Me. Don't know what it means. I felt some of the questions could not be answered with the selection of answers given.
The Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 3.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.21 --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Mario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Again I sent the wrong Political Compass Test. But it is fun to do the > 10 minute test. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ > <http://www.politicalcompass.org/> Your own results will put you on > a graph somewhat like this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers > <http://www.politicalcompass.org/composers> The text below should > come through. But the graphs may not. About The Political > Compass™ > In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional > left-right line. > > 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 > law of the jungle 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. > > > A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs > U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending > and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more > authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to > such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the > tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. > Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for > the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a > considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed > in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to > the unfettered market forces that they champion. > > International Chart > > A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of > internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how > they relate to each other on the political compass. > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
