After a good & deep political discussion, a man privately asked me what my politics was. I admitted I wasn't really sure, and it gave me a queer mixed feeling. I was proud to have not been pegged into any specific label, and sad that so few share my intuitions, and most of all confused at not even knowing anymore how to respond to such a basic question.
I've had a few days now to reflect, and this is where I am in 2023:
1) Like classical liberals, I believe the twin duties of government are to protect the rights of individuals and to promote the public's material wellbeing.
2) Like progressives, I believe the most important rights of individuals are political & social equality, such that they can live the manner of life they choose.
3) Like socialists, I believe rights of political & social equality should extend into the workplace, and indeed into all human relationships and institutions.
4) Like capitalists, I believe material inequality is permissible and useful to promote both the public's material wellbeing and individual virtue.
5) Like communists, I believe the goods necessary for a dignified life (by the standards of the local culture) should be guaranteed to be within the capacity of all to attain, even the most unfortunate and least deserving, such that they can solve their own problems.
6) Like classical conservatives, I believe that reforms should be gradual, orderly, and reversible, and also that the government must promote virtue and discourage vice.
7) Like patriotic nationalists, I believe the virtues to be rewarded by the government are secular, individualistic, and aimed at national greatness: lawfulness, responsibility, honesty, courage, prudence, peacefulness, tolerance, and the like.
8) Like cosmopolitan internationalists, I believe the people of all countries deserve the same rights and an equal measure of dignity, and that coexistence in the same communities is possible and good.
Label it as you choose. (In the US context, 1, 2, 4, & 8 are associated with the Democratic party; 3 & 5 are to its left; and 6 & 7 aren't anywhere on the map. So my party preference is clear.)
@vruz
Interesting opinion. You say that even though I've endorsed workplace democracy and haven't endorsed private ownership of capital?
@gabe Well, you said you're fine with economic inequality. (or, perhaps you actually meant some imbalances that seem fair to you, I can accept that).
The problem is that is that all that seems inconsistent because...
How can you have inequality without private ownership of capital?
If there's no private ownership of capital there's no economic inequality.
And workplace democracy is a continuum, not an absolute. I have had workplace democracy in capitalism, nothing to call home about.
@vruz
> If there's no private ownership of capital there's no economic inequality.
Hm, perhaps you mean something different by "inequality" than I did?
To me, it's very literal: if one person has greater material wealth than another, that's material inequality. And obviously that kind of inequality is entirely compatible with social ownership of capital.
Well you have a very interesting definitions of what the concepts of private ownership, social ownership, and economic inequality mean and how they relate to one another.
I think they are very close to capitalistic definitions of some flavour, possibly democratic socialist, certainly not marxist and certainly not anarchist to be sure.
I also think that social democracy and liberal conservatism are internally inconsistent ideologies, so I'm the least qualified to say anything nice.
> Well you have a very interesting definitions of what the concepts of private ownership, social ownership, and economic inequality mean and how they relate to one another.
Er, I'm not sure how you've inferred that, as I haven't offered any definitions of those terms. Or maybe you're speaking loosely about the way I used two of those plus other similar terms? That's perfectly fine if so. If I grok what you're getting at, I'd put it like this: I've expressed left-wing views on the basis of right-wing motives.
You're right that I'm not Marxist; e.g. reading Capital is a slog for me as I find it to be intolerably hand-wavey. My youthful left background was in a communist anarchist collective, and if you're familiar with anarchist theory you'll see close links between it and the phrasing of the left-leaning points. But it's true that I no longer think anarchism is desirable.
@gabe Capitalist. If you are okay with inequality, that trumps everything else.