Many American proles bang on Moscow’s doors?

Lee Harvey Oswald. So there.

Quite obviously those nominally “Left-wing” governments in the Soviet bloc were not Left-wing in my sense which is under-dog supporting. This was immediately appreciated by genuine (underdog supporting) Left wingers such as Russell and Orwell.

Naturally the first thing that Soviet-style Bolshevik parties did when they grabbed power was to murder all the genuine Left-wingers amongst their supporters. “Left-wing” revolutions devour their legitimate children.

It is pretty clear that the Bolsheviks were all about creating all about creating a monopolistic statist economy and dictatorial polity. With party apparatchiks in the top-dog position getting all the high-status power and privilege. This makes the Bolsheviks unambiguously Right-wing.

And, not by accident, the under-dog proles (Solidarity) launched a revolution to overthrow the Warsaw pact states. A true workers uprising in the classic Left-wing sense.

And tell me, why is that the major impact on proles of left-wing governments is to throw huge numbers of said proles onto the unemployment queue?

Rooselvelt’s government was Left wing alright, and it overcame the Great Depression.

On proles and the Left, tell me, how many proles fled West Germany for the communal bosom of East Germany between 1945 and 1990? Many American proles bang on Moscow’s doors? And tell me, why is that the major impact on proles of left-wing governments is to throw huge numbers of said proles onto the unemployment queue?

EXPLOITERS,SCUM BAGS,WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS,BENT POLITICIANS,NAZIS,FACISTS,POLLUTERS,PHONEY WARS,SLAVERY,GAY BASHING,BLACK BASHING, POOR BASHING, BASHING ANYTHING ELSE THAT DONT FIT IN THEIR DECIDED PLACE,But one can see how easy it is to become a rabid right wing prick,cos the older i get, the more i am becoming like one,cos id like to gas the fucking lot of them.

Says it all really. Poor people, women, blacks and plants.

My intention is to make an analytic, not polemic, point. I do not mean to imply that, for instance, women are on the same strata as plants. Clearly there can be more than one strata of under-dogs.

The Left and Right should be defined by sociological ends, not institutional means. This is the key defect of taxonomic testing of this type. And why people always feel that they are misrepresented on them.

Leftists always pride themselves on supporting the under-dog. This has been so since the French Revolution, when the Left supported the bourgeois Republicans, underdogs to the aristocratic Royalists.

The Left has invariably supported underdogs of all types: proles (class), pacifists (state), women (gender), gays (sexual), sectarians (culture), coloureds (race), indigenes (region), animals (exotica), vegetables (biota).

The Right has invariably supported top-dogs of all types: capitalists, militarists, males, straights, establishments, whites, settlers, etc

Yes, Jack, they were Prussians and they taught me that involvement in public affairs and attempting to do good in the world was a duty and one which I could not avoid for selfish reasons of having a quiet and indulgent private life.

Those are worthwhile traditional values.

Glad to hear that Prussian issues are still duty-bound.

Your Prussian honour requires a significant adherence traditional values though the test says that you do not. So the test is a deficient measure of your true ideological valency. I suspected as much.

mark says:

Some crap about condemning people for choices they make (which is what the test purported to measure) is not.

But contemporary fashion, or alien traditions, cause impressionable people to make bad choices. eg infibulation. These bad choices should be condemned and the test is right to winkle out peoples sentiments on these matters.

The Left support the low-status: workers, women, indigenes, ethnics, flora and fauna etc

Says it all really. Poor people, women, blacks and plants.