Left Values - political quiz for lefties

[Hydra009]

I found this interesting:  https://leftvalues.github.io/quiz.html



I had a lot of mixed feelings when taking this quiz.

While I do consider myself left-of-center and "socialist" in the loosest possible sense of the word (Bernie socialism i.e. capitalism with some safety nets), I'm actually not very leftist in the grant scheme of things and certainly not much of a fan of Marx.

Basically, I support a moderate amount of social programs - the kind of thing that most Western countries do already - not some sort of worldwide socialist revolution (is that even a thing?) or state seizure of all farms and factories or anything like that.  In a lot of countries, I'd imagine my position would be basically centrist and status quo.

On many of the questions, I simply had to mark "unsure" because I have no idea what it was asking me to side with or because both options were pretty horrendous.

I particularly struggled with agreeing with the idea that protests should always be peaceful and then immediately disagreeing with "the ultrarich will voluntarily give up power".  Whoever came up with this quiz definitely got me in a box!  But since a lot of other western countries don't have nearly the same level of economic inequality and presumably didn't chop off heads left and right, there must be some sort of peaceful solution.

I do agree that a lot of problems, particularly in the US, stem from a class divide and we should strive for a more egalitarian society.  Though the means to that ends is a hugely controversial area.  I tend to favor a very gentle approach there.  Though I admit that I have led a rather privileged life.  I'd imagine that people who have personally been victimized by our lovely system might see things very differently.

[drunkenshoe]

 

[GSOgymrat]

I have issues with this quiz because I don't believe the socialism/capitalism dichotomy is the best way to address socioeconomic problems. "Revolution is the best way to achieve a socialist society." ??? Revolution to me sounds like the best way to cause chaos, not order. I don't want want to live in a "socialist society" or a "capitalist society." I want to live in a safe society that  provides the most liberty for the most people by the most efficient and sustainable means. That isn't the goal of capitalism or socialism, which I believe are outdated, restrictive lens for viewing complex systems. We need to be more solution-focused and humane and less ideological.

[Baruch]

That was fun!  Reminds me of naive days in college ;-)

Revolution/Reform (55.9% Reform)
Scientific/Utopian (39.1% Utopian)
Central/Decentral (71.7% Decentral)
International/National (53.6% National)
Party/Union (53.8% Union)
Production/Nature (45.8% Nature)
Conservative/Progressive (45.6% Progressive)

I am a Centrist Marxist ... not a Nazi ;-)

My most naive view back then was ... wilderness preservation, recycling and alternative energy (wind/solar) would be sufficient to run a modern society.  Other people's listings don't surprise ;-)

[drunkenshoe]

Politely put, it's bogus. It's about measuring extreme tendencies -here the normal bar is apolitical- of individuals with symbolic key words -and sometimes two in a sentence to see if the participant associates those concepts/words; i.e. 'dictatorship of proletariat' wtf ?- which already being used as various different things in different groups, regions and cultures. Run with the hare hunt with the hounds kind of game play with emptied, worn out concepts that belong to the time of their invention.  It's bullshit.

What the fuck is Eco-Marxism? (Apparently some economist wrote a paper on it in the 80s.) If you doubt capitalist system(s) have nothing to do with the environmental disaster we live in, you are either a Darwin award kind of moron or simply have an agenda. And if you do think that system has to be upgraded, fixed; changed right and left to preserve the planet, you are a Marxist? Because criticising the lethal power of giant-state size corporates automatically makes you the boogeyman. And suddenly it is an ideology because that's another word for 'on drugs' or 'evil'. 

I'm going to reddit to start a conspiracy theory on Chinese Vaccine designed to make people 'full blown communists' to destroy the Western world./sarc 

[Baruch]

Politely put, it's bogus. It's about measuring extreme tendencies -here the normal bar is apolitical- of individuals with symbolic key words -and sometimes two in a sentence to see if the participant associates those concepts/words; i.e. 'dictatorship of proletariat' wtf ?- which already being used as various different things in different groups, regions and cultures. Run with the hare hunt with the hounds kind of game play with emptied, worn out concepts that belong to the time of their invention.  It's bullshit.

What the fuck is Eco-Marxism? (Apparently some economist wrote a paper on it in the 80s.) If you doubt capitalist system(s) have nothing to do with the environmental disaster we live in, you are either a Darwin award kind of moron or simply have an agenda. And if you do think that system has to be upgraded, fixed; changed right and left to preserve the planet, you are a Marxist? Because criticising the lethal power of giant-state size corporates automatically makes you the boogeyman. And suddenly it is an ideology because that's another word for 'on drugs' or 'evil'. 

I'm going to reddit to start a conspiracy theory on Chinese Vaccine designed to make people 'full blown communists' to destroy the Western world./sarc

Not a conspiracy theory.  China is communist, and is an enemy of all other humans.

[SGOS]

To be honest, I did not understand many of the questions.  How do you agree or disagree with what you don't understand?  Also, the survey used a lot of trigger words in conjunction with ideas that were ambiguous. I felt like my emotions were being tested rather than my understanding.

[Cassia]

I have issues with this quiz because I don't believe the socialism/capitalism dichotomy is the best way to address socioeconomic problems. "Revolution is the best way to achieve a socialist society." ??? Revolution to me sounds like the best way to cause chaos, not order. I don't want want to live in a "socialist society" or a "capitalist society." I want to live in a safe society that  provides the most liberty for the most people by the most efficient and sustainable means. That isn't the goal of capitalism or socialism, which I believe are outdated, restrictive lens for viewing complex systems. We need to be more solution-focused and humane and less ideological.

Exactly. I don't see most of those as dichotomies. In fact, I am often puzzled by the stances of the two parties.

[SGOS]

Exactly. I don't see most of those as dichotomies. In fact, I am often puzzled by the stances of the two parties.

The opposite of capitalism is not socialism, but people have been conditioned to believe that by the cold war propaganda. The two can be very compatible, unless you are brainwashed by ideology.  Then they look like opposites.

[Mike Cl]

I come up as a social democrat.  I can live with that. 

But the quiz irritated me.  Semantics.  What does the quiz (or anybody, for that matter) mean by socialism, democracy, and other key words?  I get a strong feeling what I think the words mean, and the maker of the quiz, are different.  I think the label of 'fair' to all is more meaningful--at least to me.  Should a person who has a vision and them builds a company to make the vision real make a profit?  Sure.  But does that mean they and the other members of the leadership make 900 times what a worker does?  No.  There should be a fair way to divide the profits.  Is it fair that less than one percent owns 90% of the wealth?  No.  So, social democrat I can live with.

[Mike Cl]

And of course there is the problem of what does one mean by the political term 'left'--or 'right'.  Or liberal or conservative?  And I also firmly think that there is not a single 'pure' system (democratic, republic, socialist, communist, capitalist) that has existed or can exist.  Even in a pure capitalist system, socialistic programs are needed--a company cannot sell it's wares without a solid transportation system--and that requires roads, bridges, streets, rail lines, etc, all of which is socialistic in that it serves us all with no (or little cost) to the companies.  The best society would include all those systems to work at optimum level.   

[Baruch]

To be honest, I did not understand many of the questions.  How do you agree or disagree with what you don't understand?  Also, the survey used a lot of trigger words in conjunction with ideas that were ambiguous. I felt like my emotions were being tested rather than my understanding.

Yes, a proper survey would require reading all of Das Kapital ;-(  Also Millennial Marxists are probably as light-weight as Millennial MAGA.

[Baruch]

And of course there is the problem of what does one mean by the political term 'left'--or 'right'.  Or liberal or conservative?  And I also firmly think that there is not a single 'pure' system (democratic, republic, socialist, communist, capitalist) that has existed or can exist.  Even in a pure capitalist system, socialistic programs are needed--a company cannot sell it's wares without a solid transportation system--and that requires roads, bridges, streets, rail lines, etc, all of which is socialistic in that it serves us all with no (or little cost) to the companies.  The best society would include all those systems to work at optimum level.   

Left/Right refers to the party in power (Right side of Parliament) vs loyal opposition (Left side of Parliament).  MPs face each other by In or Out of authority. Handedness as seen from the Speaker's Chair.  Doesn't work for Americans who distribute reps in a deep semi-circle all facing the Speaker/VP.

The real division, not reflecting seating arrangements is ... preserve status quo, modify status quo.  In both positions money is paramount.  And in the financial markets you can make as much money destroying your country as you can building it up.

[drunkenshoe]

To be honest, I did not understand many of the questions.  How do you agree or disagree with what you don't understand?  Also, the survey used a lot of trigger words in conjunction with ideas that were ambiguous. I felt like my emotions were being tested rather than my understanding.

It's exactly about triggering and in measuring that. I don't think we are required to understand according to the design. If you click 'strongly agree' and/or 'strongly disgaree' more than a couple of times, you would highly likley end up in some 'radical' category. When I said 'measuring extreme tendencies' that was what I meant.

Forget the political bullshit, esp. the statements related to violence. There were two I guess? One I remember was about violence used by oppressed people and the other was violence used against human impact on the environment. So they're basicly asking, are you likely to protest and riot if you think you are oppressed? Do you think it is justified killing/harming people to save the planet? The way I eee it, it is about directly asking how violent you are likely to get for some issue. Whose issue, what kind of issue, under what kind of circumstances?

The problem about this kind of approach esp. obviously when it is concerned with oppression; real life issue protests and riots, it doesn't work that way. Gathering at some place, singing songs and chanting with banners is not protest, it is luxury. And countries learn that in a very painful way. We did in 2013 which by the way started because of a demolition of a park. The US has as learned. France is used to it but what often takes place in 'ghettos' there has turned into something different with Yellow Vests. And they stopped Macron's plan, force him to revise it...etc. intimidated him. Racial justice, taxes or fuel price. This is not a football game with scores.

Anyway, so there is this reality on what works or doesn't in this context and if you say it out loud or click 'strongly agree' or 'strongly disgaree' you are a 'radical'. The thing is, this is not something you just 'agree' or 'myeh...don't agree' when it happens and you are the one in it.

But it is manipulative of course. Manipulative in the norms of traditonal classes bullshit. Exactly like the thing that leaders like Trump, Putin, the one here has been playing at. Fuck politicians in the ass with a barbwire. The people at the other side is important and that's a whole other universe.

[Baruch]

Pretty much anyone who will resort to violence to get what they want is a radical to me.  Stalin for example is more radical than Trotsky.