Huh. Hadn't retaken the Political Compass test since 2014, feeling that the -8 / -5.54 result I got then was about as accurate as that test could come up with and that my position remained largely unchanged since then, but took it again now and see -8.38 / -6.56. That added drift towards the left is slight, but I guess pretty normal, reaching the limits of the test there (first time I took it, probably in 2006-2007, I was around -3, then kept drifting further left each time, but for good reason, since my views shifted sharply during that period too... or maybe it'd be more accurate to say that I admitted what my views were and didn't fight what felt right to me anymore, shaking off the bad rap leftism has around here). What rather surprises me is the significant shift further towards social libertarianism. All those previous times, the results on that scale were similar, around -5, give or take half a point or so. But this may also be correct, the direction the current "progressive" movement took making me stand firmer on the side of actual freedom as opposed to an attempt to mainly break away from conservative norms.

As for that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing, I find myself with a very uncomfortable "agree" there, because while I fully agree with the 2nd part, I firmly disagree that anything bar not causing harm should be demanded or expected of people in general, so disagree with the 1st in a general sense. But then think of crises, or of criminals, in which case yes, under those circumstances, either to meet the needs of society or, in that latter case, as a method of both punishment and rehabilitation, people should do what they're best at doing, obviously.

Oh, while we're at such tests, stumbled into a very similar one at one point, Political Coordinates Test. 83.3% Left, 72.2% Liberal for me currently. First I took it, in 2018, it said 80.6% Left, 75% Liberal. The economic axis matches, and so does the score, but it's odd that it has that social one as being between Communitarian and Liberal, which doesn't seem right.

That's quite reasonable. All other forms of self-defense, as it stands, effectively does the same, whether it's a wrist lock or a bullet to the heart, the intent is to reasonably get them to stop, which is forced upon them without their volition. And, well, reasonable given that their acts of violence is reaching towards a similar goal.

Well, I think this has to do specifically with how it defines corporations in it's results. I do feel i'm a bit further to the right than the test suggests, but that's also due to my belief that, when one looks at the compass realistically, it should be a circle. The corners seem to be untenable positions even from a utopian perspective: for example, ann-cap society would inevitably form a government, even if by accident, within 1 week (i've argued with many ann-caps in the past, and they all keep defining a small multi-republic as "not government"). Corporations are more about government than economic freedom, yet the test doesn't consider them as fundamentally opposed to social freedom (yet we can emperically see this is the case when corporations are firing people for things that happen outside of work, and the age-old deplatforming stuff). I think people forget hardship in these cases, too. When people think of the "ideal," or their own personal utopia, they almoast never imagine natural disaster, famine, etc. Althought i'm not expecting an alien invasion, how would an annarchist society deal with ET coming to kill or enslave us all for one reason or another? Not that we'd have much fight in us compared to a spacefaring people, but one's ability to organize with captured technology would indeed act as a proper deterrent. We know how this would be in a totalitarian state (which is probably worse), though. A realistic disaster, like another ice age, could pose problems for any one of these ideas (and we're about due for one according to science). Even the one i posted isn't Agenda-free. Trump was put at totalitarian in both their evaluations, and while i would indeed agree you have to be pretty high up to run for office, I don't believe any of our politicians (in the US, anyway) is quite at the top. So, i'm not entirely surprised by liberal-vs-communitarian. To be fair, though, that's kinda what the axis is. Government is supposed to represent the larger society, in theory, so the big picture is that the state acts against individuals on behalf of society. Therefore, are you an individual with alot of freedoms, or a slave to the larger community with none? I'm a bit short on time right now, but i'll have to take it later. I understand that people want to believe that annarcho-communism would be a community thing, but to be anything other than an absolute free-for-all it needs government of some kind (as does annarcho-capitalism), else society moves closer to the center (with the extreme left and right at extreme odds with each other, because, without govenment, you're going to have lefties and righties in the same circle). Truth is, i think this is what leads to all far-left organizations inevitably reacing the top left: you need it to go up in order to create the bottom left, but once you go up, you never come back down. I don't think we've ever gone up-right enough to see if it works the same way, but i'd wager it would. Government's purpose is to protect the people under the government from external forces and each other, whether we like that or not, so you're going to see upward movement when people want their utopia so bad that they believe the ends justify the means and they realize not everyone agrees with them. I still don't believe the top corners work, though: top-left and top-right clearly result in little-to-no innovation necessary to compete (which is how the soviet union ultimately fell, IMO).

tl;dr: Commune isn't a reference to communism, but the comparison of terms is a huge red flag (no pun intended).

Though, i'll be more specific on the weaknesses once i get time to take the test myself.

EDIT: I think it's also worth noting that Marx and those around him weren't exactly annarchists, which is something people forget when reading their works and adopting their utopias. It's really important to understand that these guys knew it would hoodwink people into adopting the tyranny of a state.

The bottom doesn't have to mean no government, it means guaranteed individual (social) freedom. You may have a government that takes on that role, to stop those aiming to restrict the freedoms of others. Otherwise, anarchy quickly leads to might is right and the result past that point depends entirely on what the mightiest wants. So bottom-left would be a situation where the government fully controls the economy and guarantees maximum freedom in people's personal lives. Bottom-right would be a situation where a government guarantees maximum freedom in both those aspects, though yes, I definitely share the view that economic freedom goes counter to social freedom, likely feeling much more strongly about it than you, so it's on those who advocate for it to explain how it would work. As for the top, top-left is, well, North Korea, don't need to look to the past. As for top-right, nearly all modern governments are in that quadrant, and the actual top-right corner is likely the wet dream of some conservatives...
Well, yeah, Political Compass does make a point of the Overton window shifting far to the right and that positions that are now seen as far left in truth barely touch on the real left, or are even just centrist, which is entirely true, so they may try to nudge it back a bit with their assessments. Would personally place Trump rather where they placed Biden in the 2020 US chart, with Biden moved accordingly, maintaining that pretty small distance between them, which seems about right.
Ha, "in theory" being the key term there. Problem is that it doesn't, so you end up with these positions.
Yep, but as I said above, that doesn't mean you can't have a society in the bottom-left. It might not work on a large unified scale and need communities that are in large part segregated, so those with conflicting views won't need to deal with each other, but if each would be able to choose which community to live in, why not?
I keep wondering why do tyrants feel they need to control the personal lives of their subjects. Control the economy, control politics to the extent of not allowing others to rise to power, absolutely, needed to get any major long-term project done anyway, but the society otherwise? That serves the ego and, far more so, the insecurity and paranoia of said tyrants, and may well bring their downfall, when actually using that control to give people more individual freedoms in all other aspects of their lives would make them much more content and unlikely to rebel. In terms of threat, keeping close watch on the handful making up the ruler's innermost circle would tend to be the relevant aspect, not the rest of society...
Always saw Marx as an economic theorist, personally, not relevant to other aspects. Though I guess this comes from the fact that I see the whole concept of the Left as an economic issue, with other terms applying to other axes. But, back to Marx, remember an article once saying that his writings remain as relevant today as they were when they were written in spelling out what's wrong with the world's economic system, and as useless in providing good ways to fix it. Describes my take on the classical Left, and why for a lack of a better term I call myself a futuristic leftist.

Oh, while we're at scales, what about the 3D NationStates one?

- And, indeed, that is why i have a problem with annarchists. However, scales are meant to go to the extremes, no matter how unrealistic that may be. To guarantee ultimate personal freedom, there cannot be government. Even the one you describe would include at least some restrictions on what freesome are, where they begin, and where they end. That's supposedly the goal of the US government, for example. I noticed they actually don't. The manifestations never actually seem to exist. It's like the dog that chases a car, but doesn't know what to do when the car stops. Just in the same way that economic freedom and social freedom cannot co-exist at 100%, the same is the case for economic freedom at 100% and social freedom at 0% (one would think this would be more readily obvious, though). "Sure, I can start my dildo business, but actually having a dildo is illegal, so I have to run the business and make a product without having the freedom of successfully producing a product at any moment)." To be honest, i think Biden is to the right of Trump, but that's a whole other kettle of fish. The bigger picture, i think, is that our "information silos" have skewed our perceptions of the overton window quite a bit. In contrast to your assement, i find it strange that "communism" and "socialism" have both been publicly promoted policies by individuals all the sudden, indicating we've most certainly shifted UP and to the LEFT, whereas an annarcho-capitalist like Stefan Molyneux isn't permitted a voice by the powers that be, where as we have a Sanders staffers here saying some fairly odd things (at about 4:10, a sanders staffer implies the window has shifted to the left). I think we can both agree, though, that the conversations has shifted up quite a bit. Precisely. Government tends to be tone deaf like the video game publishers. Here's the annarchist problem all over again. I've had the same issue with ann-caps: sure, segregate, establish a body to protect one community from the other, and now you have, although mcuh smaller than we have now, a government. How long until it grows large? By this point, you've already destroyed your absolute position. If you fail to set up a government, how are you going to prevent communities from forming that have absolutely no interest in your social freedom that want to organize and take over the other communities? I mean, sure, in reality that wouldn't be something that happens in 5 minutes, but give it a year or two at most. I don't know where this quote came from, and while it's not absolutely accurate, it's certainly a step in the right direction towards understanding: "Everything in life is about sex, except sex, which is about power." The issue is, human beings like to rule others given the opportunity. And who is most anxious to get into that position of power than someone who has the hubris to believe they both can and should? The french would like to have a word with you. Though, I would agree most other times. Yaeh, i'd like to see some better ideas from the left than what i've been seeing. I think people need to get as far away from Marx as possible. Criticizing a system doesn't take nearly as much thought as making one that works. That's why i like Dr. Peterson's take on things. I couldn't get the test on the other site to work. Wouldn't let me move the sliders on my browser (not sure why). The other tests on the site worked (hey, apparently i'm asexual!). As for that scale, i think it could use a bit more thought, too. The trolly names aside, the conclusions don't imply much extreams on the extremes. I think we would do far better to improve questions for the 2d first. Though, to be clear, i think only one particular scale is ultimately the most important: authoritarian vs freedom. No matter the axes, an excessive amount of authoritarianism means you're a serf, but too little means you're scrambling in an all-out free-for-all while waiting for someone else to come in and change the game. Perhaps a better outlook would be to ask ourselves, too, how much these scales overlap: for is not political freedom and personal freedom very much tied to one another, and is not economic the same?

The world is not really at odds with you. Think about the world not in terms of black and white but holistically, Yin-Yang Dualism style. Find harmony.

No but i do whatever i like so long nobody ever stands in my way of my freedom

if you do you will be **** up, down, left, right, above, and beyond
for i will have no boundary's and will show you fury from hell or heaven.

but yea mostly i just a normal dude walking my life on this earth.

Ah, I'd say this is where much of the issue comes from. You believe that, but I highly doubt that those who make those scales see it that way. The far side of plenty of scales are actually the limits of what their creators consider reasonable, while some more thorough ones go to the realistically attainable extremes, this latter scenario applying to The Political Compass too I'd say. It may not necessarily for every combination of extremes to be realistically achievable, but each of them individually would need to be. What's the point of such a scale going to some theoretical extremes that don't have any applicability, never did and never will?
100% freedom is impossible except for a single individual. Once you have more, one exercising 100% freedom will sooner or later infringe upon the freedom of others. And 0% is also impossible except by going even further than your original post and having complete and permanent mind control of everyone. So a scale would never go to those extremes, but aim to look for a person's position between some attainable, albeit with great difficulty, minimal and maximal values of freedom in a society.
Shifted compared to what? Free societies, and economies, are quite a rarity in the history of humanity. The US is quite an exception, and there there is indeed a shift up, but I definitely see it as the right's fault there, with the "progressives" only now "catching up" from the other side as well and making it a hammer and andvil situation for anyone looking for actual social freedoms... And over in this part of the world, there's little place for the left sadly.
I do wonder why do you necessarily associate socialism with a shift up though. The socialists I know seem really hung up on that basic tenet of the workers owning the means of production, proving that point I was making about the right-left axis being just economic. I'm against them because that view makes jobs and human labor even more central to existence when I aim for them to be eliminated, but when it comes to the social freedom aspects, those who willingly apply that term to themselves and state their positions seem to be rather ambivalent, or at least adopt a "that may also be important, but we'll deal with it when we sort this even more important aspect out and not before" attitude.
That'd just take us right back to the single right-left axis, which is clearly flawed. And you were also agreeing that high economic freedom goes counter to high social freedom. But when the other three combinations are plausible, you can't even have the two of them on a single axis.

'Cause there are people that believe in those extremes, no matter how unrealistic. The analogy i've heard so much lately is "the dog chasing a car, but having no idea what to do if the car stops." Is not the scale to measure people, rather than what is or is not the case in the real world? What do you do about individuals who believe in a stateless society, unironically? These people certainly exist; i've met a few of them. Yes, but I come from the US, and I also remember a much, much freer internet in the mid-2000s. While i'm curious how you'd solve the need for human labor (which must be solved before taking it off the table even enters the discussion), the association is made because of the mid-1900s. The main powers were the ones that ultimately became the terms for what the average person speeks in. and this certainly came from the followers of Marx. There was no right at this time, even our presidents were working with Stalin, as documents have revealed in Japan. Moreover, and i know this is only the context of the US (as i'm unaware what was going on elsewhere at the time), but it's been largely the up-left types we've been dealing with since 1965 during the "sexual revolution" started by the Frankfurt School. The "critical theory" stuff has been coming from them ever since, which has been the defacto standard for corporations as of late. That's not to say that the right is entirely innocent, but whom else is actually under an identifiable banner? Well, firstly, regardless of combinations the extremes are highly improbable. Moreover, the less government has its hands in any axis, the more naturally humanity will grow. The top issue on peoples' minds right now is "Will I go to jail for having an opinion?" or "Will my family or I come to physical harm for my opinion?" or "Will i loose my job for having an opinion?" and such. While i would ask whether or not you're ultimately on the right of the economic side (given that once humanity no longer has a need for human labor, which appears to be your goal, it would frankly become optional to participate in the market, which would be freedom, not authority), I thin kwe can agree that the extreme social authoritarianism is the only thing that's going to matter for a long time.