You have your choice between serving the conservative private corporatist plantation model of tyranny or the publicly socialist progressivist [Marxist] government plantation model of it. Some great choices and options right there to have in the human controlled zoo also known as civilization.
Is there a third option to opt out of either? Oh, thatās right there isnāt as that option was destroyed years ago. Enjoy the tyranny from cradle to grave useful tools and idiotsā¦
Iām a hardcore angry leftist with a strong authoritarian streak. They donāt capture that.
The whole āBernie Broā thing is a creation of the Dem establishment. It basically boils down to the same crisis of consciousness that has been all the rage on NYT editorial pages. Which has been Democratic congressfolks either earnestly asking, āShould I pay attention to my constituents?ā and Democratic congressfolks complaining about how their constituents call them too much.
I want to be very clear that the bell curve overlap between the best Republican and the worst Democrat still ensures the worst democrat is better. But holy fucking shit are Dems bad.
Edit: For emphasis in normal political discussions I either describe myself as a ābomb throwing leftistā or a āMaoistā. Neither are really true but their both close to true. I donāt think anyone who āstrugglesā with the Cultural Revolution and its aftermath in a positive way and also appreciates the LKY government in Singapore belongs anywhere near the ālibertarianā end on social issues.
My 20th Century hero is Zhou Enlai. I donāt see him in that result.
I feel there isnāt any kind of political compass to fit my views accurately. Not much of an intellectual market for a pessimistic anarchistic nihilist individual autonomy supporter.
Yes, there was a doubt which is why I asked. That doubt is now layed to rest.
Heroes? Heroes are for people that do not have full faith in their own capabilities to latch onto. Donāt really have any heroes but then again Iāve always had a thing against heroism.
Yes, the quiz looks like just another gross over simplification.
Heroes can also be people looked up to in a way that makes the observer feel they are themselves superior in some way. Hero sports persons for those into sport, conservatives for those who want to think they are in the superior class, and royalty so they got a figurehead. So people say they are royalists or support the queen, do so because if the queen is ābetter thanā, then by including themselves in that in some way, means people think they belong to an upper echelon of individuals ~ part of that pyramid. In short its all about opeupmanship, and being in the winning or ābetter thanā group.
The test could use a few more dimensions, like are you a democrat, or oligarch?
Are you a military interventionist, or isolationist?
An egalitarian, or elitist?
But then, philosophically minded people tend to be more ahistorical and broadminded than John and Jane Doe. We think of nearly all the possibilities.
Gloom, I agree that more dimensions would be better, and it is probably a curse of taking a philosophical mindset that standard categorizations tend to breakdown around our worldviews (imagine that). But some of the distinctions Iād like to see made are hard to articulate, let alone score. My personal misalignment is that I think government should be both strongly redistributionist and significantly more hands off, e.g. eliminate the minimum wage and implement a basic income. Whether thatās a net left or right position is not straightforward (I think of it as left, but in my experience lefties often donāt).
Mack, the dimensions are just 1-10 scales, there can be as many as we want, we just canāt plot them all at the same time in a way that our puny human minds can grasp. Although at some point, we wouldnāt be dealing with a political compass as much as a psych profile.
Thatās a good dichotomy you bring up.
You can be an authoritarian or libertarian and still be a federalist or decentralist.
Myself Iām more of a decentralist myself, I think.
Thereās a lot of dimensions you could come up with, probably dozens, I guess the trick is finding the right balance, introducing an extra dimension to your typology when thereās a need, when itās an important issue, and it canāt be adequately encompassed by existing dimensions.
Anybody else have any they think should be on the test?
Yes itās very subjective, issues matter to some individuals and societies more than others, and so the others get ignored, or somewhat artificially and arbitrarily lumped in with issues weāre more cognizant of.