[Ghost Spaghetti]

Long-term members probably already know that I'm a member of the Green Party of England and Wales and wear my political leanings very much on my sleeve. With political party membership at an all-time low across the Western world, I wonder how many other card-carrying weirdos there are out there. Whether you're a Democrat, Conservative, Pirate, Libertarian, or Monster Raving Loony, tell us who you'd go door-knocking for and what inspired you to join them.

[xasop]

I'm not a member of a party, but I've been considering joining for some time. The four parties I'd be most interested in joining are the Liberal Democrats, the Sex Party, the Pirate Party and the Future Party. They each have a substantial subset of policies that I can get behind.

I don't think I'd be up for going door-knocking, though. I suck at people skills, and would probably be more of a liability than an asset to the party. I'd much rather work on technical stuff behind the scenes.

[Fortuna]

Technically I'm registered with the Republican Party, but I signed up when I was 18 and I can't be arsed to change it. I've grown quite a bit more liberal since then. I think politics for the average citizen is a waste of time in America anyway.

[Tau]

I'm not a member of any political party. In the US there are only two meaningful ones to choose from, and neither represent me well, so I have no desire to publicly support either. I vote, and I almost always would vote for the democrat, but it's more of a lesser-of-two-evils thing.

[Vindictus]

Long-term members probably already know that I'm a member of the Green Party of England and Wales and wear my political leanings very much on my sleeve. With political party membership at an all-time low across the Western world, I wonder how many other card-carrying weirdos there are out there. Whether you're a Democrat, Conservative, Pirate, Libertarian, or Monster Raving Loony, tell us who you'd go door-knocking for and what inspired you to join them.

Also a member of the Greens, Australian branch.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Used to be a card carrying Communist. Still have the card, in fact. I am a registered Republican now. Politically, I admit to being a total mess. I despise modern-day liberal bullshit, which is what the Democrats (and the Communist Party USA [CPUSA]) espouse. I don't like all the socially liberal crap.

But on a purely economic level, I am still basically Marxist. So, I guess you could say that I registered Republican for moral and ethical reasons, in many ways, as well as for their firm support of Israel. But economically I would better fit a Left Wing, even borderline Communist approach.

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

It didn't used to be that way. Just a few years ago, you could be what they called a Blue Dog Democrat. A socially conservative, economically Left wing Democrat. You could also be a socially liberal, economically Right Wing Republican.

But at this point, most Republicans are socially conservative, economically Right Wing persons. Most Democrats are socially liberal, economically Left Wing persons.

And then you start mixing the two. So, I consider myself a borderline Communist, but as a social conservative, I oppose race based Affirmative Action. I don't believe in transfer of wealth just because a guy comes from a historically mistreated group of people. That's crap in my view.

I am in favour of social welfare, yes, like any good Communist, but not based on race. And like any sensible human, I believe that hand-outs should be limited. In return for social welfare, a person should be required to get job training, and should be required to look for work, and should be tested for drugs. If you are tested for drugs to keep your job, why aren't they tested for drugs to take your money?

So this country is a cluster-f**k in my view. So I end up a Republican for moral reasons, even though I'm basically still a Communist economically speaking.

[xasop]

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are fundamentally screwed up as well, even outside America. It's generally accepted that if you oppose gay marriage, for instance, you are a "conservative". Meanwhile, if you support it, you are a "liberal".

But there are those who want to force practitioners of marriage ceremonies to not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in order to achieve their goal. That's not liberalism at all. Then there's the fact that so many groups that have fought for their freedom in the past -- women and blacks, for instance -- are now most vocally advocated for by people who want to achieve domination over their perceived oppressors, rather than real freedom.

I don't see "conservative" and "liberal" as antonyms anymore. Conservative-progressive is one spectrum; authoritarian-liberal is another. You can be a conservative liberal (e.g., the many people who spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation in other countries), and you can be a progressive authoritarian (e.g., modern feminism).

[Tau]

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are fundamentally screwed up as well, even outside America. It's generally accepted that if you oppose gay marriage, for instance, you are a "conservative". Meanwhile, if you support it, you are a "liberal".

But there are those who want to force practitioners of marriage ceremonies to not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in order to achieve their goal. That's not liberalism at all. Then there's the fact that so many groups that have fought for their freedom in the past -- women and blacks, for instance -- are now most vocally advocated for by people who want to achieve domination over their perceived oppressors, rather than real freedom.

I don't see "conservative" and "liberal" as antonyms anymore. Conservative-progressive is one spectrum; authoritarian-liberal is another. You can be a conservative liberal (e.g., the many people who spoke out against the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation in other countries), and you can be a progressive authoritarian (e.g., modern feminism).

I don't think modern progressivism is authoritarian. Perhaps it sometimes promotes authoritarian views, but I don't think that's a defining characteristic. It's just an unfortunate side-effect of the us-vs-them mentality that exists in modern politics. To use gay marriage as an example, 'we' have finally defeated 'them', and now 'we' are afraid of 'them' finding a loophole that allows 'them' to undo all of 'our' progress. So, 'we' want to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. (please note the quotations around 'we'. I don't necessarily support the point of view that people should be forced to provide services to gay marriages)

Whether or not taking away someone's right to discriminate is authoritarian is a whole different question.

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

[xasop]

I don't think modern progressivism is authoritarian.

It isn't, that's my whole point. The two are entirely independent; it's possible to be a progressive authoritarian just as much as it's possible to be a progressive liberal.

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

Its original ideals are not. However, a lot of modern feminists like to propose ridiculous rules that silence men in order to achieve gender "balance".

[Dionysios]

Used to be a card carrying Communist. Still have the card, in fact. I am a registered Republican now. Politically, I admit to being a total mess. I despise modern-day liberal bullshit, which is what the Democrats (and the Communist Party USA [CPUSA]) espouse. I don't like all the socially liberal crap.

But on a purely economic level, I am still basically Marxist. So, I guess you could say that I registered Republican for moral and ethical reasons, in many ways, as well as for their firm support of Israel. But economically I would better fit a Left Wing, even borderline Communist approach.

The problem is that in this country, economics and morals have gotten all mixed and muddled. If you are a Conservative morally speaking, you are invariably a Republican. If you are a Liberal morally speaking, you are invariably a Democrat.

It didn't used to be that way. Just a few years ago, you could be what they called a Blue Dog Democrat. A socially conservative, economically Left wing Democrat. You could also be a socially liberal, economically Right Wing Republican.

But at this point, most Republicans are socially conservative, economically Right Wing persons. Most Democrats are socially liberal, economically Left Wing persons.

And then you start mixing the two. So, I consider myself a borderline Communist, but as a social conservative, I oppose race based Affirmative Action. I don't believe in transfer of wealth just because a guy comes from a historically mistreated group of people. That's crap in my view.

I am in favour of social welfare, yes, like any good Communist, but not based on race. And like any sensible human, I believe that hand-outs should be limited. In return for social welfare, a person should be required to get job training, and should be required to look for work, and should be tested for drugs. If you are tested for drugs to keep your job, why aren't they tested for drugs to take your money?

So this country is a cluster-f**k in my view. So I end up a Republican for moral reasons, even though I'm basically still a Communist economically speaking.

I'm not officially with any party.
I respect the Greens although I'm probably closest to communist of the Stalinist or Hoxhaist variety (after Enver Hoxha of Albania). To be even more specific, I tend to agree with the conclusions of the late Englishman Bill Bland who founded the Stalin Society but was expelled from it by its current leaders because he was critical of Mao (as was Hoxha).

I recently came across Wang Ming who was Mao's long time Stalinist rival within the Chinese Communist Party whose writings changed my views somewhat against the cultural revolution and the pro-Maoist writings of Edgar Snow.

I really like the Stalin era Communist Party USA chairman William Z. Foster and have most of his prolific books which make him the best american historian I have read. I think of him in many ways like Wang Ming in China and his economic and political beliefs basically continued by the Hoxhaists.

As to the major american parties, I consider the bourgeois western democracies to be a moderate branch of fascism at best. The Republicans can be more open about it, but the Democrat Party is just as bad. I told a friend about a slim history of the Democrats I have by a Trotskyite publisher that includes a chapter entitled "The Party of Slavery" to which he replied that it's different today, but southern Democrats have always controlled that party and were the chief enemies of the New Deal and the civil rights movement disfiguring and limiting the potential of both.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, the Maoist variety of Communist was more or less what I was. But at present I see its got some pretty glaring issues. Hoxha was, in my view, horrifying.

Ultimately, i see Communism failing for the same reason I see any human government ultimately failing. The Torah presents us a system that is ultimately a form of Socialism, although the Republicans would hate me for saying that. But then, the Republicans are a bunch of Fundamentalist Protestants who don't know Torah from a hole in their heads.

Ultimately, I believe that the only form of government that CAN work, at least for Jews, IS Torah. For non-Jews, well, that's above my pay-grade.

But yes, I have most of Mao's works, and have read the vast bulk of them, and tend to agree with a lot of what he says. Its just the implementation of it all was messed up.

[Vindictus]

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

[Tau]

Also, how is feminism authoritarian?

Oh, come on. Quoting a tumblog that's either a) satirical or b) run by a 13 year old girl who doesn't entirely understand the concepts she's angry about isn't fair. Even most of tumblr makes fun of people like that.

Also, the tags 'male tears' and 'kill all men' generally represent someone who is being tongue-in-cheek. There might be people who actually believe that shit, but mostly they're not. The hardcore feminists I know are usually just trying to get a rise out of men's rights activists with shit like that.