Political Compass Thread

I feel like my definition of what communism is completely off then.

A polity would be communist if it satisfied a few conditions:

• It lacks a State.
• It lacks money.
• It lacks classes.
• It has a gift economy, with unrestricted access to articles of consumption.

Are you disagreeing with him? I can't tell because of the tiny image.

it's a twitch emote

What's it intended to imply?

orgasmic pleasure

If you're not a commie, you're wrong.

If you're not a commie, you're wrong.

If you want to attribute that to the nature of communism and not Russia's inability to grow good crops and Mao not understanding Biology, then yes.

You're going to love it here.

If you want to attribute that to the nature of communism and not Russia's inability to grow good crops and Mao not understanding Biology, then yes.

Well it was more of a joke, than anything. . .

But if you want to critique it then I suppose it's only fair I point out that Russia was actually quite well-off agriculturally, at least in the Black Earth Region and during the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin in the decade or so prior to the Revolution. Lenin also has some blame to bear, given that he signed Brest-Litovsk and instituted policies like requisitioning that strongly disincentivised significant agricultural production. And then there's Stalin and his distribution policies, and Mao's distribution policies etc.

All of this, of course, while recognising that neither China nor the Soviet Union were meaningfully communist during this time period. . . So I find it disturbing that you need to defend their record by referring to exogenous causes as opposed to simply saying "I don't model my political beliefs on these people".

But, fuck it, whatever floats your collectively-owned boat.

I should just make another thread on why communism sucks, really.

I should just make another thread on why communism sucks, really.

Does the end result basically come down to technological stagnation unless there's a strong nationalistic pull involved?

The best argument against communism is basically that, yeah.

People need some kind of incentive to work, because people are intrinsically self-centered like that. In a capitalist society, we earn little sheets of paper with faces on them, and we pretend they have value. With it, we can buy stupid shit like iPhones and double cheeseburgers. It's rewarding.

Communism, of course, offers no such thing. Your only compensation is knowing you did good work that needs to be done--but that's not enough for people. People need widescreen televisions and exotic pets and fur clothing to be happy. Vapid materialism drives the economy.

I should just make another thread on why communism sucks, really.

Does the end result basically come down to technological stagnation unless there's a strong nationalistic pull involved?

Depends, for communism as an ideology or for countries like Russia which 'tried' communism?

Because, for Russia, you're almost correct. It comes down to technological stagnation combined with a large increase in both labour and capital.

People need some kind of incentive to work, because people are intrinsically self-centered like that.

You don't even need to go that far into how human labour tends to behave; there are systems of communism and anarcho-collectivism which attempt to form incentives for people to work, but even if we take these as given there is almost no evidence that collectively-owned "firms" operating in some kind of gift economy will be even half as productive either on a micro- or macroeconomic scale.

EDIT: I also have to question your decision to like Zeal's comment. I'm betting that you don't know a whole lot about the state of Russian agriculture or economic policy pre-1917 (and post-1917, by comparison). It seems like you liked it simply because it offered your chosen ideology an "out", as opposed to being actually correct.

EDIT: I also have to question your decision to like Zeal's comment. I'm betting that you don't know a whole lot about the state of Russian agriculture or economic policy pre-1917 (and post-1917, by comparison). It seems like you liked it simply because it offered your chosen ideology an "out", as opposed to being actually correct.

Well, I'm not a communist--it's not my chosen ideology at all. I find it appealing at a visceral level, but at least I'm educated enough to know that human nature basically precludes any and all potential for a successful communist society, because, like I said--humans are just too selfish to make anything work.

However, I'm also educated enough to know that they all failed not because of the nature of communism, but because of, as you put it, other exogenous causes. I may not have known the precise causes (though it does seem intuitive to me that Russia would have trouble growing crops during that time), but whatever.

You're right--he could have easily just said that he doesn't model his political beliefs on those individuals, but people who adhere to any type of socialist ideology have to deal with strawmen like that all the time.

I'm also educated enough to know that they all failed not because of the nature of communism, but because of, as you put it, other exogenous causes.

To which I would point out that it's an incredibly large inherent flaw of communism that it apparently so readily succumbs to failure in the face of such exogenous causes.

Nevertheless, I think it's a difficult argument to make that the failure of China and Russia as 'communist' states is a result of politically exogenous factors. Otherwise, we have a huge anomaly in history since countries which were moving along relatively well prior to becoming 'communist' suddenly had to deal with these exogenous shocks as soon as they changed their model of government.

Not to say that such influences and difficulties don't exist, but they don't seem to have the same kind of explanatory power as a political or institutional explanation would.

but people who adhere to any type of socialist ideology have to deal with strawmen like that all the time.

Sure, but surely the best way to deal with a straw man is to say "That's a straw man". Not come up with arguments in defence of the straw man.

Apparently I'm a dyed in the wool right winger according to these test results.

If you want to attribute that to the nature of communism and not Russia's inability to grow good crops and Mao not understanding Biology, then yes.

Well it was more of a joke, than anything. . .

But if you want to critique it then I suppose it's only fair I point out that Russia was actually quite well-off agriculturally, at least in the Black Earth Region and during the reforms of Pyotr Stolypin in the decade or so prior to the Revolution. Lenin also has some blame to bear, given that he signed Brest-Litovsk and instituted policies like requisitioning that strongly disincentivised significant agricultural production. And then there's Stalin and his distribution policies, and Mao's distribution policies etc.

All of this, of course, while recognising that neither China nor the Soviet Union were meaningfully communist during this time period. . . So I find it disturbing that you need to defend their record by referring to exogenous causes as opposed to simply saying "I don't model my political beliefs on these people".

But, fuck it, whatever floats your collectively-owned boat.

Well, it was more of a joke than anything...

I was kinda expecting the Maobio thing to indicate it

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

one day you miserable fucking degenerates will be wiped from this planet



and yes these are my unironic real results, kill yourselves you fucking marxists

put your tongue inside of my mouth

Bernie Sanders please save my soul



that other test with the social scale is a bit better imo

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

one day you miserable fucking degenerates will be wiped from this planet



and yes these are my unironic real results, kill yourselves you fucking marxists

Fashie go die.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

one day you miserable fucking degenerates will be wiped from this planet



and yes these are my unironic real results, kill yourselves you fucking marxists

Fashie go die.

Keep playing right into the hands of the kikes  goyim

You'll see the light one day you fucking degenerate

We have to defeat the ZOG by getting it out of our lives, not throwing ourselves at the feet of dictators.

No surprises here. I've considered myself fairly centrist for a while now.

I'm surprised to see myseld so close to SNP on the UK Election parties, though. Really surprising.

I'm surprised to see myseld so close to SNP on the UK Election parties, though. Really surprising.

In all seriousness though living under SNP rule is like having fucking tumblr in charge.

In all seriousness though living under SNP rule is like having fucking tumblr in charge.

I'm pretty sure that would be green or corbyn's labour

In all seriousness though living under SNP rule is like having fucking tumblr in charge.

I'm pretty sure that would be green or corbyn's labour

SNP are basically just the Greens with a proclivity towards Scottish nationalism. Everything they do is in the name of "pwogwession."

In all seriousness though living under SNP rule is like having fucking tumblr in charge.

I'm pretty sure that would be green or corbyn's labour

SNP are basically just the Greens with a proclivity towards Scottish nationalism. Everything they do is in the name of "pwogwession."

On the compare thing, they're only on the line above me with the same left/right leaning.

Green and labour are much further left.