Politics

[Andy McGregor]

Anyway, what I was posting to say, was that I enjoyed this thread so much - can't we set up a Weekly Discussion Topic???
Rachel

I think Rachel has made a brilliant suggestion. And the next obvious topic has to be Politics.

I've searched the net for definitions of different political structures to compile a questionnaire. My initial thought was that people could indicate how right or left wing they are. But it seems that today's political spectrum is more complex. So I've used something I found here called the political compass. It has a left/right axis and an authoritarian/libertarian axis. There is also a test which you can take to see where you fit into the spectrum. I was almost on the crossing point of both axes slightly left wing and slightly libertarain - which surprised me as I think I'm right wing

[Gordon J Pownall]

Interesting Andy,

In the last page that shows other 'famous names' I cam out in the region where Gerhard Schroder is shown.

This kind of fits in accurately with me - how did you end up on the left ???

[Emma]

Ooh, cool test. I came out as a definite left wing libertarian. I am happy to be in the same sector as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

[Gadget]

snap: I'm halfway towards the Dali Lama and Nelson Mandela... weird.

[Chicklet]

just to the right and below Jabba the Hutt

[Dreadful Scathe]

just to the right and below Jabba the Hutt

Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.62

me too - close to Ghandi..

and i put left wing authoritarian in the poll too - i take it back, should have done the quiz first

[Rhythm King]

I did the Political Compass test some time ago and was surprised to come out as fairly libertarian/slightly left wing and horrified to be aligned with Robin Cook
I had always considered myself to be rather more to the right of centre, although not one of Attila the Hun's hordesmen, by any means. When I've worked out to do it (and am at my home PC, sorry that's pc, I'm not trying to offend the Politically Correct!) I have a small attachment to add, including some useful definitions. That is unless someone else beats me to it...

[Rachel]

Ooh, cool test. I came out as a definite left wing libertarian. I am happy to be in the same sector as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama

Economic Left/Right: -6.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

I got:
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00

I've never been sure whether to veer more towards communism or anarchy ... but it looks like the anarchist is winning!!!

Anyway, I thought DS said I could choose the hot discussion topic?? As it turns out, I had to do go to a meeting this afternoon, so thanks for stepping in, Andy!

But have lots of ideas I'd like to suggest. Don't have time at the moment, but will hopefully post next week.
Rachel

[Rachel]

Hm, in poll .... all these right-wing libertarians ...
Huh???

[Andy McGregor]

I've just done the test again, being a bit more extreme with my scoring, and here is the result.

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

Still pretty much near the middle, but still on the left and libertarian side. I'm veering towards Ghandi and the Dali Lama.

But here is an example of my dilemma, for this question;

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea."

I think it is a fundamentally good idea so I put that I agree. I also think that it's a completely impossible dream. But that wasn't the question I was asked.

So, to gently ease us into the arena of political debate, I would like to ask. What do other people think of the above idea?

[Dreadful Scathe]

like you said - good idea, may be impossible, but strongly agree with the concept ....but the questions aren't set out to be examined in meaning. There was one question at the beginning Our race has many superior qualities, compared to other races. that i pondered for a bit as on first appearance it must mean human race as our suggests me and the person who wrote the question are the same race, and thats only going to be true for everybody reading if its a very general 'human race' meaning to 'race' - and we clearly ARE superior to other animals in different ways*. I only thought that for about 3 seconds mind and then realised that would have had to be written as 'species' then, not race, so they must mean african, chinese, english, scottish, black, white and whatever etc...so of course i put 'strongly disagree'. Am I a bit slow?



* although human beings and fish can't coexist peacefully despite what George Bush seems to think

[jivecat]

Proof at last that I'm a fully paid up, Guardian-reading, woolly lefty, almost bang on the same spot as Nelson Mandela and lots of other forumites. Wow! (Wonder if he can do Ceroc?)

Funny, that, actually, I thought I was veering steadily rightwards with middle-age.

[Gadget]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea."

Sorry, to me it just dosn't make any gramatical sense please extrapolate.

[TheTramp]

Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

Hmmm. So, I'm very, very slightly to the right. And a little bit of a libertarian!

There was no options on the poll for those who are almost in the middle Andy...

Trampy

[Andy McGregor]

Sorry, to me it just dosn't make any gramatical sense please extrapolate.

The answer is that this passage is to be found in a Critique of the Gotha Program, written in 1875 by Karl Marx.

"In a higher phase of Communist society when the enslaving subordination of the individual in the division of labor has disappeared and with it also the antagonism between mental and physical labor, when labor has become not only a means of living, but itself the first necessity of life, when along with the all around development of individuals, the productive forces too have grown and all the springs of social wealth are flowing more freely.

"It is only at that stage that it will be possible to pass completely beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois rights and for society to inscribe on its banner, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

In other words, we see the establishment of communism as a process that depends, in large measure, on the ability of a country to provided for the needs of all its people.

Thus, under socialism, where the economy may not yet be able to satisfy the needs of the entire society, workers will be paid for their deeds - for what they contribute to society.

Under communism - when the economy can produce all that is necessary to fulfill the needs of everyone, workers will be earn enough to meet the needs of their families and to provide for the needs of everyone.


p.s. Extrapolate? I thought this meant to calculate or infer from a limited amount of known information to find some unknown information. I hope I've extrapolated correctly from Gadget's post to the question he was posing (but he did spell extrapolate correctly ).

[Stuart]

I came out at:

Economic left/right -5.25
Social libertarian/authoritarian -4.05

Somewhere near Nelson Mandela.

I remember doing something similar when I was a student as part of a Politics course. Sadly the results have long since been lost but it would have been interesting to compare the results.

[Tiggerbabe]

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85

Another left wing libertarian! Happy to be in your company

[Gadget]

In other words, we see the establishment of communism as a process that depends, in large measure, on the ability of a country to provided for the needs of all its people.

Thus, under socialism, where the economy may not yet be able to satisfy the needs of the entire society, workers will be paid for their deeds - for what they contribute to society.

Under communism - when the economy can produce all that is necessary to fulfill the needs of everyone, workers will be earn enough to meet the needs of their families and to provide for the needs of everyone.

So socialism is just a path towards communism, or socialism [b]is[/i] communism, just with a poorer economy. ?
I still don't get the statement - can you use little words please?

p.s. Extrapolate? I thought this meant to calculate or infer from a limited amount of known information to find some unknown information.

I knew it was a statement relating to politice, I was wanting it expanded on so that I could gleam some understanding about what it actually was trying to say. Isn't that "extrapolate"? I could have asked for it to be "expanded on and explained", but that's the same thing.

(but he did spell extrapolate correctly )

Fist time too; in fact I had to double check that the spell-check was working by miss-spelling it! Arn't you impressed

[Andy McGregor]

So socialism is just a path towards communism, or socialism [b]is[/i] communism, just with a poorer economy. ?
I still don't get the statement - can you use little words please?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

The first bit is obvious. We contribute to the society to the best of our ability - basically under a socialist regime we each work to the best of our ability. The difference between a socialist and a capitalist approach is that in the former we only get our 'needs' met under a capitalist regime we get rewarded depending on market forces, in other words, what the market thinks our work/ability is worth.

For this second bit it is much less clear. What are "his needs". We all have many needs and they range from basic needs to quite sophisticated needs. When I consider needs I usually refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I've pasted them at the bottom of this post with some useful notes (do a google search if you'd like to know more).

When Marx was talking about needs I think we should consider the times. It was 1875, at this time a significant proportion of the population were not having their most basic of physiological needs met, they were starving, freezing, had a short life expectancy and infant mortality was so high it must have broken many people's hearts. In this environment the promise that all you had to do was your best and your needs would be met must have seemed like an invitation to a promised land where you would never go hungry or be cold, and where you and your children would live longer - it would have won me over and I would have been scrambling over those palace walls along with everyone else.

Don't ask me where the great socialist experiment went wrong. I don't know. But, as we all know, it was not the great success that Marx envisaged.

Nowadays, in this country, there is no need for anyone to starve, or be cold or have their lives shortened by deprivation (but, from my time as a Councillor I know it still happens from time-to-time - from those real-life cases I've been involved with I think the cause is ignorance and the long-term answer is education). I think that the fact that the population are comfortable makes Marx's argument much less seductive to the UK population: that and the fact that our observation is that Communism doesn't seem to work as well as Capitalism - at least from the point of view of someone living in the democratic and capitalist West like we are fortunate enough to do.

Me? Despite my score on the test I started this thread with, I'm a capitalist through and through. I don't have the faith/belief in human nature that Marx had. I don't want the state to look after me, I want to look after myself. And that is what I see as the major difference between the Political Parties of today. And even then it is only the difference is in shades of the same colour or where you draw the line.

There are many other, less theoretical, areas of politics I think could be discussed too. I'd like to just prime the pump and get the debate going rather than lead it in any way - especilly as my brand of Politics doesn't even exist in Scotland


Appendix 1

Maslow has set up a hierarchy of five levels of basic needs. Beyond these needs, higher levels of needs exist. These include needs for understanding, esthetic appreciation and purely spiritual needs. In the levels of the five basic needs, the person does not feel the second need until the demands of the first have been satisfied, nor the third until the second has been satisfied, and so on. Maslow's basic needs are as follows:

Physiological Needs
These are biological needs. They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature. They are the strongest needs because if a person were deprived of all needs, the physiological ones would come first in the person's search for satisfaction.

Safety Needs
When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.

Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.

Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization.

[ChrisA]

There was no options on the poll for those who are almost in the middle Andy...

........

I came out as exactly in the centre of the left - right axis, and slightly libertarian (-2.41)

Chris