What is my political ideology?

[Ibn.AL.Muqafaa]

I identify myself as a leftist, but socially libertarian, and economically authoritarian.
So what do you think my ideology/philosophy is?

[(A)]

Do you believe that we should be governed by a republic of elected officials?
That people who do not conform should be sent to prison?
Trust in the rule of law and state granted and protected freedoms?

You might be a liberal.

[Ibn.AL.Muqafaa]

1-yes
2-no, they should be sent for rehab
3-yes

[(A)]

Yah your a liberal.

May I suggest a "The state and revolution" by Lenin. http://www.marx.be/sites/default/fil.../sr_and_sq.PDF

Or if you are in for a good read how about "Reform or revolution" by Rosa Luxemburg. https://www.swp.org.uk/sites/all/fil...revolution.pdf

If you want a diffrent perspective "the Conquest of bread" by Kroptkin. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/libr...quest-of-bread

[GLF]

So out of one side of your mouth you renounce the vanguard and socialist apparatus and out of the other side you recommend the magnus opus of the very progenitor of those ideas?

Have you seen the light or do you even know what you believe?

[(A)]

Well he sounds like a liberal so I offered him Lenin.

Then I offered a counter point to Lenin's argument's;

then one of the great Anarcho-Communist books.

If he was a capitalist I would have started with "What is property?" then onto "the Conquest of bread".

*edit: also "socialist apparatus" is not the correct term for a republic.

[Ibn.AL.Muqafaa]

. To elaborate, the market should be heavily regulated by the the government , same for trade. Healthcare should be free. The government has no right to intervene in personal freedom of the people. Money should never exist.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll note that I see the overall problem / issue as being one of 'balancing' among three kinds of innate material interests that would each 'run away with all of it' if unchecked:

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[ckaihatsu]

. To elaborate, the market should be heavily regulated by the the government , same for trade. Healthcare should be free. The government has no right to intervene in personal freedom of the people. Money should never exist.

If money doesn't exist then most-likely there are no markets, unless everything is done with instantaneous barter transactions.

[(A)]

Or if the worker/s produce directly for the user as in a gift economy without government control.

[ckaihatsu]

Or if the worker/s produce directly for the user as in a gift economy without government control.

Well, yeah, I was getting to that....

[ckaihatsu]

Or if the worker/s produce directly for the user as in a gift economy without government control.

May as well use this lull to get something going here....

[I]n a socially egalitarian society that has overcome the class divide, people would face all socially necessary tasks *collectively* -- if there's a *gradient of distastefulness* over all of these tasks, that would then produce a *gradient of unwillingness* among those in the population (less-distasteful = more-willing, and more-distasteful = less-willing).

So in such an even-handed social context who *should* do the more-distasteful tasks -- ?

It shouldn't even be a matter of individual *willingness*, because the society has to resolve these post-capitalist socio-material issues on a *collective*, *consistent* basis, as a matter of hands-on social policy:

If society allowed certain people to be doing the *gruntwork*, *consistently*, it would amount to de-facto *exploitation* because those people's standard-of-living was *reduced* (due to doing distasteful tasks), compared to everyone else's, who *weren't* doing distasteful tasks *at all*.

---

You're also not-addressing the 'inadvertent exploitation' issue from above -- what if some people *love* to grow hemp (etc.), and decide to dedicate their lives, 24/7/365, to the duties of hemp cultivation -- ? One may be tempted to respond 'Great!', but would it be socially *fair* (egalitarian) to collectively *allow* this kind of unceasing self-sacrificing effort for the common good while most-everyone-else is just *using* that hemp (etc.) and being a self-absorbed rock star -- ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...43#post2875643

[Kamaradas]

That sounds quite orthodox for a leftist. The Bolsheviks eventually went in such a direction when tasked with governing a state, until around Stalin. You could be anything, it really depends on the specifics and extents. You're using brief, generic phrases which don't actually mean that much, and hence it can depend.

Really, though, 'social' and 'economic' can't be taken in notably opposed directions, the economic is a type of social activity. As such, you're likely to be moderate in this, but may still be vaguely 'socialist.' The movement had generally been quite allowing with such people. No need to libel you with the 'liberal' tag immediately. Still, socialism is always closer to economic 'authoritarianism,' because it involves a controlled economy, so if all you mean is that you are closer to this direction, you could just be a fairly ordinary socialist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Do you believe that we should be governed by a republic of elected officials?
That people who do not conform should be sent to prison?
Trust in the rule of law and state granted and protected freedoms?

You might be a liberal.

That would make Stalin 2/3 of a liberal. That is a very vague definition of liberalism.

[Sectarian]

I identify as a proponent of giving small trumpets to amphibians. The trumpets will be financed by a tax on large financial transactions. This will be an incentive to self-management and democracy. It's not exactly socialism but it is a step forward to bringing socialist ideas to the mainstream.

[(A)]

Stalin was closer to a fascist then a Liberal.
Lenin was the Republic founding parliamentarian.

Liberalism fits; Statists, authoritarians, dictators or Archists, could also be used to describe Lenin and his followers.