Political Test

[Slavik44]

SE- You would feel most at home in the Southeast region. You advocate a large degree of government control over both economic and personal affairs. Your neighbors include FDR, Pat Buchanan, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin, and may refer to themselves to as "communitarians," "authoritarians," "traditionalists," "fascists," or "communists."

God help me

first i am mroe liberal then paul martin now this...

[August1991]

DAC, which test?

Politopia (I find this test too obvious. They also ask for your e-mail to spam you.)

Political Compass (This one I find genuinely intriguing.)

If you do the Political Compass test, post your numbers here. I'll put everyone on a chart (with more famous worthies) and get Greg to post (!) an image file.

[DAC]

June 3, 2004

Actually, I did both tests, August1991. But like you, I was not much impressed with the second.

My numbers on Political Compass were something like -1, -.5 - as I said, I forgot to record them. But those numbers are close enough for the statistics. As I said before, they seem to average out extreme responses in all directions.

Some of their questions left me gasping. For example, when they asked my views on “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, I didn’t want to answer because I would choose strongly agree for judges and strongly disagree for individuals. But overall it was interesting.

Some of the options on both tests seemed to indicate that the authors did not believe a person could be a hard line fiscal conservative, but still have a conscience of concern for the weak and needy.

Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind answering (I know I’m prying), what event in August 1991 shaped your choice of user name?

Thanks

Don Codling

[Slavik44]

Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind answering (I know I’m prying), what event in August 1991 shaped your choice of user name?

Thanks

Don Codling

hmm...yea i always figured the name had soemthing to do with the collapse of the soviet union, but that is pretty presumptious of me, now i want to know, lol

[Alliance Fanatic]

FDR, Pat Buchanan

I think that those two are alot more moderate than either Hitler or Stalin. Thats the one big flaw in the test, FDR and Buchanan are no where close to Stalin and Hitler.

Another point to make is Buchanan believes that the US should mind its own business and butt out of other countires affairs, while FDR was more supportive of spreading democracy. Buchanan and FDR were also fierce opponents of the practices of Hitler in Euthanasia, and genetics. Stalin is also the opposite of Buchanan because Buchanan is a catholic, and would probably have been killed in the USSR.

[takeanumber]

Economic 1.50 (A hair off from centre to the Right)

Authoritarian/Social Libertarian -7.13 (Social Libertarian)

I thought I was more economically right wing, given my support for the market. Whatever.

[August1991]

Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind answering (I know I’m prying), what event in August 1991 shaped your choice of user name?

When Gorbachev flew back to Moscow from the Crimea, the world had changed.

[Slavik44]

Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind answering (I know I’m prying), what event in August 1991 shaped your choice of user name?

When Gorbachev flew back to Moscow from the Crimea, the world had changed.

wow i guess i was right

[Sully]

Economic Left/Right: 4.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.64

[idealisttotheend]

I just wanted to put this thread back on top for the new people especially Blue Machine

August seems to be on holidays.

[caesar]

my numbers were : EC L/f - 4.25

Soc Lib -.92

just about on center.

[Reverend Blair]

Just me Ghandi hanging out on the libertarian left.

[Bionic Antboy]

I just did AF's test and got "Centreville". Not to quibble but the questions were quite obvious. Also, Bush Jr in centreville? WTF?

No kidding... that was a skewed quiz to say the least. I was a westerner, with a mild dip South, but the questions weren't very clear cut. It's also specifically geared towards US gov't...

That map just didn't make much sense.

As for the Political Compass...

Economic Left/Right: -6.25

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.92

Sitting somewhere between Ghandi and the Dalai Lama... no shocker there. Must have too much faith in mankind...

[Bionic Antboy]

BTW, Jerry Pournelle (good SF author) developed a dual-axis system quite some time ago, and it's been put on the web. No quiz, but it's structured similarly to the Political Compass.

Some may find it an interesting read...

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

[Hugo]

It's flawed. Nazism and Communism are the same ideology. "Socialism" and "Communism" are also two words for the same thing, Marx and Engels use the terms interchangeably. Modern "socialists" e.g. NDP are not socialists at all, but rather democratic-capitalist statists.

He should stick to his day job.

[Bionic Antboy]

It's flawed. Nazism and Communism are the same ideology. "Socialism" and "Communism" are also two words for the same thing, Marx and Engels use the terms interchangeably. Modern "socialists" e.g. NDP are not socialists at all, but rather democratic-capitalist statists.

He should stick to his day job.

I don't think the Pournelle chart is perfect, but I'd have to disagree with your statements that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are all the same thing!

Socialism is an intermediary state between Capitalist and Communist economies.

Fascism is a top down dictatorial government, which also tightly controls socioeconomical conditions, but it is under the control of a dictator. It's rule, in theory, is more of an absolute, the leader being the final arbiter of all, and not hesitant to use violence to control the people.

Communism (the theory, not necessarily real world practice) is meant to be controlled by the people, which is anathema to the Fascist structure of an absolute dictator.

Both political philosophies are extreme examples of Statism, but there's not much similar at all beyond that. Of course, we ARE talking about the theories of each political system, not the real world practice of each.

I'm of the opinion that NO extremist ideology will EVER work, when you throw human beings into the mix. The well-nigh universal truth that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is ESPECIALLY true in extremist ideologies, but applies in most, if not all, forms of government.

[Hugo]

Socialism is an intermediary state between Capitalist and Communist economies.

As I said, Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably. Marx knew of no state between capitalist and communist economies because he held that capitalism would be overthrown by violent revolution. In Das Kapital and Manifesto of the Communist Party, for instance, Marx in multiple instances refers to members of the Communist Party as "socialists", not "communists." That confusion is made by people who have not read Marx.

have to disagree with your statements that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are all the same thing!

They just use different terminologies. I'll illustrate.

Both hold that a certain group of individuals are inherently superior. In Nazism, it's the Master Race, in Communism, the Proletariat.

Both hold that the State should be all-powerful.

Both hold that the People, or rather an arbitrary idea of the People, will hold power, but in a dictatorial and undemocratic method. Deutschevolk or Proletariat, it's really all the same.

Both hold that violence is a legitimate tool of the State to be used against anyone it should see fit to.

Both hold that there are no inalienable human rights.

Both hold that women are property and not equal human beings, and despise the nuclear family.

Both view democracy as weak and contemptible.

Both believe that their system is the only true way and will inevitably become the only system.

Both believe that individualism is a crime and that the individual should sacrifice everything, up to and including his very life, to the State.

Both despise religion.

Both despise the arts and intellectual pursuits in favour of industry and labour.

And so forth. Communism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin. "National Socialism" is not a misnomer.

Fascism is not as extreme as Nazism, but they hold basically the same tenets.

[Hawk]

except that Nazism is strong right-wing extremist and communism is weak left-wing extremist =p

As for that test:

Economic Left/Right: 3.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.08

xD

[Bionic Antboy]

As I said, Marx and Engels used the terms interchangeably. Marx knew of no state between capitalist and communist economies because he held that capitalism would be overthrown by violent revolution. In Das Kapital and Manifesto of the Communist Party, for instance, Marx in multiple instances refers to members of the Communist Party as "socialists", not "communists." That confusion is made by people who have not read Marx.

have to disagree with your statements that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are all the same thing!

They just use different terminologies. I'll illustrate... (snipped for brevity...)

Actually, I haven't read every translation of the Manifesto ( ) but there is clearly a distinction between Communist and Socialist systems and literature.

Here's just one of many comments about the differences between Socialism and Communism right from the horses mouth...

From the Preface To The 1888 English Edition...

(on the subject of why they couldn't call it a "Socialist" Manifesto)

Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.

FREDERICK ENGELS

January 30, 1888

London

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics.../manifesto.html

Similarly, from the Bethune Institute's website re: the Marxist-Leninist Theory of Fascism...

It is important to recognize that fascist groups have their origin outside the State. They are not created by the State, and can arise outside the immediate needs of the capitalist class. Certainly fascist groups share the ideology of the most reactionary circles of the ruling class, and therefore some members of the wealthy ruling class may be early members or financial supporters. It is out of this confluence of ideological similarity that fascism necessarily grows from inside capitalist imperialism and brings forward in more extreme and violent form the anti-working class, anti-communist, anti-union, anti-semitic, racist, homophobic, and sexist ideology which is the common currency of the most reactionary circles of capitalism itself. Because of its class basis within the middle strata, fascism's demagogy is aimed not only at denouncing communism - the most progressive force within the working class - but also initially at big business; a position which is given up as soon as it becomes financed by substantial circles within the ruling class.

http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/mltheory.html

Of course, this is someone else's modern take on Fascism, but it clearly illustrates the ideological differences between the two.

A gunshot wound and a dose of poison can both kill you, but that doesn't make them the same thing. They have to be treated differently, just as Fascism and Communism are both bad, but stem from different ideologies, and therefore grow from different seeds of discontent...

EDIT: I just wanted to point out that using a different set of axes (such as the one on the Political Compass website), also reveals the differences between the two ideologies, though not the same extremes. They are, after all, using different axis definitions.

[Hugo]

Actually, I haven't read every translation of the Manifesto (  ) but there is clearly a distinction between Communist and Socialist systems and literature.

They have come to mean different things. What people understand by "socialist" means, as I said, democratic-capitalist-statist, such as NDP.

There was to be no intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. Marx "foresaw" that capitalism would reach an extreme and then collapse violently.

As to what Marx says in the Manifesto, it is true, but just as today it's about popular perception of two different words describing the same thing - much like "insurgent" and "terrorist." He picked the word that had the popular connotation he was looking for, just as the left-wing press today talks of "insurgents" and "militants" in Iraq whereas the right-wing press talks of "terrorists", but they are both describing the same people, no?

A gunshot wound and a dose of poison can both kill you, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

This is not a good analogy. To follow it, we might say that Communism was like being shot with a 5.56mm bullet, whereas Nazism was like being shot with a 7.62mm bullet. Of course we can see differences - but are they really of any significance beyond the splitting of hairs?

I drew a long list of the many enormous similarities between Nazism and Communism. You could not draw a similar list between two other purportedly different systems - democracy and theocracy, or military dictatorship and feudalism. But perhaps you could draw a very similar comparison between, say, a federal republic and a Parliamentary democracy, because once again, these two ideologies are really two different methodologies for one single set of concepts - much like Nazism/Communism.

[Bionic Antboy]

Actually, I haven't read every translation of the Manifesto (  ) but there is clearly a distinction between Communist and Socialist systems and literature.

They have come to mean different things. What people understand by "socialist" means, as I said, democratic-capitalist-statist, such as NDP.

There was to be no intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. Marx "foresaw" that capitalism would reach an extreme and then collapse violently.

As to what Marx says in the Manifesto, it is true, but just as today it's about popular perception of two different words describing the same thing - much like "insurgent" and "terrorist." He picked the word that had the popular connotation he was looking for, just as the left-wing press today talks of "insurgents" and "militants" in Iraq whereas the right-wing press talks of "terrorists", but they are both describing the same people, no?

A gunshot wound and a dose of poison can both kill you, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

This is not a good analogy. To follow it, we might say that Communism was like being shot with a 5.56mm bullet, whereas Nazism was like being shot with a 7.62mm bullet. Of course we can see differences - but are they really of any significance beyond the splitting of hairs?

I drew a long list of the many enormous similarities between Nazism and Communism. You could not draw a similar list between two other purportedly different systems - democracy and theocracy, or military dictatorship and feudalism. But perhaps you could draw a very similar comparison between, say, a federal republic and a Parliamentary democracy, because once again, these two ideologies are really two different methodologies for one single set of concepts - much like Nazism/Communism.

Actually, I didn't want to get into the list point by point, as some of them are accurate, but at the same time, others are questionable, as they draw on Nazism (a real world example), not from the ideology of Fascism.

Just the first point...

Both hold that a certain group of individuals are inherently superior. In Nazism, it's the Master Race, in Communism, the Proletariat.

These are NOT the same thing. In Nazism, those not of the Master Race would be exterminated or used as slave labour in their ideal world.

In Communism, the means of production would be in the hands of the workers themselves, which clearly makes the ideologies opposed to each other in that case.

Another one...

Both hold that there are no inalienable human rights.

Communism can, and in some real world examples, has adopt a number of human rights although obviously not all. A guarantee of food, lodging and/or access to health care come to mind.

Fascism, especially when driven by Racism, can not (of course, unless they paint the other races as non-human, which is a legal fiction).

Both believe that their system is the only true way and will inevitably become the only system.

This doesn't just apply to Communism and Fascism. It also applies to feudal societies, military dictatorship or Democracies. You don't have to be a Communist or Fascist to believe that your ideology will eventually become the ONLY one.

You also bring up the points of religion and the status of the sexes, but the concept of women being merely property isn't necessary to the ideology itself. It's a reflection of the times that applies to MANY ideologies. All have considered women as property at one point. Unless, of course, you're saying that women always had the right to vote in a democratic society.

Similarly, just because Marx "foresaw" a rapid switch from Capitalism to Communism, doesn't mean that the intermediary Socialism therefore can't exist. It clearly does.

As for the definition of "insurgent" and "terrorist", I'm pretty sure they DO mean different things, so some journalists ARE using the wrong word, in some cases. Or, more accurately, it appears that in some cases they are acts by insurgents, and other times acts by terrorists.

insurgency: an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

terrorism: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

(both from dictionary.com to save typing time)

As for my "gunshot" analogy, obviously you wouldn't like it, because it focuses on the core differences, not the similarities. A military dictatorship is an extreme form of Statism as well, but in the course of history, different dictatorships held different views on the role of workers, women and religion, depending on their cultural and political history.

Edit: I just wanted to point out that I recognize that there ARE similarities between Fascism and Communism. Just because there ARE similarities, doesn't mean that there aren't differences.

[Bionic Antboy]

except that Nazism is strong right-wing extremist and communism is weak left-wing extremist =p

As for that test:

Economic Left/Right: 3.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.08

xD

Why is one STRONG and the other WEAK? Does that suggest something of your personal feelings on the two?

[Hawk]

lol you got me, yes... but I was referring moreso to the economic strength of the one over the other... it is pointless to argue the superior economic power of the Nazis vs the Communists but yes they were both a terrible government

[Hugo]

These are NOT the same thing.

It does not matter. The point was that both ideologies hold that a select group is inherently better than other everyone else.

Communism can, and in some real world examples, has adopt a number of human rights although obviously not all. A guarantee of food, lodging and/or access to health care come to mind.

The same is true of Nazism, and it is applied in the same way (i.e. selectively).

Unless, of course, you're saying that women always had the right to vote in a democratic society.

Yes, I am saying that. A polity in which women cannot vote is not a democratic state. Until 1911, there were no democracies.

Similarly, just because Marx "foresaw" a rapid switch from Capitalism to Communism, doesn't mean that the intermediary Socialism therefore can't exist. It clearly does.

A mixed economy is not socialism. It is, as I said three times now, democratic-capitalist-statism. As in Scandinavia, for instance.

Just because there ARE similarities, doesn't mean that there aren't differences.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm telling you is that the two are so closely related it's uncanny. Nazism is extreme-left, the same as Communism.

For example, both believe in state-sanctioned bigotry, but they merely decide who to be bigoted against by different means. For the Nazis, it's racial, or what's perceived to be racial. For Communists, it's economic, or what's perceived to be economic.

This also reflects the tunnel-vision present in both ideologies. Communists see all history and human affairs in terms of economics, Nazis see it as racial and nationalistic. Neither is able to comprehend other factors. In any case, turning Nazism to Communism is a simple case of noun-substitution.

[Big Blue Machine]

For me. It's

Economic Left/Right: 0.88

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.62

I'm near Gerard Schroder.