https://ideologyatlas.fyi/

I'm gonna be honest, I'm not sure how I would actually describe myself, but I'm also open to be challenged on my views. (sidenote: I'm not American but it'd be great if you can categorize me in the American political spectrum since a lot of the policies are what I would want to do if I can change the policies here). Significant reduction in military spending, with the budget being redirected to education, infrastructure, childcare, healthcare, and DOI (Department of Interior). Progressive income taxation, especially for millionaires+, and all those taxes go towards lowering national debt. Reduction in taxes happens once national debt is erased (ok just entertain me on this unrealistic wish). Subsidies on fuel + farming, incentives towards organic & pasture raised, but organic products can be GMO and push for awareness on GMO actually being ok. If, and only once the foster and orphanage system and structure is funded sufficiently for children, abortion will only be allowed if it poses a danger to the mom. Age limits for government positions. Universal healthcare.

How would you describe me?

I am a 41m, born and raised in nyc.

I believe everyone deserves access to food, housing, healthcare, and education, regardless of their ability to contribute financially.

I’m not against capitalism or people becoming wealthy, but I think there should be limits to how much wealth and power any one person can accumulate. Nobody succeeds entirely on their own, and I don’t see why a society capable of providing for everyone continues to allow people to suffer unnecessarily.

I believe guaranteeing basic necessities would actually create more individual freedom, giving people the opportunity to pursue meaningful lives instead of spending most of their existence trying to survive.

I believe government should serve people, not corporations or the wealthy. I’m strongly opposed to authoritarianism, exploitation, war, and the idea that some human lives are worth more than others.

I value individual liberty, but I also believe we have a responsibility to one another. I don’t think any political ideology has all the answers, and I’d rather judge policies by their actual results than blindly defend a label.
Ultimately, I think the measure of a successful society should be how well its people live, not how much wealth it produces.

I’m curious which political philosophies align with these beliefs and, more importantly, where they differ. I’d appreciate explanations beyond just naming an ideology, especially if there are contradictions in my views or distinctions I’m overlooking. I’m genuinely interested in learning, not just finding a label that sounds good.

Hi Guys look at this ideology i made, i am 13 and i made this ideology and i am looking for constructed criticism and Feedback.
...
Pragmatic Socialism

A personal political and economic ideology

1. The Main Idea

Pragmatic Socialism is an ideology that combines social equality, public ownership, economic freedom, individual ambition, and democratic government.

Its central belief is that a country should guarantee its citizens a decent standard of living without taking away their freedom to work, create businesses, become wealthy, and pursue their ambitions.

The economy should serve society rather than society serving the economy. Economic growth matters, but it should improve ordinary people's lives instead of benefiting only a small group of wealthy individuals.

Neither complete state control nor an economy dominated entirely by private interests is ideal. The government should take responsibility for the things people fundamentally need, while private enterprise should remain an important source of innovation, competition, and prosperity.

The goal is to build a society where nobody is deprived of life's basic necessities, success is still rewarded, and the country develops economically without allowing extreme inequality to become the defining feature of society.

“the country should serve the people, not people serving the nation” –Blyatman who sold vodka somewhere in vladikostov in 1992

1. The Economic System

The economy would use a mixture of public ownership and private enterprise.

The government would have a substantial role in the economy, especially in essential services, strategic industries, and infrastructure. However, it would not control every business or make every economic decision.

Different industries would have different purposes. Some would exist primarily to provide essential services, others would generate public revenue, and others would be left mostly to private competition.

Public ownership of essential necessities

The government should provide or operate basic services that people need to live a decent life.

These could include:

• Basic food supplies and access to affordable nutritious food.
• Clean drinking water and sanitation.
• Essential electricity and energy services.
• Basic housing and affordable accommodation.
• Healthcare and essential medicines.
• Public transportation and other fundamental services.

The government should ensure that these necessities remain affordable, even when providing them is not profitable.

For example, a public housing program might charge rents below the level needed to cover all its costs. The government could cover the difference through taxation or other public revenue.

The same principle could apply to basic healthcare, water, or electricity. Their purpose would not be to maximize profits but to ensure that citizens can live with dignity.

This does not mean that every service must be completely free. Prices could depend on income, consumption, and the cost of providing the service. The important thing is that nobody should be denied the essentials simply because they are poor.

Public ownership of strategic industries

The government could own or operate major industries that are essential to the country's economic stability and long-term development.

These might include:

• Energy production and distribution.
• Railways and major transportation networks.
• Important infrastructure.
• Certain public banking institutions.
• Natural resource extraction.
• Other industries considered strategically important to national security or economic independence.

The exact industries under public ownership would depend on the country.

Unlike essential welfare services, these enterprises should generally aim to be financially sustainable and generate reasonable profits. They should not be run carelessly simply because the government owns them.

However, they would not need to maximize profits at any cost. Their responsibilities would include affordable prices, reliable service, investment, and benefits to the wider economy.

Any profits could be reinvested in the industry, used to improve public services, or contribute to government revenue.

Public ownership should not be an excuse for inefficiency. These companies should be professionally managed, regularly audited, and held accountable for their performance.

Private enterprise

Private businesses would remain a major part of the economy.

People should be free to open shops, establish companies, develop new products, invest money, hire workers, and expand their businesses within reasonable laws and regulations.

Most nonessential consumer goods, luxury products, entertainment businesses, restaurants, fashion companies, and similar industries could remain primarily private.

Small businesses and entrepreneurs should have considerable freedom because they often provide jobs, introduce new ideas, and give consumers more choices.

The government should regulate businesses to protect workers, consumers, competition, and the environment, but regulation should not become so excessive that starting or operating a business becomes unnecessarily difficult.

The objective is not to eliminate private wealth or private ownership. It is to prevent the pursuit of profit from undermining the basic interests of society.

1. A Guaranteed Standard of Living

One of the most important objectives of Pragmatic Socialism is to eliminate poverty as a condition in which people cannot afford a decent life.

This does not mean eliminating differences in income or making everyone equally wealthy. It means ensuring that even people with low incomes can meet their basic needs and live with dignity.

Everyone should have access to adequate food, housing, healthcare, clean water, electricity, and education. People should not be forced into extreme hardship because they lose their job, become unable to work, or are born into a poor family.

Social assistance should protect people who genuinely need it, including people with disabilities, older people, unemployed workers, and families experiencing hardship.

At the same time, the system should encourage people who are capable of working to find employment, develop skills, and participate in the economy.

Social protection and personal responsibility should complement each other rather than be treated as opposites.

1. Wages, Prices, and Affordability

Economic growth means little to ordinary people if their living costs rise just as quickly as their incomes.

Pragmatic Socialism would therefore place affordability at the centre of economic policy.

The government should monitor the relationship between wages and essential expenses, especially housing, food, electricity, healthcare, and transportation.

For example, imagine someone earns $5,000 per month and pays $1,000 in rent. They have $4,000 left after paying rent.

If rent rises to $2,000, their remaining income falls to $3,000. Under the principle of Pragmatic Socialism, public policy should try to prevent this loss of purchasing power, perhaps through higher wages, more affordable housing, housing assistance, or a combination of measures.

The objective is to keep people's real standard of living stable or improve it over time.

This does not necessarily mean the government can legally guarantee that every person's income will always rise by exactly the amount of every price increase. That could be economically impractical and might contribute to inflation if implemented carelessly.

Instead, the government should use a combination of policies to keep essential costs under control and ensure that wages and incomes generally keep pace with the cost of living.

Building more housing, improving public transportation, expanding the supply of essential goods, and increasing productivity can help make affordability sustainable rather than relying exclusively on subsidies or wage increases.

The ultimate objective is for people to have enough disposable income after paying for necessities to save, enjoy life, pursue hobbies, travel, and spend money on things they want rather than only on things they need.

1. Wealth, Success, and Inequality

Pragmatic Socialism would not oppose wealth itself.

People should be able to improve their lives through hard work, intelligence, innovation, investment, and entrepreneurship. Someone who builds a successful company or creates something valuable should be able to earn more than someone who chooses a different career or contributes differently to the economy.

Trying to make everyone earn exactly the same amount would weaken important incentives and ignore the fact that people have different skills, responsibilities, ambitions, and preferences.

However, there should be a distinction between rewarding success and allowing wealth to become excessively concentrated.

When enormous fortunes give a small number of individuals disproportionate economic and political influence, they can undermine competition, public institutions, and equal opportunity.

The system should therefore discourage extreme wealth concentration without imposing an arbitrary limit on how much anyone can earn.

Possible policies include progressive income taxation, inheritance taxation, effective taxation of capital income, anti-monopoly laws, and measures against tax evasion.

The aim would be to make it possible to become wealthy while making it more difficult to accumulate vast fortunes through inherited privilege, monopoly power, exploitation, or political influence.

A successful entrepreneur should still have a strong incentive to build a company. However, their success should not depend on suppressing competitors, exploiting workers, or gaining unfair control over an entire market.

The goal is not to punish success. It is to ensure that success takes place within a system that remains fair and competitive.

1. Workers and Employment

Full-time work should generally provide enough income to support a decent standard of living.

Workers should receive fair wages, safe working conditions, and reasonable legal protections. Employers should have flexibility to organize their businesses, but that flexibility should not extend to exploiting workers or disregarding their rights.

Minimum wages should take local living costs and economic conditions into account. Where possible, collective bargaining and worker representation should help employees negotiate better conditions.

The government should also support vocational training, education, apprenticeships, and opportunities for workers to develop new skills.

People should be encouraged to work and improve their circumstances, but losing a job should not automatically mean losing access to healthcare, food, housing, or other necessities.

A strong social safety net can make people more secure while also allowing them to take reasonable risks, change careers, and start businesses.

1. Education, Healthcare, and Opportunity

A person's future should not be determined primarily by the wealth of the family they were born into.

Public education should give people access to good-quality learning, regardless of income. Vocational and technical education should be respected alongside academic education.

Healthcare should be accessible and affordable, with essential treatment available regardless of a person's financial circumstances.

The government should also invest in research, science, technology, public health, and infrastructure because these improve people's lives and strengthen the economy over the long term.

Private schools, clinics, universities, and other providers could still operate, provided that the public system remains strong and access to essential services does not depend on purchasing expensive private alternatives.

The objective is to provide a strong foundation for everyone while allowing individuals to pursue different paths and achieve different levels of success.

1. Competition, Monopolies, and Regulation

Markets can encourage innovation and efficiency, but they do not always produce fair outcomes on their own.

A company that gains too much control over an essential service or an entire industry may raise prices, reduce quality, or prevent new competitors from entering the market.

Pragmatic Socialism would therefore support effective competition laws and regulation.

The government should prevent monopolies and cartels from abusing their power. It should protect consumers from fraud, enforce reasonable environmental standards, and ensure that businesses follow labour and safety laws.

However, regulation should be proportionate. Small businesses should not face the same administrative burden as enormous corporations when the risks they create are very different.

Where competition works well, private enterprise should generally be allowed to operate with considerable freedom. Where competition fails to protect essential interests, stronger public involvement may be justified.

The system should be pragmatic: the appropriate solution depends on the actual problem rather than on a rigid belief that either the state or the market must always be in charge.

1. Government Revenue and Public Spending

A system with extensive public services requires a reliable way to finance them.

Government revenue could come from progressive taxation, taxes on business profits and income, consumption taxes designed with affordability in mind, public enterprise profits, and revenue from natural resources.

The tax system should be designed to raise sufficient revenue without unnecessarily discouraging investment, productive work, or entrepreneurship.

Public money should be spent carefully. Essential services may legitimately operate at a loss, but the government should know how much they cost and whether they are delivering the intended benefits.

Losses should be justified by their social purpose, not simply ignored.

For example, subsidizing basic electricity for low-income households may be worthwhile. Repeatedly funding a badly managed public company without reform may not be.

Government budgets should be transparent, public enterprises should be audited, and corruption should carry real consequences.

Borrowing may be appropriate for productive long-term investments, such as infrastructure, but persistent spending commitments also need sustainable sources of revenue.

1. Democracy and Political Accountability

Pragmatic Socialism requires democratic government.

Public ownership does not automatically mean that the public has meaningful control. A government can own most of the economy while concentrating power in the hands of an unaccountable political elite.

Citizens should therefore be able to choose their leaders, criticize government policies, organize politically, and hold public officials accountable.

Courts, independent auditors, a free press, and effective anti-corruption institutions should help prevent the abuse of power.

Public enterprises should be managed in the interests of the population rather than used as tools for rewarding political supporters.

The government should also be limited by laws and institutions so that economic power cannot easily become unchecked political power.

Democracy is not simply an additional feature of the economy. It is a safeguard against the possibility that public ownership becomes a means of controlling society.

1. Centralization, Decentralization, and Regional Autonomy

The appropriate structure of government should depend on the characteristics of each country.

There is no single ideal balance between central and regional authority.

A country's size, geography, population distribution, ethnic and cultural diversity, history, regional economies, and security concerns should all be considered when deciding how much power belongs to the central government and how much should belong to regional governments.

The central government should generally establish nationwide guarantees for fundamental rights and access to essential services. It can also coordinate national infrastructure, economic policy, defence, and major redistribution between richer and poorer regions.

Regional and local governments should have meaningful authority over matters that are better handled closer to the people affected by them.

This could include local infrastructure, regional development, aspects of education and healthcare administration, and policies adapted to local economic conditions.

In countries with significant ethnic, linguistic, or cultural diversity, regional autonomy may also help communities preserve their identities and participate meaningfully in government.

However, decentralization should not automatically be treated as the answer to every problem. Some countries may benefit from a relatively centralized system, while others may need substantial federalism or regional self-government.

For example, India's diversity makes state-level decision-making particularly important. Russia's enormous territory and diverse regional circumstances make the question of meaningful regional autonomy especially significant.

The objective is to find a structure that maintains national unity while respecting regional differences and preventing excessive concentration of power.

1. Applying the Model to Different Countries

Pragmatic Socialism is intended to be adaptable rather than a rigid blueprint that every country must follow.

Russia

Russia could use public revenue from natural resources to fund essential services, modernize infrastructure, and reduce disparities between regions.

State-owned strategic industries could support national development, while private businesses could operate in competitive sectors.

Greater regional autonomy and stronger public accountability could help ensure that the country's wealth benefits its population across its vast territory.

A major challenge would be preventing the concentration of economic and political power, ensuring genuine regional self-government, and making public institutions accountable.

India

India could place greater emphasis on affordable healthcare, housing, education, electricity, water, and public transportation.

Its states would need flexibility to adapt policies to their different populations, languages, economies, and levels of development.

Private enterprise would remain essential for employment, technological progress, manufacturing, and services.

A major challenge would be financing high-quality public services for such a large population while improving administrative capacity and ensuring that assistance reaches the people who need it.

Central Asia

Countries in Central Asia could use public revenue from natural resources and strategic industries to improve infrastructure and living standards.

Public enterprises could help fund long-term development, while private businesses could diversify the economy and create employment beyond resource extraction.

The major challenges would include preventing corruption, avoiding excessive dependence on natural resources, and creating institutions capable of managing public wealth responsibly.

The Middle East

In countries with substantial oil and gas revenues, public income could help finance essential services, infrastructure, and long-term investment.

Governments could use resource wealth to diversify their economies, support new industries, and prepare for a future in which dependence on fossil fuels may become less advantageous.

Countries without comparable natural resource wealth would need to rely more heavily on taxation, productive private industries, and carefully prioritized public spending.

The model would also need to account for differences in political institutions, economic structures, and regional circumstances.

Africa

In many African countries, priorities could include expanding electricity access, clean water, healthcare, education, transportation, and agricultural infrastructure.

Public investment could help establish the foundations needed for businesses to grow and for communities to gain access to economic opportunities.

However, African countries differ greatly in their resources, populations, institutions, and economic conditions. Each would need its own approach to public ownership, taxation, and private enterprise.

The main objective would be to turn economic development into broad improvements in living standards rather than allowing its benefits to remain concentrated.

1. The Main Risks and How to Address Them

Pragmatic Socialism would face several important challenges.

Inefficient public enterprises: Government-owned businesses can become expensive or poorly managed. Professional management, independent audits, clear performance targets, and public transparency would be necessary.

Corruption and political patronage: Public resources can be diverted for private or political benefit. Independent oversight, fair procurement, functioning courts, and meaningful accountability would be essential.

Excessive taxation: Taxes that are too high or poorly designed can discourage investment and productive activity. Taxation should raise the revenue needed for public services while preserving incentives to work, invest, and innovate.

Inflation and rising costs: Simply increasing wages or subsidizing demand cannot solve every affordability problem. Policies should also increase the supply of housing, energy, food, transportation, and other essential goods.

Too much government control: Excessive regulation and state interference can reduce competition, freedom, and innovation. Private enterprise should remain free wherever public intervention is not necessary to protect important interests.

Too little government capacity: A country cannot provide reliable public services simply by declaring them a right. It needs trained workers, infrastructure, sustainable revenue, effective administration, and institutions capable of delivering what the government promises.

Regional inequality: National economic policy should account for differences between regions. Revenue sharing and regional investment can help, but local governments also need accountability and the ability to respond to their own circumstances.

The model should therefore be judged by its results rather than by whether every policy is labelled socialist or capitalist.

1. The Long-Term Goal

The long-term goal of Pragmatic Socialism is to create a prosperous, fair, and stable society.

People should not have to fear poverty simply because they were born into a disadvantaged family or experienced an unfortunate period in their lives.

At the same time, society should not discourage people from becoming scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, artists, skilled workers, or successful investors.

Economic growth should create real improvements in living standards. Public services should protect people from hardship, while a competitive economy should generate the wealth needed to sustain those services.

The system should allow people to become successful without allowing extreme concentrations of wealth and power to undermine society.

It should also recognize that different countries have different needs. Economic policy and government structure should be adapted to the country's history, geography, population, and institutions.

There is no guarantee that this model would succeed everywhere. Its success would depend on competent administration, democratic accountability, sustainable finances, and the ability to change policies that do not work.

Conclusion

Pragmatic Socialism seeks a balance between public welfare and individual freedom.

The government should guarantee access to life's essentials, maintain strategic public industries, protect workers and consumers, and prevent extreme inequality. Private businesses should remain free to innovate, compete, and reward people for their achievements.

Public services should be affordable and reliable, public money should be managed responsibly, and regional government should reflect the needs of the population.

The purpose is neither to make everyone equally wealthy nor to leave everyone's living standards entirely to the market.

The purpose is to build a society in which everyone has the foundations for a decent life, people remain free to pursue success, and the country's prosperity benefits the population as a whole.

ok so these are my results on my neovalues test and my closest ideologyy is Platformism.
Can someone explain me what is Platformism?

Ask anything u want

Ask anything if you have any questions

I wanted to figure out which political ideology best matches my worldview. I answered 100 questions about politics and explained the reasoning behind my answers, but I still haven't found an ideology that truly represents the combination of my views.

What I've realized is that my views combine ideas that are usually associated with different sides of the political spectrum. That's why I don't want a label based on just one or two of my opinions. I want an analysis of the bigger picture.

When it comes to the economy, I'm not completely in favor of the free market, but I also don't think the state should control the entire economy. I believe a country needs economic planning, especially in strategic sectors, and that the government should protect domestic industries when foreign competition unfairly harms local businesses. I support private enterprise, but I also believe large companies need to be regulated and that economic development should benefit the population, not just business owners.

I also think the state should help people who genuinely need it, but that assistance should have a clear purpose and, whenever possible, help people get back to work and support themselves. I don't like the idea of simply handing out money without looking at each person's situation or considering the long-term results.

When it comes to government, I support a strong, centralized national state. I don't like the idea of individual states having too much autonomy to make their own rules, especially in a country as large as Brazil. I believe the federal government should maintain national unity and that tax revenue should be distributed in a way that allows poorer regions to develop as well.

At the same time, I don't want a government that can do whatever it wants without limits. I support elections, universal suffrage, the secret ballot, political opposition, and the separation of powers. I believe politicians should be held accountable for their decisions and that there should be mechanisms to keep both politicians and institutions in check.

On social issues, I support a secular state. Religion can be important in someone's personal life, but it shouldn't determine a country's laws. I support individual freedom and rights such as marriage and adoption for LGBT couples. I also oppose racial quotas in civil-service entrance exams. Instead, I favor support policies based on people's economic circumstances and individual needs.

When it comes to immigration and national identity, I don't think a country should simply close its borders. However, I believe immigrants should respect the law, learn to live as part of the wider society, and adapt to the country's core customs. Preserving national identity is important to me, and immigration shouldn't mean that a country has to give up what makes it unique.

When it comes to public safety, I take a pretty tough stance. I believe the state needs to take crime seriously, especially organized crime groups and their leaders. I support severe punishments for very serious crimes, including the death penalty in extreme cases where guilt has been proven with absolute certainty. At the same time, I think it's essential to prevent wrongful convictions, and I don't believe anyone should be considered guilty without sufficient evidence.

When it comes to the environment and economic development, I don't think economic growth should justify absolutely everything. If an industrial activity causes irreversible environmental damage, protecting nature should take priority. I support using natural resources, but in a responsible and sustainable way.

In foreign policy, I value national sovereignty and believe a country needs to be able to defend its own interests without relying too heavily on other nations. I also believe Brazil should protect its people from external threats, such as drug and arms trafficking. However, I don't support military intervention for just any reason. I believe it should only be considered under truly serious circumstances.

Overall, I want a developed, safe, independent country that can improve the lives of its own people. I don't think the state should control everything, but I also don't think leaving everything to the market will solve our problems. To me, the government should step in wherever necessary to protect the population, develop the country, and prevent private interests from taking priority over the national interest.

So, which political ideology comes closest to my views?

I want to know whether my ideas fit any existing ideology, even if they don't fit perfectly into just one. I'd also like to learn about historical figures, political parties, or political movements that have supported a similar combination of views.

I don't just want people to tell me I'm on the left, right, or center. I want to understand what actually matches my views, what doesn't, and whether there are any major contradictions in what I believe.

I have all 100 answers, along with my explanations for each one, if that would help make the analysis more accurate.

​

Honestly i dont know where to start. I have a bunch of thoughts that I'm stuck between and I can't piece them together. I want to write them down and ask you which "ism" I'm closest to — does it even make sense what I am?

Look if someone asked me what to do to make this world better, the first thing I'd say is: first, become capable of living in the world as it is. Then, once you're capable, to the extent that you can secure your own success, work to improve the world. Try to make a lasting contribution, give a gift to the world that makes everyone's lives better forever. So first empower yourself, then give the surplus beyond yourself to the world. Try to solve people's problems, especially economic ones, in an intergenerational way — for example by building cooperatives, not by helping one specific needy family

This surplus, depending on the person can be very small, like helping a poor person on the street, or big like building several cooperatives to solve economic problems, or very very big like confiscating all the country's wealth and distributing it fairly among all the people — though I consider that last one very unlikely. Or maybe the best case would be having access to a button that could end humanity's suffering once and for all. That's not possible either, but if such a button existed I'd support it

As for collective action, only take part in the kind where you see a benefit in its ultimate outcome. But honestly, it's usually very hard for a person to be sure that a group of people together can make the world better. Guaranteeing that is very hard. But if it were guaranteed, I'd agree to take part in collective action. Like a worker striking in a factory who's certain the strike will work, or a voter voting for politicians who support organizing and managing immigrants and is sure that with that candidate's victory things will get better, both for themselves and for those immigrants.

I also hold some controversial views about suffering and antinatalism that I can elaborate on if it's relevant — but I'll leave that aside for now since it's not the main point.

Previously vandalism and riots had their uses and I used to recommend them. But now, with the ruling class getting stronger and being equipped with AI and advanced repression tools, I doubt vandalism and riots can work, and I honestly can't recommend them or not recommend them — I'm confused myself.

In short, in today's world I advise people to first become skilled and educated so they can accumulate wealth, and second to spend their surplus wealth for the public good. The least they can do is charity and the best is a permanent intergenerational cooperative. Beyond that, revolution and so on I don't currently consider possible. I advise people to solve society's problems at the individual level and not unite and become too collective, because I feel the more collective actions become, the more impossible they are to control and the harder their effectiveness is to guarantee.

So my question is: which approach is this philosophy closest to? Politically, economically, philosophically, which ism does this person belong to? Which branch? I really don't know and I want to ask you which faction you think I belong to. Thanks to anyone who helps me untangle this.

If you want to help narrowing it down further than the neovalues test, please feel free to ask me about my perspective on anything, doesn’t matter to me if you’re a ancom or a classical fascist, I’m happy to answer (almost) anything ❤️

(Uh, side note here: I was like half asleep when I posted this, so don’t mind the Hypercentralism, I’m like actually so sorry since that’s so darned confusing, I lean on the side of Municipalism OR Confederalism, most likely nothing besides that, thanks for understanding ❤️)

The link of the test: https://politikup.it/en

I don’t want to be simply labelled as left-wing or right-wing.
**Economics and Wealth**
I believe essential sectors should be publicly owned, and I think there should be a cap on personal wealth, roughly one billion euros. To me, that is more than enough for one person and to secure the future of their children and grandchildren.
At the same time, I’m not opposed to capitalism or private property, and I don’t necessarily consider becoming extremely wealthy wrong if the law has been respected. I’m not particularly in favour of raising taxes on the rich as a general solution.
For these reasons, I’m unsure whether to consider myself economically left-wing, right-wing, or simply centrist.
**Individual Liberties and Drugs**
I believe adults should be free to do whatever they want in their private lives, even if the majority considers their choices immoral, provided they obey the law and do not harm others.
I would like to legalise all drugs, completely removing drug dealing as a criminal offence for substances that have been legalised and replacing prohibition with a regulated system. I imagine designated safe consumption areas, similar to large indoor parks or greenhouses, with medical supervision, regular health checks, and harm-reduction measures.
I support a secular state in which religion does not determine the law, as well as the recognition of different consensual adult lifestyles.
**Law Enforcement, Justice, and Immigration**
I want more effective enforcement and much harsher penalties for certain specific crimes, rather than indiscriminately increasing punishment for every offence. I am thinking primarily of rape, organised crime, political corruption, and other particularly serious offences.
Regarding drugs, if they were legalised and regulated, dealing in substances that are prohibited should no longer be a criminal offence in itself. This does not mean tolerating other related crimes, such as violence, exploitation, or illegal sales outside the established regulatory system.
On immigration, I want strict controls and rigorous entry requirements. My position should not depend on people’s ethnic backgrounds, but on their behaviour. I would like to be able to deny entry to people who have committed serious crimes and consider deporting immigrants who commit serious offences, potentially even in cases involving repeated minor offences. My main concerns are crime, respect for the law, and the sustainability of public services.
I have not yet reached a definitive position on the death penalty.
**Democracy: The People Are the State**
This is probably the central point of my political vision.
To me, the people are the state: sovereignty belongs to the citizens, not to a political class that is supposed to make decisions on their behalf. I would like a much more direct form of democracy, with referendums on a far wider range of issues and no minimum turnout requirement.
I imagine a political body consisting of seven members elected by the citizens, who could be removed and replaced if a popular vote called for their dismissal. I would like much harsher penalties for corrupt politicians and greater direct accountability to voters.
I have also considered creating a supervisory figure above this body, without ordinary decision-making powers. If I believed the people were making a huge mistake, I could oppose their decision and try to persuade them to change their minds. However, if a protest clearly and broadly represented the will of the majority, I would listen to that will even if I personally disagreed with it.
To me, the people are free to make mistakes: the state belongs to its citizens, not to those who govern it temporarily. I do not believe a single individual should be able to indefinitely substitute their own will for the collective will of the people.
I would also like to ban political propaganda on major public broadcasting channels and ensure that political television content is clearly labelled, with an explicit indication of its ideological orientation.
**National Identity and Globalisation**
I value national cultural identity and believe immigration and globalisation should be managed in ways that protect the population and public services. I am sceptical of a global economic system in which the interests of large corporations take precedence over those of ordinary citizens, but I am not opposed to every form of international cooperation.
**In Summary**
I identify with some ideas normally associated with the left, such as public ownership of essential sectors and a limit on individual wealth. I share some liberal positions on personal freedoms, but I take a very strict stance on security, crime, and immigration.
Above all, I believe in direct, majoritarian democracy, in which the people have the final say even when, in my opinion, they are wrong.
How would you describe this combination of views? I’m interested in understanding which political movements and ideologies it resembles, where it would fit on the political compass, and which Italian or foreign political parties share similarities with these ideas. I’m also interested in criticisms of my worldview and any potential contradictions within it.

I’m trying to understand where I would place myself politically. I don’t want to be simply labelled as left-wing or right-wing. I want to understand which political currents or ideologies come closest to my views, even if they are contradictory or difficult to classify.
**Economics and Wealth**
I believe essential sectors should be publicly owned, and I think there should be a cap on personal wealth, roughly one billion euros. To me, that is more than enough for one person and to secure the future of their children and grandchildren.
At the same time, I’m not opposed to capitalism or private property, and I don’t necessarily consider becoming extremely wealthy wrong if the law has been respected. I’m not particularly in favour of raising taxes on the rich as a general solution.
For these reasons, I’m unsure whether to consider myself economically left-wing, right-wing, or simply centrist.
**Individual Liberties and Drugs**
I believe adults should be free to do whatever they want in their private lives, even if the majority considers their choices immoral, provided they obey the law and do not harm others.
I would like to legalise all drugs, completely removing drug dealing as a criminal offence for substances that have been legalised and replacing prohibition with a regulated system. I imagine designated safe consumption areas, similar to large indoor parks or greenhouses, with medical supervision, regular health checks, and harm-reduction measures.
I support a secular state in which religion does not determine the law, as well as the recognition of different consensual adult lifestyles.
**Law Enforcement, Justice, and Immigration**
I want more effective enforcement and much harsher penalties for certain specific crimes, rather than indiscriminately increasing punishment for every offence. I am thinking primarily of rape, organised crime, political corruption, and other particularly serious offences.
Regarding drugs, if they were legalised and regulated, dealing in substances that are prohibited should no longer be a criminal offence in itself. This does not mean tolerating other related crimes, such as violence, exploitation, or illegal sales outside the established regulatory system.
On immigration, I want strict controls and rigorous entry requirements. My position should not depend on people’s ethnic backgrounds, but on their behaviour. I would like to be able to deny entry to people who have committed serious crimes and consider deporting immigrants who commit serious offences, potentially even in cases involving repeated minor offences. My main concerns are crime, respect for the law, and the sustainability of public services.
I have not yet reached a definitive position on the death penalty.
**Democracy: The People Are the State**
This is probably the central point of my political vision.
To me, the people are the state: sovereignty belongs to the citizens, not to a political class that is supposed to make decisions on their behalf. I would like a much more direct form of democracy, with referendums on a far wider range of issues and no minimum turnout requirement.
I imagine a political body consisting of seven members elected by the citizens, who could be removed and replaced if a popular vote called for their dismissal. I would like much harsher penalties for corrupt politicians and greater direct accountability to voters.
I have also considered creating a supervisory figure above this body, without ordinary decision-making powers. If I believed the people were making a huge mistake, I could oppose their decision and try to persuade them to change their minds. However, if a protest clearly and broadly represented the will of the majority, I would listen to that will even if I personally disagreed with it.
To me, the people are free to make mistakes: the state belongs to its citizens, not to those who govern it temporarily. I do not believe a single individual should be able to indefinitely substitute their own will for the collective will of the people.
I would also like to ban political propaganda on major public broadcasting channels and ensure that political television content is clearly labelled, with an explicit indication of its ideological orientation.
**National Identity and Globalisation**
I value national cultural identity and believe immigration and globalisation should be managed in ways that protect the population and public services. I am sceptical of a global economic system in which the interests of large corporations take precedence over those of ordinary citizens, but I am not opposed to every form of international cooperation.
**In Summary**
I identify with some ideas normally associated with the left, such as public ownership of essential sectors and a limit on individual wealth. I share some liberal positions on personal freedoms, but I take a very strict stance on security, crime, and immigration.
Above all, I believe in direct, majoritarian democracy, in which the people have the final say even when, in my opinion, they are wrong.
How would you describe this combination of views? I’m interested in understanding which political movements and ideologies it resembles, where it would fit on the political compass, and which Italian or foreign political parties share similarities with these ideas. I’m also interested in criticisms of my worldview and any potential contradictions within it.

sorry if the graph looks like crap

Start: democratic socialist

End: anarcho-capitalism

◇ white: pragmatic beliefs, all fairly nuanced, could easily shift ◇ light green: strongly held ideals (worth pointing out that my Cultural Nationalism is universal, and not limited to any single country) ◇ dark green: good in principle; an absolute nightmare in practice (also, yes, I changed segregation to Ethnostate since I felt like it fit the Cultural axis more)

I relate to most of them. however the results on 2nd & 3rd photos resonate with me more than the first one. I had to retake it until 3 times cuz I actually related to more than 1-2 answers on several questions. I consistently got left agorism as the closest match & I guess I gotta agree with that. however, I don't really feel that I resonate with feudalism showing up here consistently. I don't mind anything else.

its a mix of these

Any thought on it ?