Who/What influenced your political ideology?

[Chazza]

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum.

But what if these extreme wings change, what about if you live in a state where everyone is either communist or socialist, to be moderate in that situation will be what is considered far left by todays standards, or what about a state of fascists and nazis (note: I reluctantly bring the term nazi into this discussion), to be moderate then will to be far right.

[Mr.Yankees]

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum.

But what if these extreme wings change, what about if you live in a state where everyone is either communist or socialist, to be moderate in that situation will be what is considered far left by todays standards, or what about a state of fascists and nazis (note: I reluctantly bring the term nazi into this discussion), to be moderate then will to be far right.

I believe that posing a hypothetical says nothing. No state will have a single political ideology. At least it hasn't yet happened and there is no evidence that it will.

[Chazza]

I believe that posing a hypothetical says nothing. No state will have a single political ideology. At least it hasn't yet happened and there is no evidence that it will.

Yes ok then but different states have different scales of ideology and different extremes, what is moderate in America will not be the same as what is moderate in Serbia or moderate in Sweden.

[Mr.Yankees]

I believe that posing a hypothetical says nothing. No state will have a single political ideology. At least it hasn't yet happened and there is no evidence that it will.

Yes ok then but different states have different scales of ideology and different extremes, what is moderate in America will not be the same as what is moderate in Serbia or moderate in Sweden.

I agree. And I have said that more than once on this thread.

[Molotov]

Moderate Ideologies along with moderate political viewpoints may be correctly seen as occupying positions between the more extreme wings of the spectrum. In terms of the extent of power of the State moderate ideologies strike a balance between individual rights, freedoms and obligations and the coercive power of the State to mandate or prohibit certain behaviors by people. This "balanced" view brings forth various implications regarding governmental structure, electoral procedures, the rule of Law, economic concerns, and other important issues present in all organized societies. Likewise considerations regarding time help define the boundaries of moderate ideologies.

Change is inevitable in society, in governmental arrangements and relationships, in leadership, in public policies and throughout the political world. Ideologies of the moderate varieties seek change at a pace that enables progress to occur but neither so fast that the destruction of stability and order in society becomes more likely, nor so slow as to foster stagnation and status quo permanence. Clearly then, there is considerable room for disagreement and dispute over what is the proper balance in all of these concerns. These disputable arenas contribute profoundly to struggles among those who support different moderate ideologies.

My God man, this reads like a textbook for first years.

It's rubbish. Meaningless.

Regardless, it refers to 'moderate ideologies', not to a 'moderate ideology'. There being no ideology called 'moderate', as I've maintained. It's specifically American, introductory wank.

[Chazza]

I apologize for not keeping up to date with this thread. I have not had a chance to read what the current topic is but I want to answer to those who have previously stated that "Moderate" is not a political ideology.

Since many of you are skeptical of what I say, I shall quote a fellow colleague of mine- Dr. Jim L. Riley from Regis University in Denver Colorado. This is part of an article named Liberalism and Conservatism. I hope it will clear everything up right away.

Ok I've actually found that article, well actually I think I'm right in saying it's a part of 'Introduction to Political Ideologies'? Here he comments at the end;

First there will be considered what have traditionally been referred to as "moderate" ideologies. Following this will be the more "extreme" varieties and then an overview of unfolding political viewpoints that may evolve into full blown ideologies.

We then get your quote and then he talks about Liberalism and Conservatism saying they are moderate ideologies writing at the end "Their common features include rejection of radicalism".

So if I'm right here Dr Riley is not saying that there is a moderate ideology but that there are moderate and radical ideologies of which Liberalism and Conservatism are moderate and I'm guessing things like Fascism, Socialism will be spoken of as radical. So I guess you are either a Liberal, a Conservative or somewhere inbetween.

[Chazza]

Regardless, it refers to 'moderate ideologies', not to a 'moderate ideology'. There being no ideology called 'moderate', as I've maintained. It's specifically American, introductory wank.

Woops, didn't see this, well I've just essentially expanded on what you said. You can have the credit.

[Amazeroth]

If you mean not 'neo-liberal' in the manner that a Marxist might consider Cuba's government not 'communist', then of course you're right. No matter whether they believe what they have done, or were constricted by the political and economic reality, these institutions and the people that populate them have bought wholeheartedly into neo-liberalism. Just look at the shift in development advice to the Third World in the UN from Keynesian to neo-liberal from the seventies onwards.

No, I rather mean "neo-liberal" in the manner that neo-liberalism is different from free market socialism.

These institutions, like the EZB or th American Treasury or any of these politically installed organisations stand against the idea of neo-liberalism by their own existence - in a free market society, none of this organisations would exist - since none of them are private. People working in such organisations could even follow neo-liberal ideas sometimes, the fact that they are nonetheless meddling with the market through political means "corrupts", if you will, the whole process.

You even make a nice example just showing this - if there were truly a neo-liberal shift in development adivce, development advice would have ceased.

Regardless, no ideologue, no matter how convinced of the infallibility of his ideology, can ignore reality; if the policies of our world leaders and the actions of our banks and businesses have not been 'properly' neo-liberal then this is because (like any other rationally constructed ideology which fails in the light of the real world, see Marxism) their actions have been constrained or dictated by the political reality.

The policies of our world leaders, banks and businesses have not been neo-liberal not because reality didn't allow them to, but because they (at least the vast majority) are no neo-liberals.

[Molotov]

I'm sorry Amazeroth, but you sound just like a communist. If the world were truly neo-liberal, there'd be no need for neo-liberals. Pull the other one.

[Amazeroth]

I'm sorry Amazeroth, but you sound just like a communist. If the world were truly neo-liberal, there'd be no need for neo-liberals. Pull the other one.

Get sober and read it again.