A Brief Definition of Politics for the People:

Politics, as defined by this board, are more than the way you vote. We believe that politics are the way you live. Your choices, beliefs, ideas, and ideals are what form your personal politics. This applies to everything you do in your daily life: from your choice of places to eat, to where you work, to what you do in your spare time. When we say “Steampunk politics,” we are referring to how we may apply these beliefs and ideals to this, our subculture—and how our subculture affects our politics. Please keep this in mind as you make your posts.

The Bazaar’s Own Political Slant:

Be forewarned, dear poster: while The Gaslamp Bazaar is open to discussion from all steampunks, we are unabashedly slanted towards the left and the post-left. We support activism, protest, conscious dietary choices, buying local and homemade, and putting the environment above money. We disagree with today’s culture of consumerism, and feel that steampunk and steampunk politics should reflect that.

This is to say that misogynists, pro-colonialists, and various other ne’er-do-wells would be best off somewhere other than here.

Here! Here!

Wise words. Though i wouldn't mind some gentlepersonly debate with some pro-colonists - there are a couple on brass goggles but the forums anit-politics rules forbade further arguing- ahem, i mean discussion.

Although I think my favourite kind of debates happen when each speaker takes the other's favoured position for a spin and they both must play Devil's Advocate. Do you suppose any of our further right brethren might join us for a verbal ruckus around these parts?

Don't worry, you'll have your chaos. While not exactly right wing, I do believe in the merits of some forms of liberalism, even if it is merely the quite "left" social liberalism paradigm that I believe that would work.

That coming from an ex-anarchist, mind you. So yeah, there'll be chaos alright

I generally tell people inquiring about my political persuasions that I am so far right I'm left...

I will gladly engage in reasoned political discourse with persons all along the length of the political spectrum. And even the occasional "verbal ruckus"...

As long as we all keep our heads, and refrain from the use of expletives, I believe that we shall have a solid and well thought out political debate. Let us keep in mind though: politics are like a football game. "Fans" are not likely to switch sides simply because one "team" is doing better than the other. What I mean to say is that while one side or the other may have a more convincing argument, lookers-on from the opposing view will NOT "convert" to your side. Everyone is biased and most likely a political debate, while stimulating, will not win any party new fans.

With you all the way on the call to maintain civility, but I feel I should take issue with your latter point.
Granted it's a rare thing to sway a chap or chapette from their cherished beliefs, but I hope to always be pursuadable of when I 'm wrong, given sufficient evidence.
In any case, rather than straightup conversion what I've heard tends to happen in philosophical circles is that each party comes out of a really good discussion with more understanding of the subject matter, and quite likely a synthesis of the views they came in with and the others that came up during the talk.

Very good, sir. I heartily agree! We will all be quiet enlightened as to others' opinions (and even our own) when a level-headed discussion takes place. Let the debates begin!

Is there a place for steam in a zero carbon political landscape

Sure... steam could be generated not by coal, wood, or oil, but by solar, or nuclear, or some kind of alternative steam punk world only energy source.

I agree.. with our current knowledge level we can use all sorts of fuel. KSW had some kind of fuel made from used coffee grinds that seemed real promising but I didn't get a chance to read up on it yet. The only real problem with steam in the "early days" was the use of coal for the power.

Using titanium for strength and lightness where possible would decrease the wasted energy. Using "garbage" for fuel or cellustic ethanol from switchgrass are good fuels too. I see no problem with using lightweight efficient vehicles that are steam powered. We just have to collaborate and get em built!

Away from the slight drift and in response to the OP.. I am REALLY big on local "Mom n Pop" businesses. My diet on the other hand is terrible, I need to lay off the cheesesteaks and nasty beverages. As of late I've been good about staying away from soda, that was kinda hard since I was raised on that garbage. I try to keep my bevs to water, tea, and good belgian ales. As far as when I work, I try to avoid corp. shops and prefer to work in small job shops. I find I get treated alot better and am a little more than a number. I worked a corp. union shop years back and found the corp. workplace to be downright disgusting, not just lack of emotion but disregard for the environment and the local community.

Oh well.. enough dribble.. my personal opinion is that the current political majority is screwing stuff up too much now and will collapse. Us "miscreants" will be the folks to clean shit up and survive any fallout from economic and govt. collapse. And I feel good about that, I trust my fellow punks more than I trust my govt. Sad but true.

At the moment the most up and coming energy technology I am following is Fusion, and in particular ITER's fusion reactor project in France. The claim of the project is "to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion power for peaceful purposes" However you can get bet many governments have vested interests in its success as a way to solve the impeding energy crisis.

ITER's Website: http://www.iter.org/

I love the idea of titanium lightwieght eco steam engines, a wild and splendid idea.... but I suppose what I was trying, as a newcomer to steampunk playing catch up, was to ask how does this forum see sustainability and steampunk coming together in peoples lives? Whether they like it or not, Red, Blue, Black, every political hue has a vested interest in ecology; Is steampunk's old copper verdigree, Green? Or is it............ technophilia ? Arghh..
Just kicking the oval ball up the field as it were.......

I think the general stance was said best by one of our infamous members: "Love the Machine. hate the factory". (I'm probably misquoting that, don't kill me).

If you read through the forums, one of the most prevalent ideas is the idea of sustainability. Most of us on here have expressed interest in or are living a life focused to varying degrees on decreasing our ecological impact, by buying local, growing our own stuff when we can, ect.

I can't speak for everybody, of course, but I do think that on the whole, Steampunks are green-conscious punks, even when it concerns our beloved machines (^___^)

It did occur to me that using modern materials and techniques we could take the design of old and improve both their performance and efficiency. For instance as was said above the crank rods in steam engines used to steel as did the shaft themselves if they were made out of titanium and other strong alloys it would mean they would be able to operate at higher levels.

Not to mention the fact that high temperature water can be corrosive as hell, titanium would be wonderful inert as pressure and vale fittings, as well as the fact that welding boilers and pressure bearing parts together results in a much stronger machine.
I have lived in North-West and North-East of the UK where the steam engine first saw widespread usage and the number of tombstones dedicated to the early engine drivers who's riveted boilers and poor construction took their operators with them can be found easily.

Oh and as far as Remki goes I agree with the eco side of things I eat local produce simply because its cheaper, a bonus for me is that it helps local farmer and staves out the supermarket chains for a while longer. I also like the ideal of sustainable environmentalism, the idea that one can help the planet out without completely destroying society and causing half the earth’s population to die of huger, thirst, disease and war.

True definitions for common political terms

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-my.html

Brent

I know this website, been on it before they have some great content, definitely worth perusing the website more.

I like this one too:

http://www.delawarewatch.net/Chomsky_Interview.html


The interview itself, I don't know much about the sit yet.

Brent

from that page:
Capitalism - The belief that every man should be able to keep the fruits of his own labor, without them being stolen by the government for re-distribution.

I'm sorry, but... no.
I'll abide by many of that pages definitions, even the ones that apply to me (anarchist), but this is a simply ignorant view of capitalism. Capitalism, whether good or bad, has to do with the ability to make a living -without- labor. That's the idea. Once you have 'capital', it makes money for you. This is how the system works: become a landlord, and charge rent.

You could have a system that involved money that was not capitalist... in fact, many communities are doing that, with localized economy systems, in which the only way to acquire "money" is through actual work. Not that I think -that- is the solution either.

also, it's a bit telling the use of gender in the definition, no?

more reading from the peanut gallery.

http://www.spiralnature.com/phil/anarchy/toknow.html

I also think that the NS definition of Capitalism is bad, but I disagree with Magpie's as well ... I did a quick google search for definitions of Capitalism and this is what came up first:
"An economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. ..." The website it pulls it from goes on to add "Also promotes a free market regulated by supply and demand."
http://regentsprep.org/regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm?topic=f

This is more on par with my line of thinking. Assigning anything more to it, i.e. that the redistribution of wealth is bad, or that you can profit without labor is a bit of a stretch.

The NewSpeak definition seems to confuse capitalism and Free Market Capitalism/Market Anarchy/Anarcho-Capitalisim. True free trade, the voluntary exchange of goods and services is different than simple private ownership of production/distribution.

The redistribution of wealth is a different issue than a command economy. You can have capitalism and statism. You may own the means of production/distribution, but the state controls what you do with your profits, taxes your income, etc.

I think magpie's definition is more a side effect of Capitalism, but not a definition in itself. A business owner, even a successful one, in Capitalist system, does own the business, but his labor may be required to keep it successful. Etsy sellers are an example, they own their own business, they turn a profit, but if they stop working their income source dries up.

I defiantly agree that money is a required to have capitalism, or that having money in any way defines Capitalism. Money is simply a way of simplifying trade. A Capitalist economy, on a small scale, could function through direct barter and Socialist economies use money, even though the state owns the means of production.

I will bow to the anarcho-capitalist in regards to defining capitalism.

I still feel that capitalism has more to do (at its evil rotten core, I might contend =] ) with the concept of capital being the ability to use capital to acquire more capital, rather than using labor to acquire the necessities of life, but that's because I'm an anti-capitalist. (though of course, no state socialist.)

If you truly desire the steampunk, then you must contest the world's present state of adaptation. Constant growth is a delusion, and it will crash. In such a crash is opportunity. I look towards this demon's collapse, for in the detritus thrives the artificial lifeforms, the systems of people and steel, we cherish. One can only hope for doom.

As an enviormentalist, I beleave in not taking to much and in ballancing consuming with renewing. To me, all things, weather they be nature or technoligy or magic, comerce or fair trade, must co-exist for the simple reason that they DO exist. To me, all things are good as long as they are kept in ballance and not allowed to run amuck.

In steam punk, I try to ballance obvious things like victorian cothes and techknowology with mystical and natural touches. Just because I like nature dose not mean I can not also like comerce, trade, and technowlagy as well; they are more interlinked then some might think...

Do people who are both leftist and religious believer are welcome here?

It appear i am one of this probably very few who believe in god without believing in the church (all that without being agnostic, but true hardcore believer) and think than a leftist utopia have not to be obligatory laic.

Is not Jesus himself who say '' is more difficult to a rich men to enter the kingdom of god to a camel enter a needle cat'' ?

I don't think so, at least not as you described. It was a bit hard to understand what you meant. I believe in God but I have no faith in religion at all. To me, religion is just something created by men to control societies, but God is as real to me as anything else. I like some of the bible, mostly just Jesus' actual teachings, and I don't think it really matters whether he was or was not real, although I certainly don't think he was a deity of any sort, because those words are real and they're wonderful. I can't stand most Christians, though. As Ghandi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." I try to learn more about religions all the time, but there is still very much I don't know. I have what most call a "cafe religion".

And now I just realized I'm ranting so I'll hush now. XD

It appear i am exactly like you.

well ... there's nothing wrong with that "rant" of yours , as it's all very plausible & also much of the same what i think / believe too !

cheers !

I am glad I'm not the only one! It was sort of the way I was raised. My dad has a "cafe religion" too, and I grew up reading books like the Tao te Ching even before the bible, though my mother and her family are devout Catholics, so I can't help but view my God through the Christian lens still, although I try to stay as open-minded as possible because I think that's the only way to really understand God. [Also, the English language is disturbingly lacking in genderless pronouns. I don't like to refer to God as a Him because I think it's a bit ridiculous that we would impose gender on 'something' that obviously is not even material in nature.] I would have to say my beliefs involve primarily elements of Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, Shinto, and Catholic religious beliefs, and I've noticed a few parallels to Islam in my personal beliefs as well, but they are mostly elements that I've already encountered in other religions. So I don't lay claim to any one religion, but to better explain to others and to better explore my own beliefs I attribute them to the various religions that people do adhere to.

And now I've switched from ranting to rambling. XD