So here's where I am:
Somewhere south of Gandhi.
BUT there's a bunch of stuff here that I don't agree with. I can't remember the first question in the survey, but it was only one of a huge number
of questions that I answered "under protest" if you like, because I completely disagreed with the way the question was framed.
So let's be clear-eyed about this: this is just a game that represents an extremely complex set of beliefs in a complex multi-dimensional space by
reducing it to two dimensions.
Because of that, it's important to bear in mind that it's not going to tell us that much of value.
I also would say that Communism and Fascism are much, much closer than people (particularly the authors of the questonnaire) think, and this is
painfully obvious right now in the discussions on ATS.
All the time I see posts where people damn Obama for being a Socialist or a Communist. This is so absurd as to be in a way unworthy of comment, but
the reality is that Obama is operating in the most hypercapitalist society on earth, and to say that he's a socialist is right up there with
suggesting that the Queen of England is a shapeshifting lizard.
This is something I've said in a variety of posts and I'm going to say it again here because it needs saying.
In communism the coporations are owned by the state.
In fascism the corporations own the state.
Either way, the concentration of power is devastating to the poor buggers who have to live in such conditions.
Mussonlini said "fascism should more properly be called corporatism, marking as it does the merger of state and corporate power". Remember also
that Nazism was National Socialism
What America is becoming - and the process has increased over the past decade and is continuing to do so under Obama - is much closer to fascism than
to socialism. But many right wingers can't see the similarities between the two ideologies, and the structural similarities that underpin them.
The central problem faced by any government is that of corruption
. That's the crucial thing. If you can devise a system that has safeguards
in place to make sure that people do their job and that malign influence is excluded, you're home free. Unfortunately no-one's done it yet.
As for the idea that socialist societies are about poverty - BS. There is, for example this study
the American dream (defined as the ability of people to do better than their parents) is easier to achieve in the UK than the US, and easier still in
the avowedly socialist Nordic countries.
If you are going to have a state, there's a minimal number of things that it might be reasonably expected to do: and provide basic necessities to
keep society going is one of those things. Therefore, simple goals like a decent public transport system that gets people to work on time are a good
idea. Basic free health care (with a good emphasis on preventive maintenance). The provision of power and water to households without ripping people
These are not things that make people dependent on society. These are things that enable a modern society to run easily and efficiently.
If you have any sense you might also restrict opportunities for people to siphon money out of the system without adding value. Years ago I used to
work in the City of London, for the stock exchange there. Just one example - futures trading should be abolished, it's as simple as that. It's
just not productive, it adds only illusory value. And yet vast amounts of money are sucked out of the system. When I was working there I used to
think, how long can this last? I guess we know now.
In my lifetime I've watched the neoliberal dream wreck the infrastructure of the UK and reduce the people in it to corporate serfs. We're much
closer to the US model now... and it's not much fun, believe me.