CDZ Youre top 3 best ideologies in political

[320 Years of History]

Anarchism.
Independent socialism.
Concrete socialism.

I guess I've just found two new things to learn more about. I have no idea of what those forms of socialism entail. LOL

Edit:
Having now Googled "what is independent socialism" and "what is concrete socialism" not one damn result appeared that specifically notes either as being something that is recognized as a form of socialism. Can you please provide a comprehensive discussion of what they each are, be it in your own words or someone else's? I don't need a tome, but something on par with what might be expected from an undergraduate political science or history essay (10 pages max) would be helpful. I'm even more curious to understand what both of those concepts are. Perhaps you've invented something entirely new....

 

[Elvis Obama]

Top three ideologies? How bizarre. I have favorite flavors of pie and such, but political ideologies? There are two different kinds of ideologies, those that are being tested in the crucible of the real world, and there are those that are just theories on paper. The former are measured by the standard of living they provide for the people living under them and the latter by how stirring their ideas are, not how practical.

What human beings have developed are systems of exploitation and coercion. These systems have evolved in ways which make the forms of exploitation and coercion we employ more equitable and more humane. We have discovered that when we accomplish these improvements, favoring the carrot instead of the stick, we wind up improving productivity and increasing wealth. Greed, traditionally, fights against such efforts to share the wealth and thereby acts against their own best interests, but that's obsessive, zero-sum acquisitiveness for ya.

Real-life 'Gordon Gekko' wants Bernie Sanders to be president

That principle can be carried too far though. You can, through providing people an opportunity to provide a better life for themselves and their family, provide a reliable and rational motivation to be responsible and reasonably self-sacrificing. Ask too much, and reward too little, as communism did, and the system requires an unrealistic level of self-abnegation. The society breaks down into inevitable corruption.

So, my favorite political ideology is the one that requires perfect people. Now all we need are the perfect people.

 

[Holos]

Anarchism.
Independent socialism.
Concrete socialism.

I guess I've just found two new things to learn more about. I have no idea of what those forms of socialism entail. LOL

Edit:
Having now Googled "what is independent socialism" and "what is concrete socialism" not one damn result appeared that specifically notes either as being something that is recognized as a form of socialism. Can you please provide a comprehensive discussion of what they each are, be it in your own words or someone else's? I don't need a tome, but something on par with what might be expected from an undergraduate political science or history essay (10 pages max) would be helpful. I'm even more curious to understand what both of those concepts are. Perhaps you've invented something entirely new....

Socialism means generally forwarding progress through being multiply social. Socialism generally is not considered politically efficient by many political citizens because in any other form of political ideo organization society is unavoidably and reasonably taken for granted. In socialism being social is always the main operational form, rather verbally, vocally or comprehensively receptive.

Social independence makes for independent socialism. Self sufficient individuals can form self sufficient groups. More greatly subject oriented than object oriented, although the inclusion of at least one object is always necessary for its effective functioning. Internet communication is a good example. We each have our hardwares, independent from each other and self sufficient as created for the single purpose of being on and affiliated to specifically designed energetic sources. We meet in this forum to form independent self sufficient groups (threads) by the meeting of the sources for the individual independent hardwares.

Concrete socialism is more so materially oriented than I.S. (independent socialism), always making its primary references to objects instead of subjects in contrast to I.S. making its working efforts through objects. This would take the form of greater public operations, such as road work for highway maintenance or smaller public operations such as educational institutions using buildings, tables, streets, books and so on.

The final procedure of concrete socialism leads to independent socialism. The procedures of independent socialism leads to anarchism.

 

[320 Years of History]

Anarchism.
Independent socialism.
Concrete socialism.

I guess I've just found two new things to learn more about. I have no idea of what those forms of socialism entail. LOL

Edit:
Having now Googled "what is independent socialism" and "what is concrete socialism" not one damn result appeared that specifically notes either as being something that is recognized as a form of socialism. Can you please provide a comprehensive discussion of what they each are, be it in your own words or someone else's? I don't need a tome, but something on par with what might be expected from an undergraduate political science or history essay (10 pages max) would be helpful. I'm even more curious to understand what both of those concepts are. Perhaps you've invented something entirely new....

Socialism means generally forwarding progress through being multiply social. Socialism generally is not considered politically efficient by many political citizens because in any other form of political ideo organization society is unavoidably and reasonably taken for granted. In socialism being social is always the main operational form, rather verbally, vocally or comprehensively receptive.

Social independence makes for independent socialism. Self sufficient individuals can form self sufficient groups. More greatly subject oriented than object oriented, although the inclusion of at least one object is always necessary for its effective functioning. Internet communication is a good example. We each have our hardwares, independent from each other and self sufficient as created for the single purpose of being on and affiliated to specifically designed energetic sources. We meet in this forum to form independent self sufficient groups (threads) by the meeting of the sources for the individual independent hardwares.

Concrete socialism is more so materially oriented than I.S. (independent socialism), always making its primary references to objects instead of subjects in contrast to I.S. making its working efforts through objects. This would take the form of greater public operations, such as road work for highway maintenance or smaller public operations such as educational institutions using buildings, tables, streets, books and so on.

The final procedure of concrete socialism leads to independent socialism. The procedures of independent socialism leads to anarchism.

Thank you for explaining those two versions of socialism. That's what I asked you to do, and so you have. I appreciate the effort.

What you described struck me as:

Red:
A family, a business, a circle of friends, a gang (violent or not), or just about any association of two or more people that one might conceive. In short, groups and how groups are operated and operate, internally and among themselves.

Blue:
This just seems like rich groups otherwise, not a lot of difference from what I.S. seems like, as per your descriptions of each.​

I don't see what is central to group dynamics and that also makes them critically different under I.S. or C.S. or any other S. But, this time, I'm not asking for clarification. In fact, I'm specifically requesting that you don't clarify, at least not for my benefit. I think I'll get by just fine without knowing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The best political ideology is one that a person develops from their ideals and principles and then applies to the world.

The worst political ideologies are any that a person selects first and then decides upon their ideals and principles afterwards.

 

[Militants]

I change me to Marxism and Communism two secundary best ideologies by Karl Marx ....

 

[Militants]

1. Marxism
2. Liberalism
3. Progessive

 

[Militants]

1. Fascism
2. Progessive
3. Communism

 

[Militants]

I change me from Liberals to Communist.

 

[Militants]

1. Fascism
2. Progessive
3. Capitalism

Top 3 nowadays.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not sure I understand what you are trying to ask, but my favorite 'isms' are
1.Catholicism - though Catholics largely ignore it today.
2. Distributism - though few people practice it today.
3. Democratic Republicanism - though few have ever heard of it today.

 

[320 Years of History]

Democratic Republicanism - though few have ever heard of it today.

Really?

Red:
Really?

• Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation
  
• The Articles of Confederation, 1777 | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
  
• A Concise Guide to the Records of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution
• The Articles of Confederation: Pros & Cons
• Pros and Cons of the Articles of Confederation | APECSEC.org

The Jeffersonian Republicans got some things "right;" however, what they "got right" didn't and doesn't require Democratic Republicanism (D-R). Moreover, the central tenet of D-R -- a very loosely organized and authorized national government -- was, unlike so many similarly fundamental political ideas, tried, and that and that alone, became quickly and obviously to the men of the time the overarching failure of Democratic Republicanism. That decentralization was the critical and defining cornerstone to that party's positions; everything else -- the more minor elements of their platform -- the D-R party wanted to implement could have been, and subsequently and variously have been, implemented absent the loosely formed and empowered confederate national government. Those things worked and didn't, were and weren't good for the times at hand, off and on over our history, but one must, if one is to embrace D-R, also accept the ideas of confederation over those of federalism. I truly don't see the merit of that, especially not in these times during which we find ourselves living.

Blue:

• Is the fact that T. Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic Republican Party no longer communicated in public middle or high schools these days?
• Do schools not any longer even mention the United Confederation of States?

 

[gipper]

Libertarianism

Libertarianism

Libertarianism

 

[JimBowie1958]

Democratic Republicanism - though few have ever heard of it today.

Really?

Oh, yes, really, but I actually was thinking of something a bit different, more the concept that Jefferson's party was named for rather than Jefferson's party.

The blend of Republicanism with the majority of top officials being elected is pure genius, IMO.

Red:
Really?

• Our First Constitution: The Articles of Confederation
  
• The Articles of Confederation, 1777 | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
  
• A Concise Guide to the Records of the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Source of the Original Meaning of the U.S. Constitution
• The Articles of Confederation: Pros & Cons
• Pros and Cons of the Articles of Confederation | APECSEC.org

The Jeffersonian Republicans got some things "right;" however, what they "got right" didn't and doesn't require Democratic Republicanism (D-R). Moreover, the central tenet of D-R -- a very loosely organized and authorized national government -- was, unlike so many similarly fundamental political ideas, tried, and that and that alone, became quickly and obviously to the men of the time the overarching failure of Democratic Republicanism. That decentralization was the critical and defining cornerstone to that party's positions; everything else -- the more minor elements of their platform -- the D-R party wanted to implement could have been, and subsequently and variously have been, implemented absent the loosely formed and empowered confederate national government. Those things worked and didn't, were and weren't good for the times at hand, off and on over our history, but one must, if one is to embrace D-R, also accept the ideas of confederation over those of federalism. I truly don't see the merit of that, especially not in these times during which we find ourselves living.

I think Jefferson's party was a good first run, and as we both know it later devolved into the Democratic partof Tammany Hall infamy wed with rural interests under Andrew Jackson.

Blue:

• Is the fact that T. Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic Republican Party no longer communicated in public middle or high schools these days?
• Do schools not any longer even mention the United Confederation of States?

They had stopped discussing it by the time I went through American history back in 1975 and before.

Some of those old ideas, like Subsidiarity, are still quite useful and germane today though seldom discussed even in college classes..