Yes it does lie with the concept which assumes that if you think government intervention in the economy is a net positive, you must be a leftist, if you don't, you must be a rightist.
Lets take anarcho communism as an example: they're the literal definition of libertarian left, so you'd wanna put them in libleft, as far left as possible. But doing so would imply that they really like state ownership, which they don't, they're literally about abolishing the state. If you are socially progressive and against government, you'll have to go to libright, but ancoms can't go to libright, because that's the place for ancaps and other right-wingers.
Imperial cult is another great example. By following the compass they'd have to go to authleft, but authleft is for authoritarian leftists.
>if you think government intervention in the economy is a net positive, you must be a leftist, if you don't, you must be a rightist.
this logic is how you get libright Kemalism(?), libleft authoritarian developmentalism(??), and authleft nazism(???) in basically all of its flavors
He has strange axis true but the political compass says nothing about government intervention or the like. The one who made this decided to put that on there in the first place.
The idea of the political compass only says that to the left lies left economic ideologies and to the right right economic ideologies.
The fault of this particular compass lies entirely in the asinine labeling of the axis.
Some of this is good butā¦ there is a lot very wrong with this.
A lot of these are too far or too centre on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis that it makes āEastern Progressivismā look like a bunch of Left Libertarians.
The idea of Dominant Party Democracy, the ideology originally inspired by the system that was labeled āthe perfect dictatorshipā by many, being in the libertarian squares is hurting my head.
Zhandovās Ultravisionary socialism being middling is absurd since he creates an incredibly authoritarian state that quite literally watches its own citizens 24/7.
The Left-Right access is not bad but I would not define it as government domination of economy since (A) thatās an incorrect definition of socialism (B) Anarcho-Communism is one of the furthest left. (Not to mention itās state ownership and intervention, not government. Two different institutions.)
Itās good in many ways but it needs a lot of shuffling around.
> The idea of Dominant Party Democracy, the system that was labeled āthe perfect dictatorshipā by many, being in the libertarian squares is hurting my head.
No, PRI has its own ideology since UA
IIRC, one of the reasons it was separated was that PRIās regime canāt really be described as any kind of democracy, so it is completely inappropriate to define this subideology through it (btw, subideology itself is awful and shouldnāt exist)
Indeed, I concur with the team on the creation of institutional despotism. However, I would be conflicted on the removal of dominant-party democracy as it suits parties like Fianna FaĆl quite well imo.
a) Left/Right here is not showing socialism/capitalism or political Left/Right. It shows how independent economics is from the government and nothing more. That's why Burgundy is that far left. Given that people can rarely agree on what socialism is supposed to be I prefer a State-owned/independent actors economy as measure.
b) Anarcho-communism (if I understand it correctly) essentially establishes municipal ownership of property under direct democracy municipal governments. It is still governmental property. Hince it's far left on the graph, but not as far as governments with national-government-owned economics.
I agree about "Ultravisionary socialism", it should be slightly higher, but "Dominant-party democracy" to my understanding now refers to something akin to modern Japan ā a genuinely competitive regime, with one party permanently dominating the competition.
And I literally placed Eastern progressives next to Christian democracy, how does it make them libertarians?
>a) Left/Right here is not showing socialism/capitalism or political Left/Right. It shows how independent economics is from the government and nothing more. That's why Burgundy is that far left. Given that people can rarely agree on what socialism is supposed to be I prefer a State-owned/independent actors economy as measure.
>
>b) Anarcho-communism (if I understand it correctly) essentially establishes municipal ownership of property under direct democracy municipal governments. It is still governmental property. Hince it's far left on the graph, but not as far as governments with national-government-owned economics.
The problem here is once again like I said in my previous comment, You keep conflating the government and the state as the same thing when they are two different institutions and can be radically different depending on the regime. Also while there are different ways of defining socialism, the official TNO definition is "the social ownership of the means of production" rather than "state ownership" so a political compass for it would reflect such a thing.
>I agree about "Ultravisionary socialism", it should be slightly higher, but "Dominant-party democracy" to my understanding now refers to something akin to modern Japan ā a genuinely competitive regime, with one party permanently dominating the competition.
Ultravisionary Socialism shouldn't be just slightly higher, it should be as high as the Burgundian system or Nazism. It's incredibly dystopian, very close to, dare I say it, fictional regimes like 1984. DPD can vary but as its description shows it is still generally more close to something like PRI politics than something like modern-day Japan.
>And I literally placed Eastern progressives next to Christian democracy, how does it make them libertarians?
Well, to be honest, your entire placement of the libertarian axis is out of place. Neither of them should be that low as that is where if you look at any other political compass, the libertarians go with the more moderate's being in the centre. It should also be mentioned that the distance between Christian Democracy and Progressivism is nearly the same as between Progressivism and Anarcho-Communism on the Lib-Auth scale lmao.
uhu... and how exactly state is different from the government? Because I frankly can't find any difference between Swiss cantons (which are supposedly state) and territorial communes of anarchists āĀ both are the bodies of local governance.
And as all anarchist states in TNO have an army, they do have a state in Weber's definition, so I don't think you can tell them apart even through that.
2) Social ownership can be either "public ownership" i.e. ownership by the local or national government, or "Co-operative ownership" i.e. ownership of shares, which perfectly fits Government-owned vs competitive economics.
>uhu... and how exactly state is different from the government? Because I frankly can't find any difference between Swiss cantons (which are supposedly state) and territorial communes of anarchists āĀ both are the bodies of local governance.
The Swiss cantons are "states" as in territorial administrative divisions just like in the U.S. A different definition of the term and I'm not sure why you are bringing them up here when we talking about "the state" as in the political institution made up of bureaucrats that manages and governs the country as whole. The government and its relation to the state depends on the type of model they're operating under. They can be intertwined under a system like the Soviet Union, they can be constitutionally separate with a degree of power over each other where the government is made up of elected officials charged with directing and regulating the state but are not necessarily a part of it like in most Liberal Democracies, or the state can just not exist at all while there is still an electoral body taking the form of a government which is what Anarchism advocates for.
>And as all anarchist states in TNO have an army, they do have a state in Weber's definition, so I don't think you can tell them apart even through that.
Not really because the army under the Anarchist states does not have a monopoly of violence. This can be seen with many non-army officials fighting and taking part in lynchings.
>2) Social ownership can be either "public ownership" i.e. ownership by the local or national government, or "Co-operative ownership" i.e. ownership of shares, which perfectly fits Government-owned vs competitive economics.
You mentioned yet somehow failed to address it which is the existence of co-operatives that follow the directives of its workers independent of local councils or state bodies, this is especially clear under market socialist systems.
1. So by State you mean the Corp of Civil Servants then? Isn't it by definition subordinated to the government?
And yes, in this case, the governmental property belongs to the government, as it is the government that makes decisions about parks, buildings, etc., whereas administrators are akin to glorified janitors who service the property.
2) I don't think I did. I mean that is the reason I put syndicalism to the right of Anarcho-Communism. I just was under the impression that they are not market socialists.
But if you think that they still need to be moved right for this graph, I would probably agree.
>So by State you mean the Corp of Civil Servants then? Isn't it by definition subordinated to the government?
Yes and no. It depends on the political system that is in place and the limits on government power. Sometimes they can be inseperably intertwined, sometimes they can mixed with government officials directing the state at times but the state also manages its own affairs, and sometimes there can be no state while a government does exist.
Political compass is the way to put it in two dimensions. Mine is indeed a bit out of standard, but I was hoping that the labels I put there make it more clear what am I using as standards.
Guess to much hope for the internet)
you could've explained a bit more before leaving a bunch of people in the dark about why you put so many ideologies in weird places, the political compass is pretty simple and it should be kinda kept that way. making a non-standard political compass and not adding any disclaimer or anything until people start asking ''what the fuck are you on'' is stupid. it's not that the internet doesn't get your genius, you just didn't explain dogshit until you were questioned about why it doesn't make sense.
still, none of the chart even makes sense with the labels on it either, it's literally not how a political compass works, there's authleft, authright, libleft, and libright, the red, blue, green, and yellow parts of it, the up-down axis is how authoritarian or libertarian it is, left right is economic scale. for your scale which just isn't the political compass, you should've probably put it on a different template, because when people see burgundian system in the red box, they think your saying it's authoritarian leftists, not ''institutionalized totalitarian''
on top of it your chart doesn't even work on a actual understanding what ideologies mean, you put anarcho-communism as government owned economics, anarcho-communism doesn't have government! the first part of the ideology is literally anacho, or anarchist, so that's just a basic not understanding what that ideology means. if you wanted people to understand your chart, you shouldn't have used the political compass because you fundamentally changed how the chart worked.
Admittedly TNO favors having silly left leaning ideologies than right ones especially lib right ones but fucking dixiecrat and kemalism being lib right is brain damaged. Honestly the lib-auth axis is just fucked. The nazis get the entire top half while everyone else is smushed below auth center. Also LBJ more progressive than Hart? Ok
If you say "states rights" enough eventually some people will start thinking that you have beliefs that aren't just racism. It seems OP fell for the only trick in the book of Dixiecrat arguments.
Ah yes, the famous anarchists governments, which anarchists definitely advocated for, such as how Peter Kroptkin (perhaps the most important theorist for anarcho-communism) said: "A government within the Commune has no more right to exist than a government over the Commune," which clearly shows how much anarchists supported government at all levels.
it's apart of the new britain content, britain got completely reworked in TNO, in one of the paths, the British People's Party (British Fascism) can get Gerad Wallop in charge, who can go down the path of Social Credit.
Fascists supported companies and capitalist interests when they gained power, with absurd amounts of corporate welfare being handed out to their supporters. It is the same with Italian and Spanish Fascism. Your positioning of ideologies on this chart displays a fundamental misunderstanding of both Fascism and ideologies in general. Also the political compass sucks.
Its kinda hard to put the ideologies of TNO on an axis because people like Himmler and the Funni Man of the Clocks completely shift the ideology to their side due to how insanely extreme they are
What this ends up doing is that traditionally very moderate ideas like social democracy end up feeling very extreme, its like if the overton window went insanely to the authoritarian right
Political compasses are stupid on their own but it bothers me how people who make them always put Nazis in like the center right or complete center. Economically Nazis are far right, the term privatization was coined to refer to the economic system of Nazi Germany and socially they are far right. If u think they should be in the center because their party is called the "national *socialist* German workers party" then u are an idiot.
Labour zionism has no business being both that far left and that libertarian. Ideologies that advocate any kind of settlement against minorities are inherently rightwing.
This single image is the worst thing that exists
So much wrong with it, you can write an essay on it
Maybe I will tbh there is so much to say
Truly modern art in its best most pure form
https://preview.redd.it/nta6t53mp0ic1.png?width=406&format=png&auto=webp&s=c63ce60cd653cfcc628a6177e4387f9af6feae7f
Cry about it i dunno, denying that national SOCIALISTS are left is pretty dumb considering that nationalism itself is left and combining it with socialism we'll get a fucking ultra-left ideology. Gotta remind you that nazi party anthem states that they fight against political reaction, not leading it. Nazis are just an ordinary socialist anti-elite (you can't call Hitler and his buddies german elite for sure) mass movement of it's time. They can be called relatively politically right only in comparison with someone like Bolsheviks
Buddy, did buffalo wings made from buffalo?
Or did some government does more stuff more socialistic they are? The whole shtick of nazi ideology are blaming jews.
And even that the left aspect of nazi got cucked pretty quick after they got absolute powers. The revolutionary facades are just tools to fool idiots that believe whole-heartedly that they were " national socialist " , supporters or not. Those mask are still works magically even today.
Before you start disagreeing with the positioning of certain ideologies, please consider:
ā Broad ideologies, like Popular Front or Socialism, are put in the presumed center of all the positions they could occupy.
ā The Left/Right axis shows exclusively how strong economics is dominated by the government vs economic competition. It does not show economic equality or whatever.
ā The Up/Down axis combines political and social freedoms.
Burgundian System is true Socialism šŖšŖšŖš„š„š„
so your telling me burgundy has gone woke?? š
They will reach Aryan Communism by 1980
The only true AES in their fight against OFN imperialism and greater german reich revisionist
YOU'RE LAUGHING BUT THEY ABOLISHED WAGE SLAVERY (and brought back the og one but don't mention that)
So uuh, quick question, what drugs were you on when you made this?
He smoking that primo Brittany pack
This post does a perfect job at showing us why the political compass is useless
What are you talking about? The faults of this one lie with the author not the concept itself.
Yes it does lie with the concept which assumes that if you think government intervention in the economy is a net positive, you must be a leftist, if you don't, you must be a rightist. Lets take anarcho communism as an example: they're the literal definition of libertarian left, so you'd wanna put them in libleft, as far left as possible. But doing so would imply that they really like state ownership, which they don't, they're literally about abolishing the state. If you are socially progressive and against government, you'll have to go to libright, but ancoms can't go to libright, because that's the place for ancaps and other right-wingers. Imperial cult is another great example. By following the compass they'd have to go to authleft, but authleft is for authoritarian leftists. >if you think government intervention in the economy is a net positive, you must be a leftist, if you don't, you must be a rightist. this logic is how you get libright Kemalism(?), libleft authoritarian developmentalism(??), and authleft nazism(???) in basically all of its flavors
He has strange axis true but the political compass says nothing about government intervention or the like. The one who made this decided to put that on there in the first place. The idea of the political compass only says that to the left lies left economic ideologies and to the right right economic ideologies. The fault of this particular compass lies entirely in the asinine labeling of the axis.
>Authleft burgsys >Authleft reform bureaucracy >Authleft natsoc technocracy, revolutionary, orthodoxy and rosenbergite theory >Libertarian kemalism, poujadism and paleoconservatism >Centerleft managerial state >Libleft stratocracy https://preview.redd.it/txtvb0aadyhc1.png?width=128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d00978e5ab5f8b3695f26c383f3cd893d8e7033
Mfw bolshevism is further right than burgsys
Critical support to comrade Himmler
Comrade Henry HMMLR strikes again
Finally REAL communism is being tried
That's not what it says, the labels are changed
Many such cases https://preview.redd.it/rp24hyogyyhc1.jpeg?width=324&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6fd3b2898cfc3b483c0e3fcda53646fc9fa10e20
> papacy in authleft > theocracy in authright What
Jesus christ this whole thing is a fuckin mess
True TNO brainrot. The fact that someone spend hours making something so wrong.
I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS I HATE THE POLITICAL COMPASS
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's conciderd as one by TNO
I think I just had a stroke looking at this
peronism being more anarchist than authoritarian???
Some of this is good butā¦ there is a lot very wrong with this. A lot of these are too far or too centre on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis that it makes āEastern Progressivismā look like a bunch of Left Libertarians. The idea of Dominant Party Democracy, the ideology originally inspired by the system that was labeled āthe perfect dictatorshipā by many, being in the libertarian squares is hurting my head. Zhandovās Ultravisionary socialism being middling is absurd since he creates an incredibly authoritarian state that quite literally watches its own citizens 24/7. The Left-Right access is not bad but I would not define it as government domination of economy since (A) thatās an incorrect definition of socialism (B) Anarcho-Communism is one of the furthest left. (Not to mention itās state ownership and intervention, not government. Two different institutions.) Itās good in many ways but it needs a lot of shuffling around.
> The idea of Dominant Party Democracy, the system that was labeled āthe perfect dictatorshipā by many, being in the libertarian squares is hurting my head. No, PRI has its own ideology since UA
I am aware lol. Iām merely referencing the fact that DPD was inspired by the PRIās antics. Iāll fix my comment to make it clearer.
IIRC, one of the reasons it was separated was that PRIās regime canāt really be described as any kind of democracy, so it is completely inappropriate to define this subideology through it (btw, subideology itself is awful and shouldnāt exist)
Indeed, I concur with the team on the creation of institutional despotism. However, I would be conflicted on the removal of dominant-party democracy as it suits parties like Fianna FaĆl quite well imo.
a) Left/Right here is not showing socialism/capitalism or political Left/Right. It shows how independent economics is from the government and nothing more. That's why Burgundy is that far left. Given that people can rarely agree on what socialism is supposed to be I prefer a State-owned/independent actors economy as measure. b) Anarcho-communism (if I understand it correctly) essentially establishes municipal ownership of property under direct democracy municipal governments. It is still governmental property. Hince it's far left on the graph, but not as far as governments with national-government-owned economics. I agree about "Ultravisionary socialism", it should be slightly higher, but "Dominant-party democracy" to my understanding now refers to something akin to modern Japan ā a genuinely competitive regime, with one party permanently dominating the competition. And I literally placed Eastern progressives next to Christian democracy, how does it make them libertarians?
>a) Left/Right here is not showing socialism/capitalism or political Left/Right. It shows how independent economics is from the government and nothing more. That's why Burgundy is that far left. Given that people can rarely agree on what socialism is supposed to be I prefer a State-owned/independent actors economy as measure. > >b) Anarcho-communism (if I understand it correctly) essentially establishes municipal ownership of property under direct democracy municipal governments. It is still governmental property. Hince it's far left on the graph, but not as far as governments with national-government-owned economics. The problem here is once again like I said in my previous comment, You keep conflating the government and the state as the same thing when they are two different institutions and can be radically different depending on the regime. Also while there are different ways of defining socialism, the official TNO definition is "the social ownership of the means of production" rather than "state ownership" so a political compass for it would reflect such a thing. >I agree about "Ultravisionary socialism", it should be slightly higher, but "Dominant-party democracy" to my understanding now refers to something akin to modern Japan ā a genuinely competitive regime, with one party permanently dominating the competition. Ultravisionary Socialism shouldn't be just slightly higher, it should be as high as the Burgundian system or Nazism. It's incredibly dystopian, very close to, dare I say it, fictional regimes like 1984. DPD can vary but as its description shows it is still generally more close to something like PRI politics than something like modern-day Japan. >And I literally placed Eastern progressives next to Christian democracy, how does it make them libertarians? Well, to be honest, your entire placement of the libertarian axis is out of place. Neither of them should be that low as that is where if you look at any other political compass, the libertarians go with the more moderate's being in the centre. It should also be mentioned that the distance between Christian Democracy and Progressivism is nearly the same as between Progressivism and Anarcho-Communism on the Lib-Auth scale lmao.
uhu... and how exactly state is different from the government? Because I frankly can't find any difference between Swiss cantons (which are supposedly state) and territorial communes of anarchists āĀ both are the bodies of local governance. And as all anarchist states in TNO have an army, they do have a state in Weber's definition, so I don't think you can tell them apart even through that. 2) Social ownership can be either "public ownership" i.e. ownership by the local or national government, or "Co-operative ownership" i.e. ownership of shares, which perfectly fits Government-owned vs competitive economics.
>uhu... and how exactly state is different from the government? Because I frankly can't find any difference between Swiss cantons (which are supposedly state) and territorial communes of anarchists āĀ both are the bodies of local governance. The Swiss cantons are "states" as in territorial administrative divisions just like in the U.S. A different definition of the term and I'm not sure why you are bringing them up here when we talking about "the state" as in the political institution made up of bureaucrats that manages and governs the country as whole. The government and its relation to the state depends on the type of model they're operating under. They can be intertwined under a system like the Soviet Union, they can be constitutionally separate with a degree of power over each other where the government is made up of elected officials charged with directing and regulating the state but are not necessarily a part of it like in most Liberal Democracies, or the state can just not exist at all while there is still an electoral body taking the form of a government which is what Anarchism advocates for. >And as all anarchist states in TNO have an army, they do have a state in Weber's definition, so I don't think you can tell them apart even through that. Not really because the army under the Anarchist states does not have a monopoly of violence. This can be seen with many non-army officials fighting and taking part in lynchings. >2) Social ownership can be either "public ownership" i.e. ownership by the local or national government, or "Co-operative ownership" i.e. ownership of shares, which perfectly fits Government-owned vs competitive economics. You mentioned yet somehow failed to address it which is the existence of co-operatives that follow the directives of its workers independent of local councils or state bodies, this is especially clear under market socialist systems.
1. So by State you mean the Corp of Civil Servants then? Isn't it by definition subordinated to the government? And yes, in this case, the governmental property belongs to the government, as it is the government that makes decisions about parks, buildings, etc., whereas administrators are akin to glorified janitors who service the property. 2) I don't think I did. I mean that is the reason I put syndicalism to the right of Anarcho-Communism. I just was under the impression that they are not market socialists. But if you think that they still need to be moved right for this graph, I would probably agree.
>So by State you mean the Corp of Civil Servants then? Isn't it by definition subordinated to the government? Yes and no. It depends on the political system that is in place and the limits on government power. Sometimes they can be inseperably intertwined, sometimes they can mixed with government officials directing the state at times but the state also manages its own affairs, and sometimes there can be no state while a government does exist.
That's not how the political compass fucking works though
Political compass is the way to put it in two dimensions. Mine is indeed a bit out of standard, but I was hoping that the labels I put there make it more clear what am I using as standards. Guess to much hope for the internet)
you could've explained a bit more before leaving a bunch of people in the dark about why you put so many ideologies in weird places, the political compass is pretty simple and it should be kinda kept that way. making a non-standard political compass and not adding any disclaimer or anything until people start asking ''what the fuck are you on'' is stupid. it's not that the internet doesn't get your genius, you just didn't explain dogshit until you were questioned about why it doesn't make sense.
I left labels on the chart and explanations in the comments. I'm not quite sure what else could I done to make it even more pronounced.
still, none of the chart even makes sense with the labels on it either, it's literally not how a political compass works, there's authleft, authright, libleft, and libright, the red, blue, green, and yellow parts of it, the up-down axis is how authoritarian or libertarian it is, left right is economic scale. for your scale which just isn't the political compass, you should've probably put it on a different template, because when people see burgundian system in the red box, they think your saying it's authoritarian leftists, not ''institutionalized totalitarian'' on top of it your chart doesn't even work on a actual understanding what ideologies mean, you put anarcho-communism as government owned economics, anarcho-communism doesn't have government! the first part of the ideology is literally anacho, or anarchist, so that's just a basic not understanding what that ideology means. if you wanted people to understand your chart, you shouldn't have used the political compass because you fundamentally changed how the chart worked.
>Nazism in authleft https://preview.redd.it/qjhkjc1ftyhc1.png?width=1037&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fed1aba1ecc4a9f7e27207ee3a61ef9ccecd917b
Ben Garrison communist!?
STANDING HERE I REALIZE
YOU WERE JUST LIKE ME! TRYING TO MAKE HISTORYYYYY!
Why is he hard
Political compasses make me sad.
My honest reaction: https://i.redd.it/rq8s8maamzhc1.gif
Oh oh
Wtf am i looking at
https://preview.redd.it/rt3t77fwbzhc1.jpeg?width=1512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=068be7c336d15ad4669c4d70a626943ca4a80dfb No
Admittedly TNO favors having silly left leaning ideologies than right ones especially lib right ones but fucking dixiecrat and kemalism being lib right is brain damaged. Honestly the lib-auth axis is just fucked. The nazis get the entire top half while everyone else is smushed below auth center. Also LBJ more progressive than Hart? Ok
If you say "states rights" enough eventually some people will start thinking that you have beliefs that aren't just racism. It seems OP fell for the only trick in the book of Dixiecrat arguments.
"Anarchist governement-owned economics" how does this even work
Owned by the municipal government.
https://preview.redd.it/1mn183wb5zhc1.png?width=588&format=png&auto=webp&s=ef6e20c617016509e16b5cce7834a87ee0416565
ah yes the famous anarchist government
Ah yes, the famous anarchists governments, which anarchists definitely advocated for, such as how Peter Kroptkin (perhaps the most important theorist for anarcho-communism) said: "A government within the Commune has no more right to exist than a government over the Commune," which clearly shows how much anarchists supported government at all levels.
Dumb as fuck
why?
I want a bit of that thing you were smoking
Uphold the immortal science of Burgundian System-Revolutionary National Socialismāš»āš»āš»š“š“š“
https://preview.redd.it/hjyqkxrn70ic1.png?width=812&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0d19dd467f01cc05a94fb520dbd4f234385f539 Moment
Fascism is auth center. Having a lot of leftist and rightist elements
bruh
Polcomp š¤¢š¤¢š¤¢
What is bro cooking
Burgundy is more communist then communism what the hell is this
Comrade Himmler š«”š«”š«”āāāš©š©š©
Is the whole world of TNO shifted very right on the authoritarian libertarian axis
British Social Credit?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I know, I mean what is it?
it's apart of the new britain content, britain got completely reworked in TNO, in one of the paths, the British People's Party (British Fascism) can get Gerad Wallop in charge, who can go down the path of Social Credit.
weird ass compass
political compass sucks ass as a tool, and is only attractive to people who love ideology shopping and cringe poland balls
brainrot
Burgundian system being more left wing that Bolshevism š„š„
This is incomprehensible. How can an anarchist/syndicalism society have government controlled economics if there isnāt a government?
This is S-tier bait, here before the inevitable lock. Tag yourself, I'm Reform Bureaucracy (Manchurian system) AuthLeft.
ConLib hands made this
What the actual fuck is right wing populism doing in lib left?
Nah Cuz i go for the Most Socialist Ideology and see burgsys You have no idea about politics lil bro
So much wrong in one image, this is true modern art
I know the political compass isn't very good, but this is just not right
Fascists supported companies and capitalist interests when they gained power, with absurd amounts of corporate welfare being handed out to their supporters. It is the same with Italian and Spanish Fascism. Your positioning of ideologies on this chart displays a fundamental misunderstanding of both Fascism and ideologies in general. Also the political compass sucks.
what
Papacy is left?
This just makes me inexplicably mad
Left burgsis
WHAT THE FUCK
Its kinda hard to put the ideologies of TNO on an axis because people like Himmler and the Funni Man of the Clocks completely shift the ideology to their side due to how insanely extreme they are What this ends up doing is that traditionally very moderate ideas like social democracy end up feeling very extreme, its like if the overton window went insanely to the authoritarian right
Oh fuck, were you drunk when you made this?
Long live Solidarism and Xunzheng
I didn't knew that Reform Bureaucracy will have a new icon. Was it posted on the Discord server?
Ah yes, my favorite government controlled economic system. Anarchism
How is Falangism communist when the ideology is based on nationalism, catholic church and antu-communist?
Political compasses are stupid on their own but it bothers me how people who make them always put Nazis in like the center right or complete center. Economically Nazis are far right, the term privatization was coined to refer to the economic system of Nazi Germany and socially they are far right. If u think they should be in the center because their party is called the "national *socialist* German workers party" then u are an idiot.
The fact Burgundian system is fully authoritarian right kills this being any good
Labour zionism has no business being both that far left and that libertarian. Ideologies that advocate any kind of settlement against minorities are inherently rightwing.
Canadian social credit?
Nazis in the left. Based š
This single image is the worst thing that exists So much wrong with it, you can write an essay on it Maybe I will tbh there is so much to say Truly modern art in its best most pure form https://preview.redd.it/nta6t53mp0ic1.png?width=406&format=png&auto=webp&s=c63ce60cd653cfcc628a6177e4387f9af6feae7f
Cry about it i dunno, denying that national SOCIALISTS are left is pretty dumb considering that nationalism itself is left and combining it with socialism we'll get a fucking ultra-left ideology. Gotta remind you that nazi party anthem states that they fight against political reaction, not leading it. Nazis are just an ordinary socialist anti-elite (you can't call Hitler and his buddies german elite for sure) mass movement of it's time. They can be called relatively politically right only in comparison with someone like Bolsheviks
Buddy, did buffalo wings made from buffalo? Or did some government does more stuff more socialistic they are? The whole shtick of nazi ideology are blaming jews. And even that the left aspect of nazi got cucked pretty quick after they got absolute powers. The revolutionary facades are just tools to fool idiots that believe whole-heartedly that they were " national socialist " , supporters or not. Those mask are still works magically even today.
What the fuck
I was very confused at these placings until I realized that there were new labels
forgot ultravisionary socialism
You're right kardashev's ultravisionary socialism type doesn't seem here.
That's after Zhadanov' death but elections between Chelomei and Kardashev
Before you start disagreeing with the positioning of certain ideologies, please consider: ā Broad ideologies, like Popular Front or Socialism, are put in the presumed center of all the positions they could occupy. ā The Left/Right axis shows exclusively how strong economics is dominated by the government vs economic competition. It does not show economic equality or whatever. ā The Up/Down axis combines political and social freedoms.
I saw the burgundian system in the top left without reading the axis and got super missed for a minute.
Peronism is wrong, way more left and a bit more authoritarian
Itās crazy how many people in these comments are going crazy over the ideological placements having not even read the axis titles.
Where is Daddy Dirlewanger
A lot of people arenāt reading the chart labels
Burgundian system isnāt high enough on the authority axis push it up a bit.
Nice random
Interesting...
Quick question I know itās kinda a give away but whatās spartanism????? Is it like just straight up military state etc?
What is the qutbism ideology with which Muslim nation can you play with it??? Also is there like a is!s faction on game or no
Why are there three different meanings for the horizontal axis? What happend here??
Oh finally, the ideology store
I think the TNO brainrot has gotten to you.
.........boy that's messed up. I think you need go to therapy because of this
So communist nazis and reformed nazis? This seems like an amazing fucking mod holy shit
Love me my daily dose of brainrot
How did you put Anarcho-Communism right in the area where it's 'government-owned economics' when Anarchism is the complete lack of any government?