Both Adam Smith and Peter Kropotkin had ideas that I can use. I am slightly partial to Max Weber's approach to sociology, compared with his contemporaries. I believe that Knut Wicksell was one of the most talented synthesis thinkers in modern history. I resent being called a Marxist: I am more sympathetic toward non-Marxist approaches to communist philosophy, and even then, I consider none of them to be gospel. Do not call me a "libertarian": I prefer to be called a "moderate anarchist," and even on that, my opinions are nuanced.
I believe that we could learn something from the principles that govern Nordic trade unions, but I am open to the idea of those principles being used in a variety different ways, rather than merely replicating something else. While unions are not a bad idea, in principle, the American labor movement is not one that has succeeded at winning my confidence. The Nordic trade unions have succeeded at becoming an integral part of a modern, technologically advanced knowledge economy, and ours have not, and until ours have made serious reforms, preferably based on the Nordic model, I cannot feel confident toward the ones that currently exist in my own country.
I believe that a state monopoly is likely to have all of the same problems as any other monopoly. I see a corporate monopoly as just another monopoly, and I dislike it for the same reasons why I dislike a state monopoly. A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly. At least I get to vote on who gets to run my government: that's more than I can say for some business magnate that might as well be an unelected despot, but I really don't like anybody having too much centralized, entrenched power because it kills competition. I like competition in principle. The primary motivation for people to do extraordinary things is in order to humiliate and upstage each other in fair contests of awesome.
As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the United States is one of the greatest countries in the world. To tell you the truth, I believe that Finland and Iceland just barely pass muster, and everybody else is either outright embarrassing or beyond redemption. If I were indigenous to their countries, I would not think I was a great nation, though. I would still think there was a long way left to go. There are probably space aliens out there that have the jump on us, and if we do not pull our shit together fast, then they are never going to let us live it down. I am not worried about the Chinese, my friends. I am worried about the real aliens. They are out there claiming all the good real estate, and if we don't catch up with those green-skinned motherfuckers, then there won't be anything left on the bone for us humans.
Or our dogs. Or crows. I like crows.
Oh, believe me, I would just LOVE for the rich elites to pay a larger share of taxes than they already do, but at some point, we have to talk them into it. That is a point of realism that most liberals miss, and the fact that they keep on missing it makes me want to beat them with a cane. Much as I like the idea of a substantially more ambitiously progressive government, we need rich allies in order to really make that scenario work. If you want to expand the government's progressive policies, you need to get people like Bezos, Musk, Page, Brin, and Gates interested in whatever it is that you are doing, and if you cannot succeed at attracting their interest, then you are going to lose the fucking election. Stop alienating the billionaires, liberals, or Sigma is going to come kick your butts and bodily bend you into pretzels, capiche? I want big, muscular, progressive butt-kicking to be done by my government, but the reality is that, in order for that idea to work, you need to have strong and enthusiastic allies among the elites. I don't care how you win them over. Suck their dicks, for all that I care. Liberals, stop treating rich people like your enemies: we need their fucking money, and if you think you're going to just take it from them by force, then that is fucking hilarious. The social contract, deep down, really requires voluntary and peaceful cooperation by most of the powers involved. While we can handle a handful of rich malcontents, you are sabotaging everything we progressives are trying to do if your rhetoric is likely to make them unify against us as a solid political bloc.
The best way to describe my political ideology is "too fucking psycho to really pinpoint," but "eclectic clusterfuck," "ramblings of a grinning Cheshire cat," or "nightmarishly jumbled hodgepodge of elitist intellectualism" would do. If you don't like it, well, FYIAD. If I choose to believe that I am a parrot-sized black dragon with glowing green eyes, then you should assume that that is what I believe until I have given you notice to the contrary. Once it has been established that I am allowed to believe that I am an adorable shoulder-dragon if that is what I take it into my lunatic head to believe, then I am willing to engage you in more in-depth discussion, but fair warning: the inside of my mind is a bit of a magic mushroom kingdom.
This quiz says that I am "progressive left," but when I was reading through the questions on that quiz, I think they really missed a substantial amount of the fine nuances in my positions. I have explained some of that nuance here in the above unhinged tirade. Furthermore, I think that the statements about whether or not the United States is a "great nation" was misleading. I think that the US has the potential to be a fucking juggernaut, and I really love this country. That love is not uncritical, though. It is not love to ever be happy to see someone fail to do what you believe they are capable of doing. If your country does not live up to its full potential, then that should make you deeply sad. That is why nationalism is misguided. Nationalism is the uncritical and ultimately selfish love of a permissive parent, and that is really a tragedy. That was my primary gripe with the quiz, but I will admit that the quiz is a fair start on giving us opportunity to express greater nuance.
