Political Test

[Evening Star]

Seriously, if there really were as many people in the bottom-left as this questionnaire always seems to conclude, we'd probably be much closer to an anarcho-syndicalist world by now.

--

Despite my reservations, though, I do greatly prefer the two-axis model to a left-right spectrum when it comes to classifying political ideologies.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[CPCFTW]

Pretty centrist:

Economic Left/Right: 2.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

Of course I'm a far right kitten-eater on these forums.

[Evening Star]

Pretty centrist:

Economic Left/Right: 2.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

Of course I'm a far right kitten-eater on these forums.

You self-identify as a libertarian or at least strongly neoliberal on economics, though, right? This is what I'm saying: Everyone should probably add about 5 to their economic score and 2 or 3 to their social score.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[Oleg Bach]

Pretty centrist:

Economic Left/Right: 2.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.33

Of course I'm a far right kitten-eater on these forums.

As someone said to me and it might apply to you...."every time Oleg states something - God kills a kitten" - was never sure what that meant but it was cute.

[CPCFTW]

These numbers seem really dubious to me. If completely unregulated capitalism is +10 on the economic scale and absolute collectivism is -10, I would think that social democracy and a mixed economy (the model towards which I tend to lean - and not even that aggressively) should be about dead centre.

Yes the numbers are dubious because they didn't give you the results you wanted. Better hold up a "Stop The Political Compass" stop sign.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CPCFTW]

You self-identify as a libertarian or at least strongly neoliberal on economics, though, right? This is what I'm saying: Everyone should probably add about 5 to their economic score and 2 or 3 to their social score.

Not really. I think conservatives in Canada are pretty far left compared to the US (where this test probably originated). In the US I would be considered a centrist and you would be a far left communist just as these results indicate.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Oleg Bach]

Yes the numbers are dubious because they didn't give you the results you wanted. Better hold up a "Stop The Political Compass" stop sign.

Yah what the heck - the numbers made me look almost norman - I resent that....after all the time I put in trying to be crazy.

[Evening Star]

Yes the numbers are dubious because they didn't give you the results you wanted. Better hold up a "Stop The Political Compass" stop sign.

It's not like it's an objective or scientific measurement or anything. You'd agree that Friedman or von Hayek are pretty close to +10 on economics and, I dunno, Marx or Kropotkin are -10? Why would a Liberal/NDP swing voter place below -6 on that scale?

Btw, I think the numbers are biased in favour of the left.

[Evening Star]

Not really. I think conservatives in Canada are pretty far left compared to the US (where this test probably originated). In the US I would be considered a centrist and you would be a far left communist just as these results indicate.

The test is from the UK iirc. The point is that the test is not supposed to measure where you stand in relation to the current mainstream of political thought in a given country. It more or less claims to place everyone on a grid relative to every political ideology in at least the past century. (Look at the reference points they provide: Lenin, Hitler, Gandhi, Mugabe, ...)

In fact they spell this out here:

The Political Compass chart represents the whole spectrum of political opinion, not simply the range within a particular nation or region. The timeless universal centre should not be confused with merely the present national average. The former is far more meaningful and informative. Where, for example, would the centre be within the political confines of Hitler's Germany, apartheid South Africa or the Soviet Union ? By showing the whole spectrum of political thought, we can indicate the width or narrowness of prevailing mainstream politics within any particular country. It also enables us to chart the drifts one way or another of various parties, governments and individuals.

Twenty-five years ago, social democracy was riding high in western Europe. A chart at that time would have shown a number of EU governments to the left of the centre. In our globalised age, however, the shift has been rightward, which accounts for the altogether different cluster that the contemporary chart depicts. In other words most democracies, either reluctantly or enthusiastically, have embraced neoliberalism (ie a right leaning economy) to a greater or lesser extent.

Curbs on civil liberties, rationalised by issues such as illegal immigration and terrorist threats, accounts for the concurrent drift upwards on the social scale.

(#23 at http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq4)

I'm way more in favour of top-down hierarchy and large bureaucracies than Gandhi for example. (And Gandhi wasn't really that socially liberal on a number of issues, tbh!)

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[CPCFTW]

It's not like it's an objective or scientific measurement or anything. You'd agree that Friedman or von Hayek are pretty close to +10 on economics and, I dunno, Marx or Kropotkin are -10? Why would a Liberal/NDP swing voter place below -6 on that scale?

Btw, I think the numbers are biased in favour of the left.

I would definitely place the NDP and 2011 Liberal platform that far left on the political spectrum. The old liberals might be something like -2 while cons are probably +2 IMHO. Far right Republicans are probably the right wing equivalent to the NDP in North America.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Evening Star]

The people at -10 on the economic scale advocated near-abolition of private property and collectivization of the means of production. There's no way the NDP is that close to that.

Read the long FAQ that the creators of the test have included. My impression was that their agenda was to show that the world is moving in a strongly neoliberal direction while most people are well to the left of that.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

Even by their own reckoning, the NDP isn't nearly as bottom-left as my score is:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008

The 2008 Conservative platform was about twice as far to the economic right as your score was, CPCFTW. You're pretty close to Stephane Dion's Liberal Party. Time to change your user name!

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[pegasus]

You self-identify as a libertarian or at least strongly neoliberal on economics, though, right? This is what I'm saying: Everyone should probably add about 5 to their economic score and 2 or 3 to their social score.

----------

Edited June 12, 2011 by pegasus

[Evening Star]

Oh, here they rank the 2011 election platforms of Canadian political parties: http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

You are actually left of Ignatieff's Liberals, CPCFTW. Perhaps you should see #4:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq4

Edited June 12, 2011 by Evening Star

[CPCFTW]

Even by their own reckoning, the NDP isn't nearly as bottom-left as my score is:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008

The 2008 Conservative platform was about twice as far to the economic right as your score was, CPCFTW. You're pretty close to Stephane Dion's Liberal Party. Time to change your user name!

Maybe, but I doubt they know much about Canadian politics.

I also think maybe I was more centrist because the questions were stupid and presented false dichotomies. For example the first question: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

What if you believe that serving the interests of the corporations serves the needs of humanity? I had to agree with this statement which probably incorrectly weights me to the left.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[pegasus]

Maybe, but I doubt they know much about Canadian politics.

I also think maybe I was more centrist because the questions were stupid and presented false dichotomies. For example the first question: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

What if you believe that serving the interests of the corporations serves the needs of humanity? I had to agree with this statement which probably incorrectly weights me to the left.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq10

Your answer did throw you to the left. By agreeing to the above question, you did not see that by serving the interests of trans-national corporations has a trickle down effect to the serving of rest of humanity. This would be a rightist view.

Edited June 12, 2011 by pegasus

[CPCFTW]

Not so

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq#faq10

Whats your point?

That post says that if I believe transnational corporations serve the interests of humanity, I should have responded that I "strongly disagree" that globalization serve the interests of humanity rather than the corporations. How can I strongly disagree with that? I believe that globalization benefitting humanity should be the priority but that serving the interests of the corporations has that result.

The creator is obviously to the left of the political spectrum given the editorializing in that post as well.

[CPCFTW]

Your answer did throw you to the left. By agreeing to the above question, you did not see that by serving trans-national corporations has a trickle down effect to the rest of humanity.

I "did not see" that? Are you serious? That is my entire argument for globalization. I still think humanity is the priority, so I can't disagree with that statement. But like I said, it is a false dichotomy that is biased to the left.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[pegasus]

I "did not see" that? Are you serious? That is my entire argument for globalization. I still think humanity is the priority, so I can't disagree with that statement. But like I said, it is a false dichotomy that is biased to the left.

Its a questionaire. Take it for what it is. It isn't a scientific survey.

BTW: I'm stuck at work. My thinking processes are all over the place.

Sorry for any confusion.

[WIP]

I knew this would be hoot when the very first question is framed in the terms:"If economic globalisation is inevitable,"! How about a question like:'if a populist uprising against our corporate overlords is inevitable....' Point being, right from the start I can see that the economic questions are skewed towards neoliberalism, so they can come out with overall results that lean further to the economic right. Statisticians note that framing issue-related questions play a big part in the results. Polling on issues like abortion in the U.S. can produce contradictory results for whichever advocacy group needs them.

My hunch is that this group is some centrist bullshit, since they follow that annoying, superior line that the truth is always somewhere in the middle between the extremes on the political scale. For example, in their explanation of the poll, they make the claim regarding authoritarianism that: 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.....total horseshit, since Pol Pot is the only one on that list who didn't allow any capitalism.

I could point out that psychologists who specialize in the study of authoritarian movements like Robert Altemeyer (on another thread) show conclusively, that in our society, the people who are authoritarian by nature, and attracted to authoritarian leaders are decidedly on the right wing of the political spectrum, since that is the territory where the traditions of nationalism and religion are located. There is no ideological foundation in our society for building a left wing authoritarianism. On the other hand, we are already witnessing the slow, incremental application of fascism of the right, whether we choose to believe it or not.

Regardless, I'm Economic Left/Right: -8.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44 according to this chart, for what it's worth.

[CPCFTW]

More obvious bias:

It's true that a one party state has a significant advantage; even so I wouldn't support it. So how can I respond ?

From classical Greece onwards, discussion and, inevitably, argument, has been viewed by democrats as essential for considering all viewpoints and consequently reaching the best informed and most representative decision. For such people, the replacement of polemics with speedy dictates would definitely not be seen as any sort of "significant advantage" or "progress".

The question was something like "a significant advantage of a one party state is the ease in implementing policies". Obviously I agreed with that since it will be easier to implement policies in a one party state with no opposition. The creator of this compass obviously has problems with logic given his response to criticism of this question. There is no mention of "the best informed and most representative decision" in the question and yet he interprets it as such.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Oleg Bach]

Its a questionaire. Take it for what it is. It isn't a scientific survey.

BTW: I'm stuck at work. My thinking processes are all over the place.

Sorry for any confusion.

Is it Sunday where you are? I am sure it is - get up and leave work....why I don't even bath on Sunday let alone work - well actually I did have a shower...and I will be doing a little plastering in the kitchen.....the survey makes us all look good...kind of like a poll that makes us all the same. AND being convinced of our sameness through a survey and a poll - the powers that be manipulate the mass...........I am now going to vote for the Libertarian party of Canada - seeing there is no such thing - I guess those in power are safe.

[Molly]

It's fun to see so many political beasts ranking high authouritarian numbers while real people tend to butt-out libertarianism.

Of course, in order to percieve themselves as relevant, politicians/governments/political parties must have a high opinion of their own importance-- but the truth is that government is the people, not the people they appoint to serve them.

[pegasus]

More obvious bias:

The question was something like "a significant advantage of a one party state is the ease in implementing policies". Obviously I agreed with that since it will be easier to implement policies in a one party state with no opposition. The creator of this compass obviously has problems with logic given his response to criticism of this question. There is no mention of "the best informed and most representative decision" in the question and yet he interprets it as such.

I answered "agree" to this question as well. Not "strongly agree" in case of a chance for an uprising against said policy.

[pegasus]

Is it Sunday where you are? I am sure it is - get up and leave work....why I don't even bath on Sunday let alone work - well actually I did have a shower...and I will be doing a little plastering in the kitchen.....the survey makes us all look good...kind of like a poll that makes us all the same. AND being convinced of our sameness through a survey and a poll - the powers that be manipulate the mass...........I am now going to vote for the Libertarian party of Canada - seeing there is no such thing - I guess those in power are safe.

I wish I could leave, but I can't. At least not yet. I hold the fort here every second weekend. Allows me an extended weekend every second weekend as well (which allows me to travel once a moth to visit home). Its my choice. There are not alot of people here willing to work weekends. Seeing as to how I work mainly for government and business, there is not a whole lot to do here, therefore its like free money But someone has to man the stations here 24/7. At least its not the overnight shift.