Forum Topic

Position yourself on 'The Political Compass'

Here's a series of questions which position you on a chart according to your beliefs. It's good fun to see how close you are to certain characters like the Thatcher, Dalai Lamai, Milton Friedman. It only takes 5 minutes to do and good fun.It is on the website 'The Political Compass': http://politicalcompass.org/indexIt's introduction is:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. The test is entirely anonymous. None of your personal details are required, and nothing about your result is recorded or logged in any way. The answers are only used to calculate your reading, and cannot be accessed by anyone, ever. The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm  Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep."Have a go.

Duncan Walker ● 6496d19 Comments

A seemingly simple question Phil, but it is a complex situation.First, I would be careful about taking the sample of people who have replied to this topic, and indeed to most topics on our forum, as representative of society at large. I would think that the type of people who exchange positive views will rightly tend to place an importance on considering other people’s views in exploring things, and developing their own opinions. As an overall thought about why people’s perception and viewpoint may differ from what is offered by our political parties, is that it is a matter of feeling that it is too complicated and difficult to change what is currently offered. We rely a lot on ‘experts’ who maintain the economic and social frameworks for those who gain from such systems. What with PR and Marketing and friendly Media, no wonder we feel at a loss to even understand and question what is offered.I think it is useful to split the economic dimension (left-right) from the social dimension (authoritarian-liberal), when exploring the situation.Taking the economic dimension, we live in a capitalist society, which has served us ok, but is driven by the short term focus of making gains for the shareholders, and speculators; with at times some similarities to a gambling system. I detect the impact on people, society and environment is a much lower priority. The political parties do not feel they can challenge this powerful system, it would take a world disaster to justify any alternative, and even Climate Change can be parried. Since the 1960s in the UK, we have steadily been transformed into a consumer society, which fuels the economic system. We are encouraged to keep buying things at lower and lower costs, using more resources, and woe betide any political party, which suggests we give up our goodies.So, I am not surprised that the UK political parties, whose main objectives are to gain power and retain it, have moved to the right, even though some of us may have reservations about the economic system.Taking the social dimension, I think governments and capital owners/leaders are driven strongly to retain control and power, to protect their assets and authority. This has always been the case and there are excellent books in literature and history about it. We are easily driven into supporting more authoritarian ways by shock tactics of the fear of an enemy. For instance, I believe the real reason, by the US, for the war on Iraq, was always to secure the oil.It is in this social dimension that I feel that political parties can distinguish themselves, especially when they are in opposition, but when thrust into government, can they withstand the hurly-burly of critical events?Maybe something as dramatic as the Climate Change crisis will modify the current socio-economic model and thus the politicians?

Duncan Walker ● 6486d