The Political Compass Test

Tony R wrote: Peter wrote:   Even if you believe that Socialism cant work its principles are at least moral when compared with Capitalism. For a  look at real working socialist governments, see Scandinavia. (Iceland, etc.)

We have a real working Socialist Government in the UK,Peter.What we dont have is enough real Socialist voters.The issue for the Labour Party is to make itself electable and defeat the Conservatives.A compromise is far better than the alternative believe me.

[/QUOTE]

I wasn't attacking the record of your Labour party, Tony, but trying to counter an earlier claim (not made by you, but Gleam) that socialism does not work. It can, and does, and the most obvious examples of such are many of the (highly taxed) Nordic countries.

Edited by Peter

Peter wrote: gleam wrote: I'm very serious, I was asked if capitalism worked and I think the points I presented are self explanatory. We live in the wealthiest country in the world, enjoy the best standard of living (what other country could come up with something as self-indulgent as bulimia). The average American has the highest per capita income in the world. We buy so much crap that we have to rent storage place to stash the overflow from our garages (there's an industry that's exploded in the past ten years).  One last point, if Americans are living a hand to mouth existence, then how is it that the companies I mention are doing so well. Someone must be doing the purchasing? Simply not true -- Luxembourg and Norway have America beaten on PCI, and many countries beat American literacy rates as well, especially among the Nordic countries, while over forty countries surpass America in life expectancy.

Here are PCI stats from wikipedia:

A ranking of the top ten countries by per capita income (in US dollars):

1. Luxembourg $55,100
2. Norway $37,800
3. United States $37,800
4. Bermuda $36,000
5. Cayman Islands $35,000
6. San Marino, $34,600
7. Switzerland $32,700
8. Denmark, $31,100
9. Iceland $30,900
10. Austria $30,000

so, looking at the numbers, Norway and the US actually have the same per capita income...  luxembourg seems to be owning everybody, and i don't really know what the story is there, so i won't say anything about that. But, Peter, you ignore another major factor: the cost of living. Excluding New York, almosty every city in the United States has a lower COL than Oslo or Bergen (http://www.homefair.com/homefair/servlet/ActionServ let?pid=245&previousPage=244&cid=homefair&fromCo untry=United+States+of+America&toCountry=Norway)
Also note that many socialist countries are able to take advantage of the US' relatively free market system. A business in Norway, for instance, can sell its good with virtually no foreign competition at home due to ridiculously high protective tariffs and can compete fairly well in the United States since the US has such low tariffs. An American business, on the other hand, has hard competition at home and not a sh*t of a chance in a socialist country such as Norway. Despite this, American business still performs better as a result of the capitalist system in the United States. Its also worth mentioning that an American has far more power with his or her dollar than a Norwegian. After all, an American can buy a car without having to pay 300% tax!

*interesting to note in the PCI ranking that the United States is by far and away the largest country of those listed. Honestly, Iceland? Switzerland? San Marino?!

Sweetnighter wrote: Peter, please explain to me why a socialist system is "moral" and a capitalist one is not. (God am i looking forward to hearing this! )

I believe both systems at their purest does not work. I prefer a blended economy with the "best" of both systems. The hard-working aspect of capitalism and the security and insurance of a socialist system.

Well, technically no, because technically closest the real form of socialism is actually in what was in the USSR or closed to it and we all loved that right? We need to move away from being an extreme radical or an extreme reactionary into somewhere in the middle for the good of humanity.

Sweetnighter wrote: Peter, please explain to me why a socialist system is "moral" and a capitalist one is not. (God am i looking forward to hearing this! )

Well, I made no such statement, and much like arguing religion, we are dealing less with the head, than with the heart (or wallet) here. Just as an atheist is VERY unlikely to make a religious person adopt his point of view (one argues via reason and logic, the other by faith), so am I unlikely to convince a committed freemarket capitalist that a socialist system is superior in hard-to-quantify "moral" ways.

A study I just looked at rates the US 13th on the "Quality of Life Index" (Ireland is at the top), behind several European and (mainly) Nordic countries, but you would likely take issue with those figures.

People are very reluctant to change their outlook on such fundamental issues, just as they are loathe to change the way they vote, or the vehicle they drive, based on burgeoning global science that says that our rampant burning of fossilized fuels, for example, is contributing to global warming, and inexorably killing us. Despite the growing, persistant chorus of respected scientists who tell us that our ways are destroying the ecology which makes our life possible, these people will claim to not even BELIEVE in global warming and environmental devastation. To look at themselves critically makes them distinctly uncomfortable, so they will instead attack those who urge change, and carry on as before. People are, simply, selfish. If you view the planet as a ship with finite resources (fresh water, for example), many in the West, when they hear that the water is running out, and that if we are to reach the other shore we must start rationing, will instead elect to seize as much water for themselves as possible, barricade themselves in their cabins, bathe daily, drink more water than ever, and shoot the first thirsty fellow traveller to come through the door. That, regretably, is often our nature, and that must change.

The oil is running out, and the environment is rapidly worsening -- how do we in North America react? We buy bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles than ever, and  gas-powered leaf blowers and snow blowers for good measure. We live in the suburbs, far from where we work, and drive alone to work daily in a Humvee or luxury SUV (a Cadillac pickup, for goodness sake!) along a traffic-choked freeway, while in Europe, mass transit, bicycles, and small, fuel-efficient vehicles are much more prevalent.

When I walk to work on my town's recycling day, the households that don't recycle (recycling takes effort!) will generally have 4-5 bags of garbage, compared to the 1 or 2 of the recycling households, that have the same number of family members. In my office, the paper recycling bin is right next to the garbage, and every day, I pull lots of paper from the garbage can, and put it in the recycling. Most people are thoughtless brute beasts, judging by their selfish behaviour -- they don't seem to care if their kids and grandkids have clean air and water in the future, for example.

Influential Canadian environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki, on the continued refusal of the US to ratify the Kyoto Accord (which, Suzuki points out, is but a TINY step toward what we must soon do), and Canada's inaction in meeting its recommendations: "It's as if we are all in a car heading straight toward a brick wall at one hundred miles per hour, and all we can talk about is where we want to sit." Right -- and I'd add that the song on that car radio, to which we all bleat along, is "Don't Worry -- Be Happy."

Sooner, rather than later, we will HAVE to change our ways -- that change can be voluntary, and more gradual, or involuntary, sudden, and economically disastrous, but that change IS inevitably coming, like it/believe it or not, in the not-too-distant future (for our kids, at least). So, do we acknowledge that fact, and plan proactively, developing mass transit, alternate renewable energy sources, etc, or do we just make out that all the scientists are wrong (that polar bears' natural habitat has always been mud, that there never were millons of seabirds on that arctic island, etc) and continue blissfully, stupidly, selfishly along as always? That is the choice we all face, and many European (especially Nordic) countries are well ahead of us in acting like thinking, responsible 21st century beings who love their children.

The military-industrial complex (including the petroleum/automotive industries, and the religious right) calls the shots in America now, and corporations simply don't have consciences. Maximum profit NOW, not survival THEN, is the bottom line.

WAKE UP, North America! Look past the sports and business pages!

I hope that some of that sincere "diatribe" answers your question, but I know that my points will likely fall on deaf ears -- witness the rapidly worsening state of the planet.

PS: Check the global oil reserves via the net -- declining steadily!

Edited by Peter

Tony R wrote: Amen Peter.Whenever I try to make some of the points you've just made (but not as eloquently) I just get shouted down for being unrealistic.I never use my car for journeys of less than 10 miles-although using local public transport seems just as polluting. People today are just plain ignorant.Where once I would have seen a raised hand of apology for some minor indiscretion I know receive the full bore of hate and bile and a raised fist.We live in a society where it is almost a sin to suggest that someone is "wrong"-what hope have we for future generations? What hope have we for the environment when the vast majority of ordinary citizens vote on tax issues? Green policies cost money and above all demand time and effort.We live in a world of ignorant,selfish greedy bastards. PS: Sweetnighter-In my book anyone who admits/discusses being anything other than Working Class deserves a slap.Admitting one is Middle Class is just the same as admitting you are an arrogant,thoughtless,bigoted snob.Grow up.

Example of that selfishness: There are no sidewalks on my busy street. When I moved here, I was thus concerned for my young kids' safety, and raised the issue with a neighbour. If we want sidewalks, he said, our taxes will go up. Count the pennies saved as your kids are run over....

Edited by Peter

Peter wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Peter, please explain to me why a socialist system is "moral" and a capitalist one is not. (God am i looking forward to hearing this! ) Well, I made no such statement, and much like arguing religion, we are dealing less with the head, than with the heart (or wallet) here. Just as an atheist is VERY unlikely to make a religious person adopt his point of view (one argues via reason and logic, the other by faith), so am I unlikely to convince a committed freemarket capitalist that a socialist system is superior in hard-to-quantify "moral" ways. I think that even though people tend to glue themselves to their moral and socio-political structures, people's opinion's DO change... they just don't change overtime. Will you convince me to suddenly start voting for the left? Probalby not. Will you provide me with ideas and arguments that will broaden my political knowledge? Surely. If this leads to a change in political alignment down the road, so be it. I also think that "moral" is more "quantifiable" than you might think. Read some Aristotle or Plato- those guys knew how to deal with morality in quantifiable terms. A study I just looked at rates the US 13th on the "Quality of Life Index" (Ireland is at the top), behind several European and (mainly) Nordic countries, but you would likely take issue with those figures. Could you link me to that study? <>People are very reluctant to change their outlook on such fundamental issues, just as they are loathe to change the way they vote, or the vehicle they drive, based on burgeoning global science that says that our rampant burning of fossilized fuels, for example, is contributing to global warming, and inexorably killing us. Despite the growing, persistant chorus of respected scientists who tell us that our ways are destroying the ecology which makes our life possible, these people will claim to not even BELIEVE in global warming and environmental devastation. Count me in on those who are a bit skeptical of the global warming issue. I feel that burning fossil fuels does affect the environment, but not to the extent that polar ice caps will melt. From studies I've seen, the mean temperature worldwide has only risen about a degree in the past two decades. That basically says nothing at all. The Earth does its own damn thing, and has historically over the past five billion years shifted from ice age to molten lava wasteland and back again. Our burning of gas, of which there is a limited and ever-dwindling supply, won't make a sh*t of difference in my opinion. When we burn off all the gas, the issue will be done and settled, and then necessity, which is of course the mother of invention, will give birth to a newer, cleaner and hopefully more renewable source of energy. To look at themselves critically makes them distinctly uncomfortable, so they will instead attack those who urge change, and carry on as before. People are, simply, selfish. ALL HUMANS ARE SELFISH. It's ridiculous to think that it'd be otherwise! I'm selfish, you're selfish, the next guy is selfish. We live for ourselves, and we ought to... selfishness is only harmful when people sacrifice others to their own cruel ends. Capitalism allows selfish interests to compete against each other for mutual self-benefit, unlike a socialist system that allows greedy, selfish pigs in government bureaucracies to wage wars and throw around other people's hard-earned money. If you view the planet as a ship with finite resources (fresh water, for example), many in the West, when they hear that the water is running out, and that if we are to reach the other shore we must start rationing, will instead elect to seize as much water for themselves as possible, barricade themselves in their cabins, bathe daily, drink more water than ever, and shoot the first thirsty fellow traveller to come through the door. That, regretably, is often our nature, and that must change. I agree... I don't endorse American culture or the American government, and I think there are some big questions that need to be asked and answered in this country. Americans have to ask themselves if driving huge SUVs and stuffing their faces with McDonalds is really in their best interest. The American people also have to ask why the government is doing what its doing. As a side, I am a capitalist, and I hate this "conservative reaction" of late, with Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. They haven't established a capitalist/free-market society in the United States, they've developed a system that pays half its money to the poor and half to business interests, which only succeeds in wasting Americans' money. Besides this, they're sh*tting all over civil rights with their anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stuff. The oil is running out, and the environment is rapidly worsening -- how do we in North America react? We buy bigger, less fuel-efficient vehicles than ever, and  gas-powered leaf blowers and snow blowers for good measure. We live in the suburbs, far from where we work, and drive alone to work daily in a Humvee or luxury SUV (a Cadillac pickup, for goodness sake!) along a traffic-choked freeway, while in Europe, mass transit, bicycles, and small, fuel-efficient vehicles are much more prevalent. It's pretty stupid, I'll admit. When I walk to work on my town's recycling day, the households that don't recycle (recycling takes effort!) will generally have 4-5 bags of garbage, compared to the 1 or 2 of the recycling households, that have the same number of family members. In my office, the paper recycling bin is right next to the garbage, and every day, I pull lots of paper from the garbage can, and put it in the recycling. Most people are thoughtless brute beasts, judging by their selfish behaviour -- they don't seem to care if their kids and grandkids have clean air and water in the future, for example. I wouldn't say that people are "thoughless brute beasts" because they don't recycle, but I see the point you're making. Influential Canadian environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki, on the continued refusal of the US to ratify the Kyoto Accord (which, Suzuki points out, is but a TINY step toward what we must soon do), and Canada's inaction in meeting its recommendations: "It's as if we are all in a car heading straight toward a brick wall at one hundred miles per hour, and all we can talk about is where we want to sit." Right -- and I'd add that the song on that car radio, to which we all bleat along, is "Don't Worry -- Be Happy." Sooner, rather than later, we will HAVE to change our ways -- that change can be voluntary, and more gradual, or involuntary, sudden, and economically disasterous, but that change IS inevitably coming, like it/believe it or not, in the not-too-distant future (for our kids, at least). So, do we acknowledge that fact, and plan proactively, developing mass transit, alternate renewable energy sources, etc, or do we just make out that all the scientists are wrong, and continue blissfully, stupidly, selfishly along as always? That is the choice we all face, and many European (especially Nordic) countries are well ahead of us in acting like thinking, responsible 21st century beings who love their children. The military-industrial complex (including the petroleum/automotive industries, and the religious right) calls the shots in America now, and corporations simply don't have consciences. Maximum profit NOW, not survival THEN, is the bottom line. I agree once again. The military-industrial complex has government wrapped around its little finger... and somebody needs to get elected to put a stop to that. Again, don't be deceived into thinking that government entanglements with business is part of a capitalist system- because its not. WAKE UP, North America! Look past the sports and business pages! f**k YOU! I LIKE THE SPORTS PAGE! I hope that some of that sincere "diatribe" answers your question, but I know that my points will likely fall on deaf ears -- witness the rapidly worsening state of the planet. PS: Check the global oil reserves via the net -- declining steadily! You make a lot of good points Peter. The only thing that makes me upset is when people look to what the far right is doing and saying, "oh, thats capitalism."  No country, and let me repeat, no country on earth has a capitalist system! A true laissez-faire capitalist firmly believes that labor nor business nor fleeting popular tyranny should run a government, that a government that governs least governs best, and that its sole purpose is to protect people's rights and to defend against foreign aggression. So please, even if you think I'm a total idiot and an immoral asshole, just understand that capitalism is not what is going on in Washington today.

Edited by Sweetnighter

James Lee wrote: I won't speak for Peter, but the 'morality' seems to come into play when you think of the Socialist state as dedicated to ensuring a quality of life for all of its citizens, and the Capitalist state as simply providing no barriers to economic growth. Does economic growth harm people? It raises the standard of living, doesn't it? I see the rationale behind the socialist movement from that perspective... I guess its just an issue of what one believes the role of government should be. I see it of a much higher standard that people should create amongst themselves peaceful communities without laws and guns telling people what they're doing wrong.  You might say capitalism depends on "enlightened self-interest" (except that the 'enlightened' part tends to be somewhat optional ). The theory is that by providing the greatest rewards for personal achievement, all will have greater potential to improve their quality of living. A more critical view would say that capitalism simply panders to greed and selfishness, and those with wealth have more access to the benefits of the state than those without. Thats a very objective view of the issue, I think. The biggest issue in a capitalist society is preventing monied or armed powers from taking over and calling all the shots. Socialism seems inherently more 'moral' because all citizens are economically tied to each other; in theory, no citizen should go hungry, homeless, or without medical care if the resources exist. Given that there is no developed nation without the resources to provide these things to each one of their citizens, it seems to be immoral that any should suffer. The main criticism is that socialism devalues incentive and individuality, and that the more productive tend to 'carry' the less productive. I, for one, would never want to be economically tied to others and I personally believe that being tied economically to others would be unfair to everybody. I don't want to depend on the whim of society for my well-being, I want to depend upon myself. Thats just my view, and of course if you believe the opposite, then socialism is a perfectly moral system. Again, your view of both systems is very objective, and I really like that. You outlined very well the rationale behind both systems and why some consider one moral and the other not and vice versa. Peter, anything to add or correct?

Wow ... where do I start?

Hierophant, the avatar, like the name Trotsky itself, is probably more sentimental than anything else. As you know, Trotsky was a leading Soviet Marxist who was first sidelined and then eventually murdered by Stalin. In my early years of polictial awareness (remember this was the mid to late 80s), my identification with Trotsky was more an extension of the fact that I was attracted to Marxist principles, but did not believe that any of the so-called Communist states of the time were representative of those principles (or certainly my interpretation of them). Very early on, I became like one of those Christians who say "judge the religion by the teachings of Jesus, not by the actions of individuals and institutions who purport to be Christian".

Even now, as I've moved away from the hard-core (albeit also humanitarian, environmentalist, etc)  Marxism of my youth into some sort of social-democratic sphere of thought, I still feel the need to identify myself with the far left, simply because many mainstream social-democratic parties (particularly Blair's Labour, I must confess) are too centrist for my liking.

Maani, going back to Marx's cheek about religion being the opium of the masses, I think Garion81 beat me to the explanation, although I'd go further by extending the principle not just to Christianity, but Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and most other religions as well ... I'm sure you're aware that the irony of all these religions is that they start off proposing a radical (almost revolutionary )  restructuring of our lives, and end up playing a huge role in defending the status quo. Also Maani, did you catch my earlier comment about God's explanation for pediatric wards?

Sweetnighter, again as I've told you, my ideas are constantly evolving, not always in a direction that I'm proud of. I'm no longer the teenager who desparately needed philosophical clarity, and found some ideas I could hang my life on. I've been through these debates with hundreds of people at times when I was far more confident about what I believed in, and 95% of people just became more entrenched in their position (a fair number of them were further to the left than I was by the way).

How do I explain the fact that after spending many hours with beautiful helpless, sick, in many cases, dying children, I now feel the death penalty is too good for child abusers?  I'd like to torture some of these abusers to death myself, which hardly fits in with the bleeding-heart socialist "the perpetrator was probably a victim himself, let's blame society, and end the circle of violence" ideas I have most of my life. 

Nothing is very clear to me anymore ... sure I think Bush lied to the American people, because he figured enough of them were dumb enough not to know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Yet, despite the tragic loss of life (on both sides), and the false pretences under which Bush went to war, there is little doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a cruel and opressive leader and that the majority of the people in Iraq (who appear not to want an American presence there) could easily lead a better life under another government. (Incidentally have you taken note of the Uzbeckistan situation, where a US-backed dictator just killed 500 unarmed protestors?). It may interest to know btw, that even though I'm Malaysian, my brother in law is in the US Army and has been told he is likely to be sent to Iraq.  .I'm betting you have a far less conflicted view of the whole damn affair ...

But personally, I am constantly challenged by being a socialist who lives under capitalist rules (and which one of us doesn't?). How does a socialist like myself explain owning around 3,000 CDs ... or even the fact that I cashed in on my company's share option scheme (of course it was to pay off the damn hospital bills) ... on a final note, I can't believe you're sceptical about the dangers that humanity is posing to the environment (to me that's just the sort of propaganda that really riles me up ) ... but again I'm not going to going to trawl the net for data to back me up ... most of us see what we want to see ...

Ouch ... that was an effort ... and I swore to myself I wasn't going to get involved in one of these ... obviously can't stick to my guns for very long can I?

Peter wrote: Garion81 wrote: [QUOTE=Peter] [There is always hope -- do what you can, Garion, and educate your kids. Could you and a co-worker share, and alternate weeks driving, for example? Can you plant a "lawn" that needs less water?

 

I will tell you what I do. When I am home I walk everywhere, the gorcery store, postoffice, wherever it may be. It might only save 500 miles a year but that is something. I also stay 3 days a week during the work week with my girlfriend who lives closer to work than I.

 As for the water?  I eat meat only twice a week. How does that save water? Becuase it takes about 1/10th of the water to grow an equivelant amount of vegitables than it does to water livestock.  If we all just ate 1-2 meals less a week without meat the amount of water saved would be enourmous.  You live in a very green an wet part of the world.  I don't and water is already becoming a major issue. It is funny that we in the most arid areas use more water than the people in the source we draw it from.  

BTW I do not do have any landscaping.

Thanks for your comments as always.