The Political Compass

[Edric O]

I'm as close to Gandhi as you can get on the graph, but from the results of the poll I'm not alone  ;)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -4.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.54

It's funny how everyone in the libertarian left quadrant ends up using Gandhi as a point of reference, just because the authors of the Political Compass didn't mention any other historical figure in that general area.

Economic Left/Right: -8.00

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

Can't say it surprises me. I like a state where people are free to constantly complain about the socialistic laws. :)

Nice. You're in the bottom left corner of the Socialism area, close to the border with Communism and also relatively close to the border with Anarchism. You clearly need to post more in PRP. :)

It's from before I got here, but I remember looking at some posts where you were arguing that communism could never work  ;)

Such posts may well exist... I became a communist at the age of 16. Anything I said about politics before that were the words of a young and foolish teenager and should not be taken into consideration. ;)

Disclosure: I always ranked, and still rank, "true" political liberties and transparant and accountable governance to economical freedom. I've grown to believe though, that market forces are the best way to facilitate economic development and to ensure that goods are produced that people actually want. I favour social security above charity (the last one being not reliable enough) as a means of garantuing a minimum standard of living for everyone, but that it should be possible for everyone to accumulate more wealth through genuine effort.

Ah, so the social axis is more important to you than the economic axis. For me it is the precise opposite: I believe economic issues are by far the most important issues in politics, because (a) they affect everyone, whereas social issues usually affect only specific interest groups, (b) economic issues are a matter of life and death - whether you can get a good education, whether you can get health care, and whether you can put food on the table, and © as a Marxist I believe that economic interests are the driving force of society.

Regarding your statement about market forces: Have you considered the fact that, although the demand side reflects everyone's wishes, it does not reflect everyone's wishes equally? Your influence on the demand side depends on your willingness and ability to pay. Those who are able to pay more have a greater influence - their wishes count more than the wishes of those who have a lesser ability to pay. If everyone had an equal amount of money, then the market would accurately reflect society's wishes. But of course such a thing is impossible in a market economy. The greater the inequality in wealth, the greater the gap between market demand and the aggregate wishes of society.

[Acriku]

For an atheist, that is slightly odd surely?  Anyway, perhaps we should put everyone's results on the same graph?  I still don't want to vote in the poll, I don't get how I am a 'left' authoritarian.

Not sure why, Dunenewt? Being an atheist usually does not determine solidly what your political/economical views are...

It's funny how everyone in the libertarian left quadrant ends up using Gandhi as a point of reference, just because the authors of the Political Compass didn't mention any other historical figure in that general area.

Well, if they had any other figure in that quadrant on the graph I might have mentioned him/her. Although, my point of the compass is very close to his. Would you enlighten us to other figures?

[Dunenewt]

Perhaps - dare I say it - they should be considered unfit mothers and the state should take the children to place them in foster care?

If that is true, removing the benefit system would only encourage them to try to get minimum wage jobs and then carry on as before. Hardly a solution.

The older you get, the more difficult it becomes to change your ways. So, at some point in their lives, they are indeed beyond saving. But children and teenagers are never beyond saving. They are still young enough to change their ways, so a lot of effort should be focused on them.

There is no "chav gene", Newt. People grow up to become "chavs" because of the environment they were raised in. Raise them in a different environment and they will be as posh as the Queen.

The solution is not to "reduce breeding" (though that may also be beneficial due to overpopulation concerns, but that's a different discussion). The solution is to change the environment that underclass children grow up in. I completely agree with TMA: Shitty neighborhoods (thank you, Maggie Thatcher!) and very bad public education are the bedrock of "chav" culture. These two things alone are not sufficient to make a "chav", but they are necessary. Revitalize neighborhoods, provide better housing and jobs, improve public education and the "chav" subculture will be undermined.

Ummm, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but no such contraceptive technology exists. Do you think anyone would be taking the pill if they could get an implant that made sure they couldn't get pregnant for 4 years?

Poverty and bad council housing alone is not sufficient to make a chav, agreed. But it is necessary. It is one of the key ingredients that must come together to make a chav. Remove one of the key ingredients, and the number of chavs will dwindle.

But you also got free education, free healthcare and all the other free things, and yet you are not a chav. That undermines your idea that "benefit culture" is to blame for this social problem.

1) Yes, if the foster system wasn't failing as well then maybe.

2) At least then I, and other taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidise them so much, and they could actually work towards gaining new skills and higher paid jobs.

3) Unfortunately, a lot of these people never reach maturity, and these people, when they are immature, are impossible to sort out as proved by the current problems.

4) It is to do with how their parents bring them up, not necessarily their environment.  I know plenty of people all brought up in the same environment, some are chavs, some aren't.  It is whether their parents install any kind of values into their children that is the deciding factor.  It is all very well giving them better housing, better jobs, better education, but the simple fact is, they will trash the houses, ruin the neighbourhoods, not turn up to their jobs, and not make any attempt at gaining any education.  Yes, these are a minority, but a significant one at that.

5) Yes, such an implant does exist in this country, and is quite widely used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implanon

6) Then why do celebrity chavs exist?  Many professional sports stars are acting the same way now.

7) When I talk about the benefit culture, I do not extend it to the welfare system as a whole.

[Timenn]

Nice. You're in the bottom left corner of the Socialism area, close to the border with Communism and also relatively close to the border with Anarchism. You clearly need to post more in PRP. :)

Nah, you're way to conservative for me. ;)

[gunner154]

Edric O, I would prefer to say the opposite. Upbringing is may or may not be sufficient, but it definitely is necessary. A plausible link I can think of to explain how financial problems can play such a significant role in the upbringing of a chav is that poor upbringing has a tendency to result in neglection of the child's upbringing, with a focus on "helping out", or just making sure they do not cause any trouble at home.

Implants in the arm? Are they so desperate to have to do that?

[Dunenewt]

Okay, someone took my ideas a tad too far:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/ntory125.xml

[Egeides]

Why, what is your view about that debate?

[Wolf]

Economic Left/Right: -3.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

But I voted as a Libertarian Right because that's what I believe I believe in.

As for the issue regarding Dunenewt's surprise at discovering that he was Authoritarian Left, I'd have to go with echoing Timenn's comment. Stopping people from breeding is going to put you on the Authoritarian side of most peoples' online political personality tests. I wouldn't feel bad about it (I know you don't), as I feel the test isn't perfect in the first place.

But as for the comment that "the British Empire that existed is greater than the American Empire today." Mmm... yes and no. As a student of British history (I wish it were otherwise), I can tell you that the actuality of British control over her colonies and dominions was far more imagined than actual. If you look at things like the Great Game in Afghanistan, you find that the British Empire actually had very little "control" in places where it claimed to be the governing authority. Largely, the reason for the appearance of such vastly imposing British power was their ability to keep competing European powers from entering their markets. This they accomplished largely through the Navy. Control in India was fairly greater, but likewise only at the highest (EDIT: by "highest," I mean at the highest strata of the Indian social order, i.e., not the general population) levels -- what Britain gained from India was actually precious little compared to India's full economic potential. But, even then, that was enough to push past other European colonial powers and intimidate them.

Truly, the "paper tiger" of British Imperial power was best seen in the activities of King Edward VII. "The Great Encircler" was able to manipulate the Continental European powers into behavior that was ultimately bad for all of them (re: opposing Germany) where they otherwise really had no need to, and where Britain really had nothing more to bargain with than the threat of their Navy and King Eddie's charisma. A pre-WW1 Germany is like a miniature United States on European soil, as by 1900, Germany's economy was producing twice what Britain's was, and the American economy was producing twice what Germany was. At this time, before the maximum territorial extent of the British Empire in 1933 and still amidst the Edwardian denouement of the Victorian Golden Age, Britain's "Empire" had already been surpassed by both Germany's and America's

Officially, America does not have an empire. But if you include the places over which it has had severe amounts of influence (today including Great Britain), it is in fact larger territorially than the British Empire ever was. The relative amount of economic and military power that the United States wields over its competitors is likewise on multiple orders of magnitude greater than the relative economic and military advantage Britain had over her rivals. My history adviser (an Irishman, so I cannot help but admit some anti-British bias in my education) liked to joke that the largest air force in the world is the US Air Force, and the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy's air force, and the third largest air force in the world is the US Army Air Corps... and what have you.

They're very different empires, so making a true comparison is difficult. Certainly, Victorian Britain was a fabulous "culture of empire," a society so consciously and contentedly self-aware of their imperial ambitions, that we will never see again. Apart from the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, she was the last "official" empire, as no one today would dare claim that title. But that everyone else in the world accuses the United States of empire is perhaps more telling than if Americans claimed it for themselves.

[Andrew]

Well it is kinda funny that people on welfare decide to have more children. Why give them more money for making more stupid preventable decisions?

Maybe the government should pay for birth control instead?

[Dunenewt]

Economic Left/Right: -3.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

But I voted as a Libertarian Right because that's what I believe I believe in.

As for the issue regarding Dunenewt's surprise at discovering that he was Authoritarian Left, I'd have to go with echoing Timenn's comment. Stopping people from breeding is going to put you on the Authoritarian side of most peoples' online political personality tests. I wouldn't feel bad about it (I know you don't), as I feel the test isn't perfect in the first place.

But as for the comment that "the British Empire that existed is greater than the American Empire today." Mmm... yes and no. As a student of British history (I wish it were otherwise), I can tell you that the actuality of British control over her colonies and dominions was far more imagined than actual. If you look at things like the Great Game in Afghanistan, you find that the British Empire actually had very little "control" in places where it claimed to be the governing authority. Largely, the reason for the appearance of such vastly imposing British power was their ability to keep competing European powers from entering their markets. This they accomplished largely through the Navy. Control in India was fairly greater, but likewise only at the highest levels -- what Britain gained from India was actually precious little compared to India's full economic potential. But, even then, that was enough to push past other European colonial powers and intimidate them.

Truly, the "paper tiger" of British Imperial power was best seen in the activities of King Edward VII. "The Great Encircler" was able to manipulate the Continental European powers into behavior that was ultimately bad for all of them (re: opposing Germany) where they otherwise really had no need to, and where Britain really had nothing more to bargain with than the threat of their Navy and King Eddie's charisma. A pre-WW1 Germany is like a miniature United States on European soil, as by 1900, Germany's economy was producing twice what Britain's was, and the American economy was producing twice what Germany was. At this time, before the maximum territorial extent of the British Empire in 1933 and still amidst the Edwardian denouement of the Victorian Golden Age, Britain's "Empire" had already been surpassed by both Germany's and America's

Officially, America does not have an empire. But if you include the places over which it has had severe amounts of influence (today including Great Britain), it is in fact larger territorially than the British Empire ever was. The relative amount of economic and military power that the United States wields over its competitors is likewise on multiple orders of magnitude greater than the relative economic and military advantage Britain had over her rivals. My history adviser (an Irishmen, so I cannot help but admit some anti-British bias in my education) liked to joke that the largest air force in the world is the US Air Force, and the second largest air force in the world is the US Navy's air force, and the third largest air force in the world is the US Army Air Corps... and what have you.

They're very different empires, so making a true comparison is difficult. Certainly, Victorian Britain was a fabulous "culture of empire," a society so consciously and contentedly self-aware of their imperial ambitions, that we will never see again. Apart from the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, she was the last "official" empire, as no one today would dare claim that title. But that everyone else in the world accuses the United States of empire is perhaps more telling than if Americans claimed it for themselves.

Actually, my surprise was that it said I was on the left not the right.

I think you seriously need to rethink what your lecturer is telling you, as it is unsurprising that an Irishman would be anti-British, as I have a similar problem with some of my lecturers, as one is anti-US and one is anti-UK, and a lot of the things you have stated are inherently false.  Opposing the Germans was not started by King Edward VII by any stretch of the imagination.  Until 1919, Germany was little more than the Prussian Empire, and it was Bismark's actions, which worried Napoleon III, and future French leaders, which was unrelated to the United Kingdom.  Indeed, until the first couple of years of the 20th Century, the United Kingdom had always considered just sitting on the fence in any future continental war, and it wasn't until our naval supremacy was threatened. and Germany began to develop dreams of an Empire, that we stepped in.  It is all to do with the Balance of Power.  With the 'unification' of Germany, the Balance of Power was severely disrupted, and France and Russia both felt threatened by this new creation.  After the Austro-Prussian war, Austro-Hungary also realised that Germany would be their biggest threat in future wars, and therefore decided the only thing they could do was align themselve with Prussia, which is what Bismark had planned all along, so essentially Bismark's plans for a stronger Prussia, and the consequences are what did this, not an action by a British monarch.  What you have to understand is the United Kingdom's chief rivals until the dawn of the 20th Century, were chiefly considered to be Russia and France, not Germany.

[Dunenewt]

Well it is kinda funny that people on welfare decide to have more children. Why give them more money for making more stupid preventable decisions?

Maybe the government should pay for birth control instead?

Exactly, which is where my implants idea comes in.

[Wolf]

Dunenewt: The "Balance of Power" is a classic argument that I think is imperfect and is (or should) be in the process of re-evaluation, and I think that Edward VII is far more responsible than most people think for the disaster of the Great War, and the beginning of the end for the British Empire. In general, I would love to have this conversation with you, but I think it would be best relegated to another thread dealing specifically with a comparison between the US and British Empires... so, if you would be so kind as to do the honors...

[Dunenewt]

After thinking about the questions a bit more, I took the test again:

Economic Left/Right: -1.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 5.38

[Wolf]

Newt, clean up your inbox -- and start a topic on Comparing the US and British Empires. WW1 is a part of it, as is, well, the rest of modern history. We're in for a rough time, bro.

[Dunenewt]

I'll start one about the causes of WW1, I can't see a debate comparing the two Empires get very far to be honest.  My inbox was 122% full.

[Wolf]

Haha, we'll save it for when we get really bored.

As for the political compass, I end up on Edric's map as being a "Social Democrat."

Really guys, just what is a Social Democrat? I look at that term with a suspicion borne of many years inventing academic-sounding-yet-still-meaningless terms.

[Edric O]

Ok, going back on topic. ;)

Well it is kinda funny that people on welfare decide to have more children. Why give them more money for making more stupid preventable decisions?

Maybe the government should pay for birth control instead?

The purpose of child care benefits is to ensure that innocent children do not suffer from having poor parents - or stupid parents, as the case may be. The money is supposed to help the children, not the parents. Problems arise when the parents neglect the children and use the money for themselves instead.

So, if this is indeed a problem (I don't know how many people on welfare have large families - it might not be that many at all), the solution is to find a way to ensure that the benefits can only be used on the children, OR to take the children into foster care.

[AeonGrey]

Here's mine.

http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pcgraphpngphpic3.png

I'm not surprised.  About where I thought I'd be.

[nemafakei]

"Really guys, just what is a Social Democrat? I look at that term with a suspicion borne of many years inventing

academic-sounding-yet-still-meaningless terms."

All the terms have many meanings. I'll give you how I'd define a social democrat.

A social democrat is someone who supports the continuation of the capitalist mode of production, believing that the maintenance of a welfare state, including certain nationalised industries, is sufficient to 'even the playing field'.

They are distinct from Liberals in their support of a welfare state (though some left-liberals may use the welfare state as an outlet of Keynsianism, this is a tactic for economic management rather than a commitment to actual welfare provision).

They differ from populists in that they are generally committed to formal civil rights as a principle, and are also more likely to argue against prejudiced laws, and often try to legislate against prejudice in the private sector; success varies widely.

They differ from reformist socialists in that they still support capitalism, though they share the same commitment to reformism.

[Edric O]

As for the political compass, I end up on Edric's map as being a "Social Democrat."

Really guys, just what is a Social Democrat? I look at that term with a suspicion borne of many years inventing academic-sounding-yet-still-meaningless terms.

You've never heard the term before? Oh dear... American political terminology really needs a major overhaul.

"Social democracy" is an extremely common term. In fact, social democracy is arguably the single most popular ideology in the world at the moment, at least if you measure popularity by the number of members or votes held by social democratic political parties across the world.

In a nutshell, social democracy advocates a capitalist market economy moderated by a strong welfare state, a large public sector (in particular, utilities such as gas, water and electricity should be state owned), universal health care and free education. Almost without exception, the countries that have universal health care today had it first introduced by social democratic parties. Social democracy also advocates strong protections of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. In recent years many social democrats have grown increasingly fond of environmental causes.

The model social democratic country is Sweden.

Social democracy evolved out of the socialist movement of the 19th century, and this is reflected in the names of some of the older social democratic parties (who still call themselves "socialist"). It is also reflected in the name of the official international organization of social democrats, the Socialist International (established after WW2 as a resurrected version of the interwar SI, which was itself an attempt to resurrect the pre-WW1 SI; the pre-WW1 SI was actually socialist). Social democracy formed out of the centrist branch of the socialist movement, who first argued that capitalism should be abolished by gradual reforms and then eventually decided that welfare state reforms were enough by themselves and capitalism should not be abolished after all.

Countries currently governed by social democratic parties - either alone or in coalition governments - include Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Austria, Norway, Hungary, Armenia, Mongolia, Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Israel, and many others. Most stable democratic countries (with some exceptions such as the United States, Canada and Ireland) have had at least one social democratic government since WW2.

The universal symbol of social democracy is a red rose held in a closed fist. Some social democratic parties use other variations on the red rose theme.

[Edric O]

Edric O, I would prefer to say the opposite. Upbringing is may or may not be sufficient, but it definitely is necessary.

But if a certain type of upbringing is necessary to create a chav, then we have a chicken-or-the-egg problem: Where did the first chav come from?

Economic Left/Right: -3.62

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.79

But I voted as a Libertarian Right because that's what I believe I believe in.

Could you elaborate on your economic views a little? Perhaps then I may be able to guess why the Compass placed you on the Left.

[Wolf]

I've heard the term Social Democrat before, but it's something that I feel is used so imprecisely (at least, 'round these parts), and whose original definition is so broad, that I've just never felt that the term really had any substantive meaning. It seems that most, if not all, Western liberal democracies are "social democrats," though there may be vast differences between their political behavior and culture. But, that explanation is extremely concise and well-phrased, and after deeper introspection, I feel that I can be comfortable as a Social Democrat.

Regarding my economic views, quite generally I favor laissez faire economic policies, I am strongly against any sort of protectionism, and I feel that corporate/business organizations are generally the most efficient at resource allocation and distribution. I'm not any sort of Ayn Rand-type hardcore, take-no-prisoners Libertarian Right, but I can sympathize with those views. God helps those who help themselves, and that sort of thing.

[Edric O]

I've heard the term Social Democrat before, but it's something that I feel is used so imprecisely (at least, 'round these parts), and whose original definition is so broad, that I've just never felt that the term really had any substantive meaning. It seems that most, if not all, Western liberal democracies are "social democrats," though there may be vast differences between their political behavior and culture.

Are you referring to the fact that most of the things advocated by social democrats - a capitalist market economy, welfare provision, state-owned public utilities, universal health care, free education and civil rights - already exist to a greater or lesser extent in most Western democracies? Yes, that does tend to make social democracy rather vague, just like it makes moderate liberalism and conservatism rather vague. But although all ideologies around the political centre have a number of views in common, they are still trying to pull society in opposite directions. For example, both social democrats and moderate liberals broadly agree with the concept of a capitalist market economy combined with regulations and a welfare state, but liberals want more market and less regulations while social democrats want the opposite. Both social democrats and moderate conservatives agree with the concept of civil rights, but conservatives tend to restrict those rights for security reasons far more than social democrats would accept.

But, that explanation is extremely concise and well-phrased, and after deeper introspection, I feel that I can be comfortable as a Social Democrat.

Regarding my economic views, quite generally I favor laissez faire economic policies, I am strongly against any sort of protectionism, and I feel that corporate/business organizations are generally the most efficient at resource allocation and distribution. I'm not any sort of Ayn Rand-type hardcore, take-no-prisoners Libertarian Right, but I can sympathize with those views. God helps those who help themselves, and that sort of thing.

I'm rather confused... you said you fit within the social democratic category, but then you said you support laissez faire economic policies, which are abhorred by social democrats everywhere. Do you mean to say merely that you endorse a capitalist market economy, or do you specifically support the kinds of Victorian-style policies associated with the term "laissez faire"? And your beliefs about the allocation of resources by business organizations - do they extend to such things as public utilities, natural monopolies or health care?

[Wolf]

Well, you're confused because you forgot the distinction between what I personally identified with, a Libertarian Right ideology, and where the Political Compass test placed me, on the Libertarian Left -- with coordinates that placed me in the middle of the Social Democrat sphere. After hearing your description of it, it's an ideology that I am not uncomfortable with, that, in fact, I wouldn't mind living under. Since more or less I do live in one (save for some differences the USA has with most  Social Democrat-societies), that's a good thing.

However, that does not necessarily mean I am a Social Democrat. I may believe that some things are good that Social Democrats might disagree with... such as laissez faire capitalism. Though I do agree with the majority of their reasoning. And yes, I believe that "allocation of resources" includes such things as public utilities, natural monopolies and health care. If people have an incentive to provide high-quality services in these sectors, both at the work and management levels, then society benefits as a whole from not only the provision of these services, but also the wages made by workers and managers in the firms that provide them. Though in Britain, in such things as the NHS and British Rail, we've seen some poor examples of privatization, I think that the principle is sound in theory, as so many private firms manage to prosper and provide goods and services to people who would otherwise be without them.

[gunner154]

But if a certain type of upbringing is necessary to create a chav, then we have a chicken-or-the-egg problem: Where did the first chav come from?

I suppose being a chav isn't genetic, so you don't need to be a chav to create a chav ;)