Quiz: who are you in 1917 Russia?

Neat quiz. Not terribly surprised with the result mind you, but refreshing.

To be fair, being able to understand our ideologies through the frame of historical circumstance can prove to be an exercise of some value when it comes to understanding our own analysis on such events. If nothing else, this was mildly entertaining for what it is.

Who /Deng/ here?

...

...

Irl I am a Asserist in 1917 Russia I am apparently a Bolshevik.

I meant Asserist

I just realized it auto corrects to asserist. Fuck you leftypol

...

mfw

I'm more anarchist than the anarchists fam

Fucking rightist man I'm shame on you

B-brother?

Fucking wonderful.
I love the word filter.

How can you call yourself a wobbly fucking worst wobbly fucking social democrat piece of shit I fucking hate you and spit on bitch mothers grave big bill would cry fuck you right wing fucktard go suck bernie sanders dick while jezza corbyn watches fuck you

Brother may I have some autism?

Further left than Lenin.

That's not saying much.

Hitler

I'm really high rite now brother. I forgot we have flags here.

I don't call myself a wobbly.

I'm between ideologies, currently leaning more towards an international military republic similar to the Heinlein model.

I use the Wobbly user flag because I have always had a great deal of respect for the IWW and because there is not currently a Stratoctatic user flag.

There is no need to glorious uprising over it.

Left SR

This represents me fairly well.

I guess I'm more like Stalin than Lenin. Or maybe I'm just more honest.

for shame

Oh shit. I'm a tankie.

welcome to the club

Tankie refers specifically to post-Budapest user.

It says I'm a bolshevik, but does this make me an infantile disorder-er?

...

Of course, separated from the historical russian context at the time, this means nothing. This goes for all of you.

Sup

This test is really judgemental about how much you are truly Holla Forums

...

Gross

Do you even know what they were or are you just repeating buzzwords?

I know how many of them ended

Kill yourselves

It me.

boi

It looks like you're to the left of me…

Got Left SR, sounds OK to me

They won the November 1917 election fair and square before the Bolsheviks took power

Cadets weren't that far right though

Oh shit. I just did this 5 minutes ago. Left SR btw.

It's true that I am an anarchist anyway, but this test is bad. For fucks sake, the map puts The Bolsheviks in the Libertarian Left quarter! That does not make a lick of sense.

I presume it looks at their stated goals and programs, not what they actually did after the war was over. It's a 1917 quiz, after all.

I agree, a mutualist should score further to the right than that.

I believe the test represents these factions as they were in 1917. At the time, the bolshevik program was decidedly socialist in nature. It did not at all resemble its later state capitalist praxis.

Okay, now this is a nice change of pace from the usual compasses.

Ah, you guys are correct. It said that in big bold letters so I should have thought about that a bit more.

this is bourgeoisie propaganda I demand reparations

Bolshevik

left sr

I didnt understand the context of some questions so i said neurtal on them

forgot image

Bolchevik niggas suck my dick

No surprise here. Makhno was pretty cool.

i got bottom right where there are no historical correlaries to compare with. So that's pretty neat..

Jesus Christ your autism is palpable

Brother!

Not surprised tbh, fun but ultimately meaningless meme quiz.

What exactly is wrong with Heinlein?
I see very few issues with the model of a military republic that he presented.

This is surprisingly not autistic by political compass standards.

It's still pretty crummy with a bias towards Bolsheviks. It literally says that Bolsheviks opposed using the death penalty as a wartime emergency. (Ironically enough, I have nothing against using the death penalty, but portraying the Bolsheviks as being more liberal than what they actually are is disingenuous.)

Not really that surprised. I don't consider myself an anarchist (more of a broad non-sectarian leftist), but I've always been more libertarian-leaning. Still a neat quiz nonetheless.

except there is no alien bugs threat which fuels constant war and justifies military republic
in peacetime majority of military becomes useless except for R&D
if you were drafted to serve in the peacetime you'd know what I mean

Bolshevik for me

...

:DDD

Or maybe just retarded. "Maybe".

...

...

Actually Lars Lih, someone who knows Russian says

links.org.au/node/2905

Left SR

so much about it

As usual with "political quiz" type garbage, so many questions are wrong from the getgo, and it is nearly impossible to answer them.

Bolshevik

I'm just honest about what must be done. I'm not going to institute a totally democratic state with huge civil liberties, let individual workplaces decide what we should spend our precious resources on, or give up all of the Russia's imperial power - that's just asking to get the Revolution killed. Institute surveillance and one-party rule to get rid of the inevitable attempts at subversion and assassination, use central planning to coordinate resources in the most efficient way, and wield the power of the Russian Empire against the enemy. The Bolsheviks eventually realized this, which is why they came around to my position once they actually got their hands on power.

...

Good to see the support for the Left SRs in here

They were the first group to ever democratically win power in Russia. Arguably, given the meddling in the Russian Federation since 1991, they still are

wew

The last thing I would ever want is for the military to run society. Consider their class interests for a moment.

...

kys you fucking mong

what mean?

if you believe the myths, that is

The book is very far removed from the movie.
I recommend that you read the book.
Hell, the first chronological chapter in the book goes into detail about peacetime in the federation.

I at not point indicated confusion over peoples dislike.
I simply asked for issues with the model, none of which have been presented.

Nothing wrong with that.
Does not exist.
Read the damn book.
Not a bad thing at all.
Indeed the book has points out why that is a good thing many times.

I wasn't expecting this

Me neither.

same as mine basically

/leftSR/ nation reporting in

Well, Heinlein's society in Starship Troopers isn't really elitist. Generally, most citizens do participate in service and earn their citizenship. For this reason, it doesn't really limit democracy as well. If anything, it democratizes the military. EVERY citizen is armed, as oppose to an aristocratic elite or a professional army that is controlled by a centralized state.

Additionally, most historical democracies, which were direct democracies, were actually built on every citizen being part of the militia. The general idea being that citizens should participate in all aspects of governing, military included. That and most of those historical republics, especially the democratic/democratic-leaning ones, were highly militaristic. Rome, with its popular assemblies, conscripted every citizen to right in it's wars. The same was true for Athens, with the poorer citizen participating as naval rowers due to the lack of money to buy weapons. Switzerland famously has it's militia system, which lasts to this day. Early America, with it's town meetings and local democracy, had every citizen serve in local militias and elected sheriffs can conscript citizens to the local posse. Hell, even Revolutionary France based itself off the levee en masse.

Most of these republics had their officers, in the militias, be elected by the soldiers themselves, not unlike Russia in 1918. In the sense, military service is not just a duty for anyone who is a citizen but also a LIBERTY for citizens. The liberty to be the military arm of the state.Hell, you can even say that the 2nd amendment is more concerned with this than with the mere individual right to own arms, though I support that as well.

So, my main issue with Heinlein is probably that he didn't go far enough and conscripted all citizens/potential citizens into military service. The officers should also be elected by those soldiers, and general, non-war related policies should be decided by the soldiers directly. Officers should simply be commanders in battle, not rulers over said soldier. Naturally, every soldier must be trained in the art of warfare before being given those powers. Additionally, such a society would lean more towards direct democracy, though oddly enough little is known about the actual Terran Federation's government. What little we do know seems to say that it's a representative democracy.

TLDR: Democracy and republicanism actually have tendencies to be militaristic, and this is a good thing. They were never liberal. Liberal negative "liberty" is disgusting nonsense, and you faggots deserve the guillotine. The will of the demos will not be restrained by your precious "human rights" and individualist tripe.

I'll assume you're referring to the whole 'attacking Jewish settlements' thing. That was done by some commander he worked with, and who was later executed for attacking Jews. Please read and stop spreading FAKE NEWS.
libcom.org/history/anti-semitism-makhnovists-michael-malet

And fuck the Mennonite landlords anyways. The Black Army gave them the chance to progressively collectivize, not immediately hand over everything, and they still didn't follow through. Should we just let porkies who refuse to hand over the MoP go off and still act in a Capitalist way, or shall we just let that violence continue in the name of pacifism? Should we just let the state keep taxing us, or should we resist?

Plus, the Makhnovchina were pretty syncretic, and didn't try to exclude any anarchist tendency. The Nabat tried to create a platform that would appeal to Individualists, Collectivists, and Communists alike. Never really went anywhere because of Tankies, but I mean, what else is fucking new? Same thing pretty much happened in Spain.

Ayyyyyyy

...

Praise Makhno.

Good to know that, rejection of the party principle and other elements that would constitute infantilism in general are pretty normal in people that are just starting to get into revolutionary politics and thus don't have tons of experience behind them.

While I'm not a Maoist myself, MIM has a pretty complete article explaining a kind-of related concept, the phases of idealism and "contemplative materialism" that many Marxists go through:
prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/contemplativematerialism.html

Anarchism doesn't work

Won't work on mobile.

This showed up on fbibook earlier. It's pretty disingenuous, a bunch of liberals were scoring as Bolsheviks.

sup pussies

...

I liked it.
but hh well I hope I end up being catalogued as a Kulak.

redpill me on the Mensheviks

Mutualism is actually more complicated than "dude markets lmao" and has a lot of room for criticism. Read Poverty of Philosophy.

omg they were Socdems.
This is a no go.

That's because most of the ancap ball memes could also be applied to mutualism. It isn't worth the effort to make slight changes for an obsolete and largely forgotten ideology.

Yes, because we also want to drop commie cucks who violate our NAP by liberating our V O U L U N T A R Y child sex slaves who bought for 3 bitcoins, 2 oz of gold, and 3 stacks of gently used hentai magazines on the Silk Road 34. Ideologies are one in the same, and don't have any separating differences whatsoever.

No one makes mutualism memes because there's like 5 mutualists on earth.

well there's 3 of us in here and i've seen a handful on twitter SO THERE

2edgy4u

were the anarchists really a force in 1917?