Political Ideology Thread

What political ideology do adhere to and why is superior and or more viable than most other ideologies?

all ideologies are cancer

the only proven stable form of government is monarchy

...

Neo-Spenglerian Fatalist-Accelerationism is the correct political position

Egoist socialism.

Socdem master race

Unless you're wealthy or a college aged utopian commushit who has never worked a day in his life there's literally no reason to support any other ideology.

>Implying you can get valuable political discussion out of /pol/

You must be joking

If you read a bunch of bullshit and "picked" an ideology to adhere to then congratulations, you're a pseudo-intellectual who yearns for social affirmation and not an actual smart person.

Fuck ideologies.

Ride it.

But, how can I feel like a real smart boy without a label?

Wouldn't say I'm the most political person but I always found technocracy to make a lot of sense and lately I discovered "radical centrism " which always appeals to me.

I don't have much faith in the average voter so find democracy kinda overrated.

Oops Not sure how the "always" got there

>the only proven stable form of government is monarchy

By what metric?

>radical centrism

Sure, we all like us a bit of fascism now and then.

As for technocracy:

Who decides who is most suited?
And why does it follow that, for example, a computer scientist would be good at determining tax policy?
And how is this not just making the Peter Principle government policy?

when capitalism lasts longer than 1000 years give me a ring and ill say i was wrong

We call that one "a loaded statement".

Is anarcho primitivism the only successful form of government?

>thinking an ideology can be complex enough to account for all aspects of social reality

If I had to say, my beliefs are closest to neoclassical liberalism

Tribalism is the most successful form of government.

Tribes have been around for literally tens of thousands of years, it must work.

Of course dipshit

Technocracy is silly because it assumes you can arrive at good governance by means of science, without the necessary philosophical underpinnings

Your argument screams fallacy.

>he doesn't realize capitalism is the final stage of human economies

Personally I think economists should run the economy and so on, instead of for example ex school teachers running the county's economy like in my country. As for who votes for them well they vote amongst themselves

t. pla "philosopher king" to

So what, all economists get together and vote to see who will run the economy?

Congratulations, their leader will expand the budgets of economists ad infinitum.
That's also ignoring that economists have their version of N-Rays every other year or so.

And why would, say, a physicist make a better manager of policies, budgets and laws related to science than someone who studied law, policy and budgets?

Unless you claim that the ones who rule will be the people who studied law, budgets and policies. In which case it'll be economists, lawyers, businessmen, journalists and political scientists who possess basically every office... which is pretty close to the situation at this point.

If I had to describe my own special snowflake homebrew politics I would say esoteric aristocratic socialism.

technocracy is misinterpreted by stem majors who jerk off to sci-fi

Technocracy == rule by experts
Technocracy != rule by scientists

Egoism.

Isn't this the point of cabinet and stuff?

The technocracy movement urged the replacement of politicians and businessmen, with scientists and engineers, and proposed that money be replaced with energy credits.

But if we're ignoring Scott and going with Smyth then he was basically advocating for syndicalism.

I'm fascinated, what do these terms mean?