Political compass

[spartan]

We have had a few of these on various sections of the forum but not (I think?) in OI.

So i thought that it would be intresting for some of our restricted members (And revleft regulars) to also join in the fun and take part in this political compass test to see where they are ideologically.

It doesnt really mean that much, as i am sure that most of us here know what we are ideologically, but it is still an intresting test that might come up with some unexpected results.

Here it is:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Here are my results:
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.59

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.38&soc=-5.59

[kromando33]

Political compasses are bourgeois constructs and in no way differentiate the views of certain people, personally I blame the French for creating the whole 'left/right' false dichotomy.

[Demogorgon]

Political compasses are bourgeois constructs and in no way differentiate the views of certain people, personally I blame the French for creating the whole 'left/right' false dichotomy.

*yawn*

Anyway -9.88,-9.68

[w0lf]

Economic Left/Right: -3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

[Dean]

We have had a few of these on various sections of the forum but not (I think?) in OI.

So i thought that it would be intresting for some of our restricted members (And revleft regulars) to also join in the fun and take part in this political compass test to see where they are ideologically.

It doesnt really mean that much, as i am sure that most of us here know what we are ideologically, but it is still an intresting test that might come up with some unexpected results.

i've taken this a few times in the past. I always get -9,-9 to -10,-10

I've noticed that all the graphs tend to show that the more authoritarian you are, the more likely you are to be economically conservative.

[Demogorgon]

I've noticed that all the graphs tend to show that the more authoritarian you are, the more likely you are to be economically conservative.

That's fairly natural though. The more authoritarian a person is, the more inclined they will be to support an economic system that imposes hierarchy

[jake williams]

personally I blame the French for creating the whole 'left/right' false dichotomy
Yes, because as we all know, the primary thing on the minds if post-Revolutionary French politicians was "Let's institutionalize a restrictive and semi-arbitrary bipolarization of politics and stifle discourse forever! Ha!", only of course they didn't say "Ha!" because French folks have trouble with H sounds.

[pusher robot]

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08


About what you'd expect, I suppose.

[Jazzratt]

*yawn*

Anyway -9.88,-9.68

How did you get so social libertarian as a religion apologising, dictator sucking Trot?

[Demogorgon]

How did you get so social libertarian as a religion apologising, dictator sucking Trot?

Well the religion apologising bit-I have never desired to restrict anyones views, including their religious views, and dictator sucking-I have no time for dictators, as you would see from anything I have written here on the subject of the so called communist ones.

Seriously, we probably agree on far more than we disagree on anyway. Its just that on this board the stuff we agree on is pretty much taken for granted so we only focus on where we disagree. Hence our differences are over emphasised.

[jake williams]

Seriously, we probably agree on far more than we disagree on anyway. Its just that on this board the stuff we agree on is pretty much taken for granted so we only focus on where we disagree. Hence our differences are over emphasised.
I've noticed this too, and it's well worth remembering.

[RedAnarchist]

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

[Red Economist]

I've tried lots of these tests and each time i get a fairly similar result; but nothing ever conclusive. for some reason- i'm stuck between communism, socialism and anarchism...

oh well,

Economic Left/Right: -9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21

[non-vio-resist]

i don't think these tests are very productive for the individual, but are perhaps a good way for others on a site like this to see where their peers stand. many of the questions, though, are completely irrelevant to this site, and politics in general. anyways:
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.44

[Colonello Buendia]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.00&soc=-6.87
not quite sure how to look at this, Anarchist? Socialist? Like the Tree said to the LumberJack, I'm Stumped <corny I know I'm ashamed for saying that:(>

[Jazzratt]

Well the religion apologising bit-I have never desired to restrict anyones views, including their religious views, and dictator sucking-I have no time for dictators, as you would see from anything I have written here on the subject of the so called communist ones.

Ah yeah, sorry, Trotsky was only an almost dictator. Or were his decisions to crush the left wing working class resistance while he was a Red Army General simply a necessary evil (like gulags.).


Seriously, we probably agree on far more than we disagree on anyway. Its just that on this board the stuff we agree on is pretty much taken for granted so we only focus on where we disagree. Hence our differences are over emphasised.Yeah, I'm sorry for being a dick about it, I'm still surprised that any flavour of Lenin lover scored so highly on the libertarian front. Ah I've now seen the time stamp, don't feel too bad about being flamed, I was a bit worse for drink when I posted.

[Dr Mindbender]

how do you calculate the co-ordinates of your political orientation anyway?

As a side point, if you have 2 exact points that you can put on a graph then it must mean your political stance also has an equation.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The Political Compass becomes less accurate the further you move away from the political centre of a standard Western capitalist society. As a result, it is probably not at all accurate for revolutionary leftists - or for reactionaries, for that matter.

But anyway, here's my score:

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85


Yeah, I'm sorry for being a dick about it, I'm still surprised that any flavour of Lenin lover scored so highly on the libertarian front.

In my experience, most Leninists score libertarian, because the questions related to government restrictions on private life are geared towards the type of restrictions supported by capitalist conservatives rather than the type of restrictions supported by Leninists. Also, every time you oppose religion, that gets counted as a libertarian answer. And you need to agree with racist and nationalist statements in order to get full authoritarian points.

The test basically doesn't take into account the possibility of non-religious, non-racist and non-nationalist dictators. As a result, there is probably no one in the entire history of the world who could take that test honestly and end up in the upper-left corner. In order to score in the upper-left corner, you need to be a racist, nationalist religious fanatic who supports social and economic equality - an absurd and contradictory combination of views.

I did the Political Compass test for Stalin once (that is to say, I answered the questions as I thought Stalin would) and the result I got was Economic -10.00, Social 5.38. Only 5.38 out of 10 on the authoritarian scale for Stalinist answers.

[Dean]

i don't think these tests are very productive for the individual, but are perhaps a good way for others on a site like this to see where their peers stand. many of the questions, though, are completely irrelevant to this site, and politics in general. anyways:
Economic Left/Right: -8.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.44

The test measures emotional responses to the questions, not direct, clear political statements. If it was that way, it may as well just ask you what the results should be. It's also worth noting that the test measures responses to the questions. Not your own opinion of whether pro-choice is authoritarian or libertarian, or whether less money to the arts would "liberate money" to be used for what you think is more important. The results are only as relevant as the questions are, and for what its worth, I have seen many different people take this test and the resutls were rarely surprising. What is surprising is how much more socially permissive almost every person I've ever seen take it is than the very candidates they often vote for. It's often also true that they are more economically liberal.

[lvatt]

This is what it gives me:

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

Not sure how reliable those little quizzes are, though

Some times I was thinking, "yes I agree with this but on this or that condition and if its done in this or that way" and obviously that's not taken into account.

[apathy maybe]

I've got my results in my signature. Mind, it is a while since I took it, and I may have shifted down or left ...

Anyway, these things are a bit silly really. As others have pointed out, they are geared for the mainstream society, etc.

Mind you, I think it is fair to say that you can't really be a leftist and an authoritarian fuck.

[pusher robot]

Mind you, I think it is fair to say that you can't really be a leftist and an authoritarian fuck.

Why?

[Colonello Buendia]

not to agree with Pusher Robot, But Stalin was an Authoritarian Fuck along With Pol Pot and Mao and the Juche communist leaders lets face it the radical left has had a few characters

[apathy maybe]

Ah, but I don't consider Stalin, Pol Pot or Jucheshits to be real leftists.
As for Mao, well that is up for debate. Was he really an authoritarian after all? Etc.


Anyway, leftism is about equality and freedom. Something you can't have if you have an authoritarian system of politics. No matter if it is one person or a group, if you have others ordering people about, then there is something inequal in that system.


I've got a really cool quote around somewhere, but I have trouble finding it when ever I want it. So, when I find it, I'll post it.

[Ismail]

Economic Left/Right: -9.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

[pusher robot]

Anyway, leftism is about equality and freedom.

The problem is that those two values are sometimes - perhaps usually - mutually exclusive.

[apathy maybe]

Meh, I disagree.

After all, how can you have freedom if someone is oppressing you (inequality)?

Obviously it is possible to have freedom for some and inequality, but the only way to have freedom for all is equality. That is, if no on is about anyone else, and everyone is equally free.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why?
Because in order to be a leftist authoritarian you must believe at the same time that (a) all people are or should be equal, and (b) political power should only be granted to one person or a small group rather than to everyone equally.

It's not hard to see why those two views are very difficult to reconcile. Some have tried to reconcile them in the past, of course, but they never did a good job of it and the resulting theories of government ended up being rather contradictory and doublethink-ish.


The problem is that those two values are sometimes - perhaps usually - mutually exclusive.
Not at all. I define "freedom" as the equal distribution of power.

[Dean]

Not at all. I define "freedom" as the equal distribution of power.

Very well put.

[AAFCE]

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.08

[pusher robot]

Not at all. I define "freedom" as the equal distribution of power.

Well, that's a stupid definition - by definition, it constrains me from doing anything that could conceivably increase my share of "power," including, I suppose, saving, working hard, and persuading people to listen to me. That's not "freedom."

[Demogorgon]

Well, that's a stupid definition - by definition, it constrains me from doing anything that could conceivably increase my share of "power," including, I suppose, saving, working hard, and persuading people to listen to me. That's not "freedom."

I don't se how that definition prevents you from doing such things. So long as other can practically do that as well, you would hardly be restricted from doing those things (well saving is controversial given the different understandings of its meaning, but lets not open that can of worms).

However the present system where much of the planet will be powerless by virtue of birth and many more will be very limited simply because they did not succeed in making a fortune is obviously authoritarian.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, that's a stupid definition - by definition, it constrains me from doing anything that could conceivably increase my share of "power," including, I suppose, saving, working hard, and persuading people to listen to me. That's not "freedom."
It doesn't constrain you from anything; it means that society should not award you more power as a reward for any kind of merit or beneficial behaviour - rather, different rewards should be used.

To clarify, by "power" I mean specifically economic and political power. In other words, freedom requires that all people have equal power to affect political decisions (democracy) and that they have equal power to determine the production and distribution of goods (communism).

A violation of freedom consists of an inequality of political power (taking away someone's right to vote or giving more weight to the votes of some people over the votes of others) or an inequality of economic power (private property over the means of production).

[pusher robot]

[quote=Edric O;1060430]In other words, freedom requires that all people have equal power to affect political decisions (democracy) and that they have equal power to determine the production and distribution of goods (communism).

Suppose that I am very strong, both through the luck of good genes and hard work. As a result, I can produce twice as much as my neighbors. Your system constrains me from deploying that labor-power to my own benefit, since the natural logical consequence is unequal power to determine the production of goods (inasmuch as I produce more than others). It binds me to deferring to their judgment as to how I should be laboring, or else simply refuse to deploy my labor. In a free society, I would have the choice of where and to what ends to deploy my extra ability.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Suppose that I am very strong, both through the luck of good genes and hard work. As a result, I can produce twice as much as my neighbors. Your system constrains me from deploying that labor-power to my own benefit, since the natural logical consequence is unequal power to determine the production of goods (inasmuch as I produce more than others). It binds me to deferring to their judgment as to how I should be laboring, or else simply refuse to deploy my labor. In a free society, I would have the choice of where and to what ends to deploy my extra ability.
You still do not understand my point. I will try to explain it in greater detail.

Labour by itself, and particularly individual labour, cannot produce anything. No matter how strong you are, you cannot conjure a car into existence (for example) just by flexing your muscles. You have to apply your labour to something. You need the raw materials to make a car, and you need the tools to build it with. These are the things we call means of production. Both labour AND means of production must be used in order to actually produce something.

Now, the means of production, like most things, exhibit scarcity. There are not enough of them in the world to allow anyone to use as much as they want for any kind of labour. So there must be some mechanism to decide who gets to work with the means of production and in what way. Under communism, this mechanism is a democratic one. The means of production are held in common, and everyone gets an equal say - an equal vote - in deciding how to use them. This means an equal distribution of economic power, which is economic freedom.

You complain that you wish to be able to use means of production without asking anyone else's permission. In other words, you want to have total and exclusive control over some means of production. This would indeed increase your freedom to work however you see fit. But it would decrease the freedom of everyone else, since they would need to ask for your permission to use your means of production and they would have no vote in the decisions you make.

Equal distribution of power doesn't allow you the freedom to do anything you want at any time with any object, but no society could possibly give you that freedom without severely limiting the freedoms of everyone else. Equal distribution of power maximizes total freedom for society as a whole.

[jake williams]

I don't think we can talk about "freedom" as if some societies are "free" and some "aren't" and it's automatically the case that we should pick one that is.

I think "freedoms" are different - there are specific things that people can be given the capacity to do, or not do, by society. Likewise talking about the distribution of freedom, ie. freedoms being held mostly equally rather than vested in a particular ruling class, which does restrict the "freedom" of the ruling class (and this is what all these arch-"conservative" "libertarian" American nutjobs are on about), that's a different deal, and I think that's basically just basic moral sense. And while I think it's generally understood that that's a lot of what we're talking about, we need to be clear.

[There is No God!]

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.41

[Dean]

[QUOTE]

Suppose that I am very strong, both through the luck of good genes and hard work. As a result, I can produce twice as much as my neighbors. Your system constrains me from deploying that labor-power to my own benefit, since the natural logical consequence is unequal power to determine the production of goods (inasmuch as I produce more than others). It binds me to deferring to their judgment as to how I should be laboring, or else simply refuse to deploy my labor. In a free society, I would have the choice of where and to what ends to deploy my extra ability.
And it also constrains you from commiting murder, coercion and rape. How shackled you are!

[Die Neue Zeit]

In my experience, most Leninists score libertarian, because the questions related to government restrictions on private life are geared towards the type of restrictions supported by capitalist conservatives rather than the type of restrictions supported by Leninists. Also, every time you oppose religion, that gets counted as a libertarian answer. And you need to agree with racist and nationalist statements in order to get full authoritarian points.

Indeed; I consistently score "negative" on the libertarian/authoritarian aspect, even though I'm in favour of internationalized one-party rule (the devil's in the details if you see my qualified Theory remarks regarding the organization of that "party of power," in the words of Russian politicians today). :(


I did the Political Compass test for Stalin once (that is to say, I answered the questions as I thought Stalin would) and the result I got was Economic -10.00, Social 5.38. Only 5.38 out of 10 on the authoritarian scale for Stalinist answers.

How could they have misplaced Stalin, then?

[Wanted Man]

Almost every member of RevLeft will get into the "green" field here. The only way to get more "authoritarian" is by holding conservative notions on nationalism, race, gender, sexuality, etc. It's crap. One can support gay marriage and promiscuity in this test, but that person can still be very "authoritarian".

[RedAnarchist]

Almost every member of RevLeft will get into the "green" field here. The only way to get more "authoritarian" is by holding conservative notions on nationalism, race, gender, sexuality, etc. It's crap. One can support gay marriage and promiscuity in this test, but that person can still be very "authoritarian".

And its quite obvious what answers you should put in to get the most extreme political positions such as -10, -10.

[Coprolal1an]

Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00


Some of the questions were a little misleading though... I think that if it was possible, I'd rather have people voluntarily give to charity than be forced top give via social security, but I also realize that in a capitalist society it is not as likely to happen..

[pusher robot]

I also realize that in a capitalist society it is not as likely to happen..

What is your evidence for that?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is your evidence for that?
How about the fact that charity did little to alleviate poverty in capitalist societies before social security was introduced?

[Pawn Power]

What is your evidence for that?

I guess the obvious evidence is it has not occurred in any substantial measure.



Maybe in you pure, unhindered free market, mass charity work will ensue...however this seems highly improbable.


The reason is, simply, that under capitalism an individuals economic stability is constantly fluctuating in relation to the market. That is, most people are economically insecure. In such a system one must save (what little one can) for fear of recession, being laid off, etc. Every man for himself, as the saying goes.


Of course, people do participate in charity work. However, this has never been seen to fill the gap of inequality even in times of relative economic prosperity.

[Comrade Rage]

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Authoritarian/Libertarian: 1.98



Mind you, I think it is fair to say that you can't really be a leftist and an authoritarian fuck.Why?


Ah, but I don't consider Stalin, Pol Pot or Jucheshits to be real leftists.I consider 'Anarchism' to be a
reactionary ideology.

It's followers have taken up arms against every workers' state and movement.
It (particularly it's CrimethInc/primitivist wing) creates nothing new, merely it abolishes the state and it's related institutions.

[spartan]

I consider 'Anarchism' to be a
reactionary ideology.

It's followers have taken up arms against every workers' state and movement.

First off for Anarchism to have taken up arms against a workers state, there would have to be a workers state in existence, which there never has been.

Secondly Anarchism is a workers movement which has itself been attacked by authoritarians on many occassions (See Makhno in Ukraine and the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war for just a few examples of this).

[Comrade Rage]

First off for Anarchism to have taken up arms against a workers state, there would have to be a workers state in existence, which there never has been.Crap.

Secondly Anarchism is a workers movement which has itself been attacked by authoritarians on many occassions (See Makhno in Ukraine and the Anarchists in the Spanish civil war for just a few examples of this).It was Makhno's undisciplined band of rapists and looters who declared war on the real revolutionaries, my friend. Yes, we evil authoritarians have the evil intentions of preserving the revolution.;) We will fire back at anarchists when they fire at us.

[Jazzratt]

It was Makhno's undisciplined band of rapists and looters

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And you have the ovaries to call our conception of history "laced with propaganda". Looters were often shot by th Blacks.


who declared war on the real revolutionaries, my friend. Yes, we evil authoritarians have the evil intentions of preserving the revolution.

Your revolution was a piece of crap. The gains made for the working class were great, but not great enough. It basically boils down to the fact that you never practice, even the bullshit that you preach. The idea that having a group of elected representatives is the same as a class dictatorship is as laughable as the idea, which the USSR later seemed enamoured with, that having an individual dictator was like having a class dictatorship. Your "revolutuonary" leaders promised freedom and a voice for all workers whilst simultaneously tightening state controls on everything. The promise was that your industry would be much more efficient, what wasn't mentioned was that agriculture would remain blisteringly inneficiant. The existance of unsavoury characters like Stalin and, even worse Lysenko are directly thanks to the revolution you want to defend. Fuck that.


We will fire back at anarchists when they fire at us.

I don't believe many people get a chance to fire first when you line them against the fucking wall.

[Comrade Rage]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And you have the ovaries to call our conception of history "laced with propaganda". Looters were often shot by th Blacks.I wonder what happened to the stuff they were carrying.;)




Your revolution was a piece of crap. The gains made for the working class were great, but not great enough. It basically boils down to the fact that you never practice, even the bullshit that you preach. The idea that having a group of elected representatives is the same as a class dictatorship is as laughable as the idea, which the USSR later seemed enamoured with, that having an individual dictator was like having a class dictatorship. Your "revolutuonary" leaders promised freedom and a voice for all workers whilst simultaneously tightening state controls on everything. The promise was that your industry would be much more efficient, what wasn't mentioned was that agriculture would remain blisteringly inneficiant. The existance of unsavoury characters like Stalin and, even worse Lysenko are directly thanks to the revolution you want to defend. Fuck that.Once more, the talk about the gains not being good enough. What has anarchism brought the working class? Forty years of Spanish Fascism, a famine in the newly formed USSR and needless division within the Western left for a start. As for the Makhno counterrevolutionaries, they were fighting on the wrong side of a civil war against a revolutionary government that was overwhelmingly supported by the working class.

And they somehow aren't reactionary??




I don't believe many people get a chance to fire first when you line them against the fucking wall.Actually, Lenin only had Makhno anarchists arrested after he started fighting as a reactionary. Even then, mainstream anarchists were, largely excluded from this.

You expect me to believe that anarchists wouldn't kill Communists? THEY HAVE.

[spartan]

It was Makhno's undisciplined band of rapists and looters

Surely you meant the Soviet soldiers who entered Germany in 1945?


What has anarchism brought the working class? Forty years of Spanish Fascism, a famine in the newly formed USSR and needless division within the Western left for a start.

If it wasnt for the Anarchist militias at the start of the Spanish civil war (Who were the first to demand arms when Franco rebelled and the Spanish government was refusing to arm the workers) then Franco wouldnt have been oppossed at all when he rebelled!

The majority of people holding the line against Franco were Anarchists, whilst the Stalinist popular army was training in the rear.

Things only started to go wrong when the militia system was forcibly integrated into the popular army and the old officers came back (Ranks had been abolished by most of the militias).

You obviously dont have any sort of real factual knowledge when it comes to Anarchism.


As for the Makhno counterrevolutionaries, they were fighting on the wrong side of a civil war against a revolutionary government that was overwhelmingly supported by the working class.

Makhno was fighting all sides in the Russian civil war, because all sides in the civil war werent proposing or implementing anything close to Socialism.


And they somehow aren't reactionary??

They werent the ones executing people who advocated working class control over all productive forces in society, whilst your side on the other hand has the blood of millions of workes on its hands.

[pusher robot]

How about the fact that charity did little to alleviate poverty in capitalist societies before social security was introduced?

That's not a fact, it's an assertion. An unsupported assertion.

Surely you would agree that the U.S. is at least mostly capitalist? Well, the U.S. has one of the highest, if not the single highest, rate of annual per-capita charitable donations. This alone is enough to disprove your proposition.

[Jazzratt]

I wonder what happened to the stuff they were carrying.;)

I assume it was returned where possible, or else used collectively. It would be counter-productive to shoot people for behaviour that is condoned.




Once more, the talk about the gains not being good enough.

That's because they weren't. The Leninite revolution was only half complete.


What has anarchism brought the working class?

Given that any working class anarchist movements tend to get steamrollered by your lot, less than they should have.


Forty years of Spanish Fascism,

Yeah, the fascists have nothing to do with that :rolleyes:


a famine in the newly formed USSR

That's a new one. Hilarious too.


and needless division within the Western left for a start.

While you may consider questioning the need to march in lock-step under the watchful eye of our benevolent great leaders a lot of people don't quite agree that the ends justify the means vis all that aforementioned toss.


As for the Makhno counterrevolutionaries, they were fighting on the wrong side of a civil war against a revolutionary government that was overwhelmingly supported by the working class.

If that's how you sleep at night.


And they somehow aren't reactionary??

Their aims were progressive and in proletarian class interests, they were fighting against an enemy whose rise to power proved disastrous for the workers.


You expect me to believe that anarchists wouldn't kill Communists? THEY HAVE.

You say that as if you lot were innocent victims, but bear in mind you're class enemies of the proletariat when it comes to the crunch.

[Comrade Rage]

Surely you meant the Soviet soldiers who entered Germany in 1945?* Groan * As you could have read in my responses from the thread in History, the front-line troops were harsh but scrupulously disciplined. The pigs were in the rear. You know the reason those men were serving, yet you duplicitously trump this up.


The majority of people holding the line against Franco were Anarchists, whilst the Stalinist popular army was training in the rear.

Things only started to go wrong when the militia system was forcibly integrated into the popular army and the old officers came back (Ranks had been abolished by most of the militias).Actually, central planning could have helped the situation greatly.


You obviously dont have any sort of real factual knowledge when it comes to Anarchism.I know quite a lot about anarchism. But then again, anarchists are ultra-individualists and usually don't agree with one another on theory.


Makhno was fighting all sides in the Russian civil war, because all sides in the civil war werent proposing or implementing anything close to Socialism.Crap.


They werent the ones executing people who advocated working class control over all productive forces in society, whilst your side on the other hand has the blood of millions of workes on its hands.Well, since you believe in the bourgeosie lies about my movement and how we supposedly executed millions, a vast network of camps or gulags would have to have existed right? Do you have any photos, or documents of these? Probably not, as the gulags were tremendously EXAGGERATED.

[Jazzratt]

Well, since you believe in the bourgeosie lies about my movement and how we supposedly executed millions, a vast network of camps or gulags would have to have existed right? Do you have any photos, or documents of these? Probably not, as the gulags were tremendously EXAGGERATED.

Not everyone who died as a result of your inefficient nightmare of a system died in a gulag.

[Comrade Rage]

That's because they weren't. The Leninite revolution was only half complete.Anarchist obstruction was the problem, among other things. They could have volunteered to fight alongside the Communists against the Whites, but they chose to serve the interests of the Whites by fighting on Russia's western flank.

Given that any working class anarchist movements tend to get steamrollered by your lot, less than they should have.They get steamrollered, once they betray the working class. I'd think that anarchists had better priorities than to fight Communists.

Yeah, the fascists have nothing to do with that :rolleyes:The fascists would have obliterated had the anarchists not decided to split the Spanish left.

That's a new one. Hilarious too.The Ukrainian famine, or 'Holdomor' was likely caused by the destruction caused by the criminal Makhno rebellion that was (thankfully) ended ten years earlier. When Stalin implemented new economic policies the Ukraine experienced famine, as it had not recovered from the failed Makhnovschina.

While you may consider questioning the need to march in lock-step under the watchful eye of our benevolent great leaders a lot of people don't quite agree that the ends justify the means vis all that aforementioned toss.All I'm asking is for a little cooperation and unity, against our common enemy: the capitalist.

Their aims were progressive and in proletarian class interests, they were fighting against an enemy whose rise to power proved disastrous for the workers.Their aims were not founded in anything but emotion. Our views are based on science, and only after Stalin died and the USSR moved away from Communism did the USSR become a class enemy.

You say that as if you lot were innocent victims, but bear in mind you're class enemies of the proletariat when it comes to the crunch.I am no class enemy, I believe in proletarian freedom, and the anarchists have fought people like me from day one.

[Comrade Rage]

Not everyone who died as a result of your inefficient nightmare of a system died in a gulag.Where, then?

[Demogorgon]

That's not a fact, it's an assertion. An unsupported assertion.

Surely you would agree that the U.S. is at least mostly capitalist? Well, the U.S. has one of the highest, if not the single highest, rate of annual per-capita charitable donations. This alone is enough to disprove your proposition.

And yet the US still manages a higher poverty rate than many countries with lower per capita rates of giving to charity.

Rather I think that his assertion that people will never give enough to charity to alleviate poverty is proven rather than disproven here.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's not a fact, it's an assertion. An unsupported assertion.
I was only asserting that charitable donations before the introduction of the welfare state were less than the amount of wealth redistributed to the poor after the introduction of the welfare state. This seems glaringly obvious.


Surely you would agree that the U.S. is at least mostly capitalist? Well, the U.S. has one of the highest, if not the single highest, rate of annual per-capita charitable donations. This alone is enough to disprove your proposition.
First of all, "the highest" is a term of relative comparison. Everywhere in the world, charity donations are pitifully inadequate to alleviate poverty; the fact that they are slightly less inadequate in the United States isn't saying much.

Second, one example is not enough to demonstrate a trend. In order to prove your assertion that people donate more to charity if they are taxed less, you would have to compile a list of all countries in the world by their taxation level, then compile a list of all countries in the world by their annual per-capita charitable donations, and then compare the two using statistical analysis.

[Forward Union]

moi

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=9.00&soc=9.59

[bezdomni]

Yeah, I'm sorry for being a dick about it, I'm still surprised that any flavour of Lenin lover scored so highly on the libertarian front. Ah I've now seen the time stamp, don't feel too bad about being flamed, I was a bit worse for drink when I posted.

Historically, the more socially-libertarian minded radical leftists have sided with the Leninist camp. Your surprise is more of an indication towards being ignorant of the history of the communist movement, than anything of any real theoretical substance.

Of course, Marxist-Leninists do really authoritarian things like take prisoners during a revolution. Anarchists don't believe in prisons, they just execute everybody they capture. :P

[Forward Union]

Of course, Marxist-Leninists do really authoritarian things like take prisoners during a revolution. Anarchists don't believe in prisons, they just execute everybody they capture. :P

Both the Leninists and the Anarchists had prisons and executions...