I took the political compass test, and got this:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23
I guess that means socialist.

Quote Originally Posted by Hachifusa
And I don't understand your logic that "anyone who wants money can't be trusted". Explain?
Well, anyone who is involved in doing something purely for their own gain should not be trusted, as they will have no loyalty or dedication to the purpose of their task, and will act purely in self-interest, and has a good chance of being corrupt, e.g. a bbusinessman who cares more about money than ethics is very likely to be exploitative and corrupt, and may well commit fraud, or knowingly provide unsafe working conditions or cause pollution.

p.s. Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to try and explain my veiws a little better.
Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
But Stalin and Mao were Socialists. Socialism is not marxism, socialism embraces marxism and many other theories, mainly economic. Socialism can be compared to capitalism, you can also get multiple ways of goverment under this economical system. Aproximative examples:

Capitalism as economic order, one way of democracy (because there are also several ways of making democracy) as political = Most western countries
Capitalism as economic order, fascism as political = Spain during Franco.
Just as a note, that is also known as corporatism.
Socialism as economic, democracy as political = Chile with Allende, Spain in the 1930s. Yes, I am aware they also skipped democratic laws, I am talking about theories.
What about Labour Britain under the (Old) Labour Party?

Socialism as economic, totalitarism as political = Most so called "communist" countries, wich are a perfect excuse to badmouth Marx: Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba...Cuba being the lest totalitarist, but still far from democracy.
Actually, that isn't really fair- Jong Il, Stalin and Mao do not/ did not follow true socialist ideals, their systems simply resembled socialism because 1) They were socialist in name, as a way of oppressing the population and 2) Government control of the ecoomy is an efficient path for a dictatotship. The Nazis, for example, could be seen as following socialist policies when veiwed like this, but this was not actually the case (the term National Socialist was really just a tool to encourgae the working class to support them). Read 1984 by George Orwell- it explains a lot of what I'm saying.
And, although you are quite correct that Castro's regime is totalitarian, you have to look at it fairly. The UK was under an almost totalitarian rule during WW2, bt that was nesseccary because the survival of the country as a whole took priority over certain individual freedoms. It's the same with Cuba- Castro has sufferred great hostility from the west, including a US backed invasion, and decades of US backed terrorism, so some extreme measures were nesseccary (although I do admit that Castro's regime is probably tooextreme).
Castro, unfortuanately, has the whole Oliver Cromwell thing going, as did Lenin and a few other people. He is caught in a difficult position, and discovers that hostility from conservative groups will not allow him to make the changes that are needed, so must, unfortuanately, become a dictator. Cromwell, for example, was forced to turn his parlimantarian government into a military dictatorship to fully remove the roylaists from England, although he actually failed their, possibly becaus ehis methods were too extreme and puritanical, and he actually went too far.
Probably, he, aswell as Castro and Lenin, should have relied more on the population. It's ironic that Castro is a dictator, as he is one of the world's foremost Marxist, and Marx quite definitely supported democratuc rule, by the people.
EDIT: And I agree with what Bipper said about Monarchy, though not about nationalism/provincialism.