Can you tell me in detail why all those poltical compass tests are a load of bollocks?
Can you tell me in detail why all those poltical compass tests are a load of...
they are all biased as fuck, and use non-quantifiable data such as political beliefs on a graph that must have quantifiable data in order to be on said graph.
Most of those tests focus on issues that exist within the Overton window and dismiss broader interrogations. What it really shows is whether you're more likely to be a liberal or a conservative, which is why most people on Leeky Forums end up in the extreme bottom-left: they actually scored "beyond" liberal.
How about this?
Where do you put anarchists?
Even dumber. What about Leninism, which wants temporary state ownership of the means of production, followed by worker ownership?
In fact, where even is worker ownership of the means of production not run for profit?
Yeah, it's just "temporary", right
They are unable to account for:
1. a radical break with the system
2. historical contingency
3. complex political positions
4. collectivity as such (muh individual beliefs outside the political process)
It's stupid, really.
it's not about scales comrade. Capitalism and socialism are diametrically opposed. Both can't exist in a stable world.
That doesn't depict objectively possible systems. It depicts opinions. People can have retarded opinions.
Because they're incredibly reductionist and not useful.
A single-axis compass for something like left-right or state power might be useful for examining a specific belief or variable, but you can't condense all political and economic opinions into a single two-axis chart.
THE END OF HISTORY!
All these tests follow the 'murican model of left and right, that thinks that "if you say gay should be able to mary, you are down left" even if that is not important to you and you just don't care what people do in their bedrooms.
Yes, anarkids. Temporary.
And it would be, if you weren't all about ideology and joined the party and influenced.
But noooo! We are anarkids! We are better than the common people! We will keep our intelectuality for ever reaching the common man, unless he wants to devote hourse of his little free time to read our scripture!
best one tbh, should be posted everywhere.
This one is the best
found on some other board, pls r8
I can't tell you in *detail* because I can't be bothered to, but the short version is:
they don't take into account historical context
French revolutionaries and early liberals would be placed in the Right-wing position for their belief in things live private enterprise, patriotism, etc. The amount of cultural (sexuality, race, gender) questions can also directly lead you to put everyone born before a certain time into the Conservative field, even if they were progressives for their time.
they don't take into account cultural and geographical differences
Most of the times gun ownership would put you in the Right, for example, which is mostly an association only americans make.
it assumes a gradualist, linear spectrum of policies that slowly culminate into Right or Left, without realizing that you can be a radical while entirely rejecting the choices of the moderates
For example, there are tons of Marxists, radicals and anarchists who reject things like Welfare and Social Security, but if you position yourself against them, you're moved to the Right. And let's not even bother discussing self-proclaimed reactionaries who reject any anarchical, market-based, liberal system of economic coordination.
Marxists in particular will point to you that you can advocate a particular set of policies if that's what the historical processes demand, without considering them to be the ideal guidelines of a society. What could be a better example than Marx preaching liberal capitalism against feudal aristocracy in Central/Eastern Europe, and proletarian socialism against liberal democracy in Western Europe/USA? Or Lenin defending capitalist development in Russia? Even if you disconsider Marxists, notions of historical development and societies advancing through stages, slowly constructing institutions according to one type of economic activity and then using those institutions to expand towards different arrangements are very common today. Nobody would tell a developing country to build a system based on Norway.
These tests are simplistic. They detach entire philosophies from reality and try to reduce them to a set of fixed abstractions that vulgarizes them completely. They have a pretense of universality that is completely anachronistic and ahistorical. Just look at the pic and how those idiots think they can judge Stalin, Thatcher and Gandhi by the same criteria, almost as if historical processes and circumstances were completely immaterial.
There's a huge danger in reducing political discourse into a set of defined terms, even more so if it claims to include all platforms within it. They should, at best, use it to reflect modern electoral politics of a given country, and I bet they would even fuck that up.
then post it