A year or so ago there was a thread about Political Ideologies, that thread has since died. Because all the Political discussions around here are about current events, I seek to bring it back, along with its light hearted and yet also intense discussions, attacks and defenses over our various Ideologies.

Let me start us off with my political compass

https://imgur.com/a/jO5ly

As you can see im left. Far left. Radical Extremist left even. Yes, you guessed it im a damn filthy commie.

So go ahead, post your political compass down below, or state your affiliation, or ask me some questions about my beliefs, or anything else you can think of. Anything to get the ball rolling!

Edit: Oh and I forgot to mention that you can find the political compass here:

politicalcompass.org

Woo, Anarchism buddies!

Seems 'bout right.

Woo, Anarchism buddies!

Socialism first, THEN anarchism my comrade

@Vilageidiotx @Dark Wind

So why dont you tell me a little more about your politics? I know thats pretty broad, but hey that means you can say whatever you like

@Dinh AaronMk

Ah, another lefty around here. Good to have you with us comrade.

Well, i've always been libertarian at heart, and was a right-wing libertarian when I was a teenager, having moved to the left as I got older and entered the working world. And really, I don't think my goals ever changed so much as my perspective on the part capitalism has to play. At this point I think capitalism is unsustainable. I think that it is a leftover of aristocracy that had the benefit of allowing us to move out of traditional societies without changing too quickly, but in the 21st century it is going to be faced with Global Warming, Automation, and the ballooning wealth disparity between classes, and I don't think it can survive all three at the same time.

Regarding the far left, to keep it simple, I agree with some points and not with others. I don't think history follows any predictable pattern, and I don't think any one thing is inevitable. I said above that I don't think Capitalism as we know it can survive the century, but that doesn't mean I think any one thing will inevitably replace it. At the same time, I think that the Marxist end goal is a lot more plausible than people think, and the problem with communism isn't the possibility of the destination so much the complexity of reaching it.

Socially, I suppose I'm somewhat to mostly liberal. The bedroom is not the government's business nor anyone else with the exception of the one, two, or more consenting adults involved. I'd say I support gay rights, but in truth it feels that I'm simply saying all people deserve rights under the constitution and as such I feel the rights already detailed do in fact involve every person under their definitions. However, for one example of a recent news story, I don't support a baker being forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding if they feel the wedding goes against their religious beliefs.

I am not on board with Villageidiotx concerning capitalism. Regarding economics, I support conservative and responsible spending. Living in the US, the evidence shows we've been obscenely irresponsible in terms of government spending. Military spending for international policing rather than legitimate defense spending has not proven beneficial unless you're the military industrial complex. The welfare system is to put it mildly, a failure. Included within that range of thought is the objective disaster of the drug war. Personally, I feel our businesses are far too regulated and high taxes are crippling the American industries. This is not to say I support an absolute, completely free market. Human nature does not lend itself to a free market in the same way it doesn't lend itself to the true, theoretical communism. Capitalism can, and has worked, but its been butchered beyond recognition due to a series of failings possibly beginning with the creation of the federal reserve.

About right there.

Seems about right.

You fucking, no-good commies!

Oh wait...



But yeah, that's pretty accurate I'd say. Although I feel like a lot of the issues/questions are aimed at people living in the US, so it might be a bit off.

Communism, while somewhat naive, is pretty much the most humane ideology people have come up with. The problem is that nobody has figured out how to properly implement it yet. The idea has always been that you have to start off with socialism and eventually build up to that communist utopia, but I believe that history has shown that this approach doesn't work. As someone living in an ex-Eastern Bloc country, I can however say that some of it does work. People here used to have: free healthcare, free public transport, low bills/taxes, ability to go on (at least) a 7-day vacation twice a year, guaranteed job (and job security), and a ridiculously low interest on credit. This came at the expense of personal freedoms, as well as necessitating the imposing of a planned economy on the entire Bloc. Obviously that didn't work and I don't think planned economies in general can work, especially in the modern world, which is incredibly dynamic.

Still, communism remains a nice ideal and despite the bad name it's gotten thanks to authoritarians (and people who can't tell the difference between socialism, communism and a dictatorship in the first place), it at least offers the promise that in its "pure" form it might work. Capitalism, on the other hand, had demonstrated that, when unregulated, is inhumane and serves the interests of only a small group of people. Just look at the conditions in the factories/mines of Victorian England or the laissez-faire capitalism in France in the second half of the 18th century. Or heck, the massive exploitation of the European colonies, even Mao and Stalin don't have anything on that when you start summing up the cost in human lives.

Because I am one of the outliers among the Guild, I have taken the test once more and it continues to display that my general philosophy on the matter has not changed over the past few years. While this is not a topic I personally enjoy all that much, it is always interesting to compare and review it.


To answer a potential question, I am unaffiliated and an independent. I prefer to live by my own standards and expectations. That said, I believe this chart in broad strokes continues to reflect that well.

Hey all- interesting discussion. Just wanted to point out something I noticed.

The test linked to in the OP seems to me (a conservative) to have pretty strong left-leaning assumptions built into the way the questions are phrased.

"Should gobalization favor trans-national corporations or humanity"? for example is basically a loaded question. Very few people, even on the libertarian right, would favor 'trans national corporations' as such, but they would make the argument that, on net, globalization and capitalism are good for humanity, having brought literally billions of people up out of poverty, etc. This is an issue because the question essentially creates a binary between corporations and helping humanity, which is exactly what many on the right- correctly or otherwise- deny.

I think this is an issue with several of the questions.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock in what's meant to be a rough survey, but I think any chart that has Thatcher way closer to Hitler than Hitler is to Stalin is a bit suspect. Happy to elaborate on why.

Might I suggest: moralfoundations.org

Not perfect, ofc, but I think a much more thorough and fair minded exploration of the same terrain.

my scores, for what they're worth, are

Economic Left/Right: 3.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08

Hey all- interesting discussion. Just wanted to point out something I noticed.

The test linked to in the OP seems to me (a conservative) to have pretty strong left-leaning assumptions built into the way the questions are phrased.

The Political Compass people were a right-libertarian outfit back in the day. In 2008 I am pretty sure they were the ones actively linking to Ron Paul stuff.

That being said, does the test you link require registration, or am I clicking on the wrong thing?

<Snipped quote by Flagg>

The Political Compass people were a right-libertarian outfit back in the day. In 2008 I am pretty sure they were the ones actively linking to Ron Paul stuff.

That being said, does the test you link require registration, or am I clicking on the wrong thing?

Having thought about it- I guess my complaint boils down to: some of the questions are badly worded in that test. which seems like less of a big deal than I made it sound. As I mentioned, I do think there is a serious issue with a graphing scheme that puts Thatcher (and presumably Reagan) closer to Hitler than he is to Stalin.

And yes, I think you have to register to take the yourmorals test.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Having thought about it- I guess my complaint boils down to: some of the questions are badly worded in that test. which seems like less of a big deal than I made it sound. As I mentioned, I do think there is a serious issue with a graphing scheme that puts Thatcher (and presumably Reagan) closer to Hitler than he is to Stalin.

And yes, I think you have to register to take the yourmorals test.

These four-point quizzes are shitty at registering the differences between cultures and time periods. If it reflected this, most politicians from any era would be bunched in similar parts of the map. Like, if it properly reflected culture and era, Reagan and Sanders would be somewhere in the green, since purple would be where all the old-time Baron's War style aristocratic privilege people end up going.

That being said, Hitler is roughly between Stalin and Thatcher, and that's probably not far off (though I don't think Thatcher is that high on the authoritarian scale, as much as every working-class bone in my body wants to put her there.) But regarding left and right, remember that Red doesn't equal mean, or Blue equal nice. Red means Internationalist, and Blue means Nationalist. Stalin and Hitler used means that were more normative for their cultures and time period, but at the end of the day they had very different long-term goals. Assuming these are the 2008 Ron Paul people who made this, putting Thatcher way further up the authoritarian scale kinda fits their motives at that time, since the 2008 libertarians were more anti-establishment than the 2016 ones are, their movement gaining energy from the Anti-Bush sentiments of the time.