Between Yes And No Thursday, June 14, 2007
Do answer the following questions with simple yes or no.
- If economic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
- I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
- There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
- Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
- It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
- Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
- The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
- There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
- Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
- Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Easy as 1-2-3? A few years ago, I undertook an online political compass test, which described my leanings on various social, political, and economic concerns.
The test explains that 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 the Philippine government today? Are they the opposition lawmakers who rose from the ranks of landowners? Or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?
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.
For example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, are on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 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 there's also teh social dimension, 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. 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 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 liberal socialism 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.
Meanwhile, U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market," in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.
In the test, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree to statements. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.
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. A new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.
Remember that there's no right, wrong or ideal response. It's simply a measure of attitudes and inevitable human contradictions to provide a more integrated definition of where people and parties are really at. [Click here to start]
My political compass: Economic Left-Social libertarian [Liberal socialist]
Economic Left/Right: -6.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.64
Political Compass closest to Nelson Mandela and The Dalai Lama
Labels: arroyo, authoritarian, conservatives, economics, human rights, left, politics, test
posted by Jojo Pasion Malig @ 7:59 PM,
