Your Political Ideology

[Jannah]

Jorick said Oh hey, that looks familiar. Here's mine, just retook the test because I couldn't find where I saved the image from last time I took it and got pretty much the same result.

Funny we're in almost the same positions since I'm admittedly a Marxist while you're not, haha.

[Jorick]

Jannah said
Funny we're in almost the same positions since I'm admittedly a Marxist while you're not, haha.

Eh, based just on ideals, I pretty much am a Marxist. The thing is that when the realism buffer kicks in I have to admit that communism is an unworkable model due to human nature, nothing very far left on the scale is likely to work because it's so easily broken by power hungry assholes, so in practice I don't actually go so far left as that quiz would have you believe. I don't claim to be a Marxist because it doesn't bear out in practice, so it'd be extremely misleading. In practice I'm some kind of democratic socialist (I probably should have said something about this in my last post, but I was avoiding labeling myself because reasons), so that's the label that fits best thus that's the one I'd choose if I had to pin myself down to just a label.

[Protagonist]

Here's mine:



Exactly how authoritarian I am changes every time I take the test, but I consistently stay just above the authoritarian line.
I tend to be a right-wing outlier on forums.
I do think a few of the questions are a tad loaded, however. Still, it's probably the best political test made in some time.

[Jannah]

Jorick said
Eh, based just on ideals, I pretty much am a Marxist. The thing is that when the realism buffer kicks in I have to admit that communism is an unworkable model due to human nature, nothing very far left on the scale is likely to work because it's so easily broken by power hungry assholes, so in practice I don't actually go so far left as that quiz would have you believe. I don't claim to be a Marxist because it doesn't bear out in practice, so it'd be extremely misleading. In practice I'm some kind of (I probably should have said something about this in my last post, but I was avoiding labeling myself because reasons), so that's the label that fits best thus that's the one I'd choose if I had to pin myself down to just a label.

I disagree that human nature is the problem, but that's a whole other debate I'm currently too tired to get into.

[Gwazi Magnum]

First off, good quiz overall. But I'd note two flaws.

1. No option to say "No Opinion" or "Unsure"
2. Some questions seem too loaded/carry too many assumptions with them.
2a. These questions also tend not be fully clear all the time on what they're asking.



^This was my first result which I found a bit odd, I excepted to be more Left than that.

So I re-took the Quiz to get another look at the questions, and I think these may be what threw it off.
Also, some where I simply disagreed or agreed I took one step up just cause I would re-look at them and find I wasn't stepping it down cause I saw any kind of leeway or exceptions, but rather I was going "I do agree strongly here, but I agree even stronger in these other questions". But that probably was throwing off the quiz a bit.

Questions I found odd

-"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

I simply went "agree" here, but this was partly cause I wasn't 100% sure what it was trying to say.
I assumed though it meant "People work where they work best, and people get helped where help is needed". So I clicked "strongly agree" the second time.

-Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

This seemed to hold a bit too many assumptions behind your beliefs depending on what you said.
Honestly all I care about in terms of land is everyone has a roof over their head and no one is left on the streets.
And said houses/living conditions should fit a family comfortably and not be cramped. As long as the government makes sure that's covered, I don't really care if it's sold or not.
I voted "agree" the first time cause I assumed the quiz thought clicking disagree meant "everyone should be expected to buy their own house or suffer".

The second time I clicked "disagree" cause ultimately, I don't care for if land is bought or sold as long as that housing situation is covered.

-A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

I looked it up, closest explanation I got was "When two companies merge into one".
So I clicked "agree" the first time cause I know the abuse that can happen when a company has no competition.
Second time I clicked "Strongly Agree" just cause I double looked at how big that abuse can be.

-The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Technically, yes. So I clicked "agree" the first time. But I'm not sure if it's using the literal term of Job (temporary employment) when compared to career (employment for life) or if it was referencing both.
I think Education goes far beyond that as well, to make people more aware of the world, more intelligent etc. But without some way to pay the bills, or exercise their skills for society we wouldn't last very long.
So Jobs are kind of important, but those Jobs should be whatever we want to be, not specific things.

I'm not sure if the quiz is accounting for all this though. It could either mean find jobs as in "Find a way to get paid, get out" or "I dun ned nu educatin to wurk...".
Giving it the intelligent benefit of the doubt that it's the former, I changed my answer to "disagree" the second time.

-Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

This one's not so much odd, if I understand it right.
I took it literally as "what works better for society". The only thing throwing me off in thinking this is a moral rather than a technical question is the fact this was under the Religion section of the quiz.
I just did "Strongly Disagree" both times. Charity is great, and can be a powerful tool. But I find it's better for support to be from a constant, reliable and dependable support system, than it is to be from an organization whose funds are dependent on how generous the public feels like at the time.

Note: Every question in the Religion section I clicked "Strongly Disagree" for.

^And this was my second time.
Left is only very slightly more left... :/

I'm still a bit lost even after that one on where I was seen as right.
But whatever, I'm majority left according the quiz and that's close enough I guess.

[Jorick]

Jannah said
I disagree that human nature is the problem, but that's a whole other debate I'm currently too tired to get into.

Very much a whole other debate, and one not worth bringing up in this thread even if we were both wide awake.

Magic Magnum said

Questions I found odd

-"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.

I simply went "agree" here, but this was partly cause I wasn't 100% sure what it was trying to say.
I assumed though it meant "People work where they work best, and people get helped where help is needed". So I clicked "strongly agree" the second time.

-Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.

This seemed to hold a bit too many assumptions behind your beliefs depending on what you said.
Honestly all I care about in terms of land is everyone has a roof over their head and no one is left on the streets.
And said houses/living conditions should fit a family comfortably and not be cramped. As long as the government makes sure that's covered, I don't really care if it's sold or not.
I voted "agree" the first time cause I assumed the quiz thought clicking disagree meant "everyone should be expected to buy their own house or suffer".

The second time I clicked "disagree" cause ultimately, I don't care for if land is bought or sold as long as that housing situation is covered.

-A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.

I looked it up, closest explanation I got was "When two companies merge into one".
So I clicked "agree" the first time cause I know the abuse that can happen when a company has no competition.
Second time I clicked "Strongly Agree" just cause I double looked at how big that abuse can be.

-The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.

Technically, yes. So I clicked "agree" the first time. But I'm not sure if it's using the literal term of Job (temporary employment) when compared to career (employment for life) or if it was referencing both.
I think Education goes far beyond that as well, to make people more aware of the world, more intelligent etc. But without some way to pay the bills, or exercise their skills for society we wouldn't last very long.
So Jobs are kind of important, but those Jobs should be whatever we want to be, not specific things.

I'm not sure if the quiz is accounting for all this though. It could either mean find jobs as in "Find a way to get paid, get out" or "I dun ned nu educatin to wurk...".
Giving it the intelligent benefit of the doubt that it's the former, I changed my answer to "disagree" the second time.

-Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.

This one's not so much odd, if I understand it right.
I took it literally as "what works better for society". The only thing throwing me off in thinking this is a moral rather than a technical question is the fact this was under the Religion section of the quiz.
I just did "Strongly Disagree" both times. Charity is great, and can be a powerful tool. But I find it's better for support to be from a constant, reliable and dependable support system, than it is to be from an organization whose funds are dependent on how generous the public feels like at the time.

Note: Every question in the Religion section I clicked "Strongly Disagree" for.

I think I can provide some insight on some of these.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fairly well known Marxist saying, though also used in broader socialist and communist contexts. It means that those who can provide assistance to the needy (such as the rich and the able bodied) should do so, and extra resources taken from or created by these people should be given to those who need it (such as the poor and the disabled) rather than remaining in the hands of those who already have enough.

The land as a commodity thing seems to be talking about another communist concept, that land should not be privately owned but rather owned collectively by everyone and for the benefit of everyone. It's definitely one of the murkier questions though, as you could get into some philosophical and economic issues if you wanted to dig deep enough, like is there really any philosophical justification for private ownership of any property or questions of how a zero-sum commodity like land ought to be managed and can it even be done in an equitable way. I would guess that it's just asking about the communist perspective of things though, given the nature of the quiz.

You already seem to understand the free market restrictions question.

I'm not sure of that prime purpose of education question myself, so I'm no help there.

You also seem to get the charity question. I chose to view it on a broader scale, as whether voluntary donation or government mandated assistance was better for those in need of such aid, so I also went with the strong disagreement on that one because charity is so very unreliable.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Jorick said
Very much a whole other debate, and one not worth bringing up in this thread even if we were both wide awake. I think I can provide some insight on some of these."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fairly well known Marxist saying, though also used in broader socialist and communist contexts. It means that those who can provide assistance to the needy (such as the rich and the able bodied) should do so, and extra resources taken from or created by these people should be given to those who need it (such as the poor and the disabled) rather than remaining in the hands of those who already have enough.The land as a commodity thing seems to be talking about another communist concept, that land should not be privately owned but rather owned collectively by everyone and for the benefit of everyone. It's definitely one of the murkier questions though, as you could get into some philosophical and economic issues if you wanted to dig deep enough, like is there really any philosophical justification for private ownership of any property or questions of how a zero-sum commodity like land ought to be managed and can it even be done in an equitable way. I would guess that it's just asking about the communist perspective of things though, given the nature of the quiz.You already seem to understand the free market restrictions question.I'm not sure of that prime purpose of education question myself, so I'm no help there.You also seem to get the charity question. I chose to view it on a broader scale, as whether voluntary donation or government mandated assistance was better for those in need of such aid, so I also went with the strong disagreement on that one because charity is so very unreliable.

-Marxism Quote

I see, that's where I stand a bit uneasy on.
I don't think outright taking someone's possessions away and giving to the poor is the right course of actions (Though honestly, those people should be helping out the less fortunate more. Even if not for any moral reason but rather to help make more people productive members of society, essentially creative a better society overall). But I am in support of higher taxes for the rich who can afford it, rather than the poor who usually need every dollar they have just to get by.

But there already was a separate question on taxing the rich, so I assume for this question specifically I'd say "disagree" if I were to do the quiz a third time.

-Land Commodity

It being purely from a communist sense doesn't surprise me.
This just seems like a poor question though cause of how complicated this issue can get.

[Protagonist]

A question I thought was loaded was "if globalisation is inevitable, it should benefit humanity rather than corporations".

[Gwazi Magnum]

Protagonist said
A question I thought was loaded was "if globalisation is inevitable, it should benefit humanity rather than corporations".

It may be loaded, but if it is I'm not seeing it. :/

I just looked at it as a "Who would you rather see benefit? The people or corporations?" sort of question.

[The Nexerus]

Magic Magnum said
It may be loaded, but if it is I'm not seeing it. :/I just looked at it as a "Who would you rather see benefit? The people or corporations?" sort of question.

Nobody would answer 'corporations'.

The reason that people in the right support business is that business is good for the country. Corporations benefiting means that the people are benefiting.

[Protagonist]

Magic Magnum said
It may be loaded, but if it is I'm not seeing it. :/I just looked at it as a "Who would you rather see benefit? The people or corporations?" sort of question.

even the most pro corporate guy is probably motivated by by some ideas that corporations are beneficial to humanity, so...

[Gwazi Magnum]

*Shrugs*

I know at least one person who is basically Pro-Corporation in any sense you can think of, so I think it's possible.
Plus, those people near the top of those Corporations I can see wanting to see them grow even at the expense of society.

However, for the average quiz taker? I can see the point you two are making.

[Jannah]

I didn't see that question as loaded. Then again I'm about as anti-corporation as one can get, but I really need to get offline and sleep as it's 3 AM.

[Brovo]

Yes, some of the questions were loaded, it was likely written by one person who tried to be as neutral as is possible but has their own beliefs which influence how they interpret things.

I think businesses are good overall in the grand scheme of things because they generate products, help inspire the advancement of technology, and help establish order and a paradigm. Order is required to advance peacefully and have some sense of place and purpose without having to fight for it. I also think the power of business should be curbed, there should be overall rules and codes of conduct that governments enforce to prevent the inevitable... Because from how I see it a business has one purpose: Shareholder value. Everything beyond this is secondary, and expecting a corporation to give more than that is just a fantasy, because if the shareholders are unhappy, the company is about to be in a world of hurt.

Businesses also do what a government simply cannot: Provide freedom of choice to people in where they wish to work and how they wish to go about it. In a Marxist society I would be assigned a role based on my aptitudes, logical, but cold. In a free market I have the choice to be whoever or whatever I wish to be, even if I'm not particularly skilled at it I may enjoy it more than whatever preassigned destiny the Marxist society would give me.

As well, since I have a strong belief in individual rights and freedoms, to say that businesses should be punished simply for the sake of being businesses is punishing everyone who works within those businesses and everyone who wants to start a business. A guy who wants to start a coffee shop may genuinely just enjoy making coffee and interacting with customers: There's no reason to punish him for doing that because some bigger corporations were pants on head retarded in how they operated themselves.

I think we should start moving into a more socialist state as technology makes it not only possible, but simply logical. When automation is fully ready to take over for the majority of the work force, allow it, and do something to make sure that work force has decent lives. Cut out welfare and simply write everyone a cheque who makes less than X amount per year, charging taxes on the corporations that are no longer paying workers but instead are using automation to get things done. People who want to be rich and who work hard for it can still be rich, small coffee shop owners can evade the punishment by simply not making enough to be worth taxing, and people who want to pursue arts or higher education so they can get a job, and other such things, can do so with the safety of knowing that they'll be covered. *Shrugs*

Because once the majority of the work force no longer needs to work, we'll be for the first time in a position where only those who wish to work, will work, and those who do, will generate more currency than those who don't, and have a greater say over the free market about what gets produced.

We'll for the first time have a truly democratic representation of the economy that doesn't punish the rich for being rich or the poor for being poor.

... Till that happens though, I'm all for a free market with corporations, so long as the government holds them accountable when they do fuck up and do stupid shit. Otherwise? Let them do their thing. Ever since capitalism and industrialism the amount of shit we make has spiked to an insane degree. I can go out and buy food whenever I want. All kinds of food. I can buy a fucking feast for less than sixty bucks if I want to. TV's, movies, video games, entertainment galore, bars, cars--it's absolutely mind numbing the amount of shit I can buy and most of it is kept at a low enough price that I can afford it. Why the hell would I want to tell the system that made it possible to fuck off? Sure it's not perfect, it needs a few tweaks, and I think once technology has advanced to the point that automation can take over for the majority of it that we could shift gears into socialism while keeping some free market ideals and do just fine... But for now? I'm okay with the system, so long as checks and balances are in place to leave everyone on an equal playing field.

[Gwazi Magnum]

My main issues with today's system is honestly just the lack of support/aid we give people that got some bad luck. Remember the saying "Only as strong as the weakest link?", that's largely how I look at and evaluate a government's system and effectiveness. Make sure no one is being forced to kick the curb, and those higher up don't get crazy enough that they take everything over and I'm basically good.

There would be other issues I have other that, but they'd be more minor ones that don't relate as much to the big picture.

[TheEvanCat]

Changed my mind. I'm a warlord now. Welfare is replaced with free AK47s and .50 caliber machine guns on the back of Toyota Hilux trucks.

[Brovo]

TheEvanCat said
Changed my mind. I'm a warlord now. Welfare is replaced with free AK47s and .50 caliber machine guns on the back of Toyota Hilux trucks.

I support my new communist kitty overlord for a free AK47 and .50 calibre machine gun on the back of a Toyota Hilux.

Do they come in Ferret size?

[Gwazi Magnum]

TheEvanCat said
Changed my mind. I'm a warlord now. Welfare is replaced with free AK47s and .50 caliber machine guns on the back of Toyota Hilux trucks.

Can mine come in TARDIS size?

[Ruby]

I'm left leaning. If only because Capitalism has no soul.

I'm right leaning. If only so I can keep my guns and get a smaller government.

[mdk]

Magic Magnum said
Can mine come in TARDIS size?

Can mine come in..... I don't know, a bible-shaped pill bottle?