Which political ideology best describes you?

Naa, it should be based on genetic manipulation rather than aesthetics.

I think that the Nordic countries -- particularly Sweden -- have pretty much the best political model in the world. A free market combined with a strong welfare state and excellent public services. People are willing to pay high tax when they know their money is actually being spent to benefit the country as a whole. Their public education and healthcare is outstanding, they are culturally diverse and the class divide is minimal. Most importantly, they are some of the happiest people on earth. Equality is not beyond reach in a neo-liberal state -- as long as you have a government who truly cares for their people.

You read my mind!

In today's society, in which we haven't overcome scarcity, I'm a supporter of social democracy, so the best fit for me in general is 'socialist'.

Anarchism and Marxism are both specific theories (with plenty of revisions and other thinkers adding on) of communism. Marxist communism is not inherently anarchistic. Communism is not inherently anarchistic (though I can see why you would think that). It has nothing to do with what anarchism opposes. Anarchists want to overthrow class society immediately and start communism right now (again, I'm probably simplifying it a bit, my knowledge of anarchism is not yet that great). Marxists believe this is idealistic and not based in a material analysis of the world, and that a transitory phase where the state still exists must take place before the post-scarcity conditions for communism can be realised (the state would guide the socialist society towards communism, and then "wither away").

Libertarian socialism is loosely defined term referring to forms of communism, such as anarchism or Luxemburgism (Rosa Luxemburg's brand of Marxism), and has nothing to do with whether the state exists or not.

None but the most fanatical libertarian would ever say about capitalism. That's completely insane. Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production; that is its defining feature. Social democracy supports this.

Have you actually read any socialist theory? Your beliefs and desires contradict each other. If a post-scarcity, moneyless, classless, collective society exists, the state has no function and must "wither away".

I am aware of this, but for all intents and purposes, the communist stage in Marxist theory is identical to anarcho-communism.

I already stated, though, that I now agree that anarchism is a form of communism.

Communism involves no state, therefore it has everything to do with whether the state exists or not. That's what the libertarian part is about: Marxism is not a form of libertarian socialism.

No, it doesn't. Social democracy involves both public and private ownership of the means of production. I support renationalising the railways and the energy companies, abolishing private schools, and support a fully public healthcare and education system, but that's not socialism, as in today's society, I would not want everything to be nationalised.

I don't accept this. The state could have the function of maintaining the law, for instance. Thus, I would refrain from calling myself a communist.

I'd argue that is just as much to do with how we organize the distribution of resources more than anything. As far as I am aware there is physically enough food for every single person, its a problem of distribution. So there is the potential to overcome scarcity when it comes to basic needs.

You sound like Iain M Banks though. We just got to plod along being as humane as possible (where social democracy comes in) until capitalism produces the ability to transcend to a post scarcity political economy that could fit the description of communist and/or anarchist society.

I would call myself a social democrat: someone who supports a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Countries like Norway can show how truly outstanding the result can be.

It is absolutely not an issue of distribution (and definitely not one of scarcity), but an issue of exploitation. When imperialist nations are compelled by capitalism to crush what is now the third world, and the modern bourgeoisie are more concerned by their profits than the needs of the workers they chew up in those invaded lands, you tend not to get a great deal of wealth for all.

What kind of inhumane idea is it to suggest that we just "plod along" and wait it out instead of organising and TAKING what the capitalists have no right to? And what kind of idealist nonsense is it to think that eventually, when labour is no longer required to operate the means of production, capitalism will just fade away? No, what's far more likely is that the aforementioned bourgeoisie will think "well ****, we don't need these parasites anymore" and suddenly everything is ****ed. Hopefully, if this were ever to happen, a communist revolution would be inevitable. But why wait, when millions are dying because of capitalism?

Yay, I'm finally the evil right winger for once ^.^

Hey now, I'm not saying you're evil, just ignorant and wrong You seem like you're at least sympathetic to communism.

Uh, exactly? That's not socialism. Public ownership =/= collective ownership, and as I've bolded, you state that you support private property. You're kind of annoying me with talk of nationalisation. The nationalisation of industry is not socialism, and no socialist would claim so (Jeremy Corbyn is fine, but he's no socialist, which is actually very unfortunate).

In a post-scarcity communist society, most crime would be no issue, clearly, since most crime is either born from poverty and want and need.

And my bigger, more "big picture" point is that whether you are a socialist or a communist has nothing to do with whether you believe the state should exist.

Nationalisation can go hand-in-hand with collective ownership, however, and Corbyn actually seems to be endorsing this kind of model rather than a top-down state-owned model.

I'm a socialist because I ultimately desire a form of socialist society, but I see no practical solution to the very real problem of private property today.

Crime is committed for a variety of reasons, and people, from rich to poor, commit it. They might be sadistic, they might have had a familial quarrel, or they might be psychopaths.

Many proposed stateless societies do have systems of direct democracy, councils, and so on. I suppose they could be equipped to deal with crime, but this idea can quickly descend into a statist society.

Without a monopoly on the use of force, it's hard to see how there could be any decision-making structure which could effectively deter force.

Historically, the biggest drops in violence have come when the state has monopolised the use of force.

I still don't see how this is correct, given that communism is necessarily stateless whereas socialism isn't.

go read a book.

I think that the Nordic countries -- particularly Sweden -- have pretty much the best political model in the world. A free market combined with a strong welfare state and excellent public services. People are willing to pay high tax when they know their money is actually being spent to benefit the country as a whole. Their public education and healthcare is outstanding, they are culturally diverse and the class divide is minimal. Most importantly, they are some of the happiest people on earth. Equality is not beyond reach in a neo-liberal state -- as long as you have a government who truly cares for their people.

I would call myself a social democrat: someone who supports a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Countries like Norway can show how truly outstanding the result can be.

I've read many a book by communists and anarchists, but I've yet to find a satisfactory answer to some of my questions. Your response to the problem of crime (that crime is committed because of oppression in society) is the typical response; a response which denies human nature and our unfortunate Darwinian heritage.