Political Test

[Gluk Schmuck]

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!

[Danny]

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 ) 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...

[SeaRex]

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...

[Surfacing]

This is what it said for me:


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

[Fazerina]

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

[One, Two, Middlesboogie]

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

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

[Doug]

-4.88 / -5.49

Who's Tony Benn?

[Statikk HDM]

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

[Danny]

Originally posted by Doug
Who's Tony Benn?

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...

[pinkgoth2]

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

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


- Tya

[Jacob]

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

[Joe the Intern]

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

[Doug]

Originally posted by Jacob
Erm i was a Left-Wing Librarian...or woteva they'r called.

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

[Jacob]

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

Nor me...

[SeaRex]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
Anarchy all the way, like! And I donn like Communism...

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

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...

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by SeaRex
Just remember, keep an open mind, even though what they teach you about communism in schools is a lie...

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!

[SeaRex]

Originally posted by Gluk Schmuck
I haven't learnt anything about communism in school. I haven't learnt about lots of things in school:

And you think you have a bad education!

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

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by SeaRex
But look at it this way: would you rather not learn about politics or would you rather learn about politics and be lied to?

I'm not sure.

[pinkgoth2]

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

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
As far as I get it, communism describes itself as "the dictatorship of the lowest class"

So tell me I was told utter bullsh1t! ... please? lol

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.

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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.

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.

Also, as far as I see, everyone gets what they need, not what they can afford.

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

And the idealogy seems to hold "equality" in high regard,

Why is this bad?

and the individual is a mere tool of society.

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.

Since I don't believe in equality,

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

and I am a passionate individualist, of course I don't like that idea.

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.

*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*)

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...

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
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.

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).

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

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

Why is this bad?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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).

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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!

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.

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,.

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?

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)

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.

Background: Isn't it fair for someone to get a job if they know their way about it?

*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.

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).

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.

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
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?

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

[pinkgoth2]

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

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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.

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?

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
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?

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.

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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.

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.

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
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.

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...

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
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.

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...

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.

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...*)

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)

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...