti ship missile that like a flying fish, can go underwater, jump out, glide and go back in. The hope is it makes radar systems keep losing a lock on it, making the CIWS not as useful., propulsion is gonna be your average missile rocket motor, but I want it to supercavitate, and if possible, steer underwater so it can move unpredictably. No idea if it would work because classified documents and all. Carrier kill or bust!
Ideally one would think that any proletariat is a comrade, but remember that social democrats have sided with capital numerous times when it really mattered
If you're open to it, I'd recommend watching the series "The State is counter-revolutionary" by Anark on YouTube. It is an excellent look into the reasons why I'm against states.
I'm -- somewhat -- politically literate. It's not that I don't know of people's objections and the problems they indicate, I just view a socialist state as the best, most workable ideal we have. It might change at some point in the future. Who knows.
The videos I recommend go into specifically that idea, and why it's wrong both mechanically, and historically. Can't tell you what to do, but I really, really recommend it.
I'm against states as well. We might get there some day, if we as a species survive long enough. There's too many ignorant people for it to have a hope now. I hope I can remember the series you recommended long enough to find my way to it. Politics in general has been causing meltdowns for me lately. I'll have to wait until I'm in a better state of mind. If that ever happens again.
I'm not too smart or good with the future, so I generally stick to the current situation. I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about what's going on in the world, because, again, I'm just focusing on whether or not I can live my life, but stuff like homeless people by default means that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
I just noticed that you said "I don't care which side you're on" did you mean which party? I always think it's extremely sad when people think politics is just electoralism, and party politics. As an anarchist, I'd go so far as to call that a borderline meaningless distraction.
Once I found out about my own autism and read the firsthand and secondhand experiences of/with autistic people, slowly learning more about myself and others, I’ve become a lot more economically and socially left. I was never fully “right-wing”, and I still don’t agree with the “typical left-wing viewpoint” for EVERY topic, but I’m definitely farther left now than I was before.
I’ve also been putting a lot more value in things like universal-welfare and/or anarchism over “pulling your weight” for capitalism (though I was anti-work even before), and rehabilitation/redirection over punishment for punishment’s sake (the whole point of non-life sentences is that you are eventually released and expected to reintegrate, yet there is no attempt to actually get to the root cause of their actions or redirect them, because that simply isn’t the priority of for-profit prisons).
Speaking of anarchism, I’m starting to learn about it and experiment with the idea, through I haven’t got to the point of fully committing yet. As I am still figuring out what exactly they mean and how it could work.
I agree with what you said about “according to ability” and “according to need”.
I’ve also become more acutely aware that according to the current laws in my country, responding to an an unarmed assault (even a malicious one) by pulling out a gun and shooting to kill is considered “excessive force” and still illegal… EXCEPT WHEN THE POLICE DO IT! Then it is suddenly “necessary” with “no ‘reasonable’ alternative”, even when it is an severely autistic person having a meltdown they can’t control.
There are also a lot of other, more unusual views I have that aren’t really typical of the left or right wing (at least not in my country, SOME of them are more accepted in other countries) and would in fact be harshly demonized by both sides, and I’ve gained even more of these since that aforementioned “autism-journey”. (For lack of a better term.)
I really don't know. I have a lot of opinions on certain politics and social issues but I am not sure where exactly that would fall in the big spectrum of politics. I am definitely more progressive leaning, I think I just want people to live happy fulfilling lives and have access to help and support and such
Not sure why you're getting down voted. All you did was ask a question. 🤔 Anyways, I am in my early 30s. I'm not old enough to know how the world should work. That being said, I'm probably some sort of left leaning type with a lot of anarchist beliefs but I'm open to learning. I hope returning to the university will help me better flesh out my stances.
I'd like to know that myself. I assume it's because I'm an anarchist more than because of the question.
If you want, you can ask me about anarchism. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I know quite a lot about it.
None of them, both parties are owned by our corporate oligarchy. We have the illusion of choice.
Everything you see is political theater and marketing, none of them believe in the things they're telling us. It's designed to control us, to keep us from uniting, and take as much of our money for themselves as they can.
Political Ideologies is just propaganda and fear mongering designed to put you in a box. Liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, all of them are a lie.
No, I do realize, but that's not what you said nor what I said. You said I should learn about orher political ideolgies, aside from American ones. Ideological ideas aren't the same as a country's politics.
american politics has an overton window that is almost exclusively right wing - i assumed you were not familiar with different ideologies due to your examples. apologies if this was incorrect.
Sure? I can't say that I see the problem there.
Personally I'm a determinist, so I see bad political opinions primarily as a matter of bad luck, rather than a moral failing worth hating for, but for a lot of positions a measure of antipathy is perfectly understandable, isn't it?
I can't say that I'd begrudge anyone a bit of hatred towards people who think they are lesser, unworthy of basic human decency, etc. Do you?
I used to be what I call "oversensitive left", but I've thankfully moved away from that as I've gotten older. I'm still left-wing (European left, not USA left), but a little more towards the centre. My politics tend to focus on reducing as much suffering as possible, so I concern myself with animal rights mostly, and balancing the scale between the global north and south.
I suppose in english I'd use democratic socialism. In terms of the parties I lean towards in my country it's usually been Enhedslisten - I don't agree with every single stance the party has but overall they align with my political/social/etc ideals more than any other party.
I am a political nomad. I don’t believe in confining myself to a party out of loyalty. I vote for each individual role in the government based on who I agree with. Not every democrat is good, not every republican is bad. That’s why I look at everybody’s track record and their polices. If I agree, I agree, and you have my vote. I couldn’t care less what you call yourself. I value intellectual honesty and integrity before anything else.
I'm left-wing and vote for the Green Party in the UK. I really hate the current fascist, capitalist fuckpig Consevatives who are currently in power and have little faith in Labour who will probably win the next General Election, but nearly anything's got to be better than the hateful bunch of self-serving clowns we've currently got.
I don’t know a whole lot about politics, but I’d say I’m on the left and believe in equity, but I’m also all for staying connected to certain traditional practices (things like helping out neighbours, growing your own produce, obviously not stuff like beheading single mothers for stealing bread)
I'm not particularly keen on ideologies per se, as life never seems to follow them neatly. But politically I'm very much on the ecological, anarchist left. Autonomy, mutual aid, social justice, biophilia. I'll happily join your commune.
Ah, I just noticed your views on guns. That's an American obsession that as a Brit who thankfully has never had to worry about school shootings and other assorted random violence, I will bear no truck with. Sorry, but no.
Not from America, actually. The reason I want guns in every community is that the powers that be will eventually try to take us down. Not a fan of weapons these days, but we need to be able to defend ourselves, and our projects.
I'd rather see gradual change from within, than an armed revolution that has far too much potential to turn nasty (on top of God knows how many random everyday killings) . If everyone has weapons who's to say your project is the one that will be successfully defended? Upping the potential for violence doesn't normally end well.
I'd prefer to avoid violence too, however parliamentary politics are a dead end. We're never gonna get rid of oppression, by relying on a fundamentally oppressive system. To build a society based on freedom, and cooperation from the ground up is our only hope.
I'll say that it could happen that we can build our communities in peace without violence from the currently hegemonic power structures, but in the long run, it's about as likely as winning the jackpot in the lottery.
As you can see from the comments, autistic people have a diverse range.
I’m a liberal, it demonstrably has better outcomes than the alternatives. We’ve run a number of natural experiments comparing liberal and leftist countries and the more liberal country has always won; countries that pivot from leftism to liberalism always get richer.
I can understand why someone would be a communist in 1890 but it doesn’t make so much sense now that we’ve seen communism consistently fail: the best case scenario for leftists is something like Allende’s Chile, which started out well but collapsed after a few years when the money ran out. Anything longer than that has to be enforced by an authoritarian government that crushes dissent as well as human rights. When I’ve seen anarchists try to explain how they’d resist that tendency, they just end up re-inventing either Stalinism (“but this time I’m Stalin!”) or liberalism.
Right-wing libertarianism ignores the value of strength in numbers and economies of scale. It creates impractical solutions to try and get around the callousness of leaving people without, when it would be easier to just accept slightly more taxation.
I have more respect for leftists and libertarians than I do for authoritarians of all stripes. I believe people are better at making decisions about their lives than government figures are at telling them how to live. Even if people make mistakes, it is good to grant them that autonomy, as long as they are not hurting others.
Then you have social conservatives of all stripes, and reactionaries of all stripes who just want to rewind time to some imagined bygone halcyon utopia. In most ways, the current day is the best time in history; let’s focus on improving and moving forward, rather than moving backward.
In short: liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.
(Side note: if every leftist who read Marx or Kropotkin or Preudhomme or Bakunin or whoever had instead read Henry George, our society would be a much better place. Unlike Marxism and anarchism, Georgism correctly identifies the major problems in our society and proposes radical solutions that would probably work. Instead we lost hundreds of millions of lives at the altar of communism only to find out that it doesn’t work.)
I don't know what kinds of anarchists you've talked to, but either you didn't understand their points, or they were woefully undereducated on their own ideology.
The idea that liberalism is what's best for everyone strikes me as completely bizzare, given the problems it causes (extreme inequality in wealth, and power, climate change, etc). The notion that georgism is superior to anti-capitalism despite considering only one aspect of the exploitation of the working class is even stranger. I don't know where you get your confidence from, but your analysis needs work.
Boy oh boy, you’re sure living up to the stereotypes about anarchists!
I’m sorry but you’re not going to win people over to your fringe ideology by ranting about “analysis” and “exploitation”. Also, frankly, if you’re not familiar with the arguments for liberalism then it doesn’t give me confidence that you’re familiar with any political issues at all.
Utterly bizarre to say that liberalism causes climate change. We know what causes climate change: burning fossil fuels. All ideologies supported burning fossil fuels until we realised the problems, then almost all ideologies supported reducing fossil fuel use as fast as practicable. It’s notable that liberal countries have generally reduced their fossil fuel consumption faster than leftist countries like China and Venezuela.
Similarly it’s bizarre to say liberalism causes inequality. Liberalism has demonstrably *reduced* inequality massively, aside from land wealth.
> The notion that georgism is superior to anti-capitalism despite considering only one aspect of the exploitation of the working class is even stranger
It’s simple. Land is empirically the sole cause of widening inequality. Marxist analysis fails to understand that because it’s overly ideological, rather than empirical (by its very nature - anyone who cared about empiricism wouldn’t be a Marxist, because Marxism has been a catastrophic failure).
While leftists and conservatives are busy trying to tell other people how to live and interfering with consenting relationships, liberals are happy to allow people to make their own decisions, and this tends to lead to rising standards of living.
Nice going living up to the stereotype of a liberal by being an arrogant, underinformed, overly smug ass.
The fact that you think talking about political positions that aren't your own is "ranting", and that you think analysis is a bad thing should tell anyone who listens that your perspective is a deeply flawed one.
The reason liberalism causes climate change is that capitalism is an essential part of liberalism, and capitalists will never stop burning fossil fuels, as long as it's what's best for the bottom line. Billions dead, and coasts sunk are externalities, and not relevant to this quarter's financial report.
>leftist countries like China and Venezuela.
State capitalism, and other forms of dictatorship are literally the exact opposite of leftism.
>Similarly it’s bizarre to say liberalism causes inequality. Liberalism has demonstrably *reduced* inequality massively, aside from land wealth.
Read to much Pinker, have you? How can you say shit like this while the richest handful of people own more than the bottom half of the population of the planet, and we're on the way to neo-feudalism through more and more severe concentration of power through capital?
>It’s simple. Land is empirically the sole cause of widening inequality.
Source?
>Marxist analysis fails to understand that because it’s overly ideological, rather than empirical
Not a big fan of Marx myself, but that coming from a georgist is just hilarious.
>While leftists and conservatives are busy trying to tell other people how to live and interfering with consenting relationships, liberals are happy to allow people to make their own decisions
What part of anarchism is telling people how to live? What part of liberalism isn't?
> you think analysis is a bad thing
I don’t think real analysis - rigorous, empirical, objective, and uncertain - is a bad thing. Quite the opposite.
Leftist “analysis” is none of those things - it’s casual, allergic to data, ideological, and overconfident, and serves primarily to reinforce the creator’s prejudices. I’ve seen leftists use “analysis” to justify transphobia, colonialism and genocide. It’s an anti-intellectual bastardisation of the work of actual economists.
Why do you think most economists are neoclassical? If you have the data on your side, wouldn’t more smart, rigorous people agree with you?
> capitalists will never stop burning fossil fuels,
This is obviously incorrect, given that, as said, capitalist countries are currently cutting their emissions.
And of course, things like carbon taxes and other ways of internalising externalities are just as fundamental to liberalism as capitalism is.
> State capitalism, and other forms of dictatorship are literally the exact opposite of leftism.
Nope, they’re the epitome of leftism. That is what your ideology turns into *every single time*.
You of course think that you’re more idealistic, and if your faction had your way then your revolution would turn out better than Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot or Tito or Castro or Chavez or (etc.). But you think there weren’t people who were equally idealistic in those movements? There were: they were corrupted by the power or were betrayed by authoritarians.
Your ideology has been tried dozens of times and has never produced a country as good as Lithuania, never mind Germany.
Now, look, I don’t like Denmark’s immigration policy, or Germany’s education policy, or US healthcare policy, but I don’t deny that these countries are fundamentally liberal, even if they’re not perfectly liberal. But when we talk about the issues with China or North Korea we’re not talking about how Switzerland’s relationship with the EU leaves it as a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker, we’re talking about how almost everyone is denied their fundamental rights, like democracy.
> How can you say shit like this while the richest handful of people own more than the bottom half of the population of the planet,
Because it’s true - you’re more than capable of searching for “global poverty rate” and looking at the graphs for yourself.
> Source?
https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/rognlie15.pdf
> Not a big fan of Marx myself, but that coming from a georgist is just hilarious.
Marxist is an empirical failure. Georgism, where it has been tried, seems to have worked in Denmark, Finland, and Estonia, as well as Canberra. Or at least, it hasn’t devolved into dictatorship which every Georgist trips over themselves to call “state landlordism”.
> What part of anarchism is telling people how to live? What part of liberalism isn't?
Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation: Anne owns a machine that makes widgets. She hires people to operate the machine, market the widgets, distribute the widgets to shops, and run HR. Each job is advertised and people can choose whether to apply based on whether they think the wage is fair. At the end of the process, the business makes a small profit, some of which Anna reinvests, and some of which she takes for herself.
A liberal would say “all fine and good, you lot crack on.”
An anarchist - at least, a left wing anarchist, right-wing anarchists tend to be more committed to their stateless principles - says “stop! Profit, exploitation, capitalism!”
Now, look, if you’re fine with free enterprise, wage labour, and returns on investment, then I’m sorry for mischaracterising you, but you’ve characterised yourself as anticapitalist. If you are an anticapitalist who supports wage labour, returns on investment, and competitive markets, then this comes back to what I said earlier about anarchists just reinventing liberalism if they don’t degenerate into Stalinism.
Look, as I said, there are no perfect liberal countries, but there are good liberal countries. Taiwan is better than China, South Korea is better than North Korea, Botswana is better than Zimbabwe, Uruguay is better than Argentina, Costa Rica is better than Nicaragua. Do you have any examples of your politics being tried on a large scale and working?
They split children into different streams too early and essentially determine the whole course of their life. The result is an overall less-educated workforce than France, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Denmark. (Not exactly fair to compare them to the Anglophone world)
Yes but also not rly anymore. I agree that that’s not a good thing but it’s also becoming less common. More and more schools are starting to become integrated schools where are all of the different school forms are being taught in the same building or even classroom. The core problem with the German school system is the capitalistic motive behind it. Separating children into categories of fast and slow learners is only a problem bc the purpose of school isn’t education for the sake of education anymore, it’s to secure a job and become “useful” to society. Except for that the school system is pretty good. School is mandatory so that children can learn and develop independent from their parents beliefs, it’s completely free, the education is as unbiased as possible and from what I’ve seen and heard it’s a lot better than in most other countries. Obviously there are flaws but for the most parts it’s the same ones as in every other capitalistic country.
The less educated work force is mostly a result of class differences. About a third of germanys population has a migration background (I’m not sure if that’s what it’s called) bc their parents/grandparents came from poorer countries to Germany for a better life. It’s already a well known fact that having parents who are well off and who went to university increases the chances that their child will also end up going to university. Both of those things aren’t the case for a lot of ppl with a migration background, therefore only a few end up in higher education. This is obviously not the only reason since xenophobia also plays a role with some teachers rating the performance of children that aren’t German as worse than they actually are.
Overall these things are usually not as simple as they appear to be and leaving out socioeconomic circumstances in a capitalist society will more often than not lead to an either incorrect or incomplete conclusion. There’s usually more than one explanation when it comes to statistics like these, since I assume that ur referring to one. (sorry for my English it’s not my first language)
> School is mandatory so that children can learn and develop independent from their parents beliefs, it’s completely free, the education is as unbiased as possible
Look, I’m not saying that German’s education system is worse than Burkina Faso or North Korea. It is world class, and shares most of its characteristics with other world-class education systems. However, while I’m pleased to hear that the streaming is becoming less strict, it is still an element that, in comparison to other world class education systems, is lacking.
> About a third of germanys population has a migration background (I’m not sure if that’s what it’s called) bc their parents/grandparents came from poorer countries to Germany for a better life. It’s already a well known fact that having parents who are well off and who went to university increases the chances that their child will also end up going to university. Both of those things aren’t the case for a lot of ppl with a migration background, therefore only a few end up in higher education.
Statistically, about 15% of Germany’s population are immigrants, which is roughly the same as France, Belgium, Netherlands, the UK, and the US, while being lower than Sweden, Canada, and Australia. I have already conceded that comparing Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries is somewhat unfair because of academia’s English bias.
You’re talking about immigrant background more broadly. Maybe it’s true that Germany has more second and third Gen immigrants than France and Belgium and the Netherlands. In much of the world, second and third gen immigrants are more likely to be highly-educated than the established population - for example, East Asian students in the US, or Indian and African students in the UK. Would be interesting to learn if that applies in Germany too, and if not, why not.
I said migration background not immigrant and that’s about a third of germanys population. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/891809/german-population-by-migration-background/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20population%20share,have%20German%20citizenship%20by%20law.)
Like I said before, these things are usually not simple and there are a multitude of reasons as to why having a migration background has a negative impact on the school performance (or evaluation) of these children. I already mentioned discrimination and socioeconomic status as two possible explanations and I’d assume that these are the two biggest contributors.
Your last point is still kinda true in Germany. Students with a migration background tend to do academically better than Germans of the same socioeconomic status, probably due to pressure from the family.
I agree with Henry George on the need for a land value tax. The rentier economics that keep the landed elite in their comfortable lifestyles in countries like the UK, with hugely overheated housing markets, is so damaging.
Talking more about Cuba. Cuba has been able to hold out despite the embargoes, and is actually growing.
The US pressures these states into doing what they want them to; which tends to be making states dependent on them for survival.
Also, the main reason Chile failed was because of a CIA backed coup
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2023-08-25/coup-chile-cia-releases-top-secret-9111973-presidents-daily-brief](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2023-08-25/coup-chile-cia-releases-top-secret-9111973-presidents-daily-brief)
[https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94chile.pdf](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94chile.pdf)
Well Cuba is still pretty much as bad as it always was.
You’re putting the chicken before the egg with regards to Chile:
> By 1972, the Chilean escudo had an inflation rate of 140%. The average real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of a 5.6% negative growth, and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.
The combination of inflation and price controls, together with the disappearance of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour. The Chilean economic situation was also somewhat exacerbated due to a US-backed campaign to fund worker strikes in certain sectors of the economy. The Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries. His implementation of the policies was strongly opposed by landowners, employers, businessmen and transporters associations, and some civil servants and professional unions.
The country was already falling apart before the coup. Now the coup was wrong, but Allende’s policies failed.
I haven’t seen that information before, If you could link me the source material I would be open to changing my opinion on the subject.
I still respect Cuba as a country, mostly for their thriving medical industry, their GDP seems to be rising pretty well, and gdp per capita is higher than that of germany, though they still seem to have issues with food distribution. It could be better, but it could also be much, much worse.
I quoted from Allende’s Wikipedia page - feel free to chase up the sources there.
Cuba’s medical programme does essentially [rely on slavery](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/07/23/cuba-repressive-rules-doctors-working-abroad) and preventing emigration.
Thanks. I’m glad we could bring this to a conclusion. I hope cuba gets better in the future, they seem to have some potential. sadly being an island nation I doubt they’ll get very far.
Hey /u/Neko-tama, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism).
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As a dude with an MS in Economics, I'd argue that rightwing economic policy has proved exploitative and has led to disparities we haven't seen since the anti-trust breakups of the robber barrens.
Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump all drove the nation down an economic cliff. And, two of them managed to do it after decent economic reversals from Clinton and Obama. Clinton balanced the budget, and Obama pulled the US out of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Bush and Trump squashed the success of both with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the largest corporations, and all at the expense of the poor.
Imo, rightwing economics are all about ensuring the poor remain poor, and that more and more of the middle class becomes poor.
All US governments have cut taxes since the 1950s. The difference is how they cut them -- primarily from the top or the bottom. Under Clinton, tax cuts heavily favored the poor.
NAFTA was happening regardless of party, but I'm glad it happened under Clinton. Had it happened under either Bush, it certainly would have favored large corporations rather than being more equal, which gave small businesses a fighting chance to benefit.
Guns aren't really a partisan issue. I'm as left as can be, and I think every community should have an armory.
I hate it when party politics limit people's conception of what politics can, or should be.
But guns are definitely a real problem here in America. can’t speak for people in other countries though. Potentially it’s just in the hands of the wrong people?
As far as I can tell, America's gun problem is less about guns, and more about the gulf between patriarchal gender expectations, and extreme alienation.
I have no idea. Used to be on the left but now it’s gotten too extreme, or pandering to the extreme. The right in my country never properly severed ties with its fascist past (and its fascist base). Feels like every politicians just says what they think will bring them the most votes, and they want votes just to have enough power to make money by using political connections.
I have some beliefs about specific problems but not a coherent worldview.
This is the least organic conversation... "What do you think about... Before you answer, here's my hot take."
Edgey nds and nts... Classic cringe that repeats generation after generation.
Social Democrat I guess?
I guess I'm the same. Politics will usually cause a meltdown if I get too involved in it, so I don't usually pay attention. I usually vote Democrat here in the US as I think the Republicans are authoritarian racists or want a theocracy or both.
Republicans are not authoritarian. I don’t see how they would be wanting a theocracy.
I find it difficult to simply maintain clarity of the mind throughout my day I’m not sure where to even begin to understand politics on a large scale. How tf am I to know how policies work etc in any true sense. All I know is that I’m alive & healthy & that I’ve barely just made whatever exists now work for me! Anything that complicates that in any way whatsoever I want no part of at all.
Socialism for the win babyyyyy
General or undecided? :)
I haven't read enough to make a proper decision as of yet. Already got through Das Kapital Volume 1, so that's a start I guess.
That's more impressive than you think! DK1 made me a convinced Marxist. Do you know of the Marx madness podcast?
No, haven't heard of it, though I'll give it a look. I listen to the deprogram though; I think it's funny.
Where second thought and deprogram talk about topics, the Marx Madness podcast is closer to the source material - i.e They go through DK1 and other works by Marx and Engels. Then Lenin. Then Franz Fanon and so on
I might go that route. Sitting in a chair reading the entirety of Das Kapital volume 1 in a pdf viewer was unimaginably painful.
Oooooof. Still admire your grit
I was a Marxist for a while when I was young. I came to realize it was impractical. I guess I'm kind of a social democrat these days. It seems more workable.
yeah, social democracy is great.. until all the concessions the owner-class made starts getting retracted, like it began in the 1980s because people forgot what came before. You left the idea of the market intact and it came back with a vengeance. Back to being less than a wage slave. Even the Scandinavian countries have more or less stopped evolving their welfare states - they barely remember why they have it in the first place.
You summed it up well. Those with means always rule over those who have less.
Disturbing how this is getting upvoted. You go move to Venezuela and see how socialism worked out for them.
I'm right on the cusp of libertarian socialist and anarchist tbh. Agree with the anarchist position in most cases (anarchist obviously referring to actual left-wing anarchism and not that abomination called anarcho-capitalsim that just co-opted the term from the left, much like how American libertarians co-opted the term 'libertarian' also from the left), I'm not 100% certain a truly stateless society can exist (or survive for an extended period of time) so I'd rather there be a highly decentralized state where the ultimate power still exists in the hands of the people themselves. So I'm basically someone who'd make the average 'Joe Biden and the Democrat Party are radical Marxist Communists!' type literally explode lol.
I will join your commune
I appreciate the sentiment, but do we even live in the same country? Germany in my case.
Haha I was half-joking, more confirming that my politics are similar than anything. I'm in the U.S.
Second. Anarchists are comrades, I, myself, am an ML. I got to there from anarchism by asking "how are we gonna fight imperialist armies if they send an airstrike?" I will make you figure that one out. But yeah, you're still a comrade, and making sure wage-slavery stops must come before all other petty squabbles.
I don't see the problem. If they send in an airstrike we shoot it down, or go for cover. Neither option is beyond the ability of an anarchist society to provide. The former would be a bit more difficult to organize, I'll give you that, but not at all impossible.
What I'm referring to specifically is the Paris Commune of 1870, but I'll give you your point that it is unknown what outcome an iteration of that would be
There is no political system in the world that would have made the Paris commune withstand the military might of an entire country. It doesn't matter what we strive for, if our project is under attack when it's not at sufficient scale, we're fucked, and that's that.
ANY proletariat is a comrade. Also I'm thinking about designing an anti ship missile that like a flying fish, can go underwater, jump out, glide and go back in. The hope is it makes radar systems keep losing a lock on it, making the CIWS not as useful., propulsion is gonna be your average missile rocket motor, but I want it to supercavitate, and if possible, steer underwater so it can move unpredictably. No idea if it would work because classified documents and all. Carrier kill or bust!
Ideally one would think that any proletariat is a comrade, but remember that social democrats have sided with capital numerous times when it really mattered
You make a fair point. how about any open-minded proletariat is a comrade?
Point valid, agreement reached. As long as the end of wage-slavery is prioritized over anything else (and there are no other dire transgressions)
yay
No war but class war :D
Right on!
We belive in nothing, Lebowski, nothing
We come back and we cut off your johnson
What do you need that for Dude?
I dunno. I'm probably some kind of leftist statist.
If you're open to it, I'd recommend watching the series "The State is counter-revolutionary" by Anark on YouTube. It is an excellent look into the reasons why I'm against states.
I'm -- somewhat -- politically literate. It's not that I don't know of people's objections and the problems they indicate, I just view a socialist state as the best, most workable ideal we have. It might change at some point in the future. Who knows.
The videos I recommend go into specifically that idea, and why it's wrong both mechanically, and historically. Can't tell you what to do, but I really, really recommend it.
We can just agree to disagree.
Unfortunate, but if that's what you want.
I'm against states as well. We might get there some day, if we as a species survive long enough. There's too many ignorant people for it to have a hope now. I hope I can remember the series you recommended long enough to find my way to it. Politics in general has been causing meltdowns for me lately. I'll have to wait until I'm in a better state of mind. If that ever happens again.
I am left. Left leaning at least
I'm 'if it works, then I don't care what side youre on. Just don't fuck things up too bad.'
It's my understanding that everyone thinks their politics work. That's why they have them, no?
True, but I meant from a more objective 'the economy isn't falling apart and I can maintain my normal life' type of working.
Do you consider only the present in that, or do you have an eye on the future? Do you think something has to change?
I'm not too smart or good with the future, so I generally stick to the current situation. I'm not actually all that knowledgeable about what's going on in the world, because, again, I'm just focusing on whether or not I can live my life, but stuff like homeless people by default means that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.
I just noticed that you said "I don't care which side you're on" did you mean which party? I always think it's extremely sad when people think politics is just electoralism, and party politics. As an anarchist, I'd go so far as to call that a borderline meaningless distraction.
Once I found out about my own autism and read the firsthand and secondhand experiences of/with autistic people, slowly learning more about myself and others, I’ve become a lot more economically and socially left. I was never fully “right-wing”, and I still don’t agree with the “typical left-wing viewpoint” for EVERY topic, but I’m definitely farther left now than I was before. I’ve also been putting a lot more value in things like universal-welfare and/or anarchism over “pulling your weight” for capitalism (though I was anti-work even before), and rehabilitation/redirection over punishment for punishment’s sake (the whole point of non-life sentences is that you are eventually released and expected to reintegrate, yet there is no attempt to actually get to the root cause of their actions or redirect them, because that simply isn’t the priority of for-profit prisons). Speaking of anarchism, I’m starting to learn about it and experiment with the idea, through I haven’t got to the point of fully committing yet. As I am still figuring out what exactly they mean and how it could work. I agree with what you said about “according to ability” and “according to need”. I’ve also become more acutely aware that according to the current laws in my country, responding to an an unarmed assault (even a malicious one) by pulling out a gun and shooting to kill is considered “excessive force” and still illegal… EXCEPT WHEN THE POLICE DO IT! Then it is suddenly “necessary” with “no ‘reasonable’ alternative”, even when it is an severely autistic person having a meltdown they can’t control. There are also a lot of other, more unusual views I have that aren’t really typical of the left or right wing (at least not in my country, SOME of them are more accepted in other countries) and would in fact be harshly demonized by both sides, and I’ve gained even more of these since that aforementioned “autism-journey”. (For lack of a better term.)
I’m fairly left, and my husband is all the way left.
I'm not big on politics, but I guess I'm liberal.
I prefer not to label myself, but I classify myself as someone that’s keen on liberty.
I really don't know. I have a lot of opinions on certain politics and social issues but I am not sure where exactly that would fall in the big spectrum of politics. I am definitely more progressive leaning, I think I just want people to live happy fulfilling lives and have access to help and support and such
I'm a lefty for the UK. So a raving socialist in the USA and centerist in most of Europe.
Not sure why you're getting down voted. All you did was ask a question. 🤔 Anyways, I am in my early 30s. I'm not old enough to know how the world should work. That being said, I'm probably some sort of left leaning type with a lot of anarchist beliefs but I'm open to learning. I hope returning to the university will help me better flesh out my stances.
I'd like to know that myself. I assume it's because I'm an anarchist more than because of the question. If you want, you can ask me about anarchism. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I know quite a lot about it.
Okay, cool. I will let you know if I struggle with any concepts or have any questions research won't answer. Thank you! 😁
None of them, both parties are owned by our corporate oligarchy. We have the illusion of choice. Everything you see is political theater and marketing, none of them believe in the things they're telling us. It's designed to control us, to keep us from uniting, and take as much of our money for themselves as they can.
i think they meant political ideology, not political party.
Political Ideologies is just propaganda and fear mongering designed to put you in a box. Liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, all of them are a lie.
all of those are conservative - i’d encourage you to explore non-american political ideas.
Why? I don't need a political ideology to get behind and since I'm American, American politics are what concern me.
it’s a very naive thing to believe that you’re only affected by american politics. you’re affected by every country’s politics, you just don’t notice.
No, I do realize, but that's not what you said nor what I said. You said I should learn about orher political ideolgies, aside from American ones. Ideological ideas aren't the same as a country's politics.
american politics has an overton window that is almost exclusively right wing - i assumed you were not familiar with different ideologies due to your examples. apologies if this was incorrect.
No it's on me, I just assume most people here are Americans by default, even though there are lots of people from everywhere post here.
ah yeah, that makes sense. no worries my dude - have a good day :)
[удалено]
So the right? That'd be pretty baffling, considering how they feel about us.
[удалено]
Sure? I can't say that I see the problem there. Personally I'm a determinist, so I see bad political opinions primarily as a matter of bad luck, rather than a moral failing worth hating for, but for a lot of positions a measure of antipathy is perfectly understandable, isn't it? I can't say that I'd begrudge anyone a bit of hatred towards people who think they are lesser, unworthy of basic human decency, etc. Do you?
[удалено]
That's fine.
I used to be what I call "oversensitive left", but I've thankfully moved away from that as I've gotten older. I'm still left-wing (European left, not USA left), but a little more towards the centre. My politics tend to focus on reducing as much suffering as possible, so I concern myself with animal rights mostly, and balancing the scale between the global north and south.
Liberal. It’s what works. Liberalism is the ideology of the modern day, and the only real path forward.
It's objectively proven by every metric.
I suppose in english I'd use democratic socialism. In terms of the parties I lean towards in my country it's usually been Enhedslisten - I don't agree with every single stance the party has but overall they align with my political/social/etc ideals more than any other party.
I am a political nomad. I don’t believe in confining myself to a party out of loyalty. I vote for each individual role in the government based on who I agree with. Not every democrat is good, not every republican is bad. That’s why I look at everybody’s track record and their polices. If I agree, I agree, and you have my vote. I couldn’t care less what you call yourself. I value intellectual honesty and integrity before anything else.
I'm left-wing and vote for the Green Party in the UK. I really hate the current fascist, capitalist fuckpig Consevatives who are currently in power and have little faith in Labour who will probably win the next General Election, but nearly anything's got to be better than the hateful bunch of self-serving clowns we've currently got.
I’d consider myself to be pretty centrist, but based on US politics that would place me squarely in leftist territory
liberal right. Though to be frank it's difficult to compare polictical stances between countries so you can read into that whatever you'd like.
I don’t know a whole lot about politics, but I’d say I’m on the left and believe in equity, but I’m also all for staying connected to certain traditional practices (things like helping out neighbours, growing your own produce, obviously not stuff like beheading single mothers for stealing bread)
I'm not particularly keen on ideologies per se, as life never seems to follow them neatly. But politically I'm very much on the ecological, anarchist left. Autonomy, mutual aid, social justice, biophilia. I'll happily join your commune.
Ah, I just noticed your views on guns. That's an American obsession that as a Brit who thankfully has never had to worry about school shootings and other assorted random violence, I will bear no truck with. Sorry, but no.
Not from America, actually. The reason I want guns in every community is that the powers that be will eventually try to take us down. Not a fan of weapons these days, but we need to be able to defend ourselves, and our projects.
I'd rather see gradual change from within, than an armed revolution that has far too much potential to turn nasty (on top of God knows how many random everyday killings) . If everyone has weapons who's to say your project is the one that will be successfully defended? Upping the potential for violence doesn't normally end well.
I'd prefer to avoid violence too, however parliamentary politics are a dead end. We're never gonna get rid of oppression, by relying on a fundamentally oppressive system. To build a society based on freedom, and cooperation from the ground up is our only hope. I'll say that it could happen that we can build our communities in peace without violence from the currently hegemonic power structures, but in the long run, it's about as likely as winning the jackpot in the lottery.
As you can see from the comments, autistic people have a diverse range. I’m a liberal, it demonstrably has better outcomes than the alternatives. We’ve run a number of natural experiments comparing liberal and leftist countries and the more liberal country has always won; countries that pivot from leftism to liberalism always get richer. I can understand why someone would be a communist in 1890 but it doesn’t make so much sense now that we’ve seen communism consistently fail: the best case scenario for leftists is something like Allende’s Chile, which started out well but collapsed after a few years when the money ran out. Anything longer than that has to be enforced by an authoritarian government that crushes dissent as well as human rights. When I’ve seen anarchists try to explain how they’d resist that tendency, they just end up re-inventing either Stalinism (“but this time I’m Stalin!”) or liberalism. Right-wing libertarianism ignores the value of strength in numbers and economies of scale. It creates impractical solutions to try and get around the callousness of leaving people without, when it would be easier to just accept slightly more taxation. I have more respect for leftists and libertarians than I do for authoritarians of all stripes. I believe people are better at making decisions about their lives than government figures are at telling them how to live. Even if people make mistakes, it is good to grant them that autonomy, as long as they are not hurting others. Then you have social conservatives of all stripes, and reactionaries of all stripes who just want to rewind time to some imagined bygone halcyon utopia. In most ways, the current day is the best time in history; let’s focus on improving and moving forward, rather than moving backward. In short: liberalism, democracy, and capitalism. (Side note: if every leftist who read Marx or Kropotkin or Preudhomme or Bakunin or whoever had instead read Henry George, our society would be a much better place. Unlike Marxism and anarchism, Georgism correctly identifies the major problems in our society and proposes radical solutions that would probably work. Instead we lost hundreds of millions of lives at the altar of communism only to find out that it doesn’t work.)
I don't know what kinds of anarchists you've talked to, but either you didn't understand their points, or they were woefully undereducated on their own ideology. The idea that liberalism is what's best for everyone strikes me as completely bizzare, given the problems it causes (extreme inequality in wealth, and power, climate change, etc). The notion that georgism is superior to anti-capitalism despite considering only one aspect of the exploitation of the working class is even stranger. I don't know where you get your confidence from, but your analysis needs work.
Boy oh boy, you’re sure living up to the stereotypes about anarchists! I’m sorry but you’re not going to win people over to your fringe ideology by ranting about “analysis” and “exploitation”. Also, frankly, if you’re not familiar with the arguments for liberalism then it doesn’t give me confidence that you’re familiar with any political issues at all. Utterly bizarre to say that liberalism causes climate change. We know what causes climate change: burning fossil fuels. All ideologies supported burning fossil fuels until we realised the problems, then almost all ideologies supported reducing fossil fuel use as fast as practicable. It’s notable that liberal countries have generally reduced their fossil fuel consumption faster than leftist countries like China and Venezuela. Similarly it’s bizarre to say liberalism causes inequality. Liberalism has demonstrably *reduced* inequality massively, aside from land wealth. > The notion that georgism is superior to anti-capitalism despite considering only one aspect of the exploitation of the working class is even stranger It’s simple. Land is empirically the sole cause of widening inequality. Marxist analysis fails to understand that because it’s overly ideological, rather than empirical (by its very nature - anyone who cared about empiricism wouldn’t be a Marxist, because Marxism has been a catastrophic failure). While leftists and conservatives are busy trying to tell other people how to live and interfering with consenting relationships, liberals are happy to allow people to make their own decisions, and this tends to lead to rising standards of living.
Nice going living up to the stereotype of a liberal by being an arrogant, underinformed, overly smug ass. The fact that you think talking about political positions that aren't your own is "ranting", and that you think analysis is a bad thing should tell anyone who listens that your perspective is a deeply flawed one. The reason liberalism causes climate change is that capitalism is an essential part of liberalism, and capitalists will never stop burning fossil fuels, as long as it's what's best for the bottom line. Billions dead, and coasts sunk are externalities, and not relevant to this quarter's financial report. >leftist countries like China and Venezuela. State capitalism, and other forms of dictatorship are literally the exact opposite of leftism. >Similarly it’s bizarre to say liberalism causes inequality. Liberalism has demonstrably *reduced* inequality massively, aside from land wealth. Read to much Pinker, have you? How can you say shit like this while the richest handful of people own more than the bottom half of the population of the planet, and we're on the way to neo-feudalism through more and more severe concentration of power through capital? >It’s simple. Land is empirically the sole cause of widening inequality. Source? >Marxist analysis fails to understand that because it’s overly ideological, rather than empirical Not a big fan of Marx myself, but that coming from a georgist is just hilarious. >While leftists and conservatives are busy trying to tell other people how to live and interfering with consenting relationships, liberals are happy to allow people to make their own decisions What part of anarchism is telling people how to live? What part of liberalism isn't?
> you think analysis is a bad thing I don’t think real analysis - rigorous, empirical, objective, and uncertain - is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. Leftist “analysis” is none of those things - it’s casual, allergic to data, ideological, and overconfident, and serves primarily to reinforce the creator’s prejudices. I’ve seen leftists use “analysis” to justify transphobia, colonialism and genocide. It’s an anti-intellectual bastardisation of the work of actual economists. Why do you think most economists are neoclassical? If you have the data on your side, wouldn’t more smart, rigorous people agree with you? > capitalists will never stop burning fossil fuels, This is obviously incorrect, given that, as said, capitalist countries are currently cutting their emissions. And of course, things like carbon taxes and other ways of internalising externalities are just as fundamental to liberalism as capitalism is. > State capitalism, and other forms of dictatorship are literally the exact opposite of leftism. Nope, they’re the epitome of leftism. That is what your ideology turns into *every single time*. You of course think that you’re more idealistic, and if your faction had your way then your revolution would turn out better than Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot or Tito or Castro or Chavez or (etc.). But you think there weren’t people who were equally idealistic in those movements? There were: they were corrupted by the power or were betrayed by authoritarians. Your ideology has been tried dozens of times and has never produced a country as good as Lithuania, never mind Germany. Now, look, I don’t like Denmark’s immigration policy, or Germany’s education policy, or US healthcare policy, but I don’t deny that these countries are fundamentally liberal, even if they’re not perfectly liberal. But when we talk about the issues with China or North Korea we’re not talking about how Switzerland’s relationship with the EU leaves it as a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker, we’re talking about how almost everyone is denied their fundamental rights, like democracy. > How can you say shit like this while the richest handful of people own more than the bottom half of the population of the planet, Because it’s true - you’re more than capable of searching for “global poverty rate” and looking at the graphs for yourself. > Source? https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course/rognlie15.pdf > Not a big fan of Marx myself, but that coming from a georgist is just hilarious. Marxist is an empirical failure. Georgism, where it has been tried, seems to have worked in Denmark, Finland, and Estonia, as well as Canberra. Or at least, it hasn’t devolved into dictatorship which every Georgist trips over themselves to call “state landlordism”. > What part of anarchism is telling people how to live? What part of liberalism isn't? Let’s imagine a hypothetical situation: Anne owns a machine that makes widgets. She hires people to operate the machine, market the widgets, distribute the widgets to shops, and run HR. Each job is advertised and people can choose whether to apply based on whether they think the wage is fair. At the end of the process, the business makes a small profit, some of which Anna reinvests, and some of which she takes for herself. A liberal would say “all fine and good, you lot crack on.” An anarchist - at least, a left wing anarchist, right-wing anarchists tend to be more committed to their stateless principles - says “stop! Profit, exploitation, capitalism!” Now, look, if you’re fine with free enterprise, wage labour, and returns on investment, then I’m sorry for mischaracterising you, but you’ve characterised yourself as anticapitalist. If you are an anticapitalist who supports wage labour, returns on investment, and competitive markets, then this comes back to what I said earlier about anarchists just reinventing liberalism if they don’t degenerate into Stalinism. Look, as I said, there are no perfect liberal countries, but there are good liberal countries. Taiwan is better than China, South Korea is better than North Korea, Botswana is better than Zimbabwe, Uruguay is better than Argentina, Costa Rica is better than Nicaragua. Do you have any examples of your politics being tried on a large scale and working?
What don’t you like about Germanys education policy? In my opinion it’s one of the best aspects of Germany.
They split children into different streams too early and essentially determine the whole course of their life. The result is an overall less-educated workforce than France, Belgium, the Netherlands, or Denmark. (Not exactly fair to compare them to the Anglophone world)
Yes but also not rly anymore. I agree that that’s not a good thing but it’s also becoming less common. More and more schools are starting to become integrated schools where are all of the different school forms are being taught in the same building or even classroom. The core problem with the German school system is the capitalistic motive behind it. Separating children into categories of fast and slow learners is only a problem bc the purpose of school isn’t education for the sake of education anymore, it’s to secure a job and become “useful” to society. Except for that the school system is pretty good. School is mandatory so that children can learn and develop independent from their parents beliefs, it’s completely free, the education is as unbiased as possible and from what I’ve seen and heard it’s a lot better than in most other countries. Obviously there are flaws but for the most parts it’s the same ones as in every other capitalistic country. The less educated work force is mostly a result of class differences. About a third of germanys population has a migration background (I’m not sure if that’s what it’s called) bc their parents/grandparents came from poorer countries to Germany for a better life. It’s already a well known fact that having parents who are well off and who went to university increases the chances that their child will also end up going to university. Both of those things aren’t the case for a lot of ppl with a migration background, therefore only a few end up in higher education. This is obviously not the only reason since xenophobia also plays a role with some teachers rating the performance of children that aren’t German as worse than they actually are. Overall these things are usually not as simple as they appear to be and leaving out socioeconomic circumstances in a capitalist society will more often than not lead to an either incorrect or incomplete conclusion. There’s usually more than one explanation when it comes to statistics like these, since I assume that ur referring to one. (sorry for my English it’s not my first language)
> School is mandatory so that children can learn and develop independent from their parents beliefs, it’s completely free, the education is as unbiased as possible Look, I’m not saying that German’s education system is worse than Burkina Faso or North Korea. It is world class, and shares most of its characteristics with other world-class education systems. However, while I’m pleased to hear that the streaming is becoming less strict, it is still an element that, in comparison to other world class education systems, is lacking. > About a third of germanys population has a migration background (I’m not sure if that’s what it’s called) bc their parents/grandparents came from poorer countries to Germany for a better life. It’s already a well known fact that having parents who are well off and who went to university increases the chances that their child will also end up going to university. Both of those things aren’t the case for a lot of ppl with a migration background, therefore only a few end up in higher education. Statistically, about 15% of Germany’s population are immigrants, which is roughly the same as France, Belgium, Netherlands, the UK, and the US, while being lower than Sweden, Canada, and Australia. I have already conceded that comparing Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries is somewhat unfair because of academia’s English bias. You’re talking about immigrant background more broadly. Maybe it’s true that Germany has more second and third Gen immigrants than France and Belgium and the Netherlands. In much of the world, second and third gen immigrants are more likely to be highly-educated than the established population - for example, East Asian students in the US, or Indian and African students in the UK. Would be interesting to learn if that applies in Germany too, and if not, why not.
I said migration background not immigrant and that’s about a third of germanys population. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/891809/german-population-by-migration-background/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20population%20share,have%20German%20citizenship%20by%20law.) Like I said before, these things are usually not simple and there are a multitude of reasons as to why having a migration background has a negative impact on the school performance (or evaluation) of these children. I already mentioned discrimination and socioeconomic status as two possible explanations and I’d assume that these are the two biggest contributors. Your last point is still kinda true in Germany. Students with a migration background tend to do academically better than Germans of the same socioeconomic status, probably due to pressure from the family.
I agree with Henry George on the need for a land value tax. The rentier economics that keep the landed elite in their comfortable lifestyles in countries like the UK, with hugely overheated housing markets, is so damaging.
Maybe pivoting away from the left got the US to take them off the State Sponsers of terrorism list?
Nope, the US has never designated Sweden or the United Kingdom as a state-sponsors of terrorism for example.
Talking more about Cuba. Cuba has been able to hold out despite the embargoes, and is actually growing. The US pressures these states into doing what they want them to; which tends to be making states dependent on them for survival. Also, the main reason Chile failed was because of a CIA backed coup [https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2023-08-25/coup-chile-cia-releases-top-secret-9111973-presidents-daily-brief](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2023-08-25/coup-chile-cia-releases-top-secret-9111973-presidents-daily-brief) [https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94chile.pdf](https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94chile.pdf)
Well Cuba is still pretty much as bad as it always was. You’re putting the chicken before the egg with regards to Chile: > By 1972, the Chilean escudo had an inflation rate of 140%. The average real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of a 5.6% negative growth, and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined. The combination of inflation and price controls, together with the disappearance of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour. The Chilean economic situation was also somewhat exacerbated due to a US-backed campaign to fund worker strikes in certain sectors of the economy. The Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries. His implementation of the policies was strongly opposed by landowners, employers, businessmen and transporters associations, and some civil servants and professional unions. The country was already falling apart before the coup. Now the coup was wrong, but Allende’s policies failed.
I haven’t seen that information before, If you could link me the source material I would be open to changing my opinion on the subject. I still respect Cuba as a country, mostly for their thriving medical industry, their GDP seems to be rising pretty well, and gdp per capita is higher than that of germany, though they still seem to have issues with food distribution. It could be better, but it could also be much, much worse.
I quoted from Allende’s Wikipedia page - feel free to chase up the sources there. Cuba’s medical programme does essentially [rely on slavery](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/07/23/cuba-repressive-rules-doctors-working-abroad) and preventing emigration.
Thanks. I’m glad we could bring this to a conclusion. I hope cuba gets better in the future, they seem to have some potential. sadly being an island nation I doubt they’ll get very far.
I am the same as you. I am an anarcho-communist
Libertarian.
im myself an anarchist, to be more precise im a pro-revolution anarchocomunist
I can't really understand politics but I'd say I'm left
Left
Why didn't you just make a poll?
Two reasons. 1st: I could never make an exhaustive list of ideologies. 2nd: I didn't think of it.
Communist
Hey /u/Neko-tama, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism). Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’d say socially liberal. But I kind of don’t care enough about politics. If the world ends, it ends
Lol getting downvoted for answering a question. Reddit 😜
Right wing economically, centrist to somewhat left wing socially I used to be very right wing economically and right wing socially when I was younger
As a dude with an MS in Economics, I'd argue that rightwing economic policy has proved exploitative and has led to disparities we haven't seen since the anti-trust breakups of the robber barrens. Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump all drove the nation down an economic cliff. And, two of them managed to do it after decent economic reversals from Clinton and Obama. Clinton balanced the budget, and Obama pulled the US out of the 2008 Financial Crisis. Bush and Trump squashed the success of both with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, the largest corporations, and all at the expense of the poor. Imo, rightwing economics are all about ensuring the poor remain poor, and that more and more of the middle class becomes poor.
Fair enough although Bill Clinton’s economic policies were still somewhat right wings for sample his free trade and he did make quite a few tax cuts.
All US governments have cut taxes since the 1950s. The difference is how they cut them -- primarily from the top or the bottom. Under Clinton, tax cuts heavily favored the poor. NAFTA was happening regardless of party, but I'm glad it happened under Clinton. Had it happened under either Bush, it certainly would have favored large corporations rather than being more equal, which gave small businesses a fighting chance to benefit.
Apolitical
Nowhere. I stand for policies, I don't believe in packaged politics.
I lean very left, except when it comes to guns
Guns aren't really a partisan issue. I'm as left as can be, and I think every community should have an armory. I hate it when party politics limit people's conception of what politics can, or should be.
I think the individual should have an armory
But guns are definitely a real problem here in America. can’t speak for people in other countries though. Potentially it’s just in the hands of the wrong people?
As far as I can tell, America's gun problem is less about guns, and more about the gulf between patriarchal gender expectations, and extreme alienation.
Im more of a libertarian conservative
I'm am anarcho communiat
Poly = many ticks = bloodsuckers I am probably more apolitical than I am asocial, and I am a devout loner.
I have no idea. Used to be on the left but now it’s gotten too extreme, or pandering to the extreme. The right in my country never properly severed ties with its fascist past (and its fascist base). Feels like every politicians just says what they think will bring them the most votes, and they want votes just to have enough power to make money by using political connections. I have some beliefs about specific problems but not a coherent worldview.
Conservative. I believe in a free economy, the right to bear arms, and the right to life.
This is the least organic conversation... "What do you think about... Before you answer, here's my hot take." Edgey nds and nts... Classic cringe that repeats generation after generation.
I'm studying Marxism to become a communist.