[Demosthenes]

You guys are the Marxist heavy hitters, tell me how to do it, and we'll try and work it in...

Short of that, I can see a test where Marxists and their ilk are simply "tested out" of some of these axis that will become essentially meaningless to them, unless you're actually suggesting something that could differentiate between a Trot, a Stalinist, and...whoever else...But then maybe you're talking a progressive test or something (One that changes for each user), but we don't even have a coder for just a basic test yet...

Then you've got to deal with the coder's ideas and bullshit...(As I found with the user Onomatopoeia, he wanted to do things his way, and had little interest in taking orders...)

[Eauz]

I can see a test where Marxists and their ilk are simply "tested out" of some of these axis that will become essentially meaningless to them, unless you're actually suggesting something that could differentiate between a Trot, a Stalinist, and...whoever else...

Essentially, yes, however, I don't think we need to make a difference between Trots, Stalinists, etc, just Marxist or Social-Democract, etc. I would agree though that it might be possible to skip some questions, as they might not pertain to someone who connects themselves to Marxism, before the quiz.

Sorry if this seems complicated, if you want to stick with your original idea, fine by me, I still took the quiz and eventually my utopian dreams were rooted out by this forum and from reading, so either way is fine, it might cause more problems and issues if you're brining out more definitions but I think just a general understanding of what is meant by big and small government within the liberal ideology.

[The Immortal Goon]

We have a marxist v. non-marxist axis, and that should be good enough. Getting in to the various flavours of Marxism isn't practical nor necessary.

In my mind, the best solution here for ease and clarity would be to make the questions individually specific as to "assuming current conditions will not change" or "give the most desirable set of circumstances" or something to that effect.

If these could somehow be manipulated to come to a conclusion that would be great; but the fact that it's clear about the conditions would be an improvement in of itself.

As random examples:

In society as it exists at this moment, bailouts are simply a way the government can reward and prop up wasteful corporations and business practices. Allowing them to fail represents a truly free market.

and

In the most optimal possible circumstance, government funding of the arts gives the rest of us an opportunity to later enjoy the fruits of their labor, where without this creative space they simply would not be able to turn out any art for us to enjoy.

Alright, so maybe those aren't the best examples, but it conveys what might be the minimum requirement to make sure that the people that want a radical reformation of the relation of government and society can fit seamlessly in to the questions.

[Demosthenes]

just Marxist or Social-Democract, etc.

Alright, But I think this test will do that by having a separate axis for Marxists vs. Non-Marxists, and this one. In fact, now that I think about it, it should actually make some distinction between say TiG and Potemkin, as I understand their positions because of the national/international axis.

Remember, I'm/We're not really breaking any new ground with this, only basically trying to recreate/tweak Max's old test. While he doesn't need me to blow anymore smoke up his ass, I think it's fair to have a little faith in his original creation.

Sorry if this seems complicated, if you want to stick with your original idea, fine by me, I still took the quiz and eventually my utopian dreams were rooted out by this forum and from reading, so either way is fine, it might cause more problems and issues if you're brining out more definitions but I think just a general understanding of what is meant by big and small government within the liberal ideology.

Basically, rather than address this issue in-quiz or by adding disclaimers to each question, I think if I'm properly understanding your concerns, it should be addressed when you have your results.

As in, A low Marxism Score coupled with a high Big Government Score means you're a social Dem, and this would be reflected in the response the test gives you.
A high Marxism Score coupled with a high Big government score means you're one of the dirty reds in one form or another, perhaps further decided by your rank on the internationalism/nationalism score. (Damn...I don't think I anticipated all those combinations though... I may need some help with those...)

[The Immortal Goon]

As in, A low Marxism Score coupled with a high Big Government Score means you're a social Dem, and this would be reflected in the response the test gives you.
A high Marxism Score coupled with a high Big government score means you're one of the dirty reds in one form or another, perhaps further decided by your rank on the internationalism/nationalism score.

If this is the case, then we should have a broad, "Answer each question in regard to an ideal situation" measure. There probably will be several marxists that take this and assume that they should answer in the form of various forms of transitional stages.

I realize that all of this is pretty nit-picky, Demo, but ironing out the details is going to probably make a better test. So I appreciate you being this gung-ho about it.

[Potemkin]

If this is the case, then we should have a broad, "Answer each question in regard to an ideal situation" measure. There probably will be several marxists that take this and assume that they should answer in the form of various forms of transitional stages.

Rather than referring to some abstract 'ideal', we should perhaps include the time element explicitly in our form of words, as I suggested above:

We might use a form of words like "The ultimate ideal is <small government / big government>".

[Demosthenes]

I realize that all of this is pretty nit-picky, Demo, but ironing out the details is going to probably make a better test. So I appreciate you being this gung-ho about it.

No, no...I quite enjoy the discussion anyway. Sometimes I think I know what you guys are talking about, then other times I don't know if I do or not. It is difficult at times to grasp whether Marxists are actually quite complex...ly simple, or simply complex...

Either way, I'd like to lay the groundwork for the best possible test we can. It's nice in it's own right, and it would be a good draw for PoFo in general.

Now...if we can just find that willing coder...dupe...guy...

As to the discussion, are we at a point where we're in general agreement that the questions are ok and we just need to add Potemkin's above disclaimer or are we somewhere in between or somewhere else entirely?

[Gnote]

This may be an incredibly inflammatory statement, but is it not the case that virtually all political discussion boils down to the question of what the government should and should not do?

It's possible, for instance, for hard-line religious fundamentalism to manifest in a personal manner, rather than in a desire for the government to implement policy that reflects those beliefs. I could, in other words, believe that abortion and gay marriage are deplorable, but I may see no reason for the government to legislate them out of common practice.

So then, for the purposes of political opinion - or more practically, for the purposes of this quiz - do the former even matter? Do you even need to ask people about their personal views on church and state, individualism and collectivism, etc? If the answer is no (and I am inclined to think it is) then all questions can probably be prefaced with something like "The government should..." or "The government should not...".

And then, ultimately, the entire quiz result (no matter how many axes) ends up boiling down to the quiz-takers view on how big the government should be.

[Potemkin]

This may be an incredibly inflammatory statement, but is it not the case that virtually all political discussion boils down to the question of what the government should and should not do?

I don't believe so, no. Anarchists believe there should be no state apparatus at all, and Marxists look forward to a classless, stateless society. The kind of 'political discussion' you are referring to is only between those who recognise the legitimacy of the existing status quo, and who wish merely to tweak it slightly in their various ways in order to 'perfect' it. This by no means incorporates 'virtually all' political discussion.

[The Immortal Goon]

I'm sold on Potemkin's wording.

Gnote's point is well made, but I beleive that the other axises are necessary to reflect certain inclinations that could well be fleshed out.

Someone like Todd, who is a "government hands off" person and a devout Catholic, should be able to (in theory) have a place that reflects that as this particular axis will be "hands off" and the materialist axis should reflect his personal conviction.

In theory.

I think, to some extent, some people need a statement of faith. They need to be able to put a mark next to what they say so not as to offend their own sensibilities, of that makes sense.

[Gnote]

I don't believe so, no. Anarchists believe there should be no state apparatus at all, and Marxists look forward to a classless, stateless society.

These are fair points.

And indeed I am not well enough schooled in either Anarchism or Marxism, but both of the positions you outlined fit on the spectrum I described. Both Anarchists and Marxists hold a position on the role of the state (be it an implicit or explicit position) in that it should not exist.

Someone like Todd, who is a "government hands off" person and a devout Catholic, should be able to (in theory) have a place that reflects that as this particular axis will be "hands off" and the materialist axis should reflect his personal conviction.

But a personal conviction, if not inscribed in law, is about as useful to political discourse as is having a favourite colour.

It seems, to me, like the basic question being addressed through political discourse is "how ought a society operate?" And if that is the basic question, then what good is it to ask a quiz-taker about their personal beliefs, unless they wish to see the society act according to those beliefs?

[Potemkin]

But a personal conviction, if not inscribed in law, is about as useful to political discourse as is having a favourite colour.

It seems, to me, like the basic question being addressed through political discourse is "how ought a society operate?" And if that is the basic question, then what good is it to ask a quiz-taker about their personal beliefs, unless they wish to see the society act according to those beliefs?

You seem to be working from the assumption that the existing order of things cannot change and will never change, and that all possible political discourse must be within the framework of the existing status quo. As a Marxist, I cannot and will not accept this. I assert that revolution - a fundamental change to the existing order of things - is both possible and desirable.

[Gnote]

You seem to be working from the assumption that the existing order of things cannot change and will never change, and that all possible political discourse must be within the framework of the existing status quo. As a Marxist, I cannot and will not accept this. I assert that revolution - a fundamental change to the existing order of things - is both possible and desirable.

I don't think I'm making any such assumption at all. What I'm saying is that implicit in the desire to change the "existing order of things" is two assumptions: 1) that an individual or group believes there is a better way of doing things; and 2) that individual or group wants to see the society adopt that better way of doing things. This is basically the distinction I was drawing earlier - you can have beliefs, but if you don't want to see those beliefs "forced" on the society as a whole, then they're not really political beliefs, at least to the extent that a political quiz is concerned.

Perhaps we can make some headway if, instead of using the words "state" or "government", we use a term more like "collective will" or "collective action". I suppose there needn't be a formalized state in the way we think of governments and states in the vernacular, but even under a Marxist system doesn't there need to be some sort of body / organization / entity that ensures that society is operating according to the doctrine prescribed? So while a Marxist or Anarchist may not believe in a state or government in the way we presently conceive of them, they do believe that some sort of collective action or will is necessary to ensure that their "better way" comes to fruition.

[Paradigm]

It seems this poll mixes economic and social aspects of big government, which the Political Compass quiz is very careful to separate. If I'm the only one who has a problem with this, I'll shut up. But it seems like we could end up with liberals and conservatives alike having similar scores on this one, for entirely different reasons. Also, I'm worried about this one overlapping with the Controlled vs. Liberal Markets section. I've designed the latter so that it reflects issues about the efficacy of the free market. I think this section should stay away from such pragmatic concerns, and focus more on moral questions about social justice and the proper role of government.

[Demosthenes]

Paradigm-

Sorry it took so long to comment. To answer some of your question, yes there is going to be overlap, yes some of that is planned. The real issue it seems to me is, Are "Conservatives" or "Liberals" (In the American sense) really fundamentally that different. Certainly I have them argue with me at length that they are (usually conservatives) But the fact seems to boil down to me, what each side wants from government, and in their own ways they both want rather large, bloated, expansionist policies. One wants a lot of moral law, the other alot of "social justice". Either way that amounts to "Big Government".

I really think Potemkin's insights on this one are very strong, and that's how I've proceeded with it. Hopefully you won't be too disappointed in that response...I do very much appreciate your work on the controlled market axis.