i have recently come across some people on this board who i will not name who seem to have the ludicrous idea that if i describe myself using a
specific label, that i automatically have to justify everything that this label entails. for example, if i describe myself as a liberal, i must accept
and justify Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson as important figures within my ideology, even if i believe personally that both of them are idiots. this is
some of the stupidest logic i have ever heard and it is just as stupid to assume that if i am a conservative i must be an apologist for the pro-life
position, even if that is not the case (my father is an example of a conservative who is more pro-choice than me, his radical left-wing son). and
while this was only one thread i saw this in, and only a handful of people thought this way in that thread, this re-affirms my belief that many (if
not most) people in the US, including those on these boards, have absolutely no clue what their political ideology is truly about, and have this
obscure belief that everyone is either a conservative or a liberal and that the opposite ideology automatically believes exactly what they are opposed
to and are their mortal enemies. this leads me to believe that if i ask most people to succinctly and precisely describe their political ideologies,
1. multiple people of the same political affiliation will have widely varying definitions of the same ideology, and 2. rather than succinctly defining
their ideologies they will list a few hot button issues that their party currently pushes even though historically, or in other nations, their
ideology may have represented the exact opposite viewpoint.
that said, i would like to use this thread to do a bit of an experiment:
-in your comment, let people know how you align yourself politically and define your political ideology succinctly
more than a short paragraph). if you do not use labels to define yourself, let us know that, but still try to define your political ideology as
succinctly and precisely as possible.
-DO NOT respond to anyone else's definitions. even if someone else has posted and, in your opinion, poorly defined your ideology, do not respond to
them, but rather give your own definition.
-if you can't seem to define your ideology succinctly or precisely, then it is likely that you have never thought critically about your ideology. i
recommend that you think critically about it and try your hardest after brainstorming to do so.
it is my hope that we get an idea of which people do not truly understand their ideologies, and maybe this experiment can provoke those people to dig
a little deeper and think more critically about what they believe.
since i started the thread, i will begin...
political ideology: mutualism - a form of libertarian socialism
libertarianism - the idea that any form of authority (ie: the state, various forms of hierarchy, etc.) must meet a burden of proof to justify the
necessity of its own existence and, upon failing to meet that burden of proof, should be replaced by more egalitarian structures.
socialism - workers' control over the means of production
more specifically, mutualism is a form of socialism in which workers control the means of production either as individual artisans/merchants/sole
proprietors (without employees working for them) or as worker-owners within a larger worker cooperative (business which is directly owned and operated
on an equal basis by its work force) through a free market.
edit on 4/10/2012 by eboyd because: (no reason given)