Where are you on the political Compass

[plover]

The results I got were

Economic: -7.50
Social: -7.28​

(or, FWIW, if I give answers based on what I think the intent of the question is rather than using the literal wording: -7.50/-8.51)

Aquamarine's point is addressed in the FAQ on the site.

Also, according to the FAQ, the axes are intended as a more or less absolute scale.

Just to make things clear: Sweden is definitely NOT socialistic!

Are you identifying the term "socialist" with Soviet Union style "socialism"?

At least in America the term is usually given a broader meaning, and Sweden is called "socialist", for, just as you say, supporting the ideal that "the government should make sure that there is a nice healthcare and education for everyone, including the poorest, and also counteract monopolies", and considers high taxes an acceptable way of supporting this ideal. This is in no way equivalent to saying that the Swedish would ever consider a centralized, authoritarian command economy. My guess is that there is probably a difference between the use of the term "socialism" between Europe and America just as there is a difference in the use of the term "liberalism".
​

IMHO, one of the worst problems with the idea of the right/left spectrum is that it generally assumes there is a simple scale from the idea that everything should be structured as a free market to the idea that nothing should be. There have always been varying ideas about what human activities work well under a free market structure and which do not, and also about exactly what qualities are necessary for a market structure to be considered "free", i.e. while there are obviously many policies which would never be defined as supporting a "free market" system, many current political/economic debates are better described as questions of how the "freedom" of markets is to be defined, or of what mechanisms are necessary to ensure a market runs in a fashion that produces fair and just outcomes.

 

[Aquamarine]

Aquamarine's point is addressed in the FAQ on the site.

It says I am supporting "strongly disagree". Well, I speak for myself and I do not strongly disagree with that globalization should serve humanity. There is in fact no answer for my view. Which shows how slanted the test is. That they answer critics arguing for helping humanity by capitalism by saying they must answer that they are willingly against helping humanity speaks volumes.

 

[Smurf]

I got to the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." In this case, I think the interest of humanity and corporations are pretty much aligned. But the question assumes that they are strongly opposed, making the question and test impossible for me to answer.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer than you already did; the question implys that they are strongly imposed and if you don't agree with that.. then you disagree, or in your case strongly disagree.

 

[plover]

That they answer critics arguing for helping humanity by capitalism by saying they must answer that they are willingly against helping humanity speaks volumes.

Given that the authors say that the statements are designed to push buttons (and warn against viewing the statements as questions), and include statements that would offend almost any sensibility, basing any opinion of the authors on a reaction to one item seems precipitous.

That said, I think some of the propositions, including the one you mention, could definitely have been stated better.

 

[check]

Took the test a while ago.. about the same now.
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

Wow, if I were American I should have voted for Nader! (But then again, so should most of you)

 

[russ_watters]

Given that the authors say that the statements are designed to push buttons (and warn against viewing the statements as questions), and include statements that would offend almost any sensibility, basing any opinion of the authors on a reaction to one item seems precipitous.

That said, I think some of the propositions, including the one you mention, could definitely have been stated better.

As another (mild) conservative, I hypothesize that this still biases the test: conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals (perhaps that's because liberals use and accept it more...?).

If someone starts an argument with 'assume, for the sake of argument, that...', I'm likely to say "no, I won't."

 

[loseyourname]

Computers don't go to war either. If only we took power from the government and gave it to computers instead...

I know you say that in jest, but if we had good enough computers, that might actually be a feasible option. I wouldn't do it for ethical reasons, but still.

 

[Burnsys]

Originally Posted by loseyourname
Note that corporations don't go to war. If you didn't give the government so much power, we likely wouldn't have as many wars.

Actually Foreing corporations in irak are paying mercenaries to protect their interest..

 

[loseyourname]

Actually Foreing corporations in irak are paying mercenaries to protect their interest..

Protecting your property is not the same as going to war.

You know, that little comment was supposed to be a snide jab, nothing more. But if you want to get further into it, start a new thread and ask: Would a world unencumbered by political and religious ideologies that people feel the need to kill and die for be at war? Do employees pack guns and go overseas to do battle with international competition, or do they let the market work it out, maybe with some political lobbying on the side (note: something else that would not be possible if not for big government)? Do businessmen strap bombs to their chests and blow up schoolchildren because the mission statement of their company conflicts with the mission statement of another?

I know I'm being a little simplistic here, but capitalists use innovation and better business models the same way armies use violent force. Personally, I prefer innovation and better business models.

 

[BobG]

As another (mild) conservative, I hypothesize that this still biases the test: conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals (perhaps that's because liberals use and accept it more...?).

What in the world would make you hypothesize that? Obviously not McCarthy or the New Evangelical Right aiming to cash in their political capital. There are a lot on either side (or all four sides, in these latest) of the political spectrum that value ideology above all else. The only way to obtain the 'utopian' condition they desire is to push on through no matter how painful the cost in the short term.

I think the test needs another dimension. How do you differentiate between someone who has centrist ideals and someone who merely accepts pragmatic solutions that wind up scattered close to the middle. In other words, an extremely conservative person could have the attitude that if there's two reasonably comparable solutions, always choose the one that moves towards the conservative position, but, above all else, solve the problem at hand.

Of course, that means the test is probably going to be very, very long.

 

[EL]

Are you identifying the term "socialist" with Soviet Union style "socialism"?

Well I mean a system characterised by plan economy. (Is that the right term in english? I mean the opposite to market economy). And where corporations are mainly owned by the state. So I mean quite the same as communism. According to "socialism supporters" the Soviet Union was never "true" socialistic, just a failure on the way...(along with all other attempts done).

At least in America the term is usually given a broader meaning, and Sweden is called "socialist", for, just as you say, supporting the ideal that "the government should make sure that there is a nice healthcare and education for everyone, including the poorest, and also counteract monopolies", and considers high taxes an acceptable way of supporting this ideal. This is in no way equivalent to saying that the Swedish would ever consider a centralized, authoritarian command economy. My guess is that there is probably a difference between the use of the term "socialism" between Europe and America just as there is a difference in the use of the term "liberalism".

Yes you're probably right about that. However Sweden is for the moment governed by the Social Democrats, which do not in any way support what I here call "socialism". In fact Sweden is probably the European country who has privatised most government controlled companies over the last decades.

Anyway, as soon as someone says something about the favours of high taxes
it seems like the "Russian horror" gets into the american's brains, and they scream "Communist"! So it seems there's definitely a difference of how we define "socialism"...

 

[plover]

Well I mean a system characterised by plan economy. (Is that the right term in english? I mean the opposite to market economy). And where corporations are mainly owned by the state. So I mean quite the same as communism.

This is what I thought you meant. (The term in English would be "planned economy" or "command economy".)

However Sweden is for the moment governed by the Social Democrats, which do not in any way support what I here call "socialism". In fact Sweden is probably the European country who has privatised most government controlled companies over the last decades.

What are the other main parties? What are the main differences between them? Are Swedes mostly satisfied with their government?

 

[russ_watters]

What in the world would make you hypothesize that?

We have quite a few liberals here, some very extreme, and it seems only the conservatives have a problem with the tone of the test.

 

[EL]

What are the other main parties? What are the main differences between them?

On a traditional left-to-right scale we have (with the results in the 2002 election):

Vansterpartiet (v): 8.3%, "The left party", former known as "The communistic left party", although the name was changed around 1990.

Socialdemokraterna (s): 39.8%, "The social democrats", works under the moto "school, healthcare, care", and is the dominating party through the whole 20th century.

Miljopartiet (mp): 4.6%, "The environmnet party", is really floting along on the scale, is left in some questions (healthcare, social responsibility) and right in others (likes small companies) but mainly fights against pollutions.

Centerpartiet (c): 6.1%, "The centre party", on the border between the left and right side although has mostly coorporated with the right, traditionally the farmers party, works for a living countryside.

Folkpartiet (fp): 13.3%, "The people's party", liberal with social responsibility for the weakest, probably the most EU-friendly party.

Kristdemokraterna (kd): 9.1%, "The Christian democrates", conservative, Christian values.

Moderaterna (m): 15.2%, "The moderates", conservative and liberal, moto: lower taxes, probably closest to american values, historically the rich peoples party.

Are Swedes mostly satisfied with their government?

Well, we have a tradition to never like our governments. Almost whatever they are doing they will be critisised, but I think that's a healthy thing. We keep them under sight...
When it comes to elections it mostly seems though that the people are quite satisified since it most often ends up with the social democrats in power, although often just in minority (as now).

 

[the number 42]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10

But that don't mean ahm going to shave mah damn head and wear a robe.

 

[Lyuokdea]

Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.46

I'll join the few and proud in the lower right hand corner.

 

[the number 42]

A rare species indeed:
"...neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues"
http://politicalcompass.org/

You sound like fun. Throwing any parties any time soon?

 

[Lyuokdea]

I tend to derive it from the fact that you have the right to do anything that doesn't directly harm others, and then, unlike those who liberally support this in a view of rights, extend the right to the right to make and earn money as well.

 

[the number 42]

I tend to derive it from the fact that you have the right to do anything that doesn't directly harm others, and then, unlike those who liberally support this in a view of rights, extend the right to the right to make and earn money as well.

Yep, sounds like a good party to me. No freeloaders hogging the champagne though, right?

 

[Gokul43201]

conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals

As a liberal, I reject this inflammatory generalization.

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>

 

[russ_watters]

As a liberal, I reject this inflammatory generalization.

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>

That was a factual observation, not an inflammatory generalization...

 

[revelator]

<poof...disappears in a puff of logic>

Think I read that line in the Hitchhiker's Guide.

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

 

[marlon]

Economic Left/Right : 4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.44

I am probably the only guy from Europe that is far up in the right corner...

Apparently i am at quasi the same spot as Ariel Sharon...

regards
marlon

 

[vanesch]

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33

I consider myself in good company :-)

EDIT:
when I say that, it is because I'm in the same ballpark as Ghandi and Nelson Mandela. But I think it is an "American" economic scale, because I'd think myself much less economically "left" than the number suggests, and thought I had more a center-like position.

 

[vanesch]

I don't know how to explain it any clearer than you already did; the question implys that they are strongly imposed and if you don't agree with that.. then you disagree, or in your case strongly disagree.

Well, I arrive at the opposite conclusion. There are 2 statements:
A = "<...> should serve humanity"
B = "<...> should serve corporations"

The statement to agree with is one of intention:
"A should be preferred over B"

Now, believers in the capitalist dogma think that A and B are strongly correlated statements ; nevertheless, they think one should care for corporations, not for corporations' sake, but BECAUSE of the correlation with A, which is, even in a capitalist mind, the ultimate goal. I don't see how any reasonable person can take B as the *ultimate* goal. He can be convinced that B is a means to realize A, or he can think that B is uncorrelated (or even anticorrelated) with A. But any sane mind should take A as a goal (and, according to his belief in the correlation, or not, of A and B, considering B as a means, or NOT(B) as a means).

The only exception, so that one takes B as a goal, could be, say, anti-capitalist gorilla lovers, who think that, since favoring corporations damages the interests of humanity, humanity might even disappear, so this will give more chances for gorillas to survive and be happy.

So the statement of intention "A should be preferred over B" cannot be anything else but agreed with (except if you are a gorilla lover), no ?

 

[MiGUi]

It is very common to see how the left reclaims good people like Gandhi for him.

Nihil novum sub sole.

 

[russ_watters]

Good explanation of the flaw, vanesch.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, I arrive at the opposite conclusion. There are 2 statements:
A = "<...> should serve humanity"
B = "<...> should serve corporations"

The statement to agree with is one of intention:
"A should be preferred over B"

Now, believers in the capitalist dogma think that A and B are strongly correlated statements ; nevertheless, they think one should care for corporations, not for corporations' sake, but BECAUSE of the correlation with A, which is, even in a capitalist mind, the ultimate goal. I don't see how any reasonable person can take B as the *ultimate* goal. He can be convinced that B is a means to realize A, or he can think that B is uncorrelated (or even anticorrelated) with A. But any sane mind should take A as a goal (and, according to his belief in the correlation, or not, of A and B, considering B as a means, or NOT(B) as a means).

The only exception, so that one takes B as a goal, could be, say, anti-capitalist gorilla lovers, who think that, since favoring corporations damages the interests of humanity, humanity might even disappear, so this will give more chances for gorillas to survive and be happy.

So the statement of intention "A should be preferred over B" cannot be anything else but agreed with (except if you are a gorilla lover), no ?

Patrick, my experience of corporate upper management types suggests that they try to convince themselves they believe in B for its own sake. To at least give lip service to this principle is necessary for promotion at the upper management level, because stockholders and boards of directors expect managers to serve THEM to the exclusion of the public.

But when you see those fellows very drunk, as I have once or twice, they confess that they are acting against their own "better angels" and are at some level miserable with their life choices.

 

[russ_watters]

Tunnel vision, SA: you do your job because its your job. No one (upper management or otherwise) does their job because of some abstract benefit to society. But we support the system that enables that company to exist because of the benefit to both ourselves and society.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Tunnel vision, SA: you do your job because its your job. No one (upper management or otherwise) does their job because of some abstract benefit to society. But we support the system that enables that company to exist because of the benefit to both ourselves and society.

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush.

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

 

[the number 42]

... a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

Somehow you make it sound like a bad thing.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Heh! Let me put it another way. Russ's "You do your job because it's your job" strikes me as expressing his alienation from his work, as predicted by Marx. Indeed I wonder if such people are so enthusiastic about corporations because if they saw corporations as what they really are, it would be unbearable for them. "All, all of a piece throughout, thy quest had a Beast in view; Thy wars brought nothing about, thy lovers were all untrue."

 

[russ_watters]

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush.

Could I see a show of hands of people who don't work for or with big corporations? A show of hands of people who don't own a pair of Nikes, own any Ikea furnature, or a car built by a $10+ billion corporation? With the fervence of the objections seen here and at a WTO riot, there should be a lot more people living in tents in national parks than there are.

Whether you (general "you" - I'm actually not sure where you, specifically, work or what brand of shoe you wear ) like the system or not, you do support it with the most important support you can give: your labor and your money.

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

Thats a crass way to characterize it, but I think we're quite explicit in saying exactly that (it was the first full sentence of my previous post). What's wrong with that?

It seems everything Americans do they do in a militant way: In other threads I've discussed militant isolationism (Monroe Doctrine: Stay the F- out of our hemisphere), militant pacifism (F-'n baby killer!): this is just militant capitalism (keep you're F'n hands off my money).

 

[Lyuokdea]

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

I'll put myself in that category, however, the wording is incorrect. I don't let everybody else hang, I allow them a choice to do whatever they want to without any interference from me. It is probable that somebody will take that opportunity to do much more with it than I was able, or willing, to do. It is also probable that someone will waste the opportunity and will not succeed in their quest, that is, to fulfill their existence. This is not my fault, there were choices made not by me, but by them, and they are the only person effected. I merely give them an opportunity to pursue their ends, it is their decisions through which they may well "hang" themselves.

~Lyuokdea

edit: reason: inability to use english

 

[loseyourname]

What support is that Russ? Posting here? Lots of those who post here are anti-corporate. Voting for Bush? Many business conservatives had to hold their noses to do that; he isn't consistently pro-corporate, he's pro-Bush.

As for all the big "It's for society" talk I think a lot of you corporophiles are secretly right libertarians who just want to take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang.

Others have spoken for themselves; let me speak for myself. Personally, I'm a relatively giving person when I have the means to give and I don't care all that much for having money beyond what I need to survive (I spend all of my time reading, writing, eating, or watching sports - what else do I need?). I do not consider corporatism and capitalism to be the same thing - corporations are legal entities that usually exist in collusion with the government; collusion that is anti-capitalistic. I do believe that the private sector does a better and more efficient job of providing goods and services than the government does in almost every case. This is not "take your own boodle and let everybody else go hang." It's "give to churches and charities rather than government bureaucracies." It's "give freely rather than compulsorily." It's "create jobs rather than subsidize poverty." And so on and so forth. If this system results in some people being selfish, so be it. A man should have the right to spend the money he earns as he sees fit. The utilitarian benefit that is correlated with capitalization is a fitting bonus.