POLL: As an Atheist, What Do You View as Being the Most Rational Political Outlook?

[Engel]

I was just wondering what our politically savvy members on here viewed the most rational political view to be. For me, I arrived at Communism. Not Stalinism or Maoism, mind you, but rather a Marxist-Leninist-Luxemburgist. If you would like me to explain my stance further you may ask me anything.

[simplexity]

As we have seen in history and even today pure communism when practiced in reality does not preserve rights because the government grows corrupt and greedy. It may provide free "services" to all but that takes away peoples freedoms.

I myself am a libertarian. Government should only be large enough to protect basic rights and liberties. It should provide a defense and give some grants out when needed. Now the states or provinces themselves can be in competition and provide social services like healthcare using less money.

[jut]

Socialism with a dash of limited capitalism that redirects excess profits into society restoration and quality of life.

[Engel]

As we have seen in history pure and even today pure communism when practices in reality does not preserve rights because the government grows corrupt and greedy. It may provide free "services" to all but that takes away peoples freedoms.

I myself am a libertarian. Government should only be large enough to protect basic rights and liberties. It should provide a defense and give some grants out when needed.

Because "pure communism" has never been achieved. As stated in the Communist Manifesto, the revolutionary state is supposed to facilitate the revolution, then dissolve into a classless, stateless society. Based on this definition, for most of its history the USSR or any other example you want to use was a lot closer to being a fascist state, in which the end goal is to put power in to the hands of a few, elite leaders. In true communism the end goal is to put power into the hands of as many people as possible.

[simplexity]

And I don't think it could be achieved, not in this world anyway. That's what I'm saying. Now a mixed socialist government+capitalist government can be and that's what a lot of Europe is nowadays.

You can always go live on a commune...

[Engel]

And I don't think it could be achieved, not in this world anyway. That's what I'm saying. Now a mixed socialist government+capitalist government can be and that's what a lot of Europe is nowadays.

You can always go live on a commune...

The idea of a commune is an interesting one, but ultimately I don't wish to remove myself from the world. Rather, I wish to make my voice heard. By no means do I think humanity is ready for such a reality at the current time. But, as time goes on I believe that humanity will gradually wise up to the current system and opt to operate in a more classless society. The progression towards this is already evident. For now, I believe it be best that the communist movement work within the bounds of democratic competition.

[simplexity]

How exactly would this classless, stateless society work without any sort of government behind it. It's not possible except in a small community. There are just too many factors. This is why communism never works. A government will always rise up and it will cease to be communism and become instead either a fascist or socialist society, socialist being the most obvious answer here.

[NoMoreFaith]

All of them.

The are all developed to answer a question about how society should and could be run. Within their own realms they are all feasible, and capable of ensuring a sound society which benefits the masses (for the most part).

Which is most suitable for the society depends largely on the context of the world it currently survives in, its developed social ideology and technological status, and what is the most rational method at this point in time. Until the invention of the banking system, capitalism would have been an impossibility to work, and this ties in with the technological status at that time.

Societies exist to survive, and that requires adaptability, not a "perfect utopian" political system that can never exist. Communism for instance, is extremely viable, but has never really truly existed, mainly because it has never been timely for it to survive. Communism has no place for class differences or dictatorships, and most have had one or the other. Russia at its worst was never more than a form of failing socialism.

So my only answer, can be to vote for all of them, even feudalism had its place in context of the time it existed, the problems occur mainly when the political system out survives the zeitgeist which ushered it in, and a great many of the systems require violence to overthrow.

In time, capitalism will die off, just like all the other societies have, maybe not any time soon, but it would be naive to state that THIS system is the one that's going to survive for all time, given the history of social change.

Democratic or Republican ideologies exist only to reflect the social opinions of the time, and by default can never be correct as social opinion is always evolving and changing, sometimes by the decade.

[Chuff]

I gave kudos for successfully using the word zeitgeist

A feat that I am still yet to manage

[mediamogul]

It depends what specific society we are dealing with. For the US I personally advocate a regulated (significantly more so than our current system) Capitalist economy and for government a representative Democracy with significantly more socialized programs such as universal single payer healthcare, education including significant state subsidies for college, social security, etc.. The money for such programs coming from tax rates being rolled back to the 70% rate for the rich on salaries past a million dollars as it was during the eras of our nation's greatest prosperity. Socially I am liberal, with values emphasizing equality and social justice and protecting personal safety and liberty with rights extending to animals as well as humans.