Where do you stand on the political compass?

wendell borton

Left with a hint of authoritarianism.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-6.62&soc=-1.85

Sgt Hartman

Here's mine

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.38&soc=1.18

Back when I was younger and more naive about things I was much further right.

Nitochris

Here I am:

http://politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.38&soc=-8.15

I'll write a post critiquing elements of the compass later, not that I disagree with it positioning me there.

osarusan

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-5.12&soc=-5.33

Basically the same as Gandhi.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Economic Left/Right: 0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=0.50&soc=-3.79

anncoates

Mine.

pablomakaveli

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

According to their graph Obama, Romney and Cameron are all pretty much at the same part of the ballpark- how in the hell is Obama a right wing authoritarian? His most virulent opponents constantly accuse him of being a leftish, a socialist, even a communist.

If you uprooted and planted the Democrat party into a European country they end up being considered a centre or slightly to the right of that.

It's not hard to end up seeming to be a leftist party compared to the Republican party.

donegal_road

Im a lefty

NoNewFriends

Meh. http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=9.12&soc=8.56

Best line of the test for me: "Making peace with the establishment is an important part of maturity."
LOL at the lefties wearing Che Guevara tshirts at 35 years old ranting about America while enjoying the benefits of living in a Western democracy. Like a spoilt teenager complaining that he has to clean his room.

Esoteric_

In the middle of the libertarian left quadrant.

Seems somewhat accurate.

Clandestine

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

It's an ideal. The closest real world examples would be pre-WWII anarcho-syndicalist Spain (absolutely despised by the Authoritarian right and left) and maybe Israel's Kibbutzim in earlier times.

You were about to make a point... or is this a quiz?

I was going to make the point that it is completely unfeasible and of course, very radical. The idea of abolishing the state, private property, capitalism etc. is not an ideal form of politics, and it simply would not work in today's world. Have you ever read a decent economics textbook?

The only type of anarchist ideology that at least has some chance of succeeding in my opinion is anarcho-capitalism.

Clandestine

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

According to their graph Obama, Romney and Cameron are all pretty much at the same part of the ballpark- how in the hell is Obama a right wing authoritarian? His most virulent opponents constantly accuse him of being a leftish, a socialist, even a communist. The only mildly authoritarian accusation he gets thrown at him is that he is planning to seize their guns to allow for the setting up of a fascist state (and that only comes from the looniest of the loony fringe). Nelson Mandela is a leftist libertarian despite having been involved in armed struggle. Robert Mugabe is a leftist despite his homophobia and racist campaign against white landowners (not that some of those landowners weren't complete bastards to the natives, but it still counts against the assessment)

Are you sure you understand how this works? Obama in 2008 would have been slightly diagonal-down-left but as of 2012 i think where he is now is accurate. Him, Cameron and the like are all conservatives, and their position on the compass reflects this. Conservatism is not authoritarianism of course, and these "virulent opponents" you mention are most commonly fundamentalists who don't understand politics and are most likely repeating what Bill O Reilly or Ann Coulter told them. Robert Mugabe is a totalitarian dictator, and again his position on the compass reflects this.

Clandestine

Sgt Hartman wrote: »

Here's mine

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.38&soc=1.18

Back when I was younger and more naive about things I was much further right.

Do you mean further right as in "less economic freedom" or "less personal freedom"?

Real Life

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-4.50&soc=-6.51

Iwannahurl

It seems I am the love child of Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Luckily I have liberal views on sexual morality.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

Have you ever read a decent economics textbook?

Have you? You do know that economics is a disputed field don't you? It's not like maths or physics or engineering. There is no such thing as an expert economist.

The only type of anarchist ideology that at least has some chance of succeeding in my opinion is anarcho-capitalism

I give you real world examples of left anarchism that have actually existed and you wilfully ignore it and give me an opinion that anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchic system that would have a chance.

See what you're doing there? You're dismissing reality and reverting to fantasy.

Karl Stein

NoNewFriends wrote: »

Meh. http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=9.12&soc=8.56

So you're a fascist? Apt user name. Why don't you drop the ridiculous use of caricatures and try not to be one yourself.

Mod

Gentle reminder of site rules: Attack the post, not the poster.

Fr_Dougal

This is me.

RayM

Deleted User wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster.

"Your post is a fascist"

It's a while since I've done the test, but I'm probably still somewhere in the Ghandi/Mandela/Dalai Lama area.

Dyr

If you were american that little test might be useful

Greentopia

Clandestine wrote: »

What led you down to such a radical path?

That's a long story but I'll try and as brief as I can.

A belief in the innate goodness of human beings and the "radical" notion that people can organise themselves without rulers is I suppose an extreme philosophy to many people in the age we live in, but that's what most people like myself who would adhere to Anarchist principles would believe.

I grew up with the belief that Social Democracy, particularly the Nordic Model, was the most egalitarian system that mankind could achieve and that it offered the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. From my teenage years on I wanted to experience what it was like to live under that system so I moved to Sweden for 8 years in 1995. I had only a vague idea of what Anarchism was about then.

Having experienced Sweden there is much still I like about the way that country is organised, but ultimately it's still a capitalist country, albeit with the excesses of Capitalism tempered by Socialism. I was disavowed of the idea of it being this wonderful Worker's Utopia free of class struggle and inequality that I had naively held before I moved there (though it is a veritable paradise compared to many other Western countries even).

I began to see the shortcomings and compromises of the reformist nature of Social Democratic ideology, read up on it's history and that's when I read about the split in the First International between the revolutionaries Like Bakunin who rejected any role for the State, and the reformist Ferdinand Lassalle, who saw the State as an instrument of empowerment for the working classes and began the Social Democratic movement.

I started reading Bakunin, which lead me on to other Anarchist thinkers like Kropotkin, Proudhon, Emma Goldman and Noam Chomsky. It's anti-authoritarian non-coercive philosophy appeals to me and I see it as the greatest means by which people can liberate themselves from domination and oppression.

Even though I wouldn't call myself an Anarchist because of widespread misunderstanding about what Anarchism really means. People generally see it as meaning chaos, violence and disorder when in fact it means the exact opposite, it is a highly organised society whose history has been comparatively peaceful.

Hope that goes some way to answering your question at least. I can recommend some great books about the subject if you're interested

Clandestine

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

You do know that economics is a disputed field don't you? It's not like maths or physics or engineering. There is no such thing as an expert economist.

Of course there exists people who are experts in the field of economics, it is a professional career after all. Have you never heard of Thomas Sowell? Murray Rothbard? Milton Friedman? All are considered masters in the field.
Not to mention that there is a Nobel prize for economics.
Here are some economics books worth reading:
Economics in one lesson
Free to choose
Man, Economy and State

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I give you real world examples of left anarchism that have actually existed and you wilfully ignore it and give me an opinion that anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchic system that would have a chance.

See what you're doing there? You're dismissing reality and reverting to fantasy.

You gave me one real world example which was not a textbook success. I will say that some parts of it worked quite well, but as far as I know coercion and violence were quite rife during that time, among other issues. I'm not 100% read on that time in history, but we all have our own opinions, and mine is that a free-market economy is ideal. And that is not fantasy, fantasy is thinking that a complete anarchist state will ever function consistently for an extended period of time.

Karl Stein

Clandestine wrote: »

Of course there exists people who are experts in the field of economics, it is a professional career after all.

Professional just means paid for what you do - it's proof of nothing so don't bother using it as a marker of expertise. Also, the economists who sing the tune of those in power will have easier access to an audience and thus monetary reward.

Here are some economics books worth reading:

Economics in one lesson
Free to choose
Man, Economy and State

Okey-doke. I didn't come here for a lesson in free market dogma. Trust me, I've listened to many hours of lectures from the Mises Institute and I'm very up to speed on free market ideas. Here's the thing though - they're nothing other than ideas. The free market is a mythical ideal and nothing ever approaching it has ever existed.

It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody.

Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/

You gave me one real world example which was not a textbook success. I will say that some parts of it worked quite well, but as far as I know coercion and violence were quite rife during that time, among other issues.

I'm not 100% read on that time in history, but we all have our own opinions, and mine is that a free-market economy is ideal. And that is not fantasy, fantasy is thinking that a complete anarchist state will ever function consistently for an extended period of time.

I've covered this here:

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

I give you real world examples of left anarchism that have actually existed and you wilfully ignore it and give me an opinion that anarcho-capitalism is the only anarchic system that would have a chance.

See what you're doing there? You're dismissing reality and reverting to fantasy.

You may choose to ignore it again if you wish.

Staff Infection

Not surprised in the direction of my wee political dot but I am surprised how far south west I am. The closest "celebrity" to my political affiliations is apparently the Dali Lama

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-3.75&soc=-8.10

Clandestine

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

You may choose to ignore it again if you wish.

I don't understand?

I never ignored it, I addressed it. I never denied anarchism has existed as a form of governing, I said when it had existed (in this case, in Spain) it had its benefits and faults. I said anarcho-capitalism has the best chance of consistent success, but I never said it would be an overall success. I'm not sure it would as successful as other forms of capitalism. Maybe I'm missing something else you're trying to say? Apologies if so.

Toby Take a Bow

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-8.00&soc=-6.87

Some of the questions are a bit ridiculous, though, and some of them should have a 'depends' option. So, I'm a fair bit to the left of Gandhi. Fair enough.

NoNewFriends wrote: »

LOL at the lefties wearing Che Guevara tshirts at 35 years old ranting about America while enjoying the benefits of living in a Western democracy. Like a spoilt teenager complaining that he has to clean his room.

Oh, 'LOL' indeed. I have yet to see anyone over 30 wearing a Che Guevara tshirt. You really do move in strange circles for someone further right than Hitler and Thatcher.

My name is URL

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.

I'd love to know which answer those who appear to be very far on the right gave to those questions.. and see them try to explain and justify why they gave those answers. Honestly, you'd need to be full blown retard to agree with the second one.

Legs.Eleven

Somewhere down the bottom left-hand corner. I can't see that ever changing.

Sunglasses Ron

Clandestine wrote: »

Are you sure you understand how this works?

I do. Which is why I understand it as being total bollocks, in terms of the result it gave me mirroring the answers I gave.

Obama in 2008 would have been slightly diagonal-down-left but as of 2012 i think where he is now is accurate. Him, Cameron and the like are all conservatives, and their position on the compass reflects this.

Obama is a liberal, which compared to the Republicans is a good thing, and is a good thing for America. Cameron is technically a liberal, but trying to court an even line between traditional Tory voters and traditionally Labour voters who don't want a candidate as harmfully liberal as Blair, but don't want a candidate as right wing as Thatcher.