Political compass tests are dumb but heres mine:

I'm literally being called a genocidal tankie in another post as we speak for wanting a peaceful end to the Ukraine war lmao

We are all true Anarcho-Bidenists on this beautiful day.

I think it's broken

This other test is calling me an eco-marxist while policomp is calling me a left libertarian.

Both are dumb though because there's more nuance to some of these questions than they let you have.

I am the one true leftist.

ideological diversity

we’re all anarchists

political compass

Trans Axes: https://notaquaheart.github.io/TransAxes

https://leftvalues.github.io/ is much more fun

I did a stupid DnD alignment test instead. Apparently I'm Chaotic Evil for being a principled Communist. Good thing that's not a reactionary game system, though!

Anarchy forever?

Eat it tankies!

Better test

Authoritarian? Libertarian? I just wanna grill for God's sake!

I just noticed that they have a "reading list" for each of the four quadrants, and it's funny because in some ways it's surprisingly accurate compared to the actual political compass.

The left-wing sections seem genuinely pretty good (relative to the actual PCM test, which lets average American liberals end up in the bottom left section).

Libertarian left has a few books about anarchism, but it mostly consists of books about the history of imperialism and US atrocities (I guess the authors are more anarchist-leaning).

Authoritarian left mostly consists of books about the USSR, China, and North Korea.

The right-wing sections... are revealing in a different way.

Libertarian right is the most extensive of all of them, and has all the writers you'd expect (Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, etc) as well as some stuff by Ron Paul. There is however one book that goes completely mask off:

spoiler

Authoritarian right is mostly just neocons, but there's also

spoiler

---

It's funny that there's nothing written from the American liberal perspective on any of these lists. I guess the site creators just consider them centrists or something?

"Reactionaries view politics through a lens of enforced behavior and hierarchy (good) vs everything cool (bad)

Liberals view politics through a lens of free market capitalism (normal) vs regulated capitalism and social safety nets (idealistic but acceptable)

The left views politics through the lens of capitalist control of the means of production (bad) vs worker control of the means of production (with significant differences in how direct that control should be)

The political compass lies by combining the first two framings and saying that’s all of politics. It lies again by supposing that all combinations of those are equally meaningful, as if there’s actually a significant number of people who like state enforced morality and social safety networks. You could add the third framing to the chart, but it’d still have the lie that there’s any meaningful number of nazbols, or that laissez faire communists are a coherent thing that exists." - one of you that I stole this from

I'm an evil stalinist and it says I'm a hardcore anarchist

I get called a tankie all the time.

I know enough about history to know it takes the top left to achieve the bottom left, and to protect it from the entire right-wing.

Me, THE Mao Zedong, got exactly your score, OP.

I love this chart because you have to basically be some kind of pathological edgelord to get any result outside of green. American political science programs are beyond worthless lmao, at least business majors have to learn multiplication.

firstly for any non-Hexbearians: fuck this. we were never ideologically shut in, we just accurately realised that theres no point having major sectarianism and screaming at eachother in our forum over minor differences at this stage, as it should be when we've all ruthlessly criticised the preconceived ideas of the societies most of us have grown up in. noone who stuck around was a halfwitted and properly ideologically shut in liberal or someone who was kidding themselves about being centrist. we didnt let these kind of people pretend they were right or had something valuable in their theoretical outlook on politics, because they/you really probably don't. if you want to talk about some other specialisation you have or a unique outlook on other things, sure, maybe. politics? philosophical conception of how the world currently is and what the issues are and what might fix them? unless it's some type of socialism, none of us give a single fuck

anyway thinking of anything in the line of "authoritarian" as a descriptor is accurate means you've already lost some communist cred. authoritarianism is made up. noone is truly free in any ideological manifestation of society. it's simply different levels of coercion. and communism, with its ideals met, is the least coercive system of societal organisation. on the way there will always be practical issues as every AES state has found, with the USSR, NK, Cuba and China for example navigating a siege-like global terrain and implementing cultural change in different ways that have ALL lead so far to the people's general livelihood improved from what it was before communism. that is absolutely undebatable. under capitialism each of these countries would have had near zero development and their people would still be generally impoverished rather than a steadily developing wellbeing slowly emerging under, again, siege-like global conditions

>https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

That test is biased anyway so you are ebil tankie