Political Test
 

After doing both those tests, I remembered the Political Compass. Click 'Take the test' on the green bit on the left.

I wasn't surprised when I ended up in the third quadrant at (-5, -9) - Libertarian Left. I'm glad I've never been in any other quadrant.

Anyway, have fun with it and show us all how Libertarian and Left you all are!

Tom's post was very misleading... I'd better clarify what the test is like...

The x-axis goes from Communist (-) to Capitalist (+).

The y-axis goes from Anarchist (-) to Fascist (+).

Both, of course, have their intermediate stages.

It is also worth noting that Tom didn't understand most of the questions (he asked me on MSN about a lot of them :D) so his score isn't exactly reliable...

Anyway, I got (-7,-8). I appear to be more or less where Tony Benn is... It's a nice place to be... :)

Lefty-Libertarian! I got a (-6/-7). That's kinda what I expected, but I thought I would get a higher rating in the Libertarian area. I don't deserve to call myself an anarchist... :(

This is what it said for me:


Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.33

I got (-6/-7) The result was like I expected it to be... :D

Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.21

I got 0, -2. Dead centre, and more libertarian than authoritarian.

-4.88 / -5.49

Who's Tony Benn?

0.25 economic/left/right, -0.36 authoritarian libertarian. Can someone break thias down to me cuz i seriously don't understand what that means

A prominent and utterly fantastic Left-Wing Politician. He was True Old Labour, and left the Party a couple of years ago, disgusted at how right-wing Tony Blair's policies were...

As I thought
 

Economic Left/Right: 1.88
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -2.31

Anarchy all the way, like! And I donn like Communism...


- Tya

Erm i was a Left-Wing Librarian...or woteva they'r called.

I took the test! I took the test! Yay! Now down to the scores... I got a (-2.88/-3.69).

Hmmm . . . . somehow, I just can't imagine Jacob as a librarian.

Nor me...

Re: As I thought
 

He he he... hurray for blatant disgust for the government! :D

Eh, hope all of the commies here ignore that last remark of yours. Just remember, keep an open mind, even though what they teach you about communism in schools is a lie...

Re: Re: As I thought
 

I haven't learnt anything about communism in school. I haven't learnt about lots of things in school:

• Martin Luther
  
• The Revolutionary War/War of Independance
  
• The Stars and Bars/Southern Cross/Confederate Flag
  
• Politics
  
• Sexuality
  
• Programming
  

And I didn't understand electricity until last week because our last teacher was crap.

And you think you have a bad education!

Re: Re: Re: As I thought
 

I don't feel so bad about the American School system now! :stare: But look at it this way: would you rather not learn about politics or would you rather learn about politics and be lied to?

Re: Re: Re: Re: As I thought
 

I'm not sure.

Communism
 

Hey, I am keeping an open mind, I'm not judging anyone for being communist. I'm just stating my established opinion: I do not like Communism.

Of course, you are right, I may be completely wrongly educated.

As far as I get it, communism describes itself as "the dictatorship of the lowest class" (like, bad translation of german here, but that's the general idea), and the lower class rules everything. Also, as far as I see, everyone gets what they need, not what they can afford. And the idealogy seems to hold "equality" in high regard, and the individual is a mere tool of society.

Since I don't believe in equality, and I am a passionate individualist, of course I don't like that idea. *smiles* Can't remember the other details I was told, but I think some of what I was told in my mind resulted in the equation "Communism = Non-evolving society". Though I cannot recall how I came to think that (something to do with equality, I believe, but don't take my word for it *laughing*)

Anyway, please correct me. :) I don't like the teacher that taught me what I "know" about Communism anyway, so either way I will be happy. I either get to stay anti-Communist or bash my teacher... hmm... gee... I think I feel like doing the latter! >D So tell me I was told utter bullsh1t! ... please? lol


- Tya

Re: Communism
 

Yeah, it was bullshit but Dan knows a lot more about it than me. He'll get round to this topic in a few minutes.

Re: Communism
 

Okay, well let's start the List Of Where Neike Has Been Led Astray here, shall we? Communism is NOT rule by the Lower Class. For a start, that would be impossible by definition, as if the Lower Class began to rule, they would no longer be the Lower Class... But more importantly the most important thing about Communism is that there IS no Class. Communism holds Equality in the highest possible regard, and so everybody has Equal Opportunities in life. I'll nip the next point you might make in the bud - Under Communism, everyone is NOT payed the same regardless of their job. What does happen is that everybody has an equal chance of getting the good jobs, regardless of the wealth of their parents, of their race, of their gender, sexuality, etc.

Depends on the system used. Communism is an Ideology, not a set system of running a country.

Why is this bad?

You have far more freedom under Communism than under Capitalism. Under Capitalism you are restricted by the amount of money you have, by your race, gender, background, etc. Under Communism, however, everybody is equal.

Why not? To me, this is tantamount to confessing to being Racist or Sexist or Homophobic or something...

You must have been brainwashed by the "Mindless Drones" portrait of Communism that Capitalist countries try their best to instill their young with... You are as much an Individual under Communism as under Capitalism. The only difference is that you are a Free Individual, rather than being shackled by an economic system that favours only the rich and privileged few.

I can't argue with that unless I have a clue where you're coming from with it, and since you don't seem to know, there isn't much chance of me finding out... ;)

Re: Re: Communism
 

No, not paid the same. BTW, if everyone had an equal chance of getting jobs, then wouldn't those with more passion for their job eventually get more respect than those that don't? It would set up a hierachy again (which I have no problem with).

I realise that Russia are still stuck with socialism and communism is real in no country.

Sorry, I don't like the idea of being regarded as equal to Einstein, or to one of those idiots in my school. I think people have to stop being afraid to call people who are lazy "lazy" and people who are stupid "stupid". I know I am stupid on many accounts, but at least I know it, and I try to get rid of that. Like, how did manson say? "You should take an IQ test before they allow you breed" or something along those lines. I'd probably fail *laughs* but I still believe in that.
Equality in getting jobs and such... but wouldn't it in the end land up either as the people giving jobs picking the best out anyway, or the injustice of first-come-first-get would set in. Imagine how frustrating it would be to have some incompetent nerd snatch a job you would be good at away from you.

Okay, maybe I am still not getting the point, I'm not sure?

Capitalism has something to do with race and gender? The idealogy of it? I don't think so. It may be practised like that, but that's easy for you to say - since Communism isn't practised, and thus can only be discussed in theory!
As for money: If you earn it, you did something for it. (yes, there are flaws in the system, and they are hard to spot, but that does not condemn the entire system) So, if you have more money (in theory) you have done more, you have more expirience, you have deserved it, and thus probably also deserve whatever job you're applying for. (I, for example, heed a deep hatred for the population here in germany that are actually downright too lazy to work. I am talking too lazy. They admit it, even. Not those who really cannot help it)
Background: Isn't it fair for someone to get a job if they know their way about it?

Heck no, I don't believe anything with mindless drones. Such a thing was never told to me. My teacher actually quite LIKES communism, I think.
By the way: Interesting knack in the Capitalism thing (yes, an error, and I am pointing it out.): The rich can only be considered "rich" if there are "poor" to compare them to. So the poor have a VERY defined meaning in it. Ironic, huh?
I still think it is shortsightedness that is really corrupting Capitalism, and not the idea of Capitalism itself. As I said before, if you have money, you earned it (most of the time).


Anyway, thanks for telling me a bit more about Communism. Do go on, though, as why do I have the feeling I still didn't get it? I mean, you probably won't get me to like Communism, still, as you can tell by my arguments, but I am not sure if I am misunderstanding something here. Another reason for the arguments.


- Neike

Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

You're missing the point. People would have equal opportunities to get jobs. Some people will rise up in society, yes, but only because they deserve it and have earned it, not through the wealth of their parents or any other privilege.

Don't be silly. Socialism has never happened. What the USSR had was Stalinism. What Russia now has is Capitalism, plain and simple.

You're missing the point. Of course you are equal to Einstine. You may not be as intelligent as he was, but in an ideal society (IE a Communist one), you would have had the opportunity to become as intelligent as he was (if you wanted to, of course).

Okay, you're right, I'll forget the bit about Race and Gender. But the bit about Class still stands, though, since having a Class System is practically the foundation of Capitalism.

On the other hand, if you inherit it, or if you get a cushy no-work-lots-of-money job on account of your social status, have you earned it?

Okay, you are badly wrong here. You are assuming that anybody who wants to get a decent education and get a decent job is able to. This is not true under a Capitalist System, as that sort of thing will always go to the privileged. Communism, on the other hand, is based on ensuring that nobody is privileged or underprivileged.

*bangs his head against a wall* Listen! How is somebody going to get to "know their way about it"? Through Education. In a Capitalist Society, the best education goes to those with the richest parents. Under Communism, all education is available to all.

No. Most of the time, money comes through Privilege. I think that the whole idea of a society based around accumulating as much money as possible is fundamentally flawed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

Thank you, Danny, this is just about the only thing I still have to reply to.

Then it's not Capitalism that is the big flaw. It's the fact you can inherit details such as money. What do you think, everyone would kinda have "equal" starting points if they can't get at the million bucks of their parent or whatnot.

Is inheriting something a capitalistic idea? I don't think so, but I might be wrong.

The more you have been talking about this, Danny, the more I am sure the problem is not the idea of Capitalism, but rather: it is being practised, and thus everyone seems to be judging the ideal by the flaws of society around it.

Now I'm REALLY interested in seeing a communistic state, Danny. Start one? ... no, I'm not trying to mock you. It would interest me, and for the first time I am kind of upset at the fact it doesn't exist. Though mind you, I would still not like to live in it.


- Neike / TyA

lol
 

I found a very amusing little image on another messageboard I frequent.

It's here:
http://www.personalsatan.com/lttd/fi...ll%20curve.jpg

The person who drew it said: "Label 1 and 2 as you like, unless we've hit utopia, that's where the visionary thinking comes from."

I thought it funny, and that's why it's here.

For those who cannot read the scrawl: "Dangerous Weirdos", followed by "Commies" and "Nazis".


- TyA

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

The principles of Capitalism are basically that everybody should attempt to accumulate as much money as possible, at whatever cost, and that this system will ultimately bring happiness to all. Am I right? If not, feel free to correct me in the way I have corrected you... ;)

Anyway, this does not just apply to individuals, but we can see how (without any real alterations to the principle) it can also be extended to groups of people, such as Families, Corporations, and Classes. Therefore, under Capitalism, the Families, Corporations, and Classes that are already on top are going to attempt to continue to be on top. This would, of course, happen under any system, but the problem with Capitalism is that it actually supports their efforts, while treading on the fingers of those from lower down who attempt to climb up. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

Well, that's not my definition of it, but yea, you may be right? I don't know, I'm too lazy to do research.* Though that definition is a slight contradiction in itself, as if in Capitalism "should attempt to accumulate as much money as possible", I don't see why that makes it harder for those of lower down attempting to climb up.
Again, probably the current form that is actually applied not just in theory but in practise shows this, but the ideal as you put it in the first paragraph does not result in what you said in the second. = No, I am not seeing what you are getting at.

Diss me Nazi if you must. *l*

*Mm, no, I'm actually not avoiding the question. I am downright too lazy to look it up. Quote me on this, please, if you feel the urge, because it's the truth.


- Neike

P.S. If my posts get less frequent from now on, it's because my internet has still not been fixed, and my mom is not so likely to let me on every day to mess with her precious S T I L L A L I V E A N D W E L L A N D W O R K I N G computer. I'm this bad luck omen for computers.
Maybe there is a god. *snickers* Maybe He's punishing me for my non-faith. Err... right, sure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

Okay, I'll give it another try.

Capitalism is based on all Individuals and Groups seeking their own interests, yes?

Now, the Individuals and Groups that are already at the top will be the ones who are the best equipped to achieve their own interests, yes? Whereas those at the bottom will be less well equipped, yes?

Now, since Capitalism endorses the efforts of individuals, and preaches that governments should not get involved, then naturally (when left to their own devices) those who already possess power will continue to accumulate more, as those without power are not as suited to achieveing it, yes?

Therefore, Capitalism makes the Rich Richer and the Poor Poorer. This sentence works just as well when words such as "Powerful" or "Influential" instead of "Rich".

Can you understand this logical progression? If you don't, please tell me where you lose track of it. If you do understand it, but disagree with it, could you tell me where you think it falls down? Thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

Danny, you sound like a shrink (psychologist, not referring to OW), adding "yes?" to the end of each sentance. *shudder* *laughs*

Anyway. As far as I can see it, everyone has at least the potential to keep their level of money at the same height, unless they're naturally unlucky or incompetent. So the "making the poor poorer" doesn't apply.

I don't know how it works in other countries, honestly, but I know here in germany we work with 90% non-existant money that's in the bank as virtual credits. The 90% (or whatever) virtually accumilated, and even without working with imports and exports, germany would get (as a whole) richer. So the rich could well get rich without the poor getting poorer! And they mostly do.

By the way. You said socialism does not exist. In it's pure form, it does not. In germany, we have a part of the political system of the DDR that was based on socialism. It's really the bit that ticks me off, as people really don't have to work to get money, and they take advantage of that. *sigh* I don't know how many of the people that the state pays a share of money for actively bother trying to get a job, but ... I don't think I want to know.

I philosophically discussed Communism with my mother a little. She likes the ideas behind it, of equality and such (I still don't), but her argument was that if everyone has the same chances, you don't have this great an urge to get better as it is with Capitalism.

Solution: Brainwash humanity so they lose their ability to imagine and reason! Then let them live like they would in nature. *l* (that sounds... odd) ;)

Hey Danny. Join me in germany. It's nice here.


- Neike
must stop using that posticon, must stop using tht posticon, must stop...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

I don't think you quite understand the concept of Currency here... Yes, 90% of the money is virtual money, but it's a fixed rate. Money can't just be created from somewhere - when it is, the value of the currency goes down. The only way to bring money into a country is to take valuable goods and resources from other countries. Ultimately, around the world, there it a set amount of Wealth. So, although it may seem that everybody in Germany is getting richer, someone somewhere (most likely in the Third World, and most likely lots of people) is getting poorer... Also, since the more of a currency there is, the less its value, most people are not in fact getting richer, even though superficially they may seem to be...

Most of them do. You're sounding more and more like a Tory with each post... Hardly anybody chooses to be Unemployed, you know - It's not a happy life... (*wonders if Matt is getting the same deja vu he's getting...*)

There you go with the "Mindless Drones" view of Communism again... It's not that people don't have the same urge to better themselves under Communism, it's just that they find bettering themselves easier, and so they don't need to devote so much effort to it...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

Danny, I wish to end this discussion if (< important word) you keep assuming I am including everyone in my statements or attack groups of people I have excluded in my post. As far as I recall, I clearly stated that it is NOT all I am referring to. And yes, a lot of people in germany choose not to work. It's so disrespectful it hurts. Again: "a lot" doesn't even mean "the majority". It's more like "too many". And "too many" also doesn't mean "the majority", but too many as that it's still remotely healthy - considering even a single person like that is infuriating. Do you understand that bit now?

As for the mindless drones thing: I don't see where I said anything about commies being mindless drones. Please tell me where exactly you interpreted that from.

Oh, as for the currency thing: suggestion you look up the way banks in germany (still not sure if it's just a local phenomenom) work. Sure, the value of money drops, but not as much as you seem to be expecting it. The money within germany alone would ("only slightly" if you so wish to add it) increase without draining anyone else on the world.

Last question: Who's Tory? ^_^;;


- TyA

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Communism
 

If you weren't talking about the Unemployed, then what did you mean by:?

I understand, I just don't feel that the number of people who choose not to work (which is small, no matter what you are led to believe) has any real effect on the economy, and it is more than worth it to help the vast majority who do seek work...

Here: I know the first part of this was what your mother said, but it seemed like the second part was how you interpreted her argument. If it wasn't, then I apologise.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you are wrong. There is no other way to put it. As I said, everyone in Germany (and the rest of Europe and north America) may be getting richer, but it will and does have a dramatic effect on the poorer nations of the world. You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for a country's economy to function separately from those of other countries, but this is not so. Under Capitalism, every gain has to be made up for from somewhere.

The Tories are the Conservative Party, the most right-wing of the three main political parties.

We've got the Conservatives, which are quite far right, and getting further right all the time.

We've got Labour, who are (now) slightly right-of-centre, and getting further right all the time.

And we've got the Liberal Democrats, who were originally meant to be the Centre Party, but have moved further left to counteract the right-shift of the Labour Party, which was originally a Radical Left-Wing Party...

Oh, feh! ^_^
 

I was talking about the unemployed. Yet I was dissing those that are unemployed because they are too lazy to work, not those that were booted out of their job and try to find a new one and can't.

They get paid with the money rich and poor people have to pay as taxes, y'know. Let me put it bluntly: They steal money they have not the slightest right to have. That, if you ask me, is even in moderate levels, far worse than capitalism in itself.

lol, no, not at all! I was saying "brainwash all" not as something to do with Communism, but as something outside communism and capitalism that would solve the problem! ;) No need to apologize, I guess everyone could have interpreted that the wrong way. Pardon me for not making it clearer (like I constantly am with the "unemployed" bit *g*).

I'm sure it wouldn't last long, because germany is currently integrated in the world economy, of course, so shutting it off from the outside would result in tragedy, of course. But in theory, it is quite possible. (aww, I'm sorry, evil me to say "in theory", like you always do *slight mock, here, don't break my neck*)

Hmm, I see.

Well, Danny, this may sound like a laugh for you:
I don't care about Capitalism. I don't care about Communism. I favor neither. I favor non. I guess the system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, not even by me.

Y'see, my life philosophy is kind of "responsiblity to the responsible" and a lot of other things. I tend to believe 'society' is a myth. Society is a big heap of people, where each thinks everyone else is dumb, or whatever it is that's more current in the area you live. It's a big pile of individuals. And we're all egoists at the core. *grin* Egoists not as in the negative sense of the word, but egoists as in people who wish themselves no harm and try to get the best out of life - and because they want the best for themselves, you try not to gnaw on other people, afterall: they might gnaw back.
Has nothing to do with society, but as I said: the system that is my "ideal" probably has yet to be invented.

I'll just keep backing up Capitalism in this thread, since no one else does. *lol*


- Neike / TyA

Me= (-2, -4)

How very succinct.

Re: Oh, feh! ^_^
 

I knew that was what you meant, and that was what I was responding to. You have to realise that those people you describe make up a tiny (and by tiny I mean extremely tiny) minority of the Unemployed...

Another fault of Capitalism: Under a fairer system, the Rich would be taxed far more heavily than the Poor.

The "Lazy Unemployed" do not, in a practical sense, exist. Those seeking work have just as much right to that money as the Rich who gained it through their class privileges.

1. It is possible, but my point is that it is not currently the case. Therefore, your belief that people getting richer in Germany does not affect those in other countries is fundamentally flawed. Over the last decade, for example, 10 countries' economies have fallen by over 5%, while only 6 countries have seen their economies improving by the same degree.

2. I don't think I've said "in theory" yet in this topic...

The system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, either. It's called Communism.

I fail to see the relevance of this. That is Human Nature, and has little to do with anything we've been debating...

So you haven't met Leon or Matt yet, then? :D

Re: Re: Oh, feh! ^_^
 

Their power does not matter. They exist, and they're cancer.

To my knowledge, the rich are taxed far more heavily than the poor.

Yes, those seeking work. It's hard to monitor who's actually bothering to look for work and who is not, I'll hand you that, but I doubt it is impossible. Why not accept there are simple details of existing governments that need to be eradicated? You (seem to) put it as if it were no problem at all.

And my point is that it is possible. See below.

See below.

Yea, so you are defending something you can only discuss in theory, and there we have it again. That's why I said I was quoting you. Of course you didn't say those words, but it's basically what you're on about. Unless a communistic state popped up over night, of course, in which case I beg for pardon.

My point exactly. The enire paragraph had nothing to do with the debate. I just wished to make it clear what my beliefs are, as opposed to myself defending Capitalism (though, no, I don't judge it as a bad system, I just severly doubt it to be perfect. And no *g* I'm not going to point out where I see flaws, just to make this more interesting).

And, by the way. "Responsibility to the responsible" is not human nature. En contraire, as the french would say. (No offence to religious people out there, read over the next sentances and ignore them) Religions were created simply as a lot of people wanted to flee from responsibility. First, responsibility to give their own individual life a meaning. Then later, responsibility to act. Perhaps the religion in itself may not be bad, but a lot of people practising religions seem to turn it into such a light. How often have you heard the phrase "in the name of god"? And I'm not just talking about the eleventh sep'. In general. Or "he/she is god's hands now". Reassuring, yea, but it sure relieves people of having to think... *winks*

Hmm. I don't think so? You'd have to utter their screennames, or I won't recognize 'em. Afterall, you seem to be the only on the board that knows nearly everyone's real names. *grin* So enlighten me, please.


- TyA / Neike
I used that posticon again...

Re: Re: Re: Oh, feh! ^_^
 

That's because Danny is the duly elected King of the Forums. Sydney is just one of Danny's alter egos to make it seem like the people running the place are actually somewhat reasonable. Abe Babe's not real either . . . yep, Danny again. ;)

Leon is Surfacing.

I'm not sure who Matt is but I'm guessing he's Statikk, the resident right-winger.

*No Danny, no! Please don't make me go back in my cage! I can't stand it in there! The aliens will get me! Please, no more probes!*

Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh, feh! ^_^
 

Matt is Sal the Mudokon.

Re: Re: Re: Oh, feh! ^_^
 

I disagree. For practical purposes, they don't exist.

No, they're not.

That's because the vast majority are seeking work. The fact that one or two aren't is a small price to pay.

Yes, but it does not, and will not, happen in real life. You are using the fact that the system could be changed to make it fairer to justify its current state.

Yes, I am defending a system that does not currently exist. What's your point?

Um
 

So you're basically saying "ignore them because they cannot possibly be causing harm"? Er, sorry Danny, but this is the point I think we're going to have problems settling on, if it isn't impossible. You're against stealing, you're against the poor getting money drawn from them, but you refuse to acknowledge these problems exist? Er, I'm just lost. *makes a note to try and find some statistical figures, if that is even possible*

Um. Danny? I think you're contradicting yourself a little... er... o_o

As for the rich only being taxed as much as the poor - you lost me again. To my knowledge (and once more, I know at least this to be true in germany), money is taxed. The amount of money is taxed - the more money you have, the less you can keep. It goes so far that some people on the rich end of the spectrum decide not to get any richer. (Someone once made a joke that one is taxed 101% of one's money once one hits a certain limit)


- TyA