Tommy,
Looks like you wound up a little to the right of me.... that's
surprising :)
On Sep 12, 2007, at 8:11 PM, justifiedright wrote:
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.
>
