What is your political ideology? EDITED

[theVOID]

Glen Beck would be way way more to the authoritarian side of the scale.

Are you sure? I would expect Beck to be in the bottom right hand side of the board. He wants the govt to barely exist. The top right would have him in the place of people like Hitler. If I am reading this board correctly:

Top left = communism
Top right = Fascism
Bottom left = Social democrat
Bottom right = libertarian

Beck says he is a conservative libertarian. That should put him in the bottom right sector.

"Conservative libertarian" should have given it away, the American conservatives are not socially liberal like a 'libertarian' is defined (that's why the "Tea baggers" shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians), they're more like Anarcho-fascists - As far as social liberties go he'd score badly, like Gay marriage, pro choice, drug laws, freedom of/from religion etc - That would place him at least half way up the authoritarian scale.

[reverendjeremiah]

"Conservative libertarian" should have given it away, the American conservatives are not socially liberal like a 'libertarian' is defined (that's why the "Tea baggers" shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians), they're more like Anarcho-fascists - As far as social liberties go he'd score badly, like Gay marriage, pro choice, drug laws, freedom of/from religion etc - That would place him at least half way up the authoritarian scale.

Damn good point VOID. Thankyou for correcting me. I agree. He says he is a Libertarian, but it completely slipped my mind that Libertarians are socially liberal like the progressives/social dems are. Talk about a mind fuck..Glen beck calls everything he hates "Nazi", but if what we are discussing is correct, he lands right smack dab on the top right hand of the board, or at least half way in the middle of that quadrant. I have always gotten along well with most of the libertarians I have met, and I always wondered why Beck rubbed me the wrong way. Progressives started out as being diametrically opposed to fascism and a new way of looking at socialistic qualities as opposed to totalitarian communism. This political test is actually pretty good if you ask me. I never really noticed it until you pointed it out. "Conservative Libertarian" doesnt sound right. I have read that Hitlers fascist system really didnt have very many rules and was run more like a monarchy through word of mouth, it makes sense to me now..Conservative Libertarian is a form of fascism and not in the sense of American libertarianism. Thanks VOID.

---

So help me out here VOID. Lets discuss the very sharp ends of the square, the extremes of this political map. I think they would be

Top right corner = Imperialist
Bottom right corner = Anarchist


But what would the top and bottom left corner edges be? Soviet for the top? Im not even sure what the very bottom left would be.

[KichigaiNeko]

Totally random question....Why is this thread EDITED?

Did you see my EDITED post???

No..... sorry Zeus thanks for the correction

[theVOID]

"Conservative libertarian" should have given it away, the American conservatives are not socially liberal like a 'libertarian' is defined (that's why the "Tea baggers" shouldn't be calling themselves libertarians), they're more like Anarcho-fascists - As far as social liberties go he'd score badly, like Gay marriage, pro choice, drug laws, freedom of/from religion etc - That would place him at least half way up the authoritarian scale.

Damn good point VOID. Thankyou for correcting me. I agree. He says he is a Libertarian, but it completely slipped my mind that Libertarians are socially liberal like the progressives/social dems are. Talk about a mind fuck..Glen beck calls everything he hates "Nazi", but if what we are discussing is correct, he lands right smack dab on the top right hand of the board, or at least half way in the middle of that quadrant. I have always gotten along well with most of the libertarians I have met, and I always wondered why Beck rubbed me the wrong way. Progressives started out as being diametrically opposed to fascism and a new way of looking at socialistic qualities as opposed to totalitarian communism. This political test is actually pretty good if you ask me. I never really noticed it until you pointed it out. "Conservative Libertarian" doesnt sound right. I have read that Hitlers fascist system really didnt have very many rules and was run more like a monarchy through word of mouth, it makes sense to me now..Conservative Libertarian is a form of fascism and not in the sense of American libertarianism. Thanks VOID.

Nailed it

I'm thinking I should just call myself a "Right Liberal" or "Friedmanite" to distance myself from the loonies.

*Edit - Considering my latest Political Compass test I probably am a right liberal*

So help me out here VOID. Lets discuss the very sharp ends of the square, the extremes of this political map. I think they would be

Top right corner = Imperialist
Bottom right corner = Anarchist

Yep.

But what would the top and bottom left corner edges be? Soviet for the top? Im not even sure what the very bottom left would be.

I think the Soviets came damn close to that top left corner.

Bottom left would be some kind of individualism with a voluntary equal distribution of resources, no government but people organise and distribute their resources to others of their own accord and take jobs that are needed by the collective interests of the individuals - In other words it couldn't possibly exist in a community over a few hundred.

[reverendjeremiah]

I think the Soviets came damn close to that top left corner.

Bottom left would be some kind of individualism with a voluntary equal distribution of resources, no government but people organise and distribute their resources to others of their own accord and take jobs that are needed by the collective interests of the individuals - In other words it couldn't possibly exist in a community over a few hundred.

I found this on wikipedia..



In this context, the left is often considered individualist (or libertarian) on social/cultural issues and communitarian (or populist) on economic issues, while the right is often considered communitarian (or populist) on social/cultural issues and individualist (or libertarian) on economic issues.

[theVOID]

That's a far less effective context I think.

[reverendjeremiah]

That's a far less effective context I think.

Yeah, I didnt care much for the image, but the text I added seemed to have added a bit of clarity at the time. After I posted it I just stared at it like; "HUH?". Now I think it just adds more confussion.

[reverendjeremiah]

Ever since I took that political test, it got me thinking. It got me thinking that this test made way more sense than a one dimensional "left/right" political litmus test. I started thinking about it and realized that it was a great idea that the inventor of this test broke it down into two dimensions. But I came across problems with the titles used for the grid. Its only four names; "Left, Right, Authoritarian, Libertarian". I do not think it is enough. I started to chop the box up and did a good ten hours of websearching to find political/economic philosophies that were MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to each other so as to help with the distinctions between each sector and slice. I have broken this square up into 13, yes THIRTEEN mutually exclusive definitions that you can superimpose on top of this political test that you have taken. The simplistic "left/right" has been replaced with the much more descriptive terms "Collectivism/Individualism".

*NOTE* - Please forgive the quality of the image I have included, as my Flash program is currently down right now and I drew this really quick in "paint" *

Here are what the numbers represent:
#1 - Communism
#2 - Authoritarianism
#3 - Corporatism
#4 - Individualism
#5 - Anarchism
#6 - Voluntaryism
#7 - Socialism
#8 - Collectivism
#9 - Urbanism
#10 - Ruralism
#11 - Imperialism
#12 - Nationalism
#13 - Centrism

Let me know what you think. Please look up the difinitions of each terminiology and compare them and check that they are mutually exclusive to each other. PLEASE let me know if you disagree and if you have better terminology available. I plan on making a much more presentable table as soon as I fix my computer and get my Flash studio up and working. Any suggestions and corrections would be appreciated. If you like what I have done, give me encouragement.

Another thing I have thought about: Atheism and theism, although they are mutually exclusive, can cover ALL points of the square. In other words you can stack it as a "third dimension". So you can have a theistic communism, and an atheistic imperialism, or an atheistic rural (tribalistic) system or a theistic Urban society.. even though it has usually been done historically and popularly in the opposite way. Religion or non-religon merely being a tool to control the minds of those according to whatever the political/economic winds blow in favor of or for...yes, the soviets used atheism to control the populations who were pissed at the Czars who used religious right to control and ruin the populations.

CENTRISM - The size of the circle for centrism would depend on the amount of people plus the amount of land mass involved in said economic/political system discussed. So in the case of America, South America, and Greater Asia/Russia, and Africa there would be decent amounts of centrists who prefer to just move in whatever works for them. On smaller land mass vs. population ratios such as Iceland you would have a much smaller percentage of centrists as the before mentioned. Example: America has quite a few of Centrists (making its number 13 circle much bigger than normal) because it is a federally controlled and very huge land mass, where as Iceland would have a majority of people located near number 7 on the political map, and the circle of centrists would be of a much smaller circumference.

ELITISM - I have also found that Elitism can be superimposed as a "third dimension" on this square, where those on the collectivism and the Individualism sides of the "left right" spectrum can elevate those who are intelligent and/or rich to leadership positions. In other words, the word "elitism" is not owned by any specific political philosophy.

[Tiberius]

I disagree with this because I think you have failed to understand the meaning of the word "mutually exclusive". Many political theories have mutual aims, and indeed, your graph even shows this since you have listed Authoritarianism as both a point on the graph, and half the graph itself! The same goes for Individualism, Voluntaryism, and Collectivism.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I laugh at your placement of "anarchism" in the most "ruralist" section of the graph. Nothing in anarchism advocates a need for living a rural life; anarchism is the ideology that embraces the complete removal of the government from a country. Individual types of anarchism may advocate things like ruralism, but some types (like anarcho-capitalism) advocate nothing of the sort.

I don't think there are any "perfect" ways to sum up all political ideologies in graph form; I think there are many different ways that are all good in some areas but bad in others. If you want a simple graph which covers the main political ideologies, and which most people can fit themselves onto, I would suggest the Nolan Chart: http://www.nolanchart.com

Otherwise, I would suggest reading this paper, which contains main charts depending on what you want to compare: http://www.civismundi.net/index.php?p=06...ical+Chart

[reverendjeremiah]

I disagree with this because I think you have failed to understand the meaning of the word "mutually exclusive". Many political theories have mutual aims, and indeed, your graph even shows this since you have listed Authoritarianism as both a point on the graph, and half the graph itself! The same goes for Individualism, Voluntaryism, and Collectivism.

I did this to show that authoritarianism can exist in corporatism and communism, and that authoritarain govts sometimes display qualities of both, like Libya and Egypt.

As an anarcho-capitalist, I laugh at your placement of "anarchism" in the most "ruralist" section of the graph. Nothing in anarchism advocates a need for living a rural life; anarchism is the ideology that embraces the complete removal of the government from a country. Individual types of anarchism may advocate things like ruralism, but some types (like anarcho-capitalism) advocate nothing of the sort.

on your individual level, sure, but as far as anarchism reaching Urbanistic developments? Impossible, the entire system would crumble. An urban anarchist is urban because of the benefits of a law abiding society. Laws also include building codes and such that anarchists also refuse to follow. Thats why anarchy is slap dab in the middle of ruralistic society, as that is the only one that they can dwell in large numbers. I am well aware of what anarchy is. But perhaps I went to far with the "rural/urban" divisions.

I don't think there are any "perfect" ways to sum up all political ideologies in graph form; I think there are many different ways that are all good in some areas but bad in others. If you want a simple graph which covers the main political ideologies, and which most people can fit themselves onto, I would suggest the Nolan Chart: http://www.nolanchart.com

Im trying to figure out how to take that test but I cant find the link to take it. By the way, I am not saying my additions are right or wrong, that is is merely my opinion with that grid I posted. In no way did I post it to make people mad. I posted it to bump the discussion up another level.
Did I say "perfect"? If I did I apologize. I do not consider this graph perfect.

Otherwise, I would suggest reading this paper, which contains main charts depending on what you want to compare: http://www.civismundi.net/index.php?p=06...ical+Chart

Now that is what I was trying to make. It makes much better sense to do it as a circle than a square.