Senate What kind of dirty leftie are you?

I think I'm the one here with the highest percentage in production.

 

I got five questions into it before I realized how tired I am of these exhibitionist quizzes.

I'm a Mormon Zionist, that's what I am.

 

Then this test just... isn't for you.

 

The early Zionists were mostly socialists, weren't they?

 

Democratic Socialist. I think it said my next closest was Centrist Marxist.

 

Market Anarchism. No surprises there.

 

Some very good company indeed.

Next closest were eco-anarchism at 94% and anarcho-communism at 88%

 

Wow. I tried, but far too many assumptions.

 

Thank you for answering. I'd like to suggest that in the case for president, you actually don't have to either. If every democrat voted green, the green party would defeat the Republican party.

It's a choice you can make.

 

It's a quiz for people who already identify as socialists. If you're not a leftist of some manner, then it's not for you.

 

Well sure, if you can convince the entirety of Democratic voters to shift their allegiance to the Green Party, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon. But if you could do that, you can probably convince them to nominate Bernie Sanders.

 

This thing said I’m a Libertarian. What test did I just take?!

Okay, really I got Centrist Marxist. Presumably because I do not in any way pretend to understand either economic or political theory at the level this test assumes. I just don’t think that Bezos and Gates are several billion times more worthy of being alive than that dude at the bus shelter with all his stuff in trash bags, you know?

Anyway, I voted Democratic Socialist, which was my second one, because at least I have a friggin’ clue what that is.

 

And since libs can't convince the leftists to vote for Biden, it seems there's an impasse.....

Libertarian in the context of leftism is different from Libertarian tax is theft no age of consent Party.

 

Was kidding. I was just remembering the first political compass test that got widely popular, where it was sponsored by some Libertarian group and told everyone they’d secretly been Libertarians all along. It was funny to compare the results of people who agreed on nothing and discover they were both somehow ...LIBERTARIAN!!

 

I was going to say, with our climate situation, how can anyone not be an Eco-Terrorism Marxist like me?

 

Real Talk? The way some of the environmental questions were worded forced me to say no to them. Questions like "We have to accept some suffering in order to preserve/save the environment." The core foundation of my leftism is humanism. It's putting people first. And so with that in mind, I find some forms of eco-Marxism unacceptable. The reason to save the planet is not because the planet deserves saving or preserve the beauty of nature or mother gaia or whatever. The reason to save the planet is because humanity needs a place to live. The reason to save the trees and preserve biodiversity is because it's beneficial to people. And so I simply cannot subscribe to ideologies, even within leftism, which treat people as disposable or less deserving of our attention than nature. People come first, and they always will, in my politics.

 

shared among them, I aint attached to the komintern. Beyond that, at least they did important things beyond that. the socdems didnt just do a stupid slogan and be aloof. Shared responsibility it one thing, but it is a WHOLE other when one side literally gets active revolutionaries murdered in order to END a revolution. You get my point right? Getting Rosa killed during the revolution is a whole different beast than just shared incompetence as Hitler rose to power. Dumb slogans don't hire fascists to put a bullet in the back of the head of active revolutionaries so you can personally hang on to power. That is much much much worse

I will never understand how the big third parties are not instantly added to the ballot everywhere. It is such a stupid system, and gate keeps exactly so that there is no viable third party

I say this as someone who probably wont even vote green

Zombie Liebknecht elevator pitches everybody!

 

I see how you interpreted it.

I went strongly agree on that one. My core is humanism too, but sometimes people have to suffer. Another way I thought of it was this: we have to suffer a bit to preserve the environment, because if we don't, we'll suffer even more when our environment goes to ****. We do have to accept some suffering. I saw disagreeing as like the J-Rod types who roll coal because their freedom always trumps the environment, no matter how petty their desire, no matter how petty their suffering would be if denied, and no matter how much damage to the environment their freedom does and how much other people suffer as a result. I think my response automatically calculated what happens when a society adopts this attitude on a large scale: you get the US and our disproportionate environmental impact, which leads to greater suffering in the long run.

lol also yeah I don't care about the beauty of nature, either. My concerns are practical. Clean air and water. Something to eat. A planet that isn't too ****ing hot. Stuff like that.

But this is how these quizzes can trip me up a bit. Sometimes I let the phrasing affect my responses in ways they weren't intended to. Sometimes I let rare exceptions to the phrasing affect my responses even though those exceptions weren't intended to be considered.

 

Our survival depends on the preservation and sometimes restoration of a large part of the natural world. I don't particularly care about the "beauty of nature" either-- whatever that's supposed to mean-- but I do care about other species also having a right to exist and be free from as much human interference as possible. While of course I don't think people should need to "suffer" (giving up luxuries like SUVs is not suffering) I think the anthropocentric approach-- and usually for the benefit of capital-- that our development has taken is inherently self-destructive.

 

I do think how you answer that question depends on how much work the word suffering is doing in your opinion. I interpreted it (when used in tandem with quality of life) more on the side of giving up luxuries such as laundry machines or personal vehicles, which is giving more weight to the "quality of life" part of the question. Obviously I don't want people to suffer, and want everyone to have their needs met, but there's only so much strain that can be placed on our ecosystem before it will begin to collapse, and in that way a little suffering is more favorable to immense suffering in the form of not only human extinction, but much more life on the planet as well.

 

Bernie is Demsoc not socdem, I don't even hate socdems generally, more just like mocking them cause the one thing they did of significance was murder revolutionaries in one of the most significant revolutions ever (or rather significant in what its failure sealed).

Leninism and frankly most forms of leftism did a hell of a lot more substantially than socdems. The big defining thing they contributed to the left's cause and even to their own, was directly paving the way for the Wiemar government and the rise of Hitler. They butchered revolutionaries, I find that way worse than killing some royalty or landlords, or Kulaks.

As for Lincoln, I was not comparing them and I have no clue how you twisted yourself into that impression. My point was that you can agree with someone and be allowed to critique things in other philosophies that the person whose ideology you share did to varying degrees. Lenin and Lincoln is a dumb comparison cause Lincoln was willing to allow slavery, i wouldn't compare the two favorably.

The point is that you can call out human rights violations and support lincoln and not be a hypocrite. The lib idea of "ooohh I win I found a hypocrisy" is not only bad debating, but also fundamentally means nothing. The approach is different and the reason for why someone supports or opposes a thing is different. It is not hypocritical to oppose murdering revolutionary socialists and to be pro-killing Tsarists. That is only hypocritical if you take the most binary position on morality. I am not a Kantian is my point.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus but you rightly can like him and oppose violations of civil liberties, same as you can oppose the murder of Rosa, and support Lenin. You kinda just assign people's reasoning for a belief based on the most simplistic anti-materialist view of things.

And that honestly goes back to Bernie, your binary view of things and bad faith assumptions of why people take actions is evident in you being incapable of seeing why I support Bernie. Bernie was our one off ramp, he was a means to form a left coalition in a nation with a history of violently putting down leftism and unions. Bernie was a hailmary and a compromise for me. I never pretended he wasn't a compromise candidate.

What have I been saying about Lenin and why I like him this entire time? The idea that the revolution takes different forms depending on material conditions and culture. In the US the best way to practically work towards my goal of a socialist government is through Bernie at THIS political moment. In the same way that full class revolution and destroying the aristocracy was for Russia to achieve that same goal. Or Irish nationalism and Irish Catholicism in order to get a worker driven revolution in Ireland.

You make due with what you have, I oppose socdems cause they inherently think it stops at the point of Wiemar or modern Denmark. I don't find that ok, I don't want that as our end result. They are steps to work towards in terms of planning in this current world, but they are not my ideological goal. For a socialist and not a social democrat, it must go further and class must be abolished. That is one of my biggest concerns. Socdems don't do that, thus I find them to be counter to our goals.

Bernie is useful cause he plays the american system as best as a socialist can, and cause democratic socialism is a stepping stone to actual socialism, or is a form of it in and of itself. The radical redistribution will end class in a few generations ideally. I don't know why you keep addressing me when you utterly miss the premise so often or are unwilling to accept it as what I am approaching things from.

Bernie is a compromise and a Leninist's best means of getting to a dictatorship of the proletariat given our material situation. Socdems took a demsoc (arguably further than demsoc) revolutionary DURING the revolution and murdered her. Bernie comes from a tradition that while reformist, does not murder socialists. He supported violent struggle like the Sandinistas.

That's the difference

Not to mention that industrialization will harm other workers in colonized places. This is why I don't fixate on Marx's belief that industrialization is needed for socialism. I think that is generally a rule of thumb, but that Sankara for instance had the right idea, and that we have seen native populations carry out socialist revolts. Evo did a lot to show it was possible as well.

Our brothers and sisters in the third world will suffer most from ecological disaster so we are not just choosing between human suffering and nature, but rather our most vulnerable populations and factories