Not a flame war, just a tally count I am looking for:

[Deja Q]

Are you, in idealism, a:

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Socialist/populist for me

[Deja Q]

5. Interesting. Populist is new to me.

What does their ideology entail?

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Populist is for and by the people... a lot of socialism to it but

I think populism allows for more of the people's voice to be heard? At least in theory.

Here is some info on the history of what was the populist party of the USA: http://history.smsu.edu/wrmiller/Populism/Texts/populism.htm

[cprise]

18. Conservatives like to call that "mob rule".

Except the "mob" is now rather well-educated and has immense information at their fingertips.

[Dogmudgeon]

36. Populism(s)

Most versions of Populism include a lot of socialism's ideas, but not always. Populism is actually any system that appeals directly to the people, whether for good or bad.

For instance, Naziism was a populist movement; Communism was populist; the American Revolution, which gave the people unheard-of political power at the time, was not populist.

Green politics also tends to be populist, though they are usually better-educated voters, which other "flavors" of populist disdain.

And the modern Religious Right is also a populist movement, though "the people" in this case are mainly southern and/or rural conservatives.

In general, these are the main ways the term "Populism" is used.

There is no such thing as a hard-and-fast definition for a political ideology, except maybe Marxist-Leninist Communism, Maoist Communism, and Naziism, which were all highly centralized from the beginning.

--p!

[Goldmund]

2. What do you mean by "in idealism"?

Do you mean, regardless of what you think about the practical implementability of an ideology?

[Deja Q]

6. Correct. Our society runs one way. In your heart, what do you believe?

Not practical. There is no such thing, period. There can be no such thing, partly due to human nature. Ironically, even anarchy can't work.

[Goldmund]

13. Well, in that case,

I would love to live in a communist society without any corruption and power-mongering; a technologically advanced society in which all menial jobs are done by machines, and people can dedicate themselves to science and art; a society without any money or posessions, or religions or jingoisms or chauvinisms or xenophobias.

And while we're at it, I'd like 72 cheerleaders (don't have to be virgins) to feed me grapes and martinis. :evilgrin:

[johnnie]

3. How about a realist?

That's what I am.

[patrice]

12. Empirical Realism.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Georgist

Have you looked into the political philosophies of Henry George?

He advocated that earned income NOT be taxed at all, and all taxes would be levied on the value of land and other "grants of title" like intellectual property laws and corporate charters.

Sounds good to me.

Yes, that is an incredibly condensed version of Georgism, but I think it's close to what he advocated.

--p!

[jobycom]

16. Interesting. Would lead to a different type of repression

I like the idea that labor not be taxed, but by placing taxes on land and property, wouldn't that discourage labor from owning property, or more importantly, capital? Seems like, from your brief summary, it would lead to a smaller middle class and a richer upper class.

I guess it would depend on what system he grafts the taxation system to. In our current capitalist system, it would destroy the middle class. In a pure communist system, it would of course not work at all, since the community owns all property. What system goes along with this?

And is my thinking way off?

[Dogmudgeon]

23. It would be the opposite of what you describe

Your thinking isn't way off -- I just described the system with too little detail.

There's always a way to subvert any system. I just got tired of saying "none of the above -- they're all crooked" because it just ain't so, and I am also tired of being cynical.

The revenue from the taxed property would be enormous; the people would be shareholders or stakeholders in the government. Working for a living would be optional, even with a far lower GNP; therefore, employers would have to make work very attractive both financially and otherwise. Now, people might not live much richer than they do now, but they would have a lot more latitude in what they do, and much more of the economic system would be geared toward pleasing the consumer, not the supplier.

There are probably many ways a Georgist system could be subverted, but the fact that most of peoples' interactions with the state and with business would be as clients and not subjects, it would encourage a dramatically different way of life. I hope; Marx et al. had the same hope for Communism, but Georgist economics does not depend on the use of revolutionary force to accomplish its aims.

If you are interested in the topic, here's some search terms for your favorite search engine:

Henry George Geolibertarianism Land Tax Schalkenbach deMille

--p!

[jobycom]

25. I'll look it up,

I think I see what he's saying. It seems like a minor variation of what we have now, with a bit of libertarianism mixed in (always a fatal idea--all economic libertarianism leads to feudalism). You'd have to give up on the idea of labor being optional--money and wealth are based on labor, not property, so withholding labor to raise wages will just lower the value of money and raise the prices of goods. Money always adjusts, though not perfectly-- you could strike a balance somewhere. I see how making property holders pay taxes would require them to higher labor, which would drive the price of labor up, but that's basically the heart of our version of capitalism, too. Our problem is that we've taken to taxing labor instead of business. Correct that, and you've basically got what you're describing, adjusting for the way the system would work in practice as well as in theory.

It's probably more complicated than what I'm thinking, though, so I'll check it out. Thanks for the lead.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. Something you'll find in Georgist history

It was denounced as a form of Socialism, since the citizens are the actual "stockholders" in the governent. This is strongly analogous to the idea that the proletarians own the means of production. In the case of Georgist thinking, it is the taxation (actually, collection of rents, royalties, and fees on the grants of privilege) of production.

Remember, the interest/dividend on the individual's partial ownership of the country would be more than sufficient for the rental of a small parcel of land and ownership of a home. (Land is not sold in a Georgist system, it is rented, the rents being the taxes.)

It's an interesting system to think about, and Mr. George's ideas merit a second look these days, even if they are not eventually used.

--p!

[Zuni]

7. I am a pragmatist

doing what needs to be done is less important than absorbing idealistic dogma

[Deja Q]

9. Ah. One who works within a system without question.

Fair enough.

[Zuni]

15. is that what i said?

better check your reading glasses, holmes.

[cprise]

17. Some would interpret "just do what works" as

...the ends justify the means.

[Deja Q]

19. Whoops. I read that backwards.

"doing what needs to be done is less important than absorbing idealistic dogma"

I'll openly admit when I'm wrong.

The definition of pragmatist is as follows (from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48): "Of or pertaining to business or to affairs; of the nature of business; practical; material; businesslike in habit or manner." Hence why I took your message at reverse value; I thought you meant you preferred being businesslike and "practical" over observation. Other definitions concur with the philosophical slant. :)

Hope you can forgive me.

[Zuni]

24. totally

no harm done. I just think you have to deal with each situation as it comes---rather than try to force your bias upon it

[NewJeffCT]

8. Strictly regulated capitalism

Strong regulation of capitalism to keep the wealth as evenly distributed as possible with a strong central government to provide services like healthcare & to maintain and update the infrastructure.

[Deja Q]

11. A solid definition of government.

Won't happen in our lifetimes though. :-(

[NewJeffCT]

14. Not in the US

Isn't Sweden a bit like that? I think China is heading that way in the long run, too, though it is more laissez-faire capitalism there now.

[GirlinContempt]

27. Sounds like thats

edging on to socialism. True capitalism can't really exist with strong regulation, or without the exploitation of any weakness in workers.

[Orsino]

35. Yep. I'm all for...

...mixing a little socialism in with our capitalism.

Capitalism to spur innovation and productivity, socalism to catch those who fall, and democratic representation with a strong Constitution to regulate the rest.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

20. This would be an interesting poll in freeperville. Are you:

1. Able to eat corn on the cob with one tooth?
2. Pick a guitar and your nose at the same time?
3. Reed a buk without pikturs?
4. Print yer name?

[denverbill]

21. Not the best bunch of choices, IMO.

I fall right smack between socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is a great mechanism for efficiency, but it needs controls to prevent monopolies and cartels and other impediments. You had an option for capitalist, excluding slave labor, but none of your capitalist options included anything that would prevent monopolies or unfair competition.

[tjwmason]

22. Other

Socialism and communism have always failed when tried because they contradict human nature (which let's face it has some pretty crappy sides to it); the free market does provide a quick and efficient allocation of resources, yet at the same time capitalism places money on the same level as humanity.

I'm not sure how possible it would be, but a system which had active markets - yet the primacy of humanity was always recognised. Not necessarily only through state action, but also by various other groups arising from the community.

The priciple of subsidiarity taking a very high place, decisions made as closely to people as possible.

Part of me yearns for the Greek polis - a small state (was it Plato who said that everybody should be able to know everybody else), but which recognises that it exists within a greater community. Therein quite an Aristotlelian constitution - what he called polity (unhelpfully he doesn't really tell us what this entails).

[GirlinContempt]

28. tjwmason

I :loveya: too much to jump down your throat on this one *sigh*

[tjwmason]

31. Go ahead jump

I love discussion of the philosophy of political-economy, and I'd love to hear more views (the more I hear, the more I learn, the better my view is).

Have you got a particular problem with it?

[Mojambo]

29. Other - Pluralist Commonwealth

This is a political-economic system detailed in Gar Alperovitz's book, America Beyond Capitalism. There is a nice excerpt that was printed in Dollars and Sense.

It is possible to define the underlying structural building blocks of a model political-economic system which differs in fundamental ways from both traditional capitalism and socialism.

The schematic model outlined here is termed a "Pluralist Commonwealth"—"pluralist" to emphasize the priority given to democratic diversity and individual liberty; "commonwealth" to underscore the centrality of new public and quasi-public wealth-holding institutions.

At the heart of this model is a robust vision of community democracy as the necessary foundation for a renewal of democracy in general. The model prioritizes a variety of strategies to undergird local economies, thereby creating conditions favorable to the growth of local civil society associations and an increase in the power of local government to make meaningful decisions.

The model also projects the development over time of new ownership institutions, including locally anchored worker-owned and other community-benefiting firms, on the one hand, and various national wealth-holding bodies, on the other. These ultimately take the place of current elite and corporate ownership of the preponderance of large-scale capital.

At the national level, a major new institution—call it a "Public Trust"—is projected to oversee the investment of stock on behalf of the public as state and other pension boards commonly do today. The proceeds could flow to individuals, to states, to municipalities, to the federal treasury—or perhaps to fund such basic public services as education or medical care for the elderly.

A fundamental shift in the ownership of wealth over time slowly moves the nation toward greater equality: directly, for instance, through worker-owned enterprises, and also indirectly, through a flow of funds from the large-scale public investments. (Capital would likely be assembled both by the taxation of elite income and wealth and through new loan guarantee strategies to finance the broadened public ownership of new investments.) Over time, these flows of funds are allocated to finance a reduction in the work week so as to permit more free time, which in turn bolsters both individual liberty and democratic participation. In addition, ownership structures and strategies that stabilize the local economy strengthen the traditional entrepreneurial foundations of liberty while also enhancing individual job security.

Finally, the emerging model implicitly moves in the direction of, and ultimately projects, a radical long-term devolution of the national political system to some form of regional reorganization and decentralization. The region is the most logical locus for economic planning aimed at securing jobs in particular communities and for handling ecological, transportation, and other issues in a rational and democratic fashion.

It's a very worthwhile read.
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/1104alper.html

[El Fuego]

30. If I choose dictator, do I get to BE the dictator?

If I were the dictator, it would work for me.

[BlueIris]

32. I was going to vote Plutocrat, but I didn't want to be the only one.

:-)

[GOPBasher]

33. Halfway between Capitalist and Socialist. n/t

[dhinojosa]

34. I am more of a Pragmatist but your definition is all wrong....

It is someone who is practical and is concerned with success or failure to solve problems.