Left Wing or Right Wing? Take Pop Quiz in OP!

[Keef]

Me a communist? Daaaaaaaamn! Something must've went wrong, terribly wrong...

No, you're not a communist. You're a socialist. Socialism is an economic philosophy wherein the government controls the economy, simply put. Communism is a broad political philosophy wherein the government controls everything and everybody, including a socialist economic policy.

Your graph is far left which leans socialist, while also slightly below mid way which means you prefer personal freedom over communist-like governmental control over your life.

 

[dr_slump]

No, you're not a communist. You're a socialist. Socialism is an economic philosophy wherein the government controls the economy, simply put. Communism is a broad political philosophy wherein the government controls everything and everybody, including a socialist economic policy.

Your graph is far left which leans socialist, while also slightly below mid way which means you prefer personal freedom over communist-like governmental control over your life.

Actually I'm mostly for a free market, but the quiz didn't really support my standpoint. Many of the questions seemed to tend towards companies vs consumer (rights), often with quite extreme outcomes.

As if it's not possible be socialist who's for a relatively free market, but just doesn't want to let companies take advantage of the individual...
Not total control over the market, just defining certain limits.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Many of the questions seemed to tend towards companies vs consumer (rights)

That's one of way of looking at it.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I'm no political junkie outside of a couple classes in college, but this is exactly where I thought I'd end up. Great test BTW:

Jerome

 

[homeforsummer]

Here's mine:

While I couldn't find the one I did last time on GTP, I found it on my photobucket, and it's near-identical:

So I've apparently become about 2.5 percent more left-wing since last time

 

[Tornado]

You godless Commie.

 

[Jump_Ace]

Jerome

 

[XS]

Sort of expected this. I think I stood at the voting machine for ages this past October due to my undecided nature. People don't believe me when I say I'm on the fence, but now I have a visual aid lol.

 

[Strittan]

Pretty much where I thought I'd be. Good test, but some questions were confusing.

 

[Man of Mister]

That's me in a political nutshell.

 

[Keef]

Here's mine:

While I couldn't find the one I did last time on GTP, I found it on my photobucket, and it's near-identical:

So I've apparently become about 2.5 percent more left-wing since last time

You spent too much time in California!

 

[LeMansAid]

Of course... I'd rather be this:

Because what matters most is being able to call yourself a partially right wing libertarian? I don't get it, your views are your views. What does it matter what moniker you have?

 

[niky]

I'd rather be fully Libertarian than not. Of course, I don't have enough faith in humanity to go full Lib.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'd rather be fully Libertarian than not. Of course, I don't have enough faith in humanity to go full Lib.

As flaky as the test is, it does throw up a point of interest for me: the reaction a person has when they get their result. Disappointment or satisfaction are both questionable reactions in my book. Is it unfair to think a person with either reaction has a preoccupation with their "branding"?

For me, where I plotted was nothing more than a fun curio, and I didn't hope to sit anywhere in particular on the graph.

 

[BobK]

My reaction is disappointment that people are taking the results of such a bogus test seriously at all.

When I first took it, I realized long before I got to the end that its "results" wouldn't be even close to my actual position.

 

[Famine]

That's odd because it's quite close to the actual positions of many people who've taken it.

In fact I'm not wholly sure how it can turn out any other way. The more you promote the interests of the community over the interests of the individual, the further up and left you will be - accordingly promoting collectivist ideals over individual rights - and the more questions you agree with (and the more strongly) that suggest individual activities ought to be curtailed for the greater good, the more you should be over in the green and red areas.

 

[BobK]

Simply because of instances where, if the question had asked "almost always" instead of "always", I'd have strongly agreed rather than strongly disagreed. You can also substitute "never" for "always" and/or "disagreed" for "agreed" in that statement.

I suspect that a lot of people mentally substituted "almost never" for "never" (etc) before answering.

 

[Keef]

If they did that then they didn't answer the question. I was aware of a few snags like that throughout the quiz but they're there for a reason, to get you to really consider your opinion. I still answered those questions despite the fact that I didn't want to, or it was bogus.

I've gotten about the same result three times on this quiz over the last couple years.

As flaky as the test is, it does throw up a point of interest for me: the reaction a person has when they get their result. Disappointment or satisfaction are both questionable reactions in my book. Is it unfair to think a person with either reaction has a preoccupation with their "branding"?

For me, where I plotted was nothing more than a fun curio, and I didn't hope to sit anywhere in particular on the graph.

I think a certain ideal political position is a point of pride for many people. Just like some sort of career, or a famous person, they see something they like and want to emulate that. Whether they do or not is a different story. Sometimes people who aren't really involved in a particular field - in this case politics - have an ideal of the way things should work. You'll see a lot of left-leaning young Americans spouting off about fairness this, and acceptance that, and free this, and save the whales, but they don't actually have any idea what they're talking about. They want to do all those things but they've never actually tried to tackle those issues in their mind and see how they all relate to each other. Those are the same people who will take this quiz thinking they'll be a libertarian Messiah but turn out to be a commie socialist. There have been a couple examples of this posted in this thread. Very few people take pride in being a commie socialist but many people don't realize that's exactly what they are.

Then you've got the people who are so apathetic toward the world around them that they don't care where they stand...

 

[Famine]

Simply because of instances where, if the question had asked "almost always" instead of "always", I'd have strongly agreed rather than strongly disagreed. You can also substitute "never" for "always" and/or "disagreed" for "agreed" in that statement.

I suspect that a lot of people mentally substituted "almost never" for "never" (etc) before answering.

This:

If they did that then they didn't answer the question. I was aware of a few snags like that throughout the quiz but they're there for a reason, to get you to really consider your opinion. I still answered those questions despite the fact that I didn't want to, or it was bogus.

I've gotten about the same result three times on this quiz over the last couple years.

If you answer that you agree you'd prefer governmental control over some financial or social practice, you'll end up above or left of centre for that question. If you answer that you strongly agree, you'll end up more above or left of centre for that question. Either result reflects your statist preference. Conversely if you answer that you agree you'd prefer more freedom in some financial or social practice, you'll end up below or right of centre for that question and moreso if you strongly agree.

You'll end up with a picture that reflects those preferences and the more strongly you answer the further to the margins the picture will appear to be.

 

[BobK]

It's not that so much as using always/never instead of almost always/almost never caused me to disagree with statements I would otherwise have agreed with. Let's look at the question I'd cited earlier:

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.

Now, if the question had said "almost never" then I would have agreed. But never? Not even infant children of immigrants? Or immigrants from say France to Belgium or vice versa? Yes, they can and usually are fully integrated within their new country. So even though I agreed with the general sentiment of the question I had to strongly disagree with saying "never".

It's not about changing an "agree" to a "strongly agree". It's about the phraseology changing an "agree" into a "disagree".

 

[Famine]

Your response to the above question says that, though you agree in part with it you disagree with it as a whole statement and "disagree" is the appropriate answer - you think that sometimes, first generation immigrants can become fully integrated within their new country.

 

[niky]

As flaky as the test is, it does throw up a point of interest for me: the reaction a person has when they get their result. Disappointment or satisfaction are both questionable reactions in my book. Is it unfair to think a person with either reaction has a preoccupation with their "branding"?

For me, where I plotted was nothing more than a fun curio, and I didn't hope to sit anywhere in particular on the graph.

Of course some people will be preoccupied with their branding.

For me, it's not the branding per se, but what I believe my actual political position is, practicality-wise. I know that I'm more centrist than some of the others here in terms of how I view the economy, and I know that I'm more for personal freedom than government control. The chart puts me in the area I expect it to put me, that's all.

It does make you think about your position. And whether you actually accept both the good and bad of it.

 

[BobK]

Your response to the above question says that, though you agree in part with it you disagree with it as a whole statement and "disagree" is the appropriate answer - you think that sometimes, first generation immigrants can become fully integrated within their new country.

Yes, precisely.

 

[Keef]

Yes, precisely.

Well then why didn't you answer "disagree"?

 

[BobK]

Because you can only choose one answer, and that for me was "strongly disagree".

 

[LeMansAid]

I think a certain ideal political position is a point of pride for many people...... You'll see a lot of left-leaning young Americans spouting off about fairness this, and acceptance that, and free this, and save the whales, but they don't actually have any idea what they're talking about. They want to do all those things but they've never actually tried to tackle those issues in their mind and see how they all relate to each other.

I'm called left by the right and right by the left, but I'm not in the middle. I sway from one side to the other depending on the issue or topic. That said, I plotted rather left on the graph and it's most likely a fair position.

I completely agree about so many of the lefties. I'm often frustrated with the completely glazed over look I get when I talk about something with a perspective that doesn't fit with the left wing uniform. It's basically "La, la, la" with hands over ears, or a counter attack with no logic.

Then you've got the people who are so apathetic toward the world around them that they don't care where they stand...

I have plenty of apathy towards the world, but that's not why I don't care what my branding is.

What I'm really getting at though is regardless of how much truth we think their is in the test's results, the reaction we have is pure truth. The truth of how we want others to view us, and/or how we want to view ourselves.

In that respect, I find these comments very conspicuous:

Of course... I'd rather be this:

As it should be...

As it should be . . . for you? Or for everyone?

For everyone.

I left out a whole lot of comments that I thought were merely playful, like "oh no, I'm a hippy" type stuff.

I find the idea of debating an issue with someone that keeps one eye on their branding a little perturbing. Might help to explain why some on here have jumped to broad conclusions about my views though.

 

[Seismica]

Whilst I knew my views were left wing, this questionnaire was a load of rubbish. You're either for global companies trampling the rights of ordinary citizens or you are completely anti-business and want the concept of ownership to be abolished. As a result of this bias, most people in this thread have came up as left wing economically, which I don't think is completely the case.

It would be interesting to see if politicians were willing to take this test, I honestly think the results would be very different to the estimations on the website.

EDIT: Heres one I took in April 2010

Quite an interesting change, I didn't expect to move further left, but again I think the loaded questions sorted that out.

 

[Famine]

Companies and businesses are ordinary citizens too. Recognise that the people making the things are people, the people selling the things are people, the people running the companies are people and the people making money off them are people (ever had shares?), put the image of them being faceless and corrupt entities that stop at nothing to make money (some might, most don't), then go back and answer again.

Incidentally, I didn't see a single question that asked if I was in favour of companies trampling citizens' rights, nor asking if the concept of ownership should be abolished. You may be reading too much into the questions.

I think it might actually be worth a thread of its own discussing the questions themselves...


And I reckon most politicians wouldn't finish the test because there's four clear answers they couldn't get away without answering. They largely end up in the blue corner through deed though.

I find the idea of debating an issue with someone that keeps one eye on their branding a little perturbing. Might help to explain why some on here have jumped to broad conclusions about my views though.

Only the purple and red sectors are ideologically consistent - one cannot promote big government and regulations and champion freedom (green sector), nor vice versa (blue sector).

Of those two, the red sector is an ideology that strips individuals of rights and freedoms in favour of the community, while the purple sector recognises that the smallest community is the individual and without individual rights and freedoms there can be no true community.

 

[Seismica]

Companies and businesses are ordinary citizens too. Recognise that the people making the things are people, the people selling the things are people, the people running the companies are people and the people making money off them are people (ever had shares?), put the image of them being faceless and corrupt entities that stop at nothing to make money (some might, most don't), then go back and answer again.

Absolutely, but I feel the questions seem to lean towards the faceless and corrupt entities, as if for profit corporations can't have a positive effect on humanity, or the environment etc.

Incidentally, I didn't see a single question that asked if I was in favour of companies trampling citizens' rights, nor asking if the concept of ownership should be abolished. You may be reading too much into the questions.

Perhaps I am reading too much into them. I think a fair few of the questions listed on page 2 of 6 are worded in such a way to encourage people to go for the left leaning answer. Like this one:

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.

Does anybody, even those on the far right, really believe that companies have no social responsibilities beyond delivering a profit? It's less a question about economics and more about morality and ethics.

Also:

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.

A strongly agree or agree answer here would be left leaning. Do I feel it is sad that water, the most basic of human needs after oxygen, is bottled and sold for profit? Yes. But I believe it is necessary and not necessarily immoral (Unless clearly exploited, like in the plot to Quantum of Solace). I remember a post you made in the past on this very issue, in which you highlighted the costs associated with sourcing and distributing water and why water needs to be commercialised in order to work.

And this would also be an example of where business and humanity go hand in hand. Water is a global business and it serves humanity. To some extent, that means that the question below is contradictory.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Even if I pick the lesser option, it still seems to be either pro-business or anti-business, which will equate to right wing and left wing respectively.

I think maybe it reflects the flawed nature of how the test itself rather than the wording of the questions. Economic issues are far more complex than left or right.

 

[Famine]

Does anybody, even those on the far right, really believe that companies have no social responsibilities beyond delivering a profit? It's less a question about economics and more about morality and ethics.

What is a social responsibility? I don't even know what that means - is it suggested that by selling things to a society a company has an obligation to also... do things for the society for free? What's wrong with just providing them with the best product they can?

Does that apply just to companies or to individual citizens too? Do I have social responsibilities simply from being born into a society - and if not, why am I exempt but wouldn't be if I made and sold things? Actually, as a self-employed writer, I'm a company too...

I answered "disagree".

A strongly agree or agree answer here would be left leaning. Do I feel it is sad that water, the most basic of human needs after oxygen, is bottled and sold for profit? Yes. But I believe it is necessary and not necessarily immoral (Unless clearly exploited, like in the plot to Quantum of Solace). I remember a post you made in the past on this very issue, in which you highlighted the costs associated with sourcing and distributing water and why water needs to be commercialised in order to work.

And, for the same reason, I answered disagree.

And this would also be an example of where business and humanity go hand in hand. Water is a global business and it serves humanity. To some extent, that means that the question below is contradictory:

Even if I pick the lesser option, it still seems to be either pro-business or anti-business, which will equate to right wing and left wing respectively.

And you're quite right - what exactly is it that companies do if not "serve humanity"? The interests of a company is to serve humanity - if they don't make something humanity wants, they don't survive. So their interests and serving humanity are aligned and thus I have to disagree with the question as answering that I agree indicated I think they are separate things.

I think maybe it reflects the flawed nature of how the test itself rather than the wording of the questions. Economic issues are far more complex than left or right.

The wording of the questions can be deliberately vague, to make you examine exactly what you think in each case - and it seems pretty intelligently done.

When boiled down, economic issues are simply left (more state control over production and supply) and right (less state control over production and supply). The more you favour regulation of business and nationalisation of resources, the further left you are and the less you favour it the further right you are. The ultimate limits are no private enterprise (a communist ideology) and the free market (a capitalist ideology). Sure, people can think different things should be regulated, controlled or supplied by the state - mixing up water, gas, electricity, health care, housing - but the ideology is the same. And that's what the test is getting at.