A competetive market economy is a reflection – and a source – of freedom. It is also a necessary condition for democracy. In a society where political power determines the allocation of wealth, it is impossible to be independent without being powerful. But in a market society that combination is possible and this, in turn, provides a basis for competing political parties. As Vaclav Havel explained, ‘a government that commands the economy will inevitably command the polity; given a commanding position it will distort or destroy the former and corrupt or oppress the latter’.

Liberal democracies with market economies are, as Joseph Schumpeter argued in his classic book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, the only societies that create their own opposition. ‘Capitalism created both a parvenu class of rich plutocrats and corporate climbers and a counter-culture of critical intellectuals and disaffected youth’. It continues to do so today. Take a look at the campuses, the publications and the protestors in western democracies. Only in a market economy could books condemning society’s rich and powerful be published and promoted with such success. Only in a market economy would the wealthy give large sums of money to universities that provide comfortable homes to those who despise the wealthy and the system that made them so. The market economy does not merely support its critics, it embraces them.

Yet lauded and successful critics indulge in paranoid fantasies about

corporate space as a fascist state where we all salute the logo and have little opportunity for criticism because our newspapers, television stations, Internet servers, streets and retail spaces are controlled by multinational corporate interests. And considering the speed with which these trends are developing, we clearly have good reason for alarm. But a word of caution: we may be a ble to see a not-so-brave new world on the horizon, but that doesn’t mean we are already living in Huxley’s nightmare.

So even Naomi Klein has to admit the limits of corporate power. In fact, anti-corporate books and television programmes are being published and produced with great commercial success. Klein’s No Logo has become a brand all of its own. Capitalism nurtures its enemies. It also tries to make money out of them. But then they make money too.

- Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works

Ein weiteres hübsches Hilfsmittel zur politischen Orientierung ist der englischsprachige, und ein wenig auf US-Themen bezogene, Political Compass. Du beantwortest politische Fragen in vier Graden der Zustimmung, und bekommst am Ende keine Wahlempfehlung wie beim legendären Wahlomat (siehe 11k2) sondern eine Einschätzung deines Standpunkts zwischen Links und Rechts, Freiheit und Ordnung. Meine Position ist oben abgebildet, unten die von Personen der Weltgeschichte nach Einschätzung der Compassexperten und die der deutschen Parteien 2005.

Auch interessant. Für alles andere gibts ja schon den Bartle-Test (siehe 11k2).

(gefunden via twitgeridoo)

(alle pics: click > grösser)

Through this political compass test, I have discovered the following:

- Lawrence Summers said that dumping toxic waste in Africa makes economic sense as the life expectancy there is so low that the cancerous effects will not have time to take hold.

- Al Gore (who I already disliked quite severely, what with him being a fear-mongering narcissist and hypocrite, and thoroughly uncharming) “in 1997 championed the privatisation of California’s National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust’s Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)”

- Thomas Jefferson proposed that “Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.”

And: “I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature…..Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world.” I disagree with him, of course .

- Gandhi, being the neurotic spider that he was, disowned his own son for the ‘crime’ of wanting to get married (!!), and said: “How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it?”

And: “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.”

And our beloved yet again, blessing us with his pearls of wisdom: “Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

- Ayn Rand was a homophobe.

- Adam Smith warned us against businessmen proposing laws, since they “have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.”

- Winston Churchill: “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes … to spread a lively terror.”

And: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

(Cross-posted with modification to Yes and No.)

Through this political compass test, I have discovered the following:

- Lawrence Summers said that dumping toxic waste in Africa makes economic sense as the life expectancy there is so low that the cancerous effects will not have time to take hold.

- Al Gore (who I already disliked quite severely, what with him being a fear-mongering narcissist and hypocrite, and thoroughly uncharming) “in 1997 championed the privatisation of California’s National Oil Reserve, and the subsequent drilling by Occidental that resulted in serious environmental damage, destruction to a sacred Indian burial ground and a windfall for his family trust’s Occidental stocks? (Occidental also put a pipeline through the Colombian rain forest.)”

- Thomas Jefferson proposed that “Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.”

And: “I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature…..Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world.” I disagree with him, of course .

- Gandhi, being the neurotic spider that he was, disowned his own son for the ‘crime’ of wanting to get married (!!), and said: “How can I, who has always advocated renunciation of sex, encourage you to gratify it?”

And: “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.”

And our beloved yet again, blessing us with his pearls of wisdom: “Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

- Ayn Rand was a homophobe.

- Adam Smith warned us against businessmen proposing laws, since they ”have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.”

- Winston Churchill: “I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes … to spread a lively terror.”

And: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable (as Hitler) to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

Cross-posted with modification to Bazm-e-RindaaN.

Took the Political Compass test again. Last time I scored -0.50 economic, -5.44 social. This time, have swung back to the left while remaining firmly on the “libertarian” side of the social line.

It’s that time of year again… Political Compass time!

In response to a sneering remark made about “socialist authoritarianism” by Our Lady Of The CAPSLOCK, I was compelled to consult the Political Compass to see just who these rabid Socialist Authoritarians really are.   And I agree: Socialist Authoritarianism sucks! Just look at some of the deranged fascist creeps in the Upper Left (Socialist Authoritarian) Quadrant:

But enough about the Pope, let’s talk about Me.

************************

I don’t know what kind of trauma befell me between the last time I did this test (about a year ago) and now, but it appears that I’m becoming a…

Libertarian-wise I haven’t changed, but economically I’m usually a couple of squares to the left of that position.  I suspect it might have to do with answering some of the questions with an “Agree/Disagree” rather than a “Strongly Agree/Disagree”, so hopefully this isn’t part of some hideous migration to the Dark Side.

But if anyone sees me running around with teabags pinned to my hat, you have my permission in advance to make a Citizen’s Arrest and institutionalize me.

Meanwhile, here’s the test:  go for it if you dare, post your results in the comments and I’ll add you to the chart.

Most people interested in politics will have come across ‘The Political Compass’, which markets itself as an improvement on ‘The Left-Right Spectrum’ (which those interested in politics will also probably have come across). It’s basic idea is that the Left-Right axis should be kept as a gague of economic views, but supplemented with a vertical ‘authoritarian-libertarian’ axis.

This gives four corners, as indicated right:

(Note that this approach gives no obvious way to reflect issues such as feminism vs. antifeminism, environmentalism, racism, etc.)

Is this any good? I think it’s major problem is that although it’s presented as replacing the left-right spectrum, it’s actually a different sort of thing. It is, so to speak, a classification ‘from first principles’ that sets up abstract criteria and then compares people’s views to them. It’s spirit is almost like that of a scientific experiment that tries to isolate certain variables and then model them. What it ends up doing is asking two (very broad) questions – about capitalism and about personal freedom – and then tell you how you answered them.

The left-right spectrum doesn’t do this. It looks at the complex and messy reality – of divergent all-encompassing worldviews, and how they imply views on particular issues, and how this plays out in practice, and who will ally with who, and tries to group this into hazily-defined but (at least somewhat) practically-relevant lumps.

The first method might be more appropriate if people’s political opinions were formed in a purely intellectual process of debate and inquiry, but if this weren’t the case – if, in fact, systematic interests lay behind most if not all production of ideology – then we would expect that the most relevant ideological contours would actually be based on fault-lines that weren’t always immediately obvious at the ideological level, and which could best be understood in terms of a certain sense of ‘partisanship’.

That would suggest that ‘the left’, whatever particular ideals they espouse, are partisans of a particular side; the ‘right’, partisans of another. This approach also has the virtue that it can deal better with different views of what the basic questions of value are – whereas the political compass’ approach has to assume that, say, ‘personal freedom’ is an important issue for all views, and that they define it in the same way.

However – isn’t there some usefulness in trying to spread the left-right spectrum out over at least two dimensions? It does seem strange that Hitler and Stalin must be placed at opposite ends despite their similarities, for example. So what if we tried to combine the merits of both – to look for a schematic representation that could incorporate more information than a mere line, while retaining the ‘class-partisanship’ approach of the traditional left-right spectrum?

That’s what I want to try to do today! I may not do it very well, but that’s ok.

See second image, right (and bear in mind the colours may not always be most appropriate, I was trying to balance historical associations with making it look pretty overall).

So what’s the idea? The idea is that four major trends all appear as paths leading away from the grey muddy centre: liberalism, socialism, nationalism, and conservatism.

All ultimately are best understood in class terms, although only two are specific to a certain class. Socialism, as is conventionally assumed, seeks the interests of the proletariat, i.e. it seeks a society without private capital, on behalf of the class whose members have no private capital.

Liberalism, again not saying anything too strange or novel, seeks the interests of the bourgeoisie, of those who do own private capital and seek a return on it. But the ambivalence of liberalism comes from the differentiated of this class into the petit-bourgeoisie, who have little capital, and whose interests (and hence ideology) can potentially move close to those of the proletariat, and the haute-bourgeoisie, who have loads of capital and are thus a proper ruling class.

This merges them into conservatism, which is not the ideology of any particular class but rather a body of ideas and sentiments that any established ruling class can use to defend its position and hold back change.

So what then is ‘nationalism’? It is the converse – a body of ideas and sentiments that any non-established ruling class (or class-section) can use to establish itself. This can mean both a ruling elite that used to be established but whose legitimacy has been undermined and need to re-establish control (when it is likely to be most reactionary, as in Fascism), and also an aspirational ruling elite seeking to mobilise layers of the oppressed to change society and put them in power (when it is likely to be progressive at first, as in Stalinism or Anti-Colonial nationalism).

At the intersection of nationalism and socialism is what I would call ‘populism’, movements that take some features of socialism but use them merely for cosmetic changes – of which, in a sense, authoritarian socialism is the more radical version.

Conversely, around the intersection of liberalism and socialism, at the real extremities, are the different flavours of ‘anarchism’, some more socialist, some less, but all recognising the importance of ensuring economic equality and fighting the power of big business. The ‘anarchists’ who don’t recognise this, anarcho-capitalists, are over at the extreme conjunction of conservatism and liberalism.

Now, obviously the right-left axis does still fit into this: insofar as socialism and liberalism are both left-wing, and insofar as they are close relatives (both because ideologically their values are the same – freedom, equality, reason, etc., and because in practice if they are true to themselves they come together), and insofar as nationalism and conservatism are both right-wing, the left-right spectrum is pretty much vertical here. The reason for which, obviously, is that the left is, at the most abstract level, the ideology of the weak againt the strong (i.e. oppressed and exploited classes) and the right is the ideology of the strong against the weak (i.e. ruling classes).

But note what has happened to the ‘centre’. The traditional left-right axis had to make ‘the centre’ simply mean ‘moderation’. But on the view here advanced, there are actually three points that are half-way between right and left: the moderate centre, and then populism on the one hand, and right-libertarianism on the other – the latter two being, potentially, ‘extreme centrist’ positions.

I think it’s reasonable to call them this because populism often does deliver valuable gains, even if for cynical reasons – even if populist politicians are just ‘using’ the masses, there is a certain power in being used, since it means that your concerns must at least be listened to, and your activity solicited. On the other hand, consistent right-libertarians are on the good side on plenty of issues – war, civil liberties, immigration.

We can also see to some extent where Stalin and Hitler connect and differ – both are extreme ‘nationalists’, if ‘nation’ is defined broadly enough, i.e. broadly enough as to make ‘extreme nationalist’ synonymous with ‘totalitarianism’. But they stand beside different borders – one the border with racist, hierarchical, big-business-supporting but not-quite-fascist conservatism, the other the border with collctivist, masses-empowering, socialism.

We can similarly avoid lumping authoritarian socialists in next to anarchist socialists, or else deciding which is ‘more left’ or ‘more radical’ – they are both equally far from the centre, but one is closer to liberalism and the other is closer to nationalism.

So that’s about the extent of what I’m trying to do here. The ‘political compass’ makes some of these distinctions, though it misses, say, the difference between an extreme but very non-fascist conservative, and a relatively non-conservative fascist – since both are profoundly authoritarian, but in different ways (only one is totalitarian). You could in a sense draw it onto my diagram (with the social libertarian/authoritarian axis going horizontally) but it doesn’t give any sense of the class-based partisanship that links together different ‘political opinions’.

It may have been noticed that there’s no mention of feminism, or other such ‘unconventional’ ideologies – that’s true. This schema focuses on conventionally-defined ‘politics and economics’, because it seeks to clarify the role of politico-economic classes. A different schema could perhaps be drawn for, say, sex-classes, though I’m less confident about what it would look like.

Note that if such a schema were drawn, we could again apply the left-right dimension to it: the ideology of oppressed groups (e.g. feminism) would be left-wing, and the ideology of oppressing groups (e.g. sexual conservatism) would be right-wing. So the left-right spectrum is something broader (precisely because so simple) than most more detailed analyses.

So there, that’s my shot at it. Obviously it could be improved, I hope – especially by finding a way to not make anarchism orange. And it embodies my own political opinions, although hopefully not so egregiously as to make it entirely opaque to those I disagree with. Thoughts?

Also, schnell auf das Bild oder hier klicken um zum Spiegel-Wahl-o-Mat zu gelangen und dann den Test machen! Vielleicht kommt ja eine Überraschung dabei heraus, wie bei mir. Na, etwas überraschend war das Ergebnis, aber nicht die Spitze. Mein Ergebnis kann man unten sehen. Gleiches Spiel wie oben; entweder auf das Bild für eine größere Ansicht klicken, oder hier. Und jetzt selber machen und dann in den Kommentarbereich! Für Screenshots empfehle ich tinypic.com

Compass:

You are a center-right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 1.97, Libertarian: 1.26

Was es nicht alles gibt! Center-right moderate social libertarian. Muss man sich erstmal dran gewöhnen.

Foreign Policy:

On the left side are pacifists and anti-war activists. On the right side are those who want a strong military that intervenes around the world. You scored: 2.2

Culture:

Where are you in the culture war? On the liberal side, or the conservative side? This scale may apply more to the US than other countries. You scored: -4.9

Und was seid ihr? Klick! Siehe auch “Fast zurück auf Null” für vorherige Ergebnisse (Mai und November 2008, Januar und April 2009).  Zum Vergleich: Im April diesen Jahres stand ich laut diesem anderen Kompass so:

Having established which sex I am,  let’s see whether the internet can help me work out where I stand politically.  The  Political Compass seems promising.  Old hands may think  this a bit old hat (old gloves?) , but ’tis new to me.

A few simple questions – Would you sell your Granny for sixpence? – Do you keep Adolf Hitler’s birthday? and so on, and out come the results.

Here they are (fig. 1) (and – for comparison – some other well known personalities (fig. 2)).  I appear to be in the same quarter of the playing field as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama (slightly to the left of the DL, in fact).

The interesting point here, I think, is that I’m reasonably sure that if one were to give a cross-section of the public the names of all those on the second chart and asked the sample to rank the well-known names in order of preference Mandela and the DL would come out 1 & 2, but all Western democracies seem to be governed by those in the top right hand corner.

Go figure … answers on a postcard etc.

fig 1.

I am here

 fig. 2

Mit Political Compass kann man seine politische Ausrichtung bestimmen und in einem Diagramm anzeigen lassen. Dabei wird nicht nur die seit der Französischen Nationalversammlung von 1789 gebräuchliche Unterteilung von links und rechts vorgenommen.

“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.”

Mehr wollen die Macher einen aber nicht wissen lassen, bevor man den Test gemacht hat, um die Ergebnisse nicht zu verfälschen. Also, nehmt euch ein wenig Zeit, um Stellung zu den 62 Behauptungen zu nehmen (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree oder Strongly Agree). Am Ende kann man sich auch mit internationalen Staats- und Regierungschefs und einigen historischen Persönlichkeiten vergleichen.

Yes – according to the well-known Political Compass site – yes, I apparently am. Specifically, I’m Economic Left/Right 6.75 and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -2.21. Admittedly the test does contain some rather suspect questions, such as this one: “A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.” Intuitively, yes, I agree with the statement – the whole point of a one-party state is that one general point of view forces its way through, without too much internal or external partisan political opposition – but I disagree with the sentiment that this is in any way an “advantage” – as far as I’m concerned, the more veto points a political system has at whatever governmental level, the better.

But all the same, I still find it interesting to do the quiz every so often, even if I can still remember some of the questions from previous times, and even some of my answers to them. I’ve taken it four times now – I blogged about the third occasion last summer – and have completed something of a rightward spiral. I started off just inside the ‘red’ quadrant, moved upwards and onto the vertical axis, then further upwards and right to where Thatcher might be, and have now undergone a significant jump right and down towards approximately where Milton Friedman was. Pro-free-market and pro-individual-liberty. Perhaps fittingly, today is, as Devil’s Kitchen succinctly points out, the 794th anniversary of Magna Carta Libertatum – the document that first laid out, for all the self-interest of the barons that wrote it, the rights of the individual against the state, including the famous right of habeas corpus. If only market economics had a similar document on which it could rely…

Seeing as how none of the states in the EU, and none of the political parties operating within the UK, are now anywhere close to where I find myself on the Compass, perhaps it’s time I acknowledged the fact that I’ve become a free political agent (or in the words of some people I know, ‘beyond help or salvation’). Although, given how fond I am of party systems, and how this post is essentially a divertissement from reading about electoral systems, maybe it’s time to reach for the LPUK membership form…

政治立場左定右？

Political Compass Test：http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

首先先跟大家抱個歉，因為在上星期正值筆者的考試，再適逢我或許有點間歇性失落症的說，
同時也因為一些情傷回億所困，連少許網誌也提不起筆寫，
所以自六四後也稍為丟空好幾天，也給予少許時間讓自己從傷感中平靜反思一下，
詳細的暫時先不再冗談了，不過可以告訴給各位的是我沒事，放心。

前兩天從另一個網誌中subscription中看見一網友網誌的新文，所以把這個測試放了上來，
（雖然如果那網友看到又或許會說我把你的東西倒抄一遍來用了，請諒。苦笑…）
話說不少香港人，包括土共，都不懂分所謂政治左右派，
可能是傳統港英時代報紙佬把共產黨寫為左派的關係，
結果如事者一過幾十年，大家因俗成定，所以搞不清楚也就叫慣親中共派稱為左派好了。
經典烏龍例子有梁安琪當年大大聲質問（還是形容指罵比較貼切？）社民連的姑爺仔陶君行是否左派，
對於當年像梁安琪之流的八婆，我可先不予置評，還是給大家做測試前先回帶輕鬆一下好了。

YouTube – 2007區選論壇 – 陶君行舌戰梁安琪

左派，右派，有興趣了解的話可以按連結，直連往中文維基的，不在此冗述。
不過最好倒還是先了解一下，要不然做完這個 test 後也知其意不知其所義

So, what’s my result then？別心急。
(負為左正為右，Value range = -10 ~ 0 ~ +10)

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

後言，個result証明小弟都算幾左的說，不過也是意料之內，

也肯定我在經濟上是左傾的 (我對那些只袋銀紙不做事的商家大肥豬沒有甚麼好感，大笑)
但依稀記得我在兩年前曾經好像做過一次，兩個 value 只有約負三點幾
難道說我左傾了的說？(笑)不過偏左也可沒有甚麼直接正負面的說啊。

Here’s something to ponder while I go out and mow the lawn.

Dr. Dawg asked a question yesterday, and I think it’s an interesting one. Can we be friends with those we disagree with politically?

I’ll say Yes — unless someone is a hardcore ideologue in ways that are totally abhorrent to me (racist, homophobic, misogynist), which would make it hard for me to respect them, I could be (and in fact, am) friends with just about anyone from anywhere on the Political Compass. It’s a mistake, I think, to isolate ourselves in echo chambers of circular reinforcement of our own notions. Isolation is where fear is born. If we welcome what’s different, we lose our fear of it. If our ideas are challenged occasionally, we’re forced to think about them rather than just affect kneejerk reactions. Where there are irreconcilable differences, we can always “agree to disagree” or put the topic on the 403 list (as with my Catholic ex-old man and I on the topic of abortion).

So, what do you think? (Dawg’s thread is really interesting because there are people from all sides commenting, but if you’re hesitant to jump in there, we can talk about it here too.)

]]> http://rodvinsvanstern.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/piratpartiets-politiska-kompass/ Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:44:40 +0000 Pierre-Hadar Jensen http://rodvinsvanstern.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/piratpartiets-politiska-kompass/

Det har varit mycket diskussioner om var Piratpartiet står på höger-vänsterskalan på senaste tiden. Vi har hört Peter Erikssons utspel om att ”Det jag vet om de här killarna är att de står långt till höger i många frågor. Till höger om moderaterna i praktiken”, Rick Falkvinges intervju i tidningen Fokus där han sa att han är ”ultrakapitalist” och menade att ”Moderaterna är inte så renodlat kapitalistiskt som jag tycker om. De är någon slags halvmjäkiga socialliberaler” för att i nästa andetag snacka om ”digital kommunism. Just kommuniststämpeln hörs även på håll i en vilt beskyllande bloggosfär där Piratpartiet är ”de nya kommunisterna” och tydligen för en politik inte alldeles för olik den i Sovjetunionen.  ”Det hela påminner mig om kommunistivrarnas drömmar om ett samhälle där ingen fick tjäna för mycket, alla skulle dela på alla resurser och hela folket skulle vara en enda maskinell massa. Det har gått ganska dåligt för dessa samhällen.”

Saken är den att Piratpartiets uttalade politiska taktik att samarbeta med den partigrupp i EU-parlamentet eller det block i Riksdagen där man kan få mest genomslag för sin politik innebär att man ställer sig utanför den traditionella blockpolitiken. Detta eftersom man inte tar ställning i alla de frågor som inte rör deras partiprogram, vilket möjliggör att partimedlemmarna kommer både från höger- och vänsterhåll. Rick Falkvinge har ett förflutet i MUF, Christian Engström ett förflutet i Folkpartiet och Amelia Andersdotter kommer från vänsterhållet och kan tänka sig att skänka sin eventuella parlamentarikerlön till bland annat Attac. Man ser samma sak i IRC-kanalen #piratpartiet, där diskussionerna går vilda mellan höger- och vänsterfraktioner medan man samsas om den politiska taktiken och själva sakfrågorna.

Höger-vänsterskalan är alltså inte tillämpbar i det här fallet, utan ett mer meningsfullt sätt att försöka placera dom på en politisk skala finner man i den politiska kompassen. Det är ett försök att nyansera det politiska spektrumet genom att istället för att placera höger och vänster på en enda axel istället använda två, där x-axeln refererar till hur man vill att ekonomin ska vara organiserad. Vänster förordar då en ekonomi som organiseras genom staten eller med anarkistiska/syndikalistiska tanken om arbetares självorganisering. Att vara höger i ekonomiska frågor syftar på den kapitalistiska tanken om individer som konkurrerar på en marknad. Y-axeln refererar till graden av frihet för individen, där man i den anarkistiska och liberala idétraditionen har varit skeptisk till staten och positiva till att utöka människans frihet så långt som det är meningsfullt. Det kan ställas mot en mer auktoritär syn på individen som återfinns i fascism, nationalsocialism och de marxism-leninistiska experimenten i statskapitalism.

Så var placerar man in Piratpartiet här då? På den ekonomiska x-axeln så placerar man sig inte in sig alls (i bilden ovan ligger man precis i mitten för enkelhetens skull), medan man på y-axeln kan tänka sig att man lägger sig i mitten av den halvan (0,-7). Detta eftersom man är för en förstärkning av den personliga integriteten, öppenhet och demokrati, något som man kan argumentera för snarare leder till mer frihet för individen snarare än en inskränkning av den. Fast å andra sidan borde det inte gå längre än till mitten just för att det ändå rör sig om ett parlamentariskt politiskt parti som verkar inom de institutionella ramar som just detta innebär. Längre ner på den frihetliga skalan hittar man anarkism/syndikalism och nyliberalism på vänster respektiva höger sida, och det är uppenbart att Piratpartiet inte går så långt i sitt partiprogram även om det med största säkerhet finns partimedlemmar som bekänner sig till båda sidor.

Andra bloggar om: piratpartiet, peter eriksson, ideologi, political compass, kommunism, kapitalism, politisk taktik, liberalism, nyliberalism, anarkism

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – J. Krishnamurti,

An interesting debate has ensued from the corners of the Liberal Conspiracy website and the BNP’s two European election successes that have led to me to question my presentation of political understanding. That is; what is left, what is right?

It is true that when talking about the BNP we (that includes me) correctly use the term far-right (ultra-nationalist, fascist and racist are also accurate). But then again, are they? Tim Montgomerie, a conservative, has written a letter to the BBC to ask them to properly reflect the BNP’s ‘true’ ideological position on the political spectrum. He argues that instead of being classed as far-right they should be considered far-left. And depending on which way you look at it and the level of your political ignorance, he could have a point. Economically the BNP are a party who believe in big state, in nationalisation, in government intervention and protectionism- traditional positions attributed to the left and socialism. (In essence, their ideology stems from Strasserist economics- that money and big companies are being controlled by the Jews, but then also remember that Karl Marx once wrote: “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand… The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange”).

On the flipside, the left (including general liberalism) have been more open to encompass ideologies such as freedom of movement and expression, civil liberties, human rights. These are certainly not what the BNP stand for. Contrary to this we see New Labour who is considered as centre-left bringing about the destruction of civil liberties and the Tories have become the self-proclaimed vanguard of them. Is this left/right wing politics getting muddled? (Maybe the Tories are just fighting ‘big state’?).

One way of looking upon this is the humble evolution of the political compass. During the Cold War it was a case of you being left, right or centre. Now when you take a simple online quiz to find out what you are you have a Z axis, Y axis, X axis and the other one that no-one can remember the name. You still have the typical left/right wing axis, but now you also have the social axis – authoritarian and libertarian.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the troubles with Stalinism. He was supposed to be left wing, communist in fact, which places him traditionally on the far-left, but the repression he placed upon his people and even his own party members makes him extremely authoritarian. So socially links could be made between the BNP and Stalinism, but they can also begin to be made when it comes to economic policies. But if Stalin was indeed a communist (open to debate but I say no) then does that mean the BNP are?

The fact that the BNP are touted as pulling in a lot of the New Labour vote looks like it supports this idea. The left look towards the working class as the majority, they say the working classes represent the repressed majority. The BNP are directing policies towards the working classes and are also saying they are representing the repressed majority, albeit in a racist way by describing the ridiculous notion of the repressed ‘indigenous’ white majority.

Nick Griffin himself describes the BNP as being outside of left/right wing politics. They choose (sick) issues and (sick) policies that they believe in and to them they don’t fit anywhere on the spectrum.

However no-one wants to be associated with the BNP. Even though some of the centre-right are calling the BNP far-right they are much more in favour of pushing them off to the far-left like Montgomerie is trying to do. One example you can find on comment sections on blogs is by using the name ‘national socialism’ (Nazis) as an example of them being socialist (obviously the same way that the German Democratic Republic was indeed democratic…). In turn the left are pushing them to the far-right. Neither side want to be associated with them, but both sides want the other side to be. To have the BNP be on ‘your’ wing is to announce to the world that what you believe in is only a few doors away from them.

Perhaps Mr Griffin is actually right for a change. Perhaps they don’t belong on either side. Perhaps there is more to politics than left and right. Why is it that people are always classed as left/right/centre?

I personally do class myself as left wing, most things I believe in stem from the left wing ideology. I am proud of ‘belonging’ to the left. However, I don’t associate myself in anyway with New Labour, Stalinism or if they can be considered to be, the BNP- even though they are supposed to also be on the left. Perhaps what we need is this scraping of the left/right associations. The world and politics existed before left/right wing terminology was used, indeed the terminology first evolved with in France and then through Marxist ideology. It also stems from a Cold War positioning, us and them. A way to explain what is happening and what you believe. But why do things have to be so black and white? Even with the new direction political compasses’ are taking people still want to place you on either the left or right with the only alterations being ‘far-‘ and centre-‘.

Taking away these associations is not going to lead to the destruction of left/right ideology and everything in between. Instead it could lead to increased political freedom and understanding. If you are on the left and you like one specific policy from the right, you no longer need to try and ‘reclaim it for the left’. You won’t be bound by thinking ‘I can’t believe in that because it’s a right wing position and I’m on the left. In essence you can pick and choose policies that fit the world or your country best without fear of ‘selling out to the left/right’. These theoretical positions bind us down. Removing the word ‘left wing’ from my thinking is not going to mean that I don’t believe in nationalising the banks anymore, nor does it mean that I think we should tax the rich less, but what it does mean is that it takes away a mental wall that allows others in. Go round telling people you’re left wing then half the world won’t listen to you because they’re right wing, but tell people that your policies and beliefs develop to the needs and best interests of the people you serve then people are more likely to listen. As Krishnamurti said, “When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence”.

[this piece is intended for discussion, debate and evolution]

 The one thing which stands out when I do multi choice tests like the political compass is that I don’t like black and white answers because my response to many of the questions is but/providing/if. . .

That said, I’ve done two versions of the political compass and come out in a similar position as a right moderate social libertarian.

This one is the political spectrum quiz:

This is the political compass (which I found ages ago through Monkeywithtypewriter)

I’m left of Freidman and right of Ghandi on the economic spectrum but on a similar level to both on the social one.

I’m also a bit further right and more liberal than Halfdone at Something should go here and Lucia Maria at NZ Conservative and well to the right and more liberal than Dave at Big News .

P.S. – Halfdone is interested in compiling a chart of where bloggers sit on the compass.

Una interesante página que explica a base de unas preguntas rápidas tus tendencias políticas. También te dice donde se ubicarían algunos personajes históricos y actuales. A mí me sale mi puntuación bastante a la izquierda, y esoty orgulloso de mi zona, pues me encuentro junto a Ghandi, Nelson Mandela y el Dalai Lama, y justo en el extremo contrario de Bush, Aznar… y demás indeseables. Bueno, aquí os dejo mi puntuación, la web del test y la zona de algunos personajes y países de la UE. No os digo el método porque eso tiene copyright (sí, esto es internete, pero mejor no arriesgarse) y podríais pillar el método y no contestar sinceramente. Os animo a mandar vuestra puntuación.

Derecha/Izquierda Economicista: -7.25
Anarquismo/Autoritarismo Social: -6.51

http://www.politicalcompass.org/es/printablegraph?ec=-7.25&soc=-6.51

http://www.politicalcompass.org/es/

By: J-Fénix