I'll admit it's pretty US centric and some of the questions are just odd (why is there one on abstract art?), but it only take five minutes and it gives an interesting breakdown between economc and social policy.
I've heard a lot of people on other sites argue that it's pretty hard to get a right wing economic score, but if there's a place that can do it'd be DakkaDakka.
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15
I'm some where between Ghandi and Stalin? Economically I always felt more akin to a Thatcher lite, make of that what you will! But the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian score seems about right, live and let live I say, until you place that foot on my lawn!
It is not what I would have expected but the lack of a neutral position on the questions could account for the unexpected result? The definition of left and right would also move what I thought I would get, I assume that this is because this seems to be US-centric and the UK understanding of Right would be allot more centrist/left than the US would define.
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85
Interesting test, but I highly doubt how accurate it actually is. At least a few questions were intentionally misleading, and a whole lot more were incomplete questions IMHO.
I mean think about it... Wrex next to the Dalai lama, Ghandi, and Nelson Mandela? Hmmmm.... does this make sense?
Economic left/right -4.25
Social libertarian/authoritarian -2.97
It would be a lot different if there were a pure middle ground answer. Nor exactly a "Don't care or not interested", more of a not sure. A lot of the questions, to be honest in my case would require some qualifications, because I believe in exceptions under unusual circumstances. And of course Bush II is a fascist!
Why does it say "Dear god its Attila the Hun!" on my score?
Most of the questions are seriously loaded and I am sure the conclusive linking is biased. I could play happily with this one. Back in the ancient times of college we went through these tests and how they were made up.
Kragura wrote:Lol i got right next to nelson mandala and ganhdi, guess im just a nice guy.
Yeah, that Ghandi score is pretty wrong. While he's built a reputation as a general all round nice guy, he was pretty strong on resisting modern life, keeping to tradition village life. I'm not sure that should score as libertarian as the website thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zad Fnark wrote:Bucking the trend...
Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.18
Plenty of questions seemed rather "loaded".
Yeah, as well as having a general bias to issues that are more important in the US, and including a few questions that seemed kind of irrelevant. At the end of the day its an on-line political poll, the methodology is never going to be that tight.
But it's still a bit of fun, and produces general results that make sense, albeit with a trend to scoring people on the left economically.
Economic Left/Right: -2.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.31
Nice job loading the questions. I wouldn't have expected to be anywhere near Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, or The Dalai Lama. Maybe I should shave my head, go live on a mountain, and seek a higher level of thought.
Sure it does. They are assuming that you are going to be smart enough to understand the underlying implications.
Is my race superior?
Are you a facist?
Do I like modern art?
Do you support government funded art? Are you more liberal?
Do I believe in astrology?
Are you a nut? Do you hate science? Just kidding. Astrologists tend to be liberal.
Do I drink bottled water?
How often do you urinate? This is another one about the role of corporations in our daily life.
I don't think any of the questions were 'loaded'. It said up front what the quiz was about and than asked questions that have a political context. It wasn't like it said it was the "Which Golden Girl Are You" quiz. And the answer is Sophia, by the way.
The way this kind of test is developed (if it's been done properly) is to find indicators of personality traits, test their reliability, then write questions which force the subject to answer in a way which reveals his underlying traits.
It's like those personality tests you sometimes have at job selection where there is a question like: "Would you prefer to be a dustman or a lavatory cleaner"
The real answer is "No" but you have to choose one of the two and this, combined with other questions, reveals your personality and stops you from 'cheating'.
I doubt the authors of the test were able to administer it to Ghandi, Thatcher and so on.
I think it is a bit of fun rather than a properly designed profiling tool and no-one should take it too seriously.
...who wants to have the government create a racialist society or racist libertarian who believes that a free market will give a superior race what they deserve? It didn't mention government.
Do you support government funded art? Are you more liberal?
It didn't mention any sort of government funding, nor is there any reason to jump to that conclusion. What is "Liberal" supposed to mean here? In favor of more stringent economic controls? In favor of less laws restricting personal choice in daily life?
It has nothing to do with the law.
Are you a nut? Do you hate science? Just kidding. Astrologists tend to be liberal.
But as you just said, it means disdain for rationality and the scientific method, both of which are commonly "liberal" traits. Whatever "liberal" means today.
How often do you urinate? This is another one about the role of corporations in our daily life.
And another one that doesn't include any relevance to the government. Something that's vaguely tied to a corporation and wanting the government to, presumably, put greater restrictions on the sale of bottled water are the not the same.
The problem with this quiz it acts as though it's going to go beyond the traditional Left/Right dichotomy by using a square plot, but then goes in a completely different direction by seeing how many stereotypes unrelated to actual politics a person has, and then trying to guess where the person lies politically. Is it so wrong to expect a political quiz to ask questions about political views? And not "oh, you're from the south, that's one point for 'economically right-wing'. You drink tea though? I guess that makes you 'economically left-wing'". It's not like coming up with questions about a person's views on the government is difficult, and the only way they can get an idea is through trying to analyze your dislike of modern art.
And some of the questions were certainly loaded. "Globalization should serve the people instead of trans-national corporations"? If you think that the trans-national corporations are the best thing for people, you still have to answer "agree" if you're not some sort of monster. Why? Because it says "instead of", so you have to choose one. They're assumed to be in competition with each other. The only way you would disagree is if you're either A. Some sort of Disney villain who hates people and loves big evil corporations or B. you see the bias and reject it by choosing what you would answer if the question was written sensibly.
Orkeosaurus wrote: Lots of half thought out ideas and misunderstandings.
I can't tell if you are trolling, that out of touch, or just don't get it. You really don't understand, for example, how someone who thinks bottling water when it should be free effects their ideology when it comes to governing? The type of person that will excitedly put that , indeed, their race is superior are not Libertarians. Have you lived in the US long? Have you met or seen Klan members, Neonazis, New Black Panthers, or Nation of Islam? None of those ascribe to Libertarianism.
Really? No white supremacists supported Ron Paul in the 2008 election?
Also, bottled water is an alternative to tap water. Which is so inexpensive, it may as well be free most of the time. It's not an issue of whether or not people in modern western democracies can have access to it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Really? No white supremacists supported Ron Paul in the 2008 election?
Do you really think it is that simple? For the ones that did, do you understand why they voted for him? Do you really think it was for the same reasons as others that did?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Also, bottled water is an alternative to tap water. Which is so inexpensive, it may as well be free most of the time.
I'm guessing you don't pay a water bill. Anyway, that wasn't the point, and again, I watch as you totally miss it. WHOOOOOOOSH.
Like I said, you either understand the subtext or you don't. You either understand the way the questions are designed and what 'underlying facts' they are seeking, as Killkrazy said, or you don't. You are obliviously having trouble seeing the forest for the trees on this one.
Orkeosaurus wrote:And your patronization is getting old.
I'm not patronizing at all. I explained to you what they were asking. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean what I said wasn't true. It just means you are not getting it. I think the problem is you are overanalyzing it and keeps taking you farther and farther away from the simplest of things. They are using broad truths but you are looking at minute details that tend not to define these things. Finding one racist bigot that is a hippie doesn't mean that the vast majority are not.
I know exactly what the "underlying" assumptions are, the problem is that it's damn stupid to make assumptions based on personality traits and call it a valid test, when you could just as easily have asked them questions that would actually tell you what you want to know.
If you see a peace sign on a person's shirt, you may guess that they're a left-winger, and it would probably not be a bad guess.
If you do a survey about the political opinions of people, asking them "do you own a shirt that has a peace sign on it" instead of an actual question about their thought on war, then your survey sucks. Or, at the very least, isn't going to tell you the truth.
crap.
Modquisition on. Guys lets lower the tension level on this thread (looks at Ahtman and slightly Orkie's direction) as its unneeded for this type of thread.
My original response was in violation of Frazzled's warning (sorry), so instead here's a picture of a really angry face.
Seriously though, here are examples of what I would do for a quiz. Neither is perfect, but it seems like they're at least trying to keep the questions fair and relevant.
I would like to apologize for being curt with Orky. I wasn't trying to, but I could have chosen my words more carefully. I will avoid responding to multiple posts at once in the future to try and avoid it.
What I was trying to get across is that if the questions were asked in a vacuum, they would indeed be a poor barometer of a persons overall political viewpoint. The fact remains though that they were not asked in a vacuum but within the context of a 6 page questionnaire. Saying you like your race best isn't going to automatically floor the needle into "Fascist". It would nudge it one direction or another.
They ask those questions because they are barometers of peoples belief in the actual issues. It wouldn't help the quiz if the questions were "are you a Liberal?", so they ask questions that indicate that. You would also be surprised how many people hold one idea of themselves politically but when they answer questions about the issues they come down somewhere else.
Alright, I'll try and calm down in the future too. It's just so damn hot here...
The problem I have with the quiz is its unreliability. Even in the context of cultural trends, it's quite a jump to say disliking homosexuality means a person will support laws put in place to stop them from being that way. It's even more of a jump to say that a belief in astronomy makes you authoritarian (yes, according to the FAQ that's what it means. Belief in astronomy makes you a determinist, which makes you favor authoritarianism).
Even though a single answer will usually not determine where you place, it still counts towards the total. If that question is poor, it makes the test less accurate. There are quite a few questions on the test I think are fairly irrelevant or worded badly. There's a middle ground between asking "are you liberal?" and "are you offended by bottled water?". You can actually ask them what they think about political issues.
The maker of the website simultaneously rejects the traditional left/right scale while largely basing people's political opinions on the cultural stereotypes associated with the left/right "culture wars". I'd actually say that's what the core of my problem is with the test; separating economic and social policy isn't much of an accomplishment when you fail to separate social policy and personal preferences in the same test.
That's why I suggested this quiz in particular, and this quiz to a lesser extent. They make a distinction.
Pretty much the same score as Sebster's quiz, but I've probably studied enough politics to know what any given question is trying to assess. So that might throw it off.
You are a center-left social libertarian.
Left: 1.64, Libertarian: 3.65
I was a little surprised that I came out on the left in terms of foreign policy, but that might be because the line was drawn between non-interventionism and neoconservatism. Actually, foreign policy is complicated enough that a spectrum is probably insufficient to capture it.
That said, the culture result was about what I expected.
Foreign Policy: You scored: -3
Culture: You scored: -4.84
Yeah, that Ghandi score is pretty wrong. While he's built a reputation as a general all round nice guy, he was pretty strong on resisting modern life, keeping to tradition village life. I'm not sure that should score as libertarian as the website thought.
I thought he was famous for resisting the caste system
Orkeosaurus wrote:That's why I suggested this quiz in particular, and this quiz to a lesser extent. They make a distinction.
Yeah, those quizzes are better than the one I posted. Including don't care options and scaling for for interest in the topic is a big improvement. I like my survey because another forum I'm on has been taking it every so often for about 10 years, so it's interesting to see how opinions change. But for people without that history, your quizzes are much better.
The first quiz told me I'm a left moderate social libertarian. Left: 6.34, Libertarian: 3.23. Thing is, though, Australia is a pretty conservative place, certainly to the right of Europe and I'm not far from the centre by Australian standards. Yet when you look at these American surveys, I end up a pinko. I think it's got a lot to do with me being on the far left on issues that, one way or another are settled in Australia, but are a big part of the US debate.
The second quiz told me;
"You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country."
"You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is."
"You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism."
"You're a Moderate. You think that in very rare occasions, the United States should invade a country in order to make the world better by spreading democracy or ending a tyrants rule. You also think that defense is very important, and we shouldn't lower the defense budget. You think that, while the Iraq War probably was a mistake, that we can make the world a better place by sticking with it and spreading democracy in the middle east."
Which is all pretty much bang on, except for the libertarian thing, which gave me a very strong libertarian score. Probably because of the emphasis on abortion & pornography questions. It told me I was a hardcore Democrat, which is a little dubious given my general opinion of the Democrats (although maybe that's because the Democrats do such a bad job of being Democrats...) and then said I was like Kennedy and Clinton, which is about right. I probably don't get as much sex as those two, though.
Envy89 wrote:If you believe in astrology then you are obviously a more enlightened person (because you don’t believe in god) and get a tick to left wing...
You can believe in astrology and still believe in God. It's a test of belief in new age hippy stuff. It could just as likely have been 'do you waste money on healing crystals?'
Still not sure about bottled water.
It was explicit in the question, where it asked if you thought it was bad corporate marketeting had reached a point where something as basic as water was a packaged product. It still isn't a very good question, because I looked at it and thought 'it doesn't worry me because you only have to buy water that way if you want bottled water, you can still get water from the tap for cheap', so I said it wasn't a problem, but that wasn't their intent.
A better question might have been about corporate marketing to younger and younger crowds, so that we're now seeing fashion clothes made kids as young as five and six.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Actually, the FAQ for the test says that belief in astrology is indicative of authoritarianism.
It's a matter of determinism, apparently.
Oh, okay, that makes a bit of sense but it's still pretty loose. In the first half of the 20th century is was the extreme right, the aristocrats and other right wing groups leading up to the nazis that used to be the home of fringe religious theory. It made sense, super secret knowledge in the hands of an elite few that showed how everything was all planned out fit quite nicely with the beliefs of elite rule held by the extreme right wing of that time.
But does it really hold today? All that new age science stuff is now tied to the new age beliefs about being free to love your fellow man and all that. Or is astrology sufficiently removed from the other new age stuff? I don't know, it still seems like a silly question to me.
They specifically chose an example of determinism that's common to people who would probably be considered libertarian by the chart. (I'd call into question the relevance of determinism at all, personally.)
@GMM - The only people that don't agree with those don't understand inflation, or are general scumbags that like getting welfare checks for doing nothing.
Economic Left/Right: -3.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
Kragura wrote:I thought he was famous for resisting the caste system (I am probably wrong)
I'm afraid so, He disowned his own son for marrying out of caste.
No, Ghandi really was all about breaking down the caste system. He disowned his son because he was aiming for a bourgeois life rather than spending time doing the manual labour that Ghandi felt was good for the soul. He also wanted to remarry after the death of first wife, and that was a big no-no. But it wasn't about the caste of his wife.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GMMStudios wrote:Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
(snip)
Do people really disagree with those?
It also isn't a great question. Inflation is important to control because left unchecked it leads to stagflation and subsequently even more unemployment. But all that means is that inflation is important to control to avoid further unemployment... so where does that leave us on that question? Yes, inflation is important, but only to the extent that it impacts unemployment, so which is more important to control.
A little bit of unemployment helps keep inflation under control by preventing wages rising quickly due to excess demand for labour.
If a reserve army of unemployed people is an essential component of the economy, morally society should compensate the unemployed for their service of being in reserve. Also, they will starve to death if not helped, or turn to crime to better their economic position.
Another way for unemployed to improve their situation is to emigrate to a country with low unemployment. We don't like this when it happens to us.
Kilkrazy wrote:A little bit of inflation is a good thing.
A little bit of unemployment helps keep inflation under control by preventing wages rising quickly due to excess demand for labour.
If a reserve army of unemployed people is an essential component of the economy, morally society should compensate the unemployed for their service of being in reserve. Also, they will starve to death if not helped, or turn to crime to better their economic position.
Another way for unemployed to improve their situation is to emigrate to a country with low unemployment. We don't like this when it happens to us.
My uncle had a bunch of Polish guys re-furbish his house, and they did a fantastic job. Not to say that you are trying to insult them, just that some (I would guess most) of the immigrants do a fantastic job, and they can make much greater use that money when they go back home. In a nutshell it is taking money out of England, as is the case for a few situations the U.K. is dealing with, online sales included. I am talking about legal immigrants to be clear, illegals open up an entirely different can of worms.
My point being, some labor is just better left to capable hands that can make the most of it. This is in no way to insinuate that Brits are lazy, just that the world economy is changing, and I see no practical reason to hunt for labor where many might not be equipped to function in that role to begin with. I am not of slight frame by any means, but in general, I do know that there are people that can manage intense labor for months on end, whereas I simply cannot; at least at the same pace. This leaves me competing against what is basically a better deal from nearly every angle. Especially when you look at a team, where you have a leader that speaks fantastic english, perhaps even french as well as their native language; I mean that is economized gold in a nutshell right there.
At any rate, we WILL have a certain level of mechanized (at this rate, robotic entirely, and autonomous is the future) assistance being seriously developed (as it has in the past century), and as a result there is much less of a need for labor in general. Perhaps this is the best thing that could happen, perhaps not. In essence I am not sure whether general labor (sticks and stones may break my bones... but I work in a factory and I will epically lay a few "kind" words your way, perhaps even riot, who knows) represents the same kind of prospects for natives of relatively successful countries anymore. I see labor as an indicator of a countries bottom line, and as this bottom line rises, you will begin to see a higher standard of living amongst the general population. Without this bottom line however, countries that are lacking in general, may benefit the world economy greater (things will get cheaper for sure) than if your natives were still doing those jobs.
With training... we shall master our skills, and soon... we shall know the power, and the power will be... walking around in circles all day, but we will know the true meaning, and the true meaning shall be known to us.
Kilkrazy wrote:A little bit of inflation is a good thing.
A little bit of unemployment helps keep inflation under control by preventing wages rising quickly due to excess demand for labour.
If a reserve army of unemployed people is an essential component of the economy, morally society should compensate the unemployed for their service of being in reserve. Also, they will starve to death if not helped, or turn to crime to better their economic position.
Another way for unemployed to improve their situation is to emigrate to a country with low unemployment. We don't like this when it happens to us.
My uncle had a bunch of Polish guys re-furbish his house, and they did a fantastic job. Not to say that you are trying to insult them, just that some (I would guess most) of the immigrants do a fantastic job, and they can make much greater use that money when they go back home. In a nutshell it is taking money out of England, as is the case for a few situations the U.K. is dealing with, online sales included. I am talking about legal immigrants to be clear, illegals open up an entirely different can of worms.
...
...
You're right, and it's called "Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage" by economists. British people moaning about immigrant workers lose sight of the point that lots more Brits have gone overseas to work than have come to the UK.
My point was intended to be ironic; some people want unemployment to keep down inflation, but they don't like the unemployed, and they don't like the unemployed from other countries moving in to find work.
That's why I suggested this quiz in particular, and this quiz to a lesser extent. They make a distinction.
Here's my score on the first one:
And the Second:
politicalquiz.net wrote:
The Quiz
The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative
Conservative/Progressive score: 5
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 6
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 1
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 3
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Libertarian
sebster wrote:No, Ghandi really was all about breaking down the caste system. He disowned his son because he was aiming for a bourgeois life rather than spending time doing the manual labour that Ghandi felt was good for the soul. He also wanted to remarry after the death of first wife, and that was a big no-no. But it wasn't about the caste of his wife.
Gandhi attempted to raise the quality of life for 'untouchables' that's not quite the same thing as being all about breaking down the caste system. Not sure about Harilal's first wife but he was 23 when he attempted to remarry, if that was the case.
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Wouldn't response to this only measure a person's capacity for (or acknowledgment of) abstract thought? I fail to see how this helps determine one's political leanings.
George Spiggott wrote:Gandhi attempted to raise the quality of life for 'untouchables' that's not quite the same thing as being all about breaking down the caste system. Not sure about Harilal's first wife but he was 23 when he attempted to remarry, if that was the case.
Gandhi in 1931;
"I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies.... We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil."
He did believe in keeping the career of your father, as he placed a strong emphasis on tradition and family. But he didn't think there should be any inherent status in one career or family over another, and wanted inter-marriage between the castes. Which doesn't strike me as particularly practical, but I don't think many of Gandhi's social views were.
Depends on the work. My abstract works are way more labor intensive than my representational work. Abstract art is just as often badly executed as any other form of art. Actually, good abstract art is much harder to produce than good representational art. Anyone can recognize a person or a tree or a building, but making an abstract work which actively engages it's audience requires a lot of knowledge.
BloodofOrks wrote:
Depends on the work. My abstract works are way more labor intensive than my representational work. Abstract art is just as often badly executed as any other form of art. Actually, good abstract art is much harder to produce than good representational art. Anyone can recognize a person or a tree or a building, but making an abstract work which actively engages it's audience requires a lot of knowledge.
sebster wrote:He did believe in keeping the career of your father, as he placed a strong emphasis on tradition and family.
sebster wrote:He disowned his son because he was aiming for a bourgeois life rather than spending time doing the manual labour...
Make your mind up. Harilal Gandhi intended to become a barrister like his father.
sebster (quoting Gandhi) wrote:I do not believe in caste in the modern sense. It is an excrescence and a handicap on progress. Nor do I believe in inequalities between human beings. We are all absolutely equal. But equality is of souls and not bodies.... We have to realize equality in the midst of this apparent inequality. Assumption of superiority by any person over any other is a sin against God and man. Thus caste, in so far as it connotes distinctions in status, is an evil.
He also said this:
Gandhi wrote:I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system... A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization...
To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. [The] hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder.... It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.
Over a decade separates those quotes (1930s and 1920s respectively) Gandhi disowned his son in 1911, Gandhi was a complex personality full of contradictions, he certainly believed in the Varna which underpin the caste system throughout his life and supported the caste system in full for the majority of his life.
George Spiggott wrote:Make your mind up. Harilal Gandhi intended to become a barrister like his father.
I should make my mind up, or Gandhi should make his up? Like you said he’s a complex character, and having a different view for his own family as he had for India isn’t limited to his son’s career.
The guy was, in a broad sense, a stoic. He felt taking on the demeaning work of others was a good and noble thing. The rest of us stand back and scratch our heads and think that either way someone is cleaning the toilet, and wonder why it is better when the stoic does it. But you know, stoics…
He also said this:
Gandhi wrote:I believe that if Hindu society has been able to stand, it is because it is founded on the caste system... A community which can create the caste system must be said to possess unique power of organization...
To destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation which is the soul of the caste system. [The] hereditary principle is an eternal principle. To change it is to create disorder.... It will be a chaos if every day a Brahmin is to be changed into a Shudra and a Shudra is to be changed into a Brahmin. The caste system is a natural order of society.... I am opposed to all those who are out to destroy the caste system.
Over a decade separates those quotes (1930s and 1920s respectively) Gandhi disowned his son in 1911, Gandhi was a complex personality full of contradictions, he certainly believed in the Varna which underpin the caste system throughout his life and supported the caste system in full for the majority of his life.
Yes, but his own interpretation of the Varna and the caste system was very different to what we understand as the caste system. It emphasised traditional family roles, but removed the ideas of superiority, and without that you have something very different from the caste system.
Anyway, I think at this point we can agree he didn’t disown his son for marrying outside of caste.
@sebster: I'm seeing a change in his attitudes on caste as he got older (as an aside It seems he wants the caste system to be the class system). I'm not seeing anything that supports such liberal views concerning caste when he disowned his eldest son (20 years before your quote).
George Spiggott wrote:@sebster: I'm seeing a change in his attitudes on caste as he got older (as an aside It seems he wants the caste system to be the class system). I'm not seeing anything that supports such liberal views concerning caste when he disowned his eldest son (20 years before your quote).
Yeah, his opinions did change on the topic. Which to an extent in understandable, Gandhi wasn't a born revolutionary, wanting to tear everything down (which accounted for much of his success).
I just haven't seen anything saying his son was disowned due to him marrying into another caste. I have read plenty about his son wanting a more affluent, bourgeois life, and about him marrying a second time. Which is still a pretty crappy thing for Gandhi to do, disowning his son for that.
I've taken this thing many times over the years, here's my latest results:
Economic Left/Right: 4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49
My scores are pretty consistent. I'm kinda like a bread&circuses fascist. I like a strong, single-party government that wages war and dishes out brutal punishments to criminals, but I think the best way to keep a system like that running is to let your civilian populace enjoy the illusion of free will. Booze, whores, weed, and upward economic mobility through fairly-free market capitalism keeps people smiling, even when their neighbor gets sent to a labor camp for 6 months because he robbed a Kwik-E-Mart to feed his starving family.
Mix in a bit of utterly heartless cost-benefit decision-making to ensure maximum economic efficiency. Gotta keep the money flowing in, otherwise you can't afford the toys to grind lesser nations into dust.
EDIT:
Took the other two quizzes from pg2, got some weird results (IMO)
Quiz 1: You are a right moderate social libertarian. Right: 3.1, Libertarian: 2.87
I strongly agreed to have a large, powerful military that launches preemptive strikes to secure natural resources, but doesn't lift a finger to topple dictatorships or stop genocides. And that only rates a 0.11 towards "Neo-Conservative" on the Foreign Policy Scale?
Quiz 2:
Conservative/Progressive score: 6
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government.
Uh, no. Re: abortion, I'm all in favor of killing the damn parasites, for whatever reason, at any time during the pregnancy.
Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 4
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.
Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 3
You are libertarian. You think that the government is making way too many unnecessary laws that are taking away our innate rights. You believe that the government's job is primarily to protect people from harming other people, but after that they should mind their own business, and if we give the government too much power in controlling our lives, it can lead to fascism.
Pacifist/Militarist score: 10
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.
Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Libertarian
I'm not concerned about keeping the world safe, I'm concerned about maximizing the US's ability to drain the world dry without effective retaliation. Although international trade *is* facilitated by stable governments and safe sea routes.
George Spiggott wrote:@sebster: I'm seeing a change in his attitudes on caste as he got older (as an aside It seems he wants the caste system to be the class system). I'm not seeing anything that supports such liberal views concerning caste when he disowned his eldest son (20 years before your quote).
Yeah, his opinions did change on the topic. Which to an extent in understandable, Gandhi wasn't a born revolutionary, wanting to tear everything down (which accounted for much of his success).
I just haven't seen anything saying his son was disowned due to him marrying into another caste. I have read plenty about his son wanting a more affluent, bourgeois life, and about him marrying a second time. Which is still a pretty crappy thing for Gandhi to do, disowning his son for that.
You know there is a movie about all this you know. Gandhi My Father
Noble713 wrote:I'vI'm kinda like a bread&circuses fascist. I like a strong, single-party government that wages war and dishes out brutal punishments to criminals, but I think the best way to keep a system like that running is to let your civilian populace enjoy the illusion of free will. Booze, whores, weed, and upward economic mobility through fairly-free market capitalism keeps people smiling, even when their neighbor gets sent to a labor camp for 6 months because he robbed a Kwik-E-Mart to feed his starving family.
Mix in a bit of utterly heartless cost-benefit decision-making to ensure maximum economic efficiency. Gotta keep the money flowing in, otherwise you can't afford the toys to grind lesser nations into dust.
I'm not concerned about keeping the world safe, I'm concerned about maximizing the US's ability to drain the world dry without effective retaliation.
Noble713 wrote:I'vI'm kinda like a bread&circuses fascist. I like a strong, single-party government that wages war and dishes out brutal punishments to criminals, but I think the best way to keep a system like that running is to let your civilian populace enjoy the illusion of free will. Booze, whores, weed, and upward economic mobility through fairly-free market capitalism keeps people smiling, even when their neighbor gets sent to a labor camp for 6 months because he robbed a Kwik-E-Mart to feed his starving family.
Mix in a bit of utterly heartless cost-benefit decision-making to ensure maximum economic efficiency. Gotta keep the money flowing in, otherwise you can't afford the toys to grind lesser nations into dust.
I'm not concerned about keeping the world safe, I'm concerned about maximizing the US's ability to drain the world dry without effective retaliation.
Although I never really considered myself much of a centre-ist in terms of authority, interesting.
