Det Politiske Kompass
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 22:50
Et hvert forum med respekt for seg selv har en tråd dedikert til denne nettsida, så her er vår! 
Lurer du på hvor du står i politikken? Hvordan du står i forhold til andre? Ta denne testen, så har du i alle fall et utgangspunkt for sammenligning. Den har riktignok blitt kritisert enkelte steder for å være "for venstrevridd i spørsmålene og svarene", men det er bullshit. (Paranoide høyrefolk...
)
Slik ser kompasset ut. Fire kvadranter, to akser, to dimensjoner (økonomisk og "sosialt"/politisk).
Slik plasserer kompassets skapere ideologiene og "store" ledre gjennom tidene:
Og slik plasserer de ledere i utvalgte stater i dag:
Og slik plasseres jeg:
Tror jeg hadde lavere verdier på den autoritære-liberale aksen sist jeg tok testen, for sånn cirka 3-4 år siden...
Så, hva med deg?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
(Bare noe til slutt, fra innledninga, og fra "sluttrapporten":
Welcome to The Political Compass™.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
Avslutning:
"In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.")
Lurer du på hvor du står i politikken? Hvordan du står i forhold til andre? Ta denne testen, så har du i alle fall et utgangspunkt for sammenligning. Den har riktignok blitt kritisert enkelte steder for å være "for venstrevridd i spørsmålene og svarene", men det er bullshit. (Paranoide høyrefolk...
)Slik ser kompasset ut. Fire kvadranter, to akser, to dimensjoner (økonomisk og "sosialt"/politisk).
Slik plasserer kompassets skapere ideologiene og "store" ledre gjennom tidene:
Og slik plasserer de ledere i utvalgte stater i dag:
Og slik plasseres jeg:
Tror jeg hadde lavere verdier på den autoritære-liberale aksen sist jeg tok testen, for sånn cirka 3-4 år siden...
Så, hva med deg?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
(Bare noe til slutt, fra innledninga, og fra "sluttrapporten":
Welcome to The Political Compass™.
There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left' , established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ?
On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.
Avslutning:
"In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.")
