Maybe Gandhi, I hear he twitters......
Political Compass
- Thread starter UPSNewbie
- Start date
Maybe Gandhi, I hear he twitters......
tieguy
Banned
About The Political Compass™
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.82
In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.
The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)
In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.82
tourists24
Well-Known Member
kinda stuck in the middle on some things I guess
UPSNewbie
Well-Known Member
Check out all of their information. They say it was put together by them from past voting practices/speeches of the candidates and others. That kind of thing.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Oh, now this is just perfect!
Hey D,
You voted for 2 guys that stack up to the right side authoritarian and just a wee bit to the left of the "So-Called" libertarian. Now that's just to funny!
It should also go a ways towards some "mythbusting" for the elephant crowd and the Obama/Biden/lefty deal. Obama/Biden are socialist but it's in the FDR via Mussolini tradition. Look at the bright side D, you and TOS can attend party functions straight from work as you'll still be wearing "BROWN" shirts!
Give us a kiss!
Ok, Look at us all, we need scientific McCarthyism testing to identify ourselves between, of all people, Ghandi, Stalin, and Hitler. What ever happen to red state-blue state. What ever happen to identifing ourselves as Americans. Now we're suppose to identify ourselves with soft pastel colors. It turned out I fall into the key lime green square close to Kucinich. BTW Kmac, Kucinich has a hot wife indeed, but he didn't make it to the dance, Obama did. I would have voted Kucinich had he did, even with the Alien baggage
. Nader means well, but couldn't lead a dog on a leash.... Paul and Barr have to much faith in humanity for a "good ole boy" "free for all" state run society not to co-exist with the Fed and expect greed, corruption, and cheap "slave" labor not to rear their ugly heads. In addition, those guys will have us running around in 18th century garb and hairpieces...
Whig-ger please ! No thanks. Don't tread on me....BTW...don't you maintenance tech guys still cling to your confederate gray shirts?The War is over brother
. It is was it is 
.Happy Easter ! Enjoy the Pegan festivities
tourists24
Well-Known Member
Gee D,,, you make it sound so dirty...
diesel96
Well-Known Member
I don't think you can compare people who fill out this questionnaire themselves with someones interpretation of what a politician says in a speech. Besides, politicians will tailor their speech to that days audience, and we won't even go into how varied their voting records are.
We can compare each other, but not with people who have someone else interpret their responses.
We can compare each other, but not with people who have someone else interpret their responses.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Yes, I did take it and my scores were 5. something or another on the social and 6. something on the economic and I was very low towards libertarian and just to the right. However, as much fun as it was to kick D's doghouse with it, I have to agree very much with D's comments about this "scientific testing" because I don't think it very scientific at all.
Case in point is the very first question IMO.
There is a lot to be said here about this but economic globalization as we know it today is an operation of gov't and Statecraft under the notion of central planning, treaty law and international State trade groups ie G8, G20, OPEC etc. and these all act as cartels and monoplies to foster their own interests.
On the one hand I could answer that I want the State to enhance humanity but then this would place me towards a political left if you will or I can answer for trans-national corporations and this would shift me to the right. Neither choice however reflects what I believe.
Much of what we have today in not new at all and is very much ground although with new names in old fuedalist states and statecraft. The King grants titles of nobility which means the noble has title to lands and serfs from which wealth will come. In return, the nobles promise to fight for the King and his crown. As such, the King also has ultimate jurisdiction over the nobles lands and what the King sez has the effect of divine right that no one can challenge. In effect, the title of nobility, a forerunner of the documents of incorporation grants a certain area of marketplace that the noble will have control over and a non-noble (non-incorporated) can not equally enter.
In our world, to bar entry into the marketplace like the kings of old did would show for all to see that free markets is nothing more than a cover, an illusion if you will. A scapegoat, to be the villian, when the nobles overcook their own marketplace. How they keep people out is via regulation and tax law. Become a corporation and you'll recieve special tax priviledge and you might find yourself exempt from certain or many regulations. Some times regulations are enacted by the certain nobles to cause economic harm to another distressed noble in order to force him to abdicate his lands which the surviving nobles take over and increase their wealth and power.
The only problem with this scenario is when a King decides it's time the serfs (humanity) were better served and he directs his nobles to do so. Little does anyone realize that the nobles are also allowed to pas this cost down to the serfs and now they (serfs) must toil even harder and the chance of them having the time to learn a new craft and open their own busines (noble lands) are nearly impossible. In many cases the regulatory hurdles themselve bar maketplace entry or keep new and innovative ideas from the marketplace forcing the pocessors of such new ways to bow at the feet of the King and obtain his blessing in order to get that new idea into the marketplace. A serf achieving such access can only do so by bringing glory to King on the field of battle (elective process/campiagn contributions/etc.) for which he might be knighted and gain his own claim.
But then there are times when the nobles bellyache and so the king realizes he now has to asnwer to their interests to maintain the power of his Kingdom. He can strip from the serfs and give back to the nobles but that risks an uprising amongst the commoners. He does get away with some of this by granting special priviledge paid for by serf toil but it only goes so far. So the King declares, "We need new lands!" or as we say today "new markets" so the knights mount up, do the conquering thingy and the serfs are happy as they still have a full belly (altough a few extra family graves) and the nobles are happy as they have new lands to control. Even a few serfs make good because in heroic battle they caught the King's eye and as such get knighthood and a new CEO is added to the trade association and country club!
So you see, from my POV, accepting the conditions and premise of the question forces me to answer not in what I truly believe (anarchy/libertarian/laissez faire/classical liberal) but within a box created by societal manipulation and manipulators, one accepting that either position will require statecraft and gov't and not the free actions of a free peoples. Way to many questions IMO come from that premise so my answers are really jaded because I'm forced to answer not as I truly believe but within a box that I don't believe in to begin with.
And although Diesel's specific compliants about the quiz may not echo mine, his overall point I do think were on the money.
BTW: I've made the case over and over and over again that there is no real difference between the 2 political parties and for that fact no real difference between the people that support either party. If you look where the mass of you are falling (upper right quadrant) along with the mass of political leaders of both parties, this does prove my point!
I have to admit, I do like the fact that I find myself virtually all alone in the lower right quadrant but not far to the center property line. Opps! Correction, I see Hoaxster moved into the neighborhood. But the best part is to my left and to my north (Hoax) I see several great neighbors and we got all kinds of room to stretch and move around. Those of you all crowded up there in domination land, just make sure you control your pollution and don't violate our property rights down here in freedom land.
BTW: The original political quiz was created by Marshall Fritz and promoted by Adovcates of Self Gov't as a libertarian outreach tool. Marshall sadly passed away this past Nov. but his legacy to political thought and discussion still lives on.
RIP Marshall!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I actually like Kucinich, not some of his views, but being from the area, he seems to be a really nice guy with a real nice wife. Being abducted by aliens will skew your perspective
I like him too Tooner. I respectfully disagree with a lot of his economic views but I do think his heart is still in the right place. All else being the same, had Dennis gotten the nomination on the democrat side, I would consider voting for him as I know he and the democrat party leadership are far from being on the same sheet of music together. Say what you want about Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or the wild thing, Cynthia McKinney. They aren't authoriterian/totaliterians and for me that goes a long, long way.
Give Dennis your support as he may not be perfect (who is?) but as I said, he's got a good heart. Also supporting Dennis pisses off the democrat party leadership and that in itself is worth the fun!
wkmac
Well-Known Member
UPSNewbie
Well-Known Member
- Some of the questions are slanted
Some of the propositions are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.
Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.
- Respondents are going to feel under pressure to be politically correct
- Some of the propositions are culturally biased
- In some cases none of the four possible responses reflected my attitude
- You should have a "don't know" option
- Why don't you collect statistics and report on test results ?
In other words, such data would tell us nothing about the political position of a particular population; it would only tell us about the type of person who volunteered to have their result recorded.
Trials have revealed that a wildly disproportionate number of visitors from particular cultures, and of certain age and socio-economic groups, were more willing than others to opt in.
- Where would Jesus and/or Mohammed appear ?
- How can you determine where politicians are honestly at without asking them ?
We are occasionally asked about publishing the individual responses of politicians. We frown on this. The propositions are too vague to be considered statements of policy, and the individual responses are not significant in themselves. When summed to give an economic and social score, however, they provide an accurate profile of a mental state.
Gripes About Particular Propositions
- Your proposition on globalisation suggests that corporations and humanity can't both benefit.
Critics argue that there's no conflict of interest. Transnational corporations naturally and unfailingly serve humanity by serving themselves. In enriching business, the argument goes, globalisation will always subsequently benefit humanity. Prioritising humanity would only limit the ability of the corporations to inevitably do greater good. So advocates of this trickle down approach should simply click 'strongly disagree' We don't see the problem.
The record, however, makes clear that there have often been spectacular conflicts of interest between coporate enrichment and humantity. Halliburton, Enron and the tobacco industry's research cover-ups are perhaps the best known examples. Others are detailed at The 10 Worst Corporations of 2008 and Corpwatch.org .
On the other hand, for the comparatively few who tell us that corporations can never serve humanity, Milton Friedman argues the case for unfettered market forces.
- What have attitudes towards things like abstract art and homosexuality to do with politics ?
Likewise, authoritarian régimes frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold.
- Why don't you include a scale for religion?
Even in the US religion reflects the whole gamut of political opinion - from Quakers, Unitarians and, to some extent Episcopalians, who support gay marriage, the right to choose etc. and oppose, for example, capital punishment and the invasion of Iraq. At the other end of the religious spectrum, there are fundamentalists who hold opposite beliefs. Our social scale already covers these political/social attitudes, whether or not the individual belongs to a religious organisation that reinforces them.
More significant for our purposes is whether or not the individual believes in mystical determinants of fate, hence the astrology proposition. There is a psychological linkage between determinism and authoritarianism . The astrology believer may hold very liberal social views in other areas, but this does not alter this more authoritarian aspect within his or her cluster of attitudes.
- It's true that a one party state has a significant advantage; even so I wouldn't support it. So how can I respond ?
- Does "our race has many superior qualities" refer to my particular race or the human race?
- The orginal intention of "An eye for an eye" was that the punishment should not exceed the crime
top
The Political Compass Definitions
- There have to be other measures for a political compass
UPSNewbie
Well-Known Member
- You can't be libertarian and left wing
On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?
Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.
The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Sweden and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention anti-censorship. Such established social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties. Their detailed checklist can be viewed at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm . Such social developments would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in socially conservative countries - even if their taxes are lower.
Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation.
N.B. The death penalty is practised in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practised.
- Where are the right-wing social libertarians on the international chart ?
- Why is Hitler slightly right ? The Nazis were socialists, so they weren't fascists either.
Economically, Hitler was well to the right of Stalin. Post-war investigations led to a number of revelations about the cosy relationship between German corporations and the Reich. No such scandals subsequently surfaced in Russia, because Stalin had totally squashed the private sector. By contrast, once in power, the Nazis achieved rearmament through deficit spending. One of our respondents has correctly pointed out that they actively discouraged demand increases because they wanted infrastructure investment. Under the Reich, corporations were largely left to govern themselves, with the incentive that if they kept prices under control, they would be rewarded with government contracts. Hardly a socialist economic agenda !
But Nazi corporate ties extended well beyond Germany. It is an extraordinarily little known fact that in 1933 a cabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists plotted an armed coup against President Roosevelt and the US Constitutional form of government. The coup planners - all of them deeply hostile to socialism - were enthusiastic supporters of German national socialism and Italian fascism. Details of the little publicised Congressional report on the failed coup may be read in 1000 Americans:The Real Rulers of the USA by George Seldes.
Fascism, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) is A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism. Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile's entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana read: Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. No less an authority on fascism than Mussolini was so pleased with that definition that he later claimed credit for it.
Nevertheless, within certain US circles,the misconception remains that fascism is essentially left wing, and that the Nazis were socialists simply because of the "socialism" in their name. We wonder if respondents who insist on uncritically accepting the Nazis' cynical self-definition would be quite as eager to believe that the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
- How can I be in the same quadrant as Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin ? I'm no Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin !
- You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?
In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.
Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?
- Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.
Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.
- Most governments and political figures are plotted on the right. Doesn't that mean that your centre is misplaced ?
Twenty-five years ago, social democracy was riding high in western Europe. A chart at that time would have shown a number of EU governments to the left of the centre. In our globalised age, however, the shift has been rightward, which accounts for the altogether different cluster that the contemporary chart depicts. In other words most democracies, either reluctantly or enthusiastically, have embraced neoliberalism (ie a right leaning economy) to a greater or lesser extent.
Curbs on civil liberties, rationalised by issues such as illegal immigration and terrorist threats, accounts for the concurrent drift upwards on the social scale.
- Why did you do this ? What's in it for you ?
We have no ideological or institutional baggage. The satisfaction has been in generating media discussion, and receiving thoughtful comments and so much enthusiasm from web visitors.
I like it.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Why did you go there ?
....JK.....lol
I'm still standing.......
Care to go another round.....Best 2 out of 3....
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Why did you go there ?
Be careful what you ask for because I've yet to drag out the big guns of hard gov't data and historical documentation. It will come but I'm gonna have my fun first!
Ok, that was funnyRemember Elaine on Seinfeld made her stories shorter by saying Yada, Yada Yada ??
Maybe wkmac can Yada Yada Yada some of his posts.
Similar threads
