Leftypolitical compass

...

NORMIES GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Sure, but there's an element of fun to these things. Even on a board of leftists, people want to post these things when most people here wind up on a narrow band.

What area is normie tier there?

This needs more than 2 questions. Posting my own because it better reflects my philosophy.

You're basically a lolbertarian or a run of the mill liberal.

Markets =/= capitalism.

Feel free to recommend questions.

Which bits on that map would you consider normie?

k

Basically questions like that would be a good start.

What sort of axes should these questions go with?

...

the first question would obviously move someone to the right or left of the x-axis. The second question would probably move someone north or south the origin point of the y axis, the same applies to the 3rd question.

On axes that describe what?

I'm really tired so I can't tell if your misspelling of the word axis is a joke or what. Assuming it's not, I basically explained it to you.

'Axes' is plural. I'm asking whether on the same axes that are in the quiz or some other ones.

I don't think that there is really much to be gained by these 2d political graphs.
They are always either so simplistic to the point of being useless (such as the one in the op) or bias to the point of being useless (such as the political compass).

Something like the attached picture seems to work the best (despite the fact that this particular test equates anti-captialism with socialism/communism).

In the sake of completeness, I was placed into the very top diamond in the test found in the op.

Oh, I see. Sorry. Use the ones in the quiz you made. The chart is actually really well done for a Holla Forums themed quiz.

But I got that anyways.

Yeah but the point is that two questions isn't enough to determine someone's overall political philosophy. Especially when you factor in nuanced views.

I hate how both the left and the right can't grasp this. Markets are the mechanism that work in concert with private ownership of capital to produce capitalism. There's a reason why Marx wrote Das Capital and not Das Markets.

Exactly.

I knew with the first polls that I would be in the centre. I also said that post-capitalism would come about gradually, maintaining the skepticism that neither violent revolution (whether in the form of material weaponry or "protestant" occupation) nor representative policy change brought about such "ideal" post-capital economies.

The only real answer

...

What?

Enjoy your lack of toilet paper, when the government sets anti-market regulation on toilet paper, but does not have the means to actually get toilet paper produced.

You are very presumptuous. I believe in a small government that coordinates different industries in order to prevent waste and maintain efficiency. It would be completely democratic, but would not be an overhead institution like current governments - it would be a purely organisational body - public servants rather than politicians.
I'm not sure where you think you are.

I know the difference. I still don't like markets. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're ignorant.

All political compasses are garbage.

Sure bud

Regardless lolbertarians want a limited state. They do not want anarchism.

Being pro-state gives you prostate cancer :^)

What's with the capitalism=iphone meme?

This tbh fam

Wow, for a crazy cunt you are boring

no marget sockalists ;DDDDD

Wait? Let me understand this…you want me to entertain you?

Would it be accurate to label 'pro-state' as 'statist' and 'anti-state' as 'anarchist'?

I'm sorry but this belief that as soon as we got rid of capitalism we'd automatically have limitless resources and minimal demand is just ridiculous.
I believe that humanity will eventually progress beyond scarcity, but it's not happening any time in the next couple of centuries. There isn't some conspiracy among corporations to keep paying workers minimum wage while suppressing cheaper robotics. Most companies are automating away jobs as fast as they can.

There are many efficiency savings which can be made by eliminating consumerism, profit motives, and intellectual "property" (read: theft from the public domain). However, capitalism does benefit from efficiencies of scale. The efficiency savings simply wouldn't be enough to eliminate scarcity.

Legitimate Marxists are opposed to the state and simply want to use it in the short term to dismantle class rule.

This legit?

Put Žižek in the middle and then you're done.

if you are pro-market, you are literally a capitalist. You just want cute small capitalism.

...

hoxha pls go and stay go

Cmon crowder, read a fucking book

...

the only correct answer

this yes

Have you tried not getting all of your knowledge about socialism from fox news?

my views are mostly that of anarcho communist but they are ideal i think we have alot of work to do what requires centralized planing

Disgusting

If you had read the questions you would have noticed that's exactly what was asked

Quiz needs more questions, but it does things better than most political spectrum quizzes.

Maybe we should be having more quizzes that look at where you fall on a spectrum of similar ideologies, instead of trying to simulate every ideology into one spectrum.

Yep. Count me in.

heh

After capitalism, not after the state does everything it needs to

...

A = bordiga/italian leftcom, anti-revisionist ML
B = lenin, classical ML
C = titoism, dengism
D = ???
E = mutualism
F = ???
G = anarcho communism
H = luxemburg/pannekoek/german leftcom
I = zizek

perhaps it my lac of imagination the because i can see no world in witch after capitalism things will be where they need to be even in my most ideal circumstances

MARKETCUCKS GET OUT

F=generic anarchism?
D=market socialism?

Have fun with your shortages comrade.
I'll be in my society owning my own means of production while obtaining higher quality goods at a lower price than your government coughUSSRcough charges.

...

Let's see what Uncle Karl has to say:

When "the direct producer" is "the possessor of his own means of production" then he is "a non-capitalist producer." This is "a form of production that does not correspond to the capitalist mode of production" even if "he produces his product as a commodity."- Capital III: 735, 1015

"The means of production and subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation of, and domination over, the worker." When the producer owns his "conditions of labour" and "employs that labour to enrich himself instead of the capitalist" then it is an economic system "diametrically opposed" to capitalism. Capital 1: 938, 931

tl;dr market socialism is still socialism

...

What's the difference between classical ML and anti-revisionist?

Not sure if it's accurate to what my position is as it asked me what my IDEAL society would look like, whereas IRL I think there would be some form of a state for awhile post-rev

L(eninist) is Lenin, without "interpretations" by Stalin, Mao, whateva.
M-L is … Stalin Mao Whateva.

Anti-revisionist is .. .. Hoxha. Everything that is not what Stalin said, is revisionism and has to be purged.
… Like the inquisition in 40K.

By classical ML I meant the MLs that followed the line of the ML regimes which were not as dogmatically anti-market as "anti revisionists".

good point

Why is it a diamond instead of being a square? What's wrong with squares?

Also
The Political Spectrum is a spook. And it's one of the worst ones. It biases in favor of the extreme positions and against the "moderate" ones and any that fall outside the boundaries.

But capitalism grew out of feudal markets. So even though markets existed before capitalism, that doesn't mean you can just fight fire with fire here. The decentralized nature of feudal production as well as production for markets is one reason capitalism arose.

How exactly would one classify anarchosyndicalism in this?

The hierarchy of democratic syndicates would function very similarly to a state, but the bottom-level syndicates that comprise it would constantly be condensing and evaporating; Syndicates would compete against each in a market much like businesses or other NGOs, but would also compete politically like government parties or offices.

It seems to me that the classical lines between "government" and "market" would melt to the point of meaninglessness under AnSyn. And not in the way of Bolshevism (state owning business) or fascism (business owning state), but of true top-to-bottom union.

You mean:
"Make a State, Call it not a State"?

I mean most anarcho-syndicalism are also communists: they just emphasize the strategy of union-building

How COULDN'T a syndicalist be a communist? I'm at a loss to think of formal differences in definition between a commune and a syndicate, except, perhaps if I really strain, a non-system where communes exist in economic isolation from each other and their surroundings like Israeli Kibbutzim, rather than forming a governmental hierarchy of recallable delegates as syndicates.

It's better than "Make capitalism, don't call it capitalism" :^)

See, I can meme too :DDDD

thoughts?

right = open to markets
left = against markets

No because libertarians on that particular scale are opposed to the degree of market regulation that would be required to completely replace private ownership with cooperative ownership. Proudhon would be on the left, although not as far left as some of the others.

Im afraid its just not that simple.

We will never accurately be able to measure these types of things in this format, it would be more effective to use ven diagrams and use common beliefs to judge how closely or far apart political beliefs are.

I mean, they're all bottom-left in the long run.

It would have been awkward to have a horizontal (i.e. left-right) axis.

nah fam

??
Yah, fam

>uquiz.com/dMp65w
pretty weak two question poll

can we perhaps develop the questions here to enhance this?

That is the idea. Also I made all the nine options one by one, I don't know how to generate those. All help is appreciated if there's potential here.

I don't think there are any create-your-own quizes equipped for a full political compass. Anyway, you can install xampp and practice php or perl I think. I found this resource which is hopefully helpful :
php.net/manual/en/ref.image.php
When you finish you can upload it to a proper webserver, I'm sure there's some user here who will be fine hosting your quiz.

Italian leftcoms aren't anymore more "pro state" than dutch-german leftcoms, you raging dickhead. A state based on workers councils is still a fucking state.

...

...

topkek

Pick one.

Rate me lads

How did an anarchist end up in the top corner?

This poll is retarded.

...

...

I guess that's what "anarcho-authoritarian" would be if it was a thing

More like "confused liberal".

Aka "liberal"

i think ayncapitalism is basically anarcho-authoritarian since a society structured in such a fashion would devolve back to a state similar to the despotic monarchies of ancient sumeria and egypt

also possibly this (lol) jack-donovan.com/axis/2013/03/anarcho-fascism/

That's some goofy shit

...

How about all lolbertarians get the fuck off this board

...

What the? So if you're in the middle for markets but fully pro-state you're left, but if you're in the middle for markets but not fully pro-state you're not left-wing?

...

There are leftist reasons to tolerate some markets if there is full state control over them. I'm not confortable with that area but it can be justified.

The bait is real.

...

>Implying that "state" does not imply hierarchy per definition

Only if you're an anarchist.

Not that there's anything wrong with a democratic hierarchy, like one with recallable delegates, as opposed to a rigid and undemocratic hierarchy.

I'm on D, what does that mean?

...

you can't be pro-state and anti-market, the market only exists because of the state

that's why this test is stupid

That's kind of how they've been, yknow, hierarchical. It only makes sense to call what we want to replace it with something else in order to distinguish it from the negative aspects we want to get it away from.

Even if you think a system of communes would be a state, there's still a huge difference between that a bourgeois republicanism.

dick :^)

G is more a Bakunin
i would agree with

Kek, I think I'll be able to make some pop-up looking html with javascript that can generate these.

Yep. Ugly as hell version 0.1 has been completed.

Of course a proletarian semi-state is a different kind of state to a bourgeois republic, but it's a state none the less. As long as the proletariat is fighting the remnants of the bourgeoisie/reactionaries their organisation(s) will retain its/their state-like nature (its repressive aspects).

s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=89250564099281596574

Here's version 0.00069 of the leftypolitical compass. It looks horrible, but it is functional and does generate graphs based on answers.

Give me suggestions from questions, what answers should be available for those and what effect those answers will have.

Also, feel free to make this thing look better, and you can screw around with the code as well.

Scientific socialism, you're doin' it wrong

Not sure which one to trust more….

...

Trippy

Come on fam

Great results in all comrade.

Thanks comrade

That was a sham of a test, what was the point?

To develop a better one

The first neoliberals (around 1930s in Europe, they invented the name) criticized classical liberalism precisely by saying that markets are nothing natural and you need a state to maintain their existence - even on a purely material level e.g. the infrastructure that makes wide circulation of commodities possible (for example, one of the goals was to modernize agriculture through state so that existing farmers could be integrated into the market). Or any law enforcement that enforces private property.
It is only after Americans in the 70s created their own version of neoliberalism that you get a kind of return to that retarded idea of markets being natural. But that is only an official ideology, while de facto the state has only become more efficient in maintaining the existence of the market through control and surveillance (while leaving the brainwashing to mainstream and social media).
Yes, under neoliberalism the state isn't supposed to intervene into the market (unless to save its existence - like saving the banks), however the state is supposed to extensively and heavily intervene into the very social structures from which the market arises in the first place.
That's what neoliberals themselves say, it's not just some interpretation from a leftist. The whole point of neoliberalism is basically this:
1. produce and maintain the market by intervening into social structures
2. remove and prevent any regulation of the market itself
3. the market will regulate the society itself (since at this point people are just consumers and entrepreneurs)