Political Alignment Test
The political terminology used in this site is far from original and can be found in many analyses of political sciences. However, as political labels are diverse and often dynamic over time and across regions because of the potential for modification, appropriation, reinterpretation, and the formation of overall ambiguity therein, it can be rather difficult to isolate exacting meanings behind the labels given to various political ideologies. This is extremely problematic as it requires subjective interpretations to determine orientations, potentially skewing valuations in any direction, which would make objectivity in test design impossible. As such, the specific labels used by this site necessitate more objective definitions and more exacting elaboration than is usually possible when referencing the name of an ideology. As a solution to this issue, the PolitiCube includes supplementary terms that help increase the communicability of the ideologies being assessed. Additionally, this page serves as a more in-depth elaboration of the terms used to help communicate our meaning when we use them, any potential imperfections of the political dimensions as we've presented them, and various other explanations.
For an in-depth assessment of alternative metrics that were not chosen for the PolitiCube, see this page.
For other questions, see our FAQ.
Authoritarian vs Anarchist:
(Centralized) vs (Decentralized)
This political dimension can broadly be described as how power/authority is distributed. It is the dichotomy between the ideology that supports the concentration of authority through hierarchies and the ideology that supports the deconcentration of authority. It is a spectrum in which one extreme represents a system where absolute authority is concentrated to a single individual and the other extreme represents a system in which all individuals have equal authority.
Authoritarian (Centralized) this is a governance system with centralized authority over others.
However, other definitions tend to include many different meanings such as commentary on how an authoritarian system is one that abuses those under it, in order to include moralistic and cultural aspects into their definition. This would be quite improper for our applications of the term as it would mean that some monarch with complete authority over his country is more or less authoritarian depending on how he treats his citizens rather than how much authority he has.
Anarchist (Decentralized) this is a governance system with decentralized authority among equals.
People often use the term libertarian as the opposite of authoritarian, but the reason that anarchist was chosen here instead is in part due to the very diverse range of potential interpretations for the term libertarian which heavily concerns moralistic philosophies, but also because libertarian more directly concerns support for liberty/freedom, thus it is not really a genuine antonym of authoritarian and poorly conveys that this dimension measures the concentration of authority.
These interpretations heavily contrast with a more immediate alternative that one might think of when one hears anarchist and authoritarian: they might assume we are talking about the dichotomy between governance that is more complex/far-reaching/impactful and the opposite in which governance is simplified/minimized/unimpactful if not just completely absent. Whereas our usage only cares about where power concentrates, not how a power hierarchy is otherwise structured. It does matter how much power the authorities hold, but it does not matter whether or not they choose to exercise that authority.
For our usage, consider a one-directional hierarchy of individuals which forms a pyramid with one individual on top having absolute authority. This is considered fully authoritarian. It does not matter if he has many immediate subordinates or few, nor how many subordinates they have, nor how much power he chooses to exercise over them. But it does matter if there are individuals who are not under his authority either directly or indirectly. Such individuals who break from the pyramid of his authority in the system being considered make that system less authoritarian. Now consider a system in which we have three individuals. The most authoritarian arrangement has all the power-relationships directly or indirectly end at a single point in which one of the individuals can exert complete authority over the other two, for that system it doesn't matter if there are two levels of hierarchy with the two subordinates answering directly to the one superior or instead if there are three levels of hierachy with the top-most standing above his subordinate who stands above his own subordinate, both arrangements are fully authoritarian in the system of the three individuals being considered. However for the two level scenario, if we look at just the two subordinates who stand as equals to each other, that system of how those two interact with each other (given that they have no authority over each other) is a fully decentralized anarchistic power-relationship of two equals. Going back to the whole system of three individuals, it would be fully anarchistic if all three were equals with no hierarchy of anyone exerting authority over anyone else. But also an important understanding of anarchist governance as we use it is that it isn't zero governance, but the complete decentralization of power/authority equally among all individuals in the system being considered. Therefore if the three individuals were to form a symmetrical ring hierarchy in which each one was equally superior to one and equally subordinate to the other, then the system would be considered fully anarchist. Additionally, the system of any two individuals within the ring would not be considered any less anarchist, this is because the two individuals would each yield and hold equal power over each other through each having both direct and indirect opposing power-relationships. A very analogous application of the concept of decentralized governance would be decentralized blockchain technology.
When authoritarian systems are formed, the power that superiors have over their subordinates tends to be used to enforce adherence to the system, thus being capable of preventing authoritarian systems from becoming more anarchistic. This is often seen throughout history as oppressive regimes silencing dissentors and uprisings, but as in that case it is still possible for the authoritarian system to be overthrown internally by voluntary rejection, it's just that the more power given to the authority, the more disadvantaged the individuals are in such a conflict even if it does tend to give them more motivation to revolt. On the other end of the spectrum, a common consequence of fully anarchistic systems is that they usually lack any enforced barriers to centralization, and instead tend to rely on individuals interacting in good-faith. The lack of concentrated authority such as government, laws, and police usually allows for a group of equals to either voluntarily self-organize into a hierarchy of authority or to have bad-faith individuals force others into subordinance through force as there are usually no barriers in place to stop them. That isn't to say that one couldn't form a fully anarchistic system of equals in which each are equally responsible for checking and being checked by each other so that it doesn't rely on good-faith, much analogous to trustless blockchain technology. Except to say that such systems aren't particularly easy to create and maintain, much like peace treaties between sovereign countries with no external authority to enforce them.
Socialist vs Capitalist:
(Planned Economy) vs (Free Market)
This political dimension mainly deals with the degree of coercion in how property is held and exchanged and how valuations are given to goods and services. It is the spectrum between two opposing economic ideologies with one favoring involuntary determination of value and possession of property and the other favoring the mutually voluntary determination of value between those exchanging goods and services as well as the absence of external coercive influences over one's property. One extreme represents an economic system where the property one owns and can own as well as the value of goods and services and who they can be exchanged with is involuntarily/coercively determined for the individuals, whereas the other extreme represents an economic system in which individuals are able to own any property, if not already owned, and are not subject to any involuntary external influences on their own property, allowing them to voluntarily exchange goods and services at a mutually agreed price without interference by any coercive influences, thus it attempts to provide everyone the most economic freedom possible, in which the sole restriction on economic freedoms is that no one can restrict others' economic freedoms.
Socialist (Planned Economy) this is an economic system that involuntarily determines valuations and the distribution of property.
Socialism has many definitions, usually they are derived from a moralistic ideology of things like collective ownership and common good and other social philosophies, but for our purposes we would be more specifically referring to economic socialism, since we need to fully decouple the economic dimension from any other. Hence our usage relates only to the form of the economic system itself, not the reasons for the economic system nor the impacts it has. Thus when distilled to its most fundamental form, economic socialism is just an economic policy which enforces an involuntary planned economy which removes individual economic freedom. Socialism does generally also include additional intentions of socially/equitably distributing property through such mandatory means (though even without upholding these intentions it would still generally be considered socialism), however rather than narrowly restrict the economic dimension to only concern such a specific form of involuntary economics, we seek to include all forms of involuntary planned economics in general without concern for how equitable the end results are. Thus for our uses, planned economy socialism is the opposite of free market capitalism.
Capitalist (Free Market) this is an economic system that grants an owner's right to their property to do with as they want, and enforces the mutual determination of value between those voluntarily exchanging goods and services without coercive influence.
There are many diverse definitions of capitalism, but our usage would be labeled as the more specific ideology called free market capitalism. This ideology is distinct from laissez faire capitalism which only specifically seeks to minimize government intervention in economic activities (as if corporate authorities can't also be government authorities). In contrast, free market capitalism seeks to minimize all forms of coercion in economic activites (not just coercion from the government). Another issue is that free market capitalism suffers from a paradox called the paradox of freedom. In order for everyone to be free from economic coercion, an economic system must forcibly limit individuals' economic freedom to coercively limit the economic freedoms of others; thus it is impossible to have a society that fully respects all economic freedoms. As such there are various interpretations of how best to fairly support everyone's economic freedoms while prohibiting economic coercion. Such ambiguity at the fully capitalist edge is inherent to the paradoxical ideology of free market capitalism. Therefore when we say fully capitalist, we mean as free as one can reasonably achieve, which requires restricting everyone's freedom to limit each other's economic freedoms.
Almost all economies have many capitalist and socialist elements. This less extreme region near the middle of the spectrum is what is typically called a mixed economy.
As an example for how this is applied, you can consider an isolated system of three individuals. A fully socialist economy requires some form of absolute authority, so have one of the individuals have some complete authority over the other two, for example, a parent over their children. Now if the two children are buying/selling toys with each other, a fully socialist system is one where the parent exerts their authority over the two children to dictate the values of each toy being exchanged, allowing the two children no immediate freedom to agree on a value of their own. Additionally, the fully socialist system allows the parent to exercise their authority to redistribute each child's toys and other property in any way, even taking toys for themselves. On the other extreme a fully capitalist system does not necessarily have much requirement with respect to authority. So, if two children want to exchange toys they are free to come to a voluntary agreement at whatever valuation they want. It is only when either is involuntarily forced into an economic agreement to any extent that it becomes more socialistic.
As a consequence of these definitions, any arrangement in which coercion is used to force/pressure an individual to give/receive/buy/sell goods, services, or property would be considered socialist. It would also be considered socialist when the individuals voluntarily seek to buy/sell, but are coerced to do so at some value. Consider an example of government taxation. The government exerts its authority over its citizens to force them to pay their taxes, providing them little to no recourse, this would naturally be socialistic. If however, a nation gave people the option to become citizens by agreeing to certain terms including future taxation, then, assuming there were reasonable alternatives and no forms of unreasonable coercion were involved, agreeing to such an arrangement would make the consequential taxation generally uncoercive. An important factor is that a fully capitalist system requires respect for an owner's property rights. If the uncoerced voluntary citizen chooses not to pay their taxes, they are attempting to usurp control of another's property, and therefore should be forced to give it to its owner, thus involuntarily enforcing property rights is still fully capitalist.
Another issue is with so called natural monopolies, in which any competition is simply unprofitable. This is common in situations such as household water supply and waste water treatment, in which the costly and fixed water supply line infrastructure throughout an area makes it pointlessly uneconomical for another water supply company to separately have its own water supply line in the same area. Thus even in a fully capitalistic system which attempts to encourage free market competition, there is almost no practical solution to offer people alternative water suppliers through the local infrastructure. Thus it usually forms a natural (private or governmental) monopoly irrespective of the economic systems in place. Since it can't reasonably allow for free market capitalism, we mostly can't factor it into determining how socialistic/capitalistic an economy is. Instead we would have to look at the commercial retail of some form of water that isn't a natural monopoly, such as bottled water and the like.
Individualist vs Collectivist:
(Nonconformity) vs (Conformity)
This political dimension looks at the degree to which a system engages in cultural conformity. Such a cultural aspect concerns the degree of cultural freedom of individual thought, expression, choice, etc. It is the spectrum between two opposing cultural philosophies with one supporting cultural individuality and the other supporting cultural in-group conformity and opposing cultural out-groups. One extreme represents a cultural system which attempts to provide the most cultural freedom of individuality possible, in which the sole restriction on cultural freedoms is that no one can restrict others' freedoms, whereas the other extreme represents a cultural system which enforces absolute cultural unity, in which fully conforming to group norms, traditions, beliefs, etc. is enforced and those that do not conform are criticized, marginalized, and/or removed.
Individualist (Nonconformity) this is a cultural system that promotes individual cultural freedom and opposes cultural coercion such as discrimination which restricts that freedom.
Individualism has broader definitions, mostly concerned with morality and the autonomy and primacy of the individual over groups. When we use it, understand that we mean it as cultural individualism and that our usage does not include such moralistic considerations. Hence our usage relates only to cultural freedoms provided to individuals, not economic freedoms, not governmental freedoms, and not the moral consequences surrounding the cultural system. Another issue is that individualism also suffers from the paradox of freedom, more specifically in this case, the paradox of tolerance. In order for everyone to be free from cultural discrimination, a cultural system must forcibly limit individuals' cultural freedom to limit the cultural freedoms of others; thus it is impossible to have a society that fully respects all cultural freedoms. As such there are various interpretations of how best to fairly support everyone's cultural freedoms while prohibiting cultural discrimination. Such ambiguity at the fully individualist edge is inherent to the paradoxical ideology of individualism. Therefore when we say fully individualist, we mean as nonconformist as one can reasonably achieve, which requires restricting everyone's freedom to limit each other's cultural freedoms.
Collectivist (Conformity) this is a cultural system that promotes cultural uniformity and opposes cultural nonconformity.
Our definitions do not directly involve moral considerations and are restricted to only cultural conformism against cultural individuality. However, conformity can utilize almost any medium through which to try to influence an individual, for instance, economic restrictions against a cultural out-group to marginalize them in favor of the cultural in-group.
When collectivist systems are formed, the power that groups have over individuals tends to be used to enforce adherence to the group, thus being capable of preventing it from becoming more individualistic. This is often seen throughout history as cultural groups, such as those formed around religions, enforce adherence to their culture by suppressing individuality. This is similar to the case of governance above with authoritarianism tending to prevent anarchism; however unlike anarchism, individualism inherently imposes restrictions against conformity. As such, a very individualistic society doesn't necessarily tend towards collectivism. It is also important to understand that a collective culture can form around essentially anything even those supporting individualism can form a collective culture with each other around their common opposition to cultural collectives. As such if one associates their cultural identity with some group favoring certain economic or governmental ideologies, then their support of those other political dimensions becomes entangled with their collectivist conformity. This is a common issue in politics where people tend to have trouble maintaining unbiased preconceptions and instead tend towards in-group/out-group bias, such as supporting the candidate of a political party you identify as part of, even if you disagree with some of the candidate's political views while a different party candidate happens to share all your political beliefs. It would be impossible for our test to disentangle that, but we don't really need to since whether one's political opinions originated from cultural conformity or were arrived at on their own doesn't change that they still hold the political opinions they provide in their responses.
Let's apply this concept to a complex cultural issue. Take for example the cultural aspects of the issue on whether or not pregnant women should be allowed to have abortions. Under a fully collectivist system, the issue is very simple, cultural interests of individuals don't matter, all that matters is what the collective says should be done. If the collective believes that she should have an abortion, then it will force her to conform to that norm, if the collective believes that she should not have an abortion, then it will force her to conform to that norm. On the other end, under a fully individualist system, the issue is a bit more complex. One could argue that the fetus is an individual and therefore its cultural freedoms must be respected in that it shouldn't be forced to die. Though, that brings up a rather subjective issue of what you choose to qualify as an individual which should be afforded individualist rights. But ultimately if we are discussing cultural individualism with respect to whether or not individuals should be free to commit murder, then we aren't discussing the cultural dimension at that point. The fetus may have cultural rights, but the right to life is not directly a cultural right. If you ask does killing a fetus force it to conform to some cultural norm or belief, or any other cultural issue, then the answer is no, because murder is not directly a cultural issue. It is a moral issue, and as stated above our definition of individualism is removed from issues of morality and specific only to culture and the opposition of conformity therein. However, it should also be pointed out that while murder itself is not necessarily an act of cultural conformism, it can be a method through which cultural conformism is accomplished, for instance if a pregnant woman preferred racial groups other than her own and therefore wanted to prevent herself from reproducing, she could utilize abortions to do so. This culturally conformist motivation for abortion would cause it to be considered collectivist. With that in mind, the pregnant mother getting an abortion for typical individual motivations should not be interpreted as culturally conformist. What is culturally conformist is her being socially pressured to get an abortion or not get an abortion by the cultural norms of others. Thus under a fully individualist system the pregnant woman is free to do whatever she wants with her fetus instead of being forced to conform to some cultural norm on what she should do.
The responses are given values associated with placement relative to the relevant dimensions. The average of the selected values for each prompt are summed. The mimimum and maximum potential sums from all the prompts are used as the bounds within which the result of the responses is found. Thus a proportion within each dimension is calculated for the results.
The cutoffs for the classification of test results on the cube between what is and isn't enough to be given a certain label are rather arbitrary, but for the sake of simplicity we've divided them equally with rounding, in economics the result would be chosen within the cutoffs of: -100% to -34% Socialist, -33% to 33% Centrist, and 34% to 100% Capitalist. Since these cutoffs are quite arbitrary, we avoid using them anywhere without necessity. As such they are never used explicitly to demarcate the regions of the cube outside of pre-selecting a region where the results are found in the tests.
The ideology matches are made by their own valuations with their own definitions separate from those of the 3 axes on the cube.
Since each prompt of this test can affect multiple PolitiCube dimensions, you can be presented prompts that force you to compromise one or more of your broad ideologies on complex issues. This leads to your results for your ideologies potentially being forced away from where they would otherwise be in an idealized scenario where each response only applies to a single dimension at a time. This realistic dilemma only gets even more problematic when even more ideological dimensions are involved. It represents the reality that sometimes the ideologies you hold conflict over various issues, sometimes there are no perfect choices, and ultimately the real world isn't just black and white but a wide spectrum of greys in between. What this test (and by extension reality) does is it forces ideological compromises which almost prevent reaching the extremes of the realistic political cube. You'd only be able to reach 100% in one dimension by always compromising the others for it whenever necessary. For the same reasons, applying personal ideologies to complex issues in the real world will often result in inherent contradictions and compromises on one's beliefs. Thus this form of the political cube inherently acknowledges the realistic impracticality of some extreme combinations of ideologies and consequently leads to your results being pulled away from such extremes. Most tests on other sites instead only score each question to one dimension at a time, this leads to either restricting questions to only simple issues or including complex questions but ignoring their relevance to lesser dimensions. Such tests idealize your views at best, and at worst misleadingly simplify your views into black and white dichotomies by ignoring the gray.
Below is a comparison of the PolitiCube with a traditional one-dimensional left-right axis. Generally, left-wing emphasizes freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism while right-wing emphasizes authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism. To somewhat oversimply, the left-right axis is mostly a broad division of cooperation (left-wing) versus competition (right-wing). Cooperating for authoritative equality vs. competing for authoritative dominance, cooperating for shared economic wealth vs. competing for economic wealth, cooperating for cultural equality vs. competing for cultural dominance. Cooperation vs. competition is a pervasive dichotomy in the interactions of living things.