Where do you stand?

[LG]

From: http://www.politicalcompass.org/questionnaire

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.

-------
Below you can see where the quiz has placed me.

You can also try another. It gives kind of similar results in my case, but a little bit more central on the vertical axis:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

[White_Male_Canada]

How about none of the above.

The Nolan chart may result in more detail than the antiquated left/communist,right/fascist linear chart but I prefer the American Federalist Journal political spectrum chart.

Fascism and marxism are two sides to the same coin and easily provable. The Federalist journal chart moves from the Left or Totalitarian,to the Right, Anarchy or no government.

I`m the dot

[LG]

Whew...ask a conservative to answer a simple quiz and he gives you a lecture.


I for one think the political spectrum theory you cite is a pile of crap and that fascism and marxism are wholly different. The American Federalist Journal disagrees, but then again it would, if the contributors it features and the majority of the news sources it links to are any indication of where its sentiments lie.

It is possible to be on the left but against totalitarianism and on the right and for it. That is why you need two axes (or more) and not a linear chart (either of the antiquated kind or of the kind you provide). And that is why the chart you give is (dare I say it again?) a gargantuan pile of noxious doggy doo, a jumbo-sized turd, an elephantine piece of fecal excrement, if you prefer.

I think you're just trying to be contrary to annoy me this time.

[chefmike]

We're in the same neighborhood...

Mine:

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

[guyone]

Me...

[White_Male_Canada]

I for one think the political spectrum theory you cite is a pile of crap and that fascism and marxism are wholly different. The American Federalist Journal disagrees, but then again it would, if the contributors it features and the majority of the news sources it links to are any indication of where its sentiments lie.

Seriously,are you that naive.

The chart I favor emphasizes the degree of political control,which would place Totalitarianism at one end Anarchy at the other.But most charts today feature a square or circle graph that take into consideration such things as role of the Church,Foreign policy,Foreign trade,Participation,etc. Like the Nolan chart, The Pournelle chart, Meltzer/Christie,etc.

Here in their own words those "right-wingers" telling you who they are:

Adolf Hitler, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak..."

Joseph Goebbels , " Because we are socialists we have felt the deepest blessings of the nation, and because we are nationalists we want to promote socialist justice in a new Germany...

We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens...

The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive...

We are socialists because we see the social question as a matter of necessity and justice...socialism must be fought for...

It is a fighting slogan both inwardly and outwardly. It is aimed domestically at the bourgeois parties and Marxism at the same time, because both are sworn enemies of the coming workers' state. It is directed abroad at all powers that threaten our national existence and thereby the possibility of the coming socialist national state...

Socialism is possible only in a state that is united domestically and free internationally. The bourgeoisie(capitalism) and Marxism are responsible for failing to reach both goals, domestic unity and international freedom. No matter how national and social these two forces present themselves, they are the sworn enemies of a socialist national state."

HERMANN GOERING ," We are living through a National Socialist revolution. We emphasize the term “socialist” because many speak only of a “national” revolution. Dubious, but also wrong. It was not only nationalism that led to the breakthrough. We are proud that German socialism also triumphed.

Marxist socialism was degraded to a concern only with pay or the stomach. The bourgeoisie degraded nationalism into barren hyper-patriotism. Our movement seized the concept of socialism from the cowardly Marxists, and tore the concept of nationalism from the cowardly bourgeois parties, throwing both into the melting pot of our worldview, and producing a clear synthesis: German national Socialism. That provided the foundation for the rebuilding of our people. Thus this revolution was National Socialist."


A History of Fascism 1914-1945
"Much was made by Marxist commentators, during the 1930's and for nearly half a century afterward, about the alleged capitalist domination of the German economy under National Socialism, when the truth of the matter was more nearly the opposite."

The Lost Literature of Socialism
"In the European century that began in the 1840s, from Engels' article of 1849 down to the death of Hitler, everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist and no conservative, liberal, anarchist or independent did anything of the kind." (The term "genocide" in Watson's usage is not confined to the extermination only of races or of ethnic groups, but embraces also the liquidation of such other complete human categories as "enemies of the people" and "the Kulaks as a class."



Tom Wolfe
" 'Fascism' was, in fact, a Marxist coinage. Marxists borrowed the name of Mussolini's Italian party, the Fascisti, and applied it to Hitler's Nazis, adroitly papering over the fact that the Nazis, like Marxism's standard-bearers, the Soviet Communists, were revolutionary socialists. In fact, "Nazi" was (most annoyingly) shorthand for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. European Marxists successfully put over the idea that Nazism was the brutal, decadent last gasp of 'capitalism.' "

The Ominous Parallels
" Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy(socialism). The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of CONTROL. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property -- so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property."

[LG]

WMC, we've been through most of that, including the Hitler quote and I flattened your arguments to the ground back then. I am not in the mood to go into them again just because you have enough time on your hands to cut and paste a few quotes you've been collecting.

Why don't you read about what Hitler, Mussolini and his ilk did to communists after they came into power?

I haven't got the time or the inclination for this. I'm going to bed.

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC, we've been through most of that, including the Hitler quote and I flattened your arguments to the ground back then. I am not in the mood to go into them again just because you have enough time on your hands to cut and paste a few quotes you've been collecting.

Why don't you read about what Hitler, Mussolini and his ilk did to communists after they came into power?

I haven't got the time or the inclination for this. I'm going to bed.

Of course, you`re correct.

Hitler, Mussolini, Goering and Goebbels `s own words are wrong. The fact they killed their opposition including international socialists/communists does not prove they were not socialists themselves.

You`ve become delusional.

[LG]

Here we go again...

WMC, just take the bleeding quiz, please. That's all I asked people to do. I'm not interested in your theories right now.

Just take the quiz. It's not a difficult thing to do, I'm sure, even for you...

[Caleigh]

If only there was an ignore button so that posts by certain members wouldn't show up at all on your screen. I'm all for intelligent, informed debate but when you have Democrats placed as being further right than Republicans (halfway between Republican and Fascist) you are so whack it's just not worth listening to you. Republicans are the ones preventing embryonic stem cell research, they are the ones calling for repeal of Roe vs Wade. Just because these things aren't of a purely economic nature doesn't mean that they aren't authoritarian. The (very) slightlly more authoritarian social rights bills of the Democrats are offset by the fact that they are just that, social rights bills created to prevent rampant exploitation of power situations. The laissez faire capitalism of a totally free market would soon devolve into a virtual slave state since corporations could get away with paying their workers next to nothing. Check out the film "Matewan" some time for an example of the glorious future under unfettered and unregulated capitalism.