Poll: Where do you lie on the political spectrum?

Post Reply New Topic

Does anyone like the way america does things aside from a few million americans?


Even many on the European far right despise america....often for similar reason that the European left does.

None of the choices fit me. I believe in the rule of law starting with Scripture and then the Constitution. Politics come from the Greek word poly meaning many and the English word ticks meaning blood sucking parasite.

In politics there are various shades of political opinion - the shadiest of these are the liberals - Phil Ochs

What? No Anarchist? And where are the Greens? And the Pirate Party?

On the other hand, I suspect that Australia and the UK do not have American-style "Libertarians" in any numbers significant enough to be noticed.

In Australia, the mainstream, or Parliamentary, political spectrum might be (based on Wikipedia's description of Australian party ideologies, where RW, CR, CL, LW mean right-wing, centre-right, centre-left, left-wing):

Social conservatism ("Family First") - RW
Rural conservatism ("National Party") - CR
Liberal conservatism ("Liberal Party") - CR
Social democracy ("Labor Party") - CL
Green Politics ("Greens") - LW

I suspect that elements of the Labor Right and the (few remaining) moderate Liberals could also be described as "Liberal progressivism" rather than Social democracy or Liberal conservatism. As a Liberal progressive, someone like Malcolm Turnbull could almost belong to either political party, except that his social and economic background (multi-millionaire with privileged upbringing) fits better on the soft right of politics. I am tempted to say the same thing about Kevin Rudd and the soft left. Abbott is a Liberal conservative, bordering on Social conservative. Likewise, significant elements of the Liberal and National Parties are also better described as RW, putting them close to the Social conservatives (the main difference being that they have more sophisticated economic policies than the populist Social conservatives usually do). As for Pauline Hanson and whatever party she runs now ... we need another category called "Racial conservatism" (very RW).

I would consider myself a Green Social democrat. I would also accept socialist, mutualist, and co-operativist: a "small-a anarchist" (as opposed to the bomb-throwing violent anarchism of yore). I would like to see all corporations managed entirely by their workers - one worker, one vote - as currently happens in the Mondragon Co-operative in Spain with over 90,000 worker members, one of the largest companies in Spain. To me, though, that is more an economic or business goal than a political or government goal. However, there are significant Social democrats in Australia who are happy to help spread worker ownership - at least by removing legislative barriers and funding some worker takeovers, provided non-government business agencies manage the actual worker takeovers. This is about as much as we can manage at the moment. Although Australia is behind Europe and England (and even America?) in growing the number and size of worker-owned businesses, it is not completely dead in the water.

Oooh that sounds good.

I'm a big supporter of The Greens, although I may sound more like a bomb throwing anarchist at times.

I did attend a meeting earlier this year about a business agency to promote worker-owned businesses in western Sydney, and a Labor assistant minister gave a supportive speech. However, movement on the ground seems glacially slow (that's life, I guess!). The Spanish movement is quite inspiring to me (it grew out of Basque anti-fascists), and even the UK has some interesting developments. I heard a great talk by a visiting UK business-woman (with a delightful Northern working-class accent - talking about the "bairns" = children) who had developed a worker-owned business with over 200 employee-owners. In the UK, worker co-operatives are not so marginal and rare as they are in Australia. We tend to look down on idealism, so we miss out on practical examples where it really works and improves life.

My 1974 dictionary has a nice definition of liberal:
1.Freedom Oriented
2.Generous

This doesn't make sense to me as an insult.
It's like saying "Nobody is as mean an evil as those dam NICE and FRIENDLY people."

I imagine, but didn't look it up, that Libertarian might be defined as
"Liberty oriented" and nobody seems to use that as an insult.

Based on the context why don't people use precise words like maybe if applicable:
"Those greedy wasteful tax burdens" or something?

one-A-N said:

In America we have self-employment, sole proprietors, partnerships,
which I have been suggesting recently as a solution for those of us
who are too productive and unsocial to fit in to formal hierarchical
business systems... a solution to unemployment.

The Corporations are inhuman entities,
but we can be "human-beings" and "human-doings" instead.

The results are interesting. I assumed that the words "socialist" and "communist" were passe and that the current acceptable term for lefties was "progressive".

I wonder how the results would be different if you included this.

Once upon a time, I'd have said "Anarchist!". Well, if I was feeling discursive, perhaps transcendental anarchist.

These days, though, green is as positive as I can get.

I never got the whole "Rage Against the Machine" style anarcho-communism. The idea is that all these powerful violent people are in power and want to control you, so fight against the power and get the power for yourselves.

The unspoken corollary is that you continue to violently gain power until you can force people to obey your ideals and conform to your demands. Thus, those who fight hard enough against "the man", themselves become "the man".

It has no end, no goal, no purpose other than existing for the very sake of being pissed-off.

Republican/Conservative.

Just FYI and all, I voted for Dagon in the last two elections. (To my surprise, there was no Dagon listed, so I had to draw an extra box and write Dagon next to it.)

I prefer the Older Gods to moronic mortals.

Seems like people with ASD lean towards the left side of the political spectrum.


If so....it would hardly be surprising since the groups and individuals who make up our warm and fuzzy capitalist, authoritarian, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, socially darwinian, ecocidal, nihilistic, sociopathic and sadistic society are the biggest bullies of all.

All the abused and exploited souls in this horror show of a world are kindred spirits to me. Nonetheless, I realize there are plenty of principled and well-meaning folks on the right.

Ahh yes, but this was a quote from the 1960's.
And dictionary definitions don't describe the liberals of Sir Philip's days.
I was raised thinking liberals were right wing capitalists. Of course I grew up when John Howard was the leader of the Australian Liberal Party.
Perhaps you could look up the lyrics to 'Love Me, I'm A Liberal'. I'm always in stitches when I listen to that song.

'tis a bit of an awkward poll, considering you can be a Libertarian but still be other things.

I'm pro-civil liberties (Second Amendment, pro-choice, gay marriage, repeal Don't-Ask-Don't Tell, pro-marijuana legalization) but I'm also pro-regulation for corporations, especially concerning the environment. While I support leftist commie-pinko schemes like the public option, I also prefer that taxes be applied to negative things (e.g. petrol tax) over taxes which discourage incentive and hard work like income tax. I prefer providing equal opportunity (education for all) rather than redistributing the wealth. No hand-outs, except for those who can not work. (The severely disabled)

I'm also anti-partisanship, but the Democrats tend to field those I agree with more often.

Last edited by Michael_Stuart on 11 Apr 2010, 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

I quite agree, but it's still good to take a stand.