Political Compass

There are lots of these political compass tests out there, this is the first one that has extensive questions to answer and an accurate reading of those answers.

Usually the simpler versions of this "Tiniest Political Quiz" types end up only simplifying ones political position between the four posts as you will see below.

This quiz accurately gauges differences, and since its from the UK it isn't subject to the usual American right wing liberaltarian triteness of the other quizzes.

I am impressed.

I am also impressed that the authors make reference to being inspired by Wilhelm Reich and Theodore Adorno. That makes them part of the Libertarian Left.

But I am not impressed enough to pay them to send me my chart with suitable graphic.

So I will just post my results here. To promote this as the very best version of the Political Quiz/Compass on the web that I have found.

And I have posted the one they have for Canada. To compare where I stand in relation to My Fellow Canadians (he said in his be Diefenbaker waddle).

A tip o the blog to The Left End of the Dial for this.

About The Political Compass

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.

That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy).

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the 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. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

Authoritarian
Left		Right
Libertarian

The Canadian Party Political Compass

In response to many requests from Canadian visitors, we're pleased to produce this chart.

Yes, we know that there are smaller parties that some of you would have liked us to include, and individual politicians whose positions would be nice to have up there as well. There may be other additions in due course. We do what we can with our advertising-free and free-to access site. Should we secure a Canadian sponsor, we can, of course, produce further interesting charts.

We'd like to thank those Canadians who generously gave their time to assist our research. Bloc Québécois presented us with a real challenge, since it is primarily a single-goal party promoting Québec independence. As such, it attracts members from all quadrants of The Political Compass who often have little else in common.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
politics, quiz, compass, Left, Right, Libertarian, Authoritarian, agorism, counter-economics, left libertarian, new libertarian or Movement of the Libertarian Left.

A Plague on Both Their Houses

As I have said here, the reason to withdraw Canadian Troops out of harms way in Afghanistan is that since Kandahar is part of the porous border in dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan then its their problem not ours.

Pakistan and the Afghan Army should patrol this area. If Karzai needs troops he can hire them. Since many of the "private contractors" are withdrawing from Iraq they are always looking for work. Besides thats the American Libertarian way.

And clearly the Pakistani government is playing both sides of the coin.As I have pointed out here. It has supported the Taliban, it has supported the terrorists in Kashmir, its has a record of playing both sides.

Afghan-Pakistani Relations Deteriorating

But a spike in violence in Afghanistan has fueled suspicions in Kabul that Pakistan's intelligence agencies may be still supporting the Taliban, which Pakistan strongly denies. About 1,600 people were killed in violence in Afghanistan last year, the most since the Taliban was ousted in 2001.

Yep, another Mission Accomplished!




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Afghanistan, Canada, Mackay, Harper, Conservatives, Karzai, Pakistan, Taliban, Military