Political Compass mega thread 2011

_Bella_

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

thetonynator

Went back and reconsidered some questions . .



Neutral?!

Eric Cartman

I do enjoy the right wing

evercloserunion

Now you're veering off to talk about the beliefs that animate lawmakers, which is quite a different thing altogether. When we talk in today's world about corporate social responsibility, we're referring to the widely held belief that companies have a moral responsibility to atone to society, in a way that goes above and beyond merely complying with legislation, for the always exploitative crime of generating profit. For instance, there is a widely held belief that a company such as Nike should not employ 15-year-old girls to manufacture running shoes, even in countries where it is quite legal to employ 15-year-olds, and despite the fact that in many nations the girl would far prefer working for Nike to the alternatives of begging, stealing, or prostituting herself.

It appears we disagree on how to interpret the question, and in particular "social responsibility". You're talking about a generic responsibility to comply with legislation. Of course corporations have a responsibility to do that notwithstanding any social responsibilities they may have, no disagreement there. But you think the statement can be rephrased as "Companies should operate corporate social responsibility programs". I think "social responsibility" can include those social responsibilities which have attained legal force.

The responsibility to take care of your workers is a social responsibility. So is the responsibility not to, for example, over-pollute rivers. These responsibilities are enshrined in legislation specifically because they are viewed as compelling social responsibilities. So if you disagree that corporations have any social responsibilities other than to make a profit for their shareholders, this employee protection legislation becomes baseless and an unjustified intrusion on commercial freedom.

I believe the question is a lot more complex than legislators (who are often not economists) generally understand. Due to the efficiencies attained by Standard Oil in the late 19th century, the price of refined oil fell from around 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 8 cents in 1885. Antitrust crusaders interpreted this as an instance of "predatory pricing" and used legislation to ensure that consumers were denied the low prices provided to them by Rockefeller.

It certainly is more complex than legislators seem to think, although it's only fair to point out that in the US at least the subject has received a lot of scrutiny in this regard. But the real problem with your position--that "what's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us"--is that it completely ignores the complexities in the area and takes the very simplistic, absolutist approach that large corporations pursuing their own interests above all others can never result in harm to society. As I said, I don't buy it. It's too bold a claim to sustain, unless the interests of society are defined by reference to the interests of large corporations which is just circular reasoning. One example--even 100 examples--of monopolies benefiting consumers is not sufficient, especially since no one ever said that what's good for large corporations is always bad for society. As someone in the (x<0,y<0) quadrant I can accept that what's good for large corporation is often good for society. The question is one of a criticial versus uncritical approach.

The fact of the matter is that the really problematic monopolies are those which are organized by governments. The OPEC oil cartel, for instance. Or the government monopolies over education and health care here in Ireland.

That really has nothing to do with the statement in question, it's just whataboutery.

TrollHammaren

That sounds about right! I posted this on Facebook and my friends' results all seemed pretty consistent with their political beliefs.

I'm voting socialist mostly, with a bit of Labour thrown in there.

evercloserunion

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

Jeboa Safari

Voting for FG probably, although this puts me closer to Labour.

mayotom

well it seems we are all a bunch of lefties, with a few right wing extreamists

southsiderosie

Economic left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97

RayM wrote: »

Just out of interest, did anybody 'agree' or 'strongly agree' with either of the following questions?

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

I actually agree with this. A company as an entity does not have "corporate responsibility", and I think most CSR programs are a crock - not only because many of them are insincere, but because that is not the core mission of the organization.

I should note here that my interpretation of CSR is stuff like sweatshop monitoring, etc. Corporations should not be exempt from fulfilling their legal obligations in whatever constituency they operate in. But it is the role of government to make and enforce laws that reflect the norms of society, not for companies to self-regulate where governments fear to tread.

I will say that I think it is beneficial for companies and the communities they live in for companies - and perhaps more precisely corporate leaders - to be active sponsors of local or regional programs. Certainly in the Midwestern U.S., the closure of a lot of large corporations has deprived cities of both corporate sponsorship for local events and civic leadership - wealthy executives sit on boards of museums, fundraise for local charities, etc. But modern CSR programs seem to be less about being part of the fabric of the communities in which companies are headquartered, and more about appeasing activists, who are often quite disconnected from where companies are based and where they do business.

retalivity

i always knew i was the dalai lama...

Matt Le Tissue

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-1.12&soc=7.23

Economic Left/Right: -1.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 7.23

I did this test twice, 1st time I was relatively honest so I ended up pretty much where the majority of people who have taken this test in this thread have ended up. So I took it a 2nd time and tried to be as extreme and fascist as I could and ended up not quite fascist but more Stalinist. I wonder how you could manipulate the answers to become extreme right? (Purely for fun you understand!)

Lockstep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Tbh, I wish students would still get that heated over stuff. I was at an Gaeilge tutorial this morning and the only 2 who planned on voting were me and a mature student.

I'm doing law and history, two subjects which would normally involve a lot of politics but few students care about current affairs. Even constitutional law becomes a depressingly banal approach to issues. I've never, ever seen a proper argument in lectures/tutorials.


I disagree with the only social responsability being to shareholders though; Irish case law has that some responsabilities are owed to employees, creditors and recievers as well.

Zubeneschamali

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36

I don't believe that the parties are actually where the Compass says they are are the start of the thread.

Killer Pigeon

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=6.75&soc=9.03

evercloserunion

I'm doing law and history, two subjects which would normally involve a lot of politics but few students care about current affairs. Even constitutional law becomes a depressingly banal approach to issues. I've never, ever seen a proper argument in lectures/tutorials.

I think that's because of the way it's taught. Undergrad law courses in Ireland are mostly about cramming as much of a textbook into your head as possible and vomiting it back out on the day, leaving cert style. The examination method does not lend itself to debates and DMCs in lectures. Some lecturers are better at inspiring discussion than others.

I disagree with the only social responsability being to shareholders though; Irish case law has that some responsabilities are owed to employees, creditors and recievers as well.

And just to re-iterate my point here (because someone will be along shortly to point out that legal responsibilities are not the same as social ones); the law in this area is a reflection of a belief that corporations have certain social rsponsibilities apart from that owed to their shareholders.

DoesNotCompute

Looks like I'm out there with the Loony Left, even if I will be giving my first preference to Fine Gael

LeixlipRed

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I find some of your posts truly scary. That's the worst of the lot so far. I just can't believe how naive you are. Try explaining this post to someone who just got laid of by a MNC as part of a cost-cutting measure so they can exploit cheap labour in Dictatorstan. How would you begin to rationalise it?

Pete_Cavan

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I find some of your posts truly scary. That's the worst of the lot so far. I just can't believe how naive you are. Try explaining this post to someone who just got laid of by a MNC as part of a cost-cutting measure so they can exploit cheap labour in Dictatorstan. How would you begin to rationalise it?

If the company can not cut costs and reduce prices to allow them to compete with companies selling similar products or services they would not be able to attract customers and would soon go out of business. Therefore no one is employed. Rational enough for you?

There are many MNCs here employing many thousands of Irish people, most of whom would otherwise be unemployed, with the main reason they are here being the fact that it is cheaper than elsewhere, do you consider that exploitantion of Irish workers?

As for the comment about Permabear being naive, do the words pot, kettle and balck mean anything to you?

phantom_lord

LeixlipRed wrote: »

I find some of your posts truly scary. That's the worst of the lot so far. I just can't believe how naive you are. Try explaining this post to someone who just got laid of by a MNC as part of a cost-cutting measure so they can exploit cheap labour in Dictatorstan. How would you begin to rationalise it?

Me either.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Yeah, keep the aul working classes dirt poor while the higher ups rake in the cash

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Yeah, keep the aul working classes dirt poor while the higher ups rake in the cash

What does this actually mean? I'm being serious here.

I see a lot online about "working class, rabble rabble", but then there isn't much behind it other than a lot of bloviating and very few facts. And it's annoying because there are actually serious issues affecting working-class people - and men in particular - but the knee-jerk "rawr, rawr, soak the rich!" reaction in these kinds of discussions kills any real debate and just encourages a lot of people to tune out.

tails_naf

thetonynator wrote: »

Did the socialist party invent this by any chance?! :P

I would have considered myself to be slightly to the right, but in the same place on the y axis:

Yeah me too, but ended up like yourself (but a tad closer to Gandhi!)

Like another poster said, I think it was the questions at the end about sexulaity that made me a lefty. I'm a big believer if in personal freedom, but pretty conservative (I would have thought) other than that. No bleeding heart here..

tails_naf

Also, Can't believe Labour are more to the right than me. That's flat out insane!

evercloserunion

southsiderosie wrote: »

What does this actually mean? I'm being serious here.

I see a lot online about "working class, rabble rabble", but then there isn't much behind it other than a lot of bloviating and very few facts. And it's annoying because there are actually serious issues affecting working-class people - and men in particular - but the knee-jerk "rawr, rawr, soak the rich!" reaction in these kinds of discussions kills any real debate and just encourages a lot of people to tune out.

What exactly do you have a problem understanding, it is obviously a complaint that the system is designed to maintain economic inequality and allow the wealthy to increase their prosperity more easily than (and often at the expense of) the less well off. I don't agree with socialism but to say that the complaint is meaningless is silly.

phantom_lord

How can you say the poor are kept poor when it's clear that every part of society is getting richer over time.

Wolfe Tone

Its quite clear, its being argued that the poorer the average worker is kept, and the greater the profit made by the elite few, the better it is for society, thats simply not fair, or morally justifiable.

Dozen Wicked Words

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Disingenuous summary of LeixlipReds position?

Personally I would be as opposed to inequality in third world countries as I would to inequality in Ireland. BRIC countries have glaring variations between the rich and poor and in my view Capitalism has done little for the majority.

The point of Socialism is not about working within the current system, but to change the system itself across the world. The argument about whether this is possible or not, of course is valid, but I think it is oversimplifying the point to say just because you want the best standards for the working man in one country does not mean you cant want the best for workers in another country.

/my two cents worth.