Wtf, am I /leftypol/ now? is LGBTQ+ arm tattoo mandatory...

I honestly thought it was gonna be more right wing

Attached: political compass as of 7-10-18.png (480x400, 17K)

Based and redpilled

These tests are all skewed by the jews to make more people seem left anyway

i got some pretty extreme right wing beliefs but it still puts me as center right

I think I'm moderately right but it puts me as moderate left

ur based lad, as long as you aren't in the tophalf

are you disabled?

you need to be lower

also my thing

Attached: Screenshot_20180711-081812.jpg (871x804, 140K)

libertarianism is retarded fuck off

how gay

lol fuck having rights

Attached: 390A08DA-479D-44AB-8F3C-5B1DC8C1F6FF.png (1125x2436, 459K)

no one ever said we should have a dystopia retard, government is necessary for society to stay stable

>not the chad politiscale
Fuck economy just let me be in charge

Attached: I became more communist.png (800x1200, 219K)

The government should answer to the people, not the people to the government or the nation.
I'm not even libertarian I'm an anarchist, but I imagine you'd like that even less.

anarchists are scum who think that hierarchy should be removed. government is the logical next step of hierarchy. I would even go so far to say that government should enforce morality

anarchists are scum

I'm not saying remove government I'm saying let the people govern themselves in local groups rather than having bureaucrats picked by a broken election system control us from top down.
Anarcho-syndicalism lad, closest to my shit. Google it.

Attached: gommunism.png (470x549, 411K)

Attached: chart.png (480x400, 17K)

lol

>anarchy:absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
HOW CAN YOU BE AN ANARCHIST IF YOU DON'T WANT THE REMOVAL OF GOVERMENT

based und redpilled

Anarcho-syndicalism, don't just google the word "anarchism" and check the dictionary definition.

its still retarded, hierarchy is necessary and natural

Appeal to nature? Nice.
Would you like to be at the bottom of the heirarchy? No one is innately born with a social class, shits rarded.
In the middle ages similar things were said and 90% of the population were kept in virtual slavery on farms to a lord, I'm sure we can agree that was a bad idea. Why should anyone have to live their for someone else unwillingly? Why should they have to follow regulations and rules that benefit only those who create them? Authoritarianism serves no one but those at the very top and strives to regulate and destroy the lives of the individual.

no but in a modern society social classes are need for society to function. And no feudalism was not a bad idea for the time, if people didn't want to be serfs they could become bandits. the serfs were not only necessary for society to function but they also DID benefit from feudalism because they were protected from the bandits and wars that engulfed europe and the entire world. The same could be said for today's society, people today at even the lowest of classes have it better than if they were in someplace like somalia where there is no central government. Authoritarianism does not necessarily serve the needs of one man but it ideally serves the needs of society. And even fascism is more practical than anarcho-syndaclism

I got this, but I don't think it is very accurate, I am probably more libertarian and right wing.

Attached: politicalcompass.png (480x400, 17K)

live their lives for someone else*

If you want an example of authoritarianism not working you can take a look at the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. Both devolved into police states in the 30s and 40s where the central government exploited the people for only the benefit of the state and no this nebulous concept of "society".
Rome existed as a republic for centuries in a time prior to the dark ages with massive social mobility (although worse than today's) and they had no troubles. It wasn't an RPG lad you couldn't just choose to spec into a different class if you didn't like being poor and uneducated, circumstances of birth dictated someones life more than their personal ability ever would. Somalia doesn't have a broken government out of the personal choice of anyone living there but because their previous regime was destroyed when they lost the war to Ethiopia. Authoritarianism only serves to limit people, what you're advocating sounds more like collectivism which doesn't require extreme authoritarianism inherently.

Feudalism was a good idea? You tugging my dick here or what mate?

should be lower tbqhwymfbmtfmgtms
Did you agree to a lot of free market shit? Sometimes I'll end up closer to the centre due to that.

Attached: gommunism2.png (274x325, 113K)

hmm

Attached: politicalcompass.png (480x400, 17K)

kek

Attached: chart.png (480x400, 17K)

I do believe in the free market, and I think I am more libertarian than what the image says. This is a screenshot from the last time I took the test a while ago, so maybe it is incorrect, I will redo the test now.

Attached: 8472ASS5.png (1200x1306, 79K)

actually I would argue that nazi germany was amazing up until they started losing the war. and yes feudalism was a good idea FOR THE TIME.
and everything else you said was pointless because I already knew that there was no social mobility in medieval times and do you think I'm retarded and thought that somalia was an anarchy by choice? And the example of Rome that you give was also an authoritarian system

based, maybe too left.

non-based

I agree with a free market so far as it serves the ideals of anarchism, companies shouldn't replace the state.

put the circle lower and make it cover the middle-middle-left and you get a based from me

seriously though, why are there so many lefty gibs me faggots here... this is Jow Forums

> cunt fai

Your leftism is a reaction to your poverty.

Have a steak, then think again.

Jow Forums was never right wing faggot, just Jow Forums.

If not Rome look to ancient Greece, in many ways they were less authoritarian than modern countries and they were running true democracy in small city states. "for the time" isn't an argument if republics like Venice could exist in the same world. I didn't think you thought Somalia chose what happened to them I'm just saying it isn't an example of Anarchism in action because it's a collapsed country ruined by proxy wars. My point about the lack of social mobility was a response to your "they could become a bandit" which just didn't make sense, if you don't want to be oppressed by a lord you shouldn't have to resort to stealing niggas horses.

How come poor niggas vote UKIP?

I got this, I still don't think it is accurate however.

Attached: politicalcompass2.png (554x389, 11K)

Because poor people in 1st world countries can still pay for food.

>russian
>left leaning
checks out

how'd you manage that lad? Just make sure not to skimp out on "strongly agree" for the libertarian options. Are you disagreeing with the gay shit?

Fuckin all the left parties get voted by young middle class people though, how's that explained in your master thesis?

Attached: Gaycunt alt.png (1280x640, 20K)

what era of imperial rome are we talking about? and the thing about social mobility is that the vast majority of people will never even try to rise up the social ladder

Mental illness and people being up their own asses so much that they can only smell their own farts.

bullseye

>why do NEETS like welfare
its a mystery

Attached: chart.png (480x400, 17K)

based

I think there should be a neutral option because some questions I am unsure or don't care about.

based

based

I just try to balance those with one agree and then one disagree, although I agree neutral options would be nice.

"people don't want to so we shouldn't let them" In modern society the reason few climb the social ladder is due to the fact that society instils them with the idea that there are poor niggas and rich niggas and school only teaches how to work for a company, not how to run one or how to run the government. People aren't given motivation to do so.
What do you mean by the Rome thing? I was referring to the republic pre-ceaser originally and the independent era of the Greek city states after.

no the reason people don't rise up the social is because they are lazy and content with the status not because the are brainwashed you retard, and the republic of rome was about as stable as the weimar republic and was basically just an oligarchy. And the greek city states were mostly monarchies not democracies like athens, and athenian democracy is retarded

"athens was retarded" thrilling political discussion.
You think very bad of people to think the only thing that stops everyone being a multi-millionaire is laziness. Judging by your use of this site I'd assume you're probably middleclass, what's your excuse?

newfag spotted

leave the newfug alone

I'm sorry I didn't know we were in the halls of debate where we need to be verbose about everything.
And to answer your question, most americans can become millionaires if they simply learned how to invest in a 401K early. But the majority of people are either ignorant or too lazy to do this, most people are fucking stupid, and if you think I would ever let the stupid and lazy majority take control, you're insane, people do not do whats good for everyone they do whats good for them.

No, there shouldn't be, questions are picked that way to actually prop your ideology. If you believe in free market you will agree with all the shit free market can exploit, if you don't you will end up as a centrist eventually. Same shit for social scale. Problem is some stances outweight others so if you're lets say for example gay and not ashamed of it you will probably never end anywhere close to most upper lines and probably will never even get above middle line.

Gay is a result of leftism, not the cause.

People can do what's good for them without harming everyone else, it isn't a requirement.
Investing in a 401k? Sounds like something you could be taught at school, people don't not do these things because they can't but because they don't know how.

Wrong. Gay acceptance is result of leftism.

and education is MANDATORY in most 1st world countries, ignorance is not an excuse.
>People can do what's good for them without harming everyone else, it isn't a requirement.
yeah that's true, but in a true democracy if 51% of people vote for something that harms 49% of people it still passes. having a republic avoids this problem.

And whats wrong with an authoritarian system if the majority of people are happy with said system? In nazi germany the majority of people were content with the system?

disregard the response to "People can do what's good for them without harming everyone else, it isn't a requirement."

Finance is not taught in schools lad, nor is investing. The majority of people don't know how to manage their finances. Sure this something you can choose to learn but it's for people who want jobs like accountants not the average person.

To your second point, if people really are as lazy as you say than of course they wouldn't talk out about an authoritarian system. People choose to limit their own rights out of fear, look at the post 9/11 restrictions. Nazi germany came into existence due to peoples hatred of the "November criminals" and fear of communists and the allied nations. They allowed their freedom to be taken away because they were promised a better life, and look how that worked out. In the vote to give Hitler his dictatorial powers he bullied the politicians on the left and centre into not showing up (the communists were scared to show up due to the reichstag fire hitler had blamed on the communists and he scared off other MPs, the place where they voted was swarming with nazi supporters ready to turn on anyone who disagreed). The people were decieved and the system was gamed, people who disagreed were imprisoned and killed.

alright. I had already typed it out so enjoy it if you want:
"true democracy" doesn't mean you have to work on simple majorities, things such as 2/3rds votes exist for a reason.

I was taught finance in high school
>The people were deceived and the system was gamed, people who disagreed were imprisoned and killed.
yeah but if you didn't disagree you got to live in a generally decent and stable society. And the majority of people didn't disagree, but that was because of propaganda.

I'm just gonna leave it at that I believe that authoritarianism can be more beneficial to society than democracy, but that I'm generally happy with the status quo. The only I really hate about the status quo is the morality and shitty education system here in america but that has nothing to do with the government

actually thats a lie I plan on leaving the US as soon as possible

>unironically believing in the left-right dichotomy
>not believing in the socialist-capitalist dichotomy

Attached: 1495158583990.jpg (300x286, 12K)

Not to the extent that you'd be able to manage trading and shit though presumably? Was it optional?

This is 4 axis lad, left and right on here are socialist and capitalist. Up and down is authoritarianism-libertarianism.

>left and right is socialist/capitalist
lol no retard, if that were the case then completely asinine ideologies like market socialism wouldn't be left wing since they're not actually socialist

We had a week long simulation of the stock market and my teacher told us to invest in our retirement as early as humanly possible, it was not optional but it was a thing i'm pretty sure only my school on the government when they ended up with finish our units early or something. But as I said I hate the american education system and that's why I plan on leaving as soon as possibly but still ignorance is not an excuse

*my school did in the government class

ftfy

Attached: 1531268143750.png (1200x1306, 99K)

this

I mean ignorance clearly is an excuse in this case, I don't know how people are supposed to do things they have no idea of.
That's never something I learnt here either, it's shit that should be taught but isn't.

retarded

Say what you want. Its the truth.

Man you just can't fucking claim that it's just "laziness", it's clearly not something I can argue with you about but it's just fucking retarded man. I assume you aren't a millionaire yet though? Is that laziness?

no its not because people are still capable of finding that information out on there own, 401Ks aren't calculus

Having sustainable structural programs in place to support most individuals that aren't just lazy will always be apart of a healthy economies system.

But people are scared off that shit, people don't know this shits accessible, and it really wasn't till this century, you can't expect the entirety of society to make this shift when the majority were born before the information age. Are you fucking rich man? Are you the top 1% of society? If not I guess you're just fucking lazy.

you do realize that if everyone became upper class than no one is upper class, the class system is the way it is for a reason. and who gives a shit about what wasn't possible 100 years ago, we are living in the present right?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? You can just say something is how it is without justifying it. You think some dude who's been working as a steel worker for 40 years and is now unemployed due to that factory is just lazy for not having a massive stock portfolio?

to put more into it most of the ways most people make fortune require a large amount of money invested in the first place, and these things are risky. If someone loses all their money in investments that don't pay off are they lazy? If someone is born in to poverty so great that it's almost impossible to enter into these things are they lazy? No ones just "lazy". I'm done fucking arguing this shit we're at a complete impass and I'm tired as shit but just try and think about this shit objectively.

yes he is lazy for not having a stock portfolio, everyone should have a stock portfolio or atleast a retirement plan that isn't social security. there is no excuse, you can just invest on your phone or on a computer, you don't need a broker anymore.

>Bong
>CNT FAI
how can one be so based?

Attached: f69e74542c56c46f1a1f7ac873764dc5.jpg (534x356, 38K)

The 60 year old who grew up in a time without these things and is now living in poverty due to situations out of his control?

thanks lad

Again, we have social and structural programs in place already that takes care of these type of people.

well shouldn't a 60 year be living of the tit of social security and his children and grandchildren? It doesn't even anymore matter being poor in a 1st world country is not a horrible horrible life anymore BECAUSE of government systems

How big is the anarchist movement in Britain?
GAS PORKY GAS THE ROYAL FAMILY
1926 AGAIN

Attached: durruti_poster.jpg (230x331, 12K)

KILL EM ALL 1939

Attached: 1429696544_2ff95397f3_o.jpg (558x768, 102K)

but he's not rich and therefore lazy?

Government systems put him there and government systems'll keep him there, like pottery.

Not massive unfortunately, it was fairly large round the middle of the century but it died down around the time of the falklands and a lot of it got grouped into red scare type shit. There was a wave of anarchist terror attacks in the 60s-ish I think and the punk movement brought that shit to the mainstream. Post 9/11 / 7/7 pretty much all that shits gone though.

BORN TO FREEDOM
WORLD IS A FUCK
Kill Em All 1939
I am Durruti
8,000,000 DEAD FASCISTS

To amend, SOCIETY IS A FUCK

Based compañero :)

That's quite a shame, at least it's still growing strong in Spain

Attached: 1529968281680.jpg (500x700, 140K)

Hes certainly a fool. Lazy doesn't apply to everybody but it can apply to many. That's why democrats and republicans have created the best policy to try to have a good compromise in between. We have programs that can aid them to a sufficient degree.

NO THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS DID NOT PUT HIM THERE YOU FUCKING RETARD THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T SOME FUCKING BOOGIEMAN JUST DECIDING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE IN FILTH AND SQUALOR YOU RETARD
go listen to the sex pistols and other shitty punk bands scream about muh oppression you fucking mong

...

I would rather live in 1984 than in anarchy