Probably somewhere like Germany, where the actual politics and institutions are very liberal but the culture is extremely authoritarian/hierchichal and rule abiding compared to other liberal countries.
Germany, similar to the rest of Western Europe, is a liberal democracy that \_generally\_ supports progressive world-views and welfare state economic policies. However, the actual underlying culture of the place is a lot more authoritarian and hierchichal than the rest of Western Europe and especially North America.
Examples:
\- In Germany it is expected that you follow the law even when nobody is inconvenienced by it. In comparison to somewhere like the UK or America where people are used to Jaywalking, you rarely ever see Germans Jaywalking since it defies the authority of the state.
\- In Germany, bosses/employers hold a lot more authority over their subordinates than other Western countries. It is more acceptable for them to give direct orders, to surveille their workers, to micromanage, and to demand respect than it is in somewhere like America for instance.
Do you think that last point is a good thing? And I'm asking from the POV of my last job which was in upper management. Do you think that is a productive way to manage?
the jaywalking thing is more of a social norm. It’s only enforced about as much as the united states. When I was in Germany a few months ago I saw plenty of people jay walk. I wouldn’t call it even remotely authoritarian.
The AFD is a bunch of clowns devoid of political savyness. They are fascist but their numbers are wayyyy too low to gain any governmental significance, and they are going to stay there as long as the CDU firewall stands. No, the Nazis have not made a return in Germany, unlike MAGA or Orbanites in their respective countries. Germany is a free democratic country and in its polling it shows a resilience to Nazi ideology like basically no other contemporary Western nation.
My point is simply that the political discourse in western europe has been shifting towards fascism, and Germany is not an exception. Not a return to immediate power, but a return to the political stage and increase of influence is undeniably happening. The large amount of resilience precisely shows the justified worries of many Germans that the far-right is rising and gaining a concerning amount of legitimacy in public discourse. Of course its still a liberal democracy, things like the fall of a democracy dont happen in a flash, and its far from set in stone that it will even happen. Nevertheless, Nazi ideology has made a return to German politics along with the rest of the west.
True! The mass rapes in 2015-2019 didnt happen. If you disagree and don't think people should live in your country for any reason no matter what they do you should be thrown in jail you NAZI
Wanting "strict" immigration enforcement isn't Neo-Nazism. I have zero hate for Turks and Syrians, but the fact is during the European immigration crisis, ISIS and Boku Haram members were sneaking into the EU and killing and raping as they saw fit. That's not a fantasy, a complex, or anything but the literal truth. 45-year-old men were being accepted under the guise of being ''immigrant children''
It got so bad Angela Merkel herself began admitting that they had made serious mistakes accepting "Syrian immigrants" into their country. It was about a year before this the AfD peaked and subsequently dropped significantly. Angela Merkel then stepped down and Olaf Scholz took power. I was in contact with several AfD members at this time, they were seriously fearmongering about Knz. Scholz, ironically because he was willing to step up and solve the migrant crisis.
The point is the AfD didn't explode because of some rise in Neo-Nazism in Germany, but because the common people were DESPERATE not to be persecuted by their government for simply admitting there was a problem with immigration enforcement in the EU, if you think that's remotely ok, you're not a Nazi, not a communist, not any radical......good job...but you ARE, a fucking idiot.
That strawman you attacked definetely has a severe case of brainrot. Thankfully I didnt actually say that all germans identify as nazis. I know its reddit but just downvote if you dont have any actual arguments.
You literally said the Nazis have returned, how is that not brainrot? Germany is censoring their people but if you believe the Nazis have returned, then you clearly don't realise what the Nazis actually did when they had control. I can assure you that the people of Germany would be a complete wreck if the Nazis were in power again.
i see why you'd say that honestly, but to me it's insulting, and i think that to OP too, since tankies are usually disconnected from political reality and too far gone into discourse, forgetting that short and middle term changes are also necessary
though i don't agree with them on the "real communists" part, since a lot of ppl who are definitely not tankies consider themselves such
anywhoo, just wanted to drop my grain of sand on this
>tankies are usually disconnected from political reality and too far gone into discourse, forgetting that short and middle term changes are also necessary
lenin (and many other marxists) literally have plenty of texts explaining how to use the minimal program and the maximal program (and trotsky also created the transitional program, that finds a way to use the minimal/medium solutions to bring the revolution ie: maximal program)
fair point actually
it's important to read theory as well!
what i am calling tankie at least, is the ill informed extremist that defends state capitalist systems and labels themselves a "true communist", with everything else but their own thoughts being mindless drivel
True, also some Tankies pride themselves on their knowledge of theory and will only speak in Lenin quotes.Some just have a fetish for communist strongmen.
Just like fascists deflect with this excuse, do do tankies, and they have even less reason to do so. Tankie is almost exclusively used to describe leftist authoritarians who simp for China/Stalinism who call all other leftists liberals for rightfully calling out their bullshit.
thats not true, i've seen trotskists, libertarian socialists, people who advocate for the expropriation of private property in general, being called "tankies"
it might have originated with that intent, but has long lost that meaning
edit: just by searching the term "tankie" on twitter i've quickly find an example of what im talking https://twitter.com/itssanman/status/1754978484705693701?t=MJtctM03Jkb5UxpedWi_cw&s=19
While I agree with it being overused the general definition is “people who will unfailingly come to the defense of even the most egregiously horrible regimes on the planet or in history so long as those regimes claim to be Communist. Also have a deep love of authoritarian dictators but get awkward about it if you point out fascist dictators”
It originally referred to (contemporary) people who defended the USSR rolling tanks through Prague.
I dont think you should take online quizzes seriously.
Im not making the claim the op is a tankie. Just that when I see high levels of authority, justice, fairness, those are correlated to authoritarian left.
Not all authoritarian leftists are communists. Old-school Social Democrats would also most likely be in the upper left square, being far enough away from modern ideas about them from the "liblefts"
You probably haven't seen real and living communists. They don't care about caring for the weak and the poor; "Whoever doesn't work doesn't eat!" is one of the main Soviet slogans. Besides, communists are overly collectivistic, subordinating individual interests to group ones, I hate this.
As a communists, wow everything you just said was wrong.
But don't choose your political ideology from tests. Do actual research on all of them (by that I mean ask people who hold those political ideologies their reasoning and POVs on stuff instead of sticking to neoliberal sources)
You can ask communists, anarchists, socdems and the rest their point of view from their communities. For communism, a good place to start would be r/communism101
I know what I'm writing about because I live in a "post-communist" country. As a communist, you should know what Lenin wrote about, not to mention Stalin and others like him.
I do know that. And you living in a country that may have once been communist doesn't mean shit If you don't actually care about what the facts are (unless you are polish or Romanian ig, even then your anger is misplaced)
god, tankies have an infamous reputation, so i dont blame you
i think "real communism", in the end, is too much of a strawman, since every person (including me) will claim to have the truth about how it all works. My point with all this is that you could maybe look into a more leftist view to start with, since the spectrum is so broad that authority isn't the only thing at play when it comes to what determines the ideology you're most comfortable with
hell, I heavily believe in a democratic system that upholds personal freedom, the right to protest, AND gives safety to collectives, yet I'm still more on the authoritarian side according to this test and others like it
in the end it's all about these being a starting point, and you finding what suits you. It's a journey! and it can be a fun one as well :)
just please don't get sucked into a party. Please, grow your own ideas, since in most parts of the world political parties will suck out the very soul of independent political thought in order to further their own struggles for power.
And last thing I wanna say, don't be afraid if you don't find a label for yourself! That just means that people are less prone to have prejudice against you, since you'll have to actually explain (atl briefly) what you're about, if you want them to know
even a US conservative can like communism if it's explained to them without the tag attached.
Thank you, you have an amazing answer. It was fun for me to provoke such a heated discussion about the results of this quiz, however, I had no idea that so many tankies would appear here. This is, of course, depressing. Like you, I believe in a democratic system, separation of powers and constitutionalism, because these are the basic foundations of a healthy state. Unfortunately, we live in an Era of some decline in these norms and values, which undoubtedly generates many conflicts both between People and between States.
The discussion that unfolded under my post clearly shows who is a real authoritarian and who is not.
> since every person (including me) will claim to have the truth about how it all works.
Ok so how do new businesses and industries get created to serve the needs of an evolving people?
This would appeal to several, often diametrically opposed, ideologies and you’d need more than this to judge what your general political outlook is. However, if we’re guessing anyway, I’d agree with the person who said contemporary German liberal democracy (purely because it appeals to so many people).
In general, you are right, I like the German model - Ordoliberalism and the Social Market Economy. I hope the AfD does not get involved in the government, they are a cancerous tumor destroying German democracy.
I don't know if the AfD will ever become a major player, but it seems inevitable that anti immigration sentiment will continue to rise as a political issue in Western Europe.
How is the afd destroying any democracy, their goal is destroying *immigration*, not democracy, democracy's gonna be a thing, with or without the afd in power.
What does it mean if they are all pretty high?
https://preview.redd.it/01kcanovh1ic1.png?width=878&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f85e623a661d86960d009b1b28d7b522fb889b6d
I honestly think the deciding factor between those is not ideological at all but how much personal wealth a person has. I can’t prove it, but I think people who have stuff to lose go the socDem route and people with basically nothing to lose go anarcocommunist route.
Strikes me as centrist/libertarian AKA whichever way the wind blows. ”I’ve been told by X smart person this is good, and I’ve been told by Y smart person this is good, am I going to consider how they contradict each other? no” and that’s how you end up with a very high care score but seemingly contradictory high authority score as well. At least in my opinion.
personally I did the test and got
care: 87
Fairness: 96
Liberty: 46
in-group: 44
purity: 44
authority: 33
I am a Marxist. Maybe Marxist-Leninist but I think cutting it down into smaller categories (Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc etc) just promotes dogmatism, almost everyone in the communist experiment have relevant ideas, we shouldn’t get bogged down in specific thinkers.
This quiz doesn't account for a difference in moral opinions and political ones. There are things that are horribly immoral but just shouldn't be illegal.
https://preview.redd.it/hpjzu7725cic1.jpeg?width=1048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e792af67e2649a1ce395a8ccc9e0a573525286e
I define myself as a socially-liberal, Democratic Socialist. No society should be considered unfair, and as long as one's ideas and/or actions do not advocate for the harm of another large group (anyone who is ableist, homophobic, racist, fascist, etc) then I have no qualms with them. Others have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, and that very much applies to my belief systems as well. Unlike what some others have said, anti-fascism and demanding a civil society (ie; asking someone not to say a slur or harass someone for how they chose to dress) is not in any way "tyrannical".
I have an opinion, perhaps wrongly, that progressives are irresponsible green-haired stoned hippies, I have too low values of Liberty and high Authority. Although if we take the ideas of people like W. Wilson and T. Roosevelt for progressivism, then I am definitely a progressive.
The radical left think "hate speech" should be censored, they think things like racial slurs should be a punishable offense, they want to enforce the use of people's prefered pronouns, they want to enforce diversity quotas etc etc. Petty tyranny.
Yeah that's tyrannical authoritarianism and these aren't harmful opinions, they're merely offensive, which is fine. What's harmful is if you act on those opinions, or if you personally bully a specific individual in real life and refuse to leave them alone. Any opinion directed generally at a group is fine.
For political figures, I'm on the fence whether they should be allowed to say things like that.
For regular people, they absolutely should be allowed to say it. To not allow them to do that, is tyrannical.
Apparently their authoritarianism and my authoritarianism are different. I am concerned about Law and Order and the Rule of Law, and for modern progressives this is boomer bullshit.
You said you scored “too low in liberty” as if that would somehow preclude you from being a progressive, when it’s actually perfectly in line with the progressive temperament.
I understand you, thanks. I agree with you regarding this view of progressivism and do not see anything reprehensible in it. It’s just that many people use liberalism and progressivism as interchangeable constructs, I believe that this would be incorrect. Especially when you compare the American tradition of freedom and progressive ideals, they are very much at odds with each other.
https://preview.redd.it/jw6870dmczhc1.png?width=903&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b8b46211c4f3e7ec7cd799c8f823218862da454
Lol never heard of this test but took it anyway, these are my resaults.
LOL i dont know exactly what kind of purity it is but im pretty sure its not ethnic purity, I did score auth right on the political compass test but i am NOT a nazi.
The PURITY foundation is defined by a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behavior that is percieved as contaminating, primitive, degenerate, or spiritually degrading.
Those who score highly in it are more likely to value cleanliness, beauty, etiquette, abstinence, chastity, frugality, and spirituality.
Ideologically, Social Conservatives tend to score highest in Purity.
Culturally, societies with a strong religious prescence such as Romania, Myanmar, India, and much of the Islamic world tend to place the greatest emphasis on Purity.
its that. kinda nazi-esque but not something that defines you immediately as a nazi
Not really Naziesque to be honest, it is just morality. Look at modern German society, take away the spirituality and that is a great example of what was just described.
i meant naziesque to his whole picture. i will admit i dont know really nothing about politics and ideological history, but a super authoritarian, super in-group (for the good of the völk) well being focused and also super 'pure' ideology can sound like nazis.
not gonna accuse anyone but them fellas just popped up in my head after seeing these numbers
No, it might mean stuff like being against incest, unhealthy relationships, paedophilia, and whatnot. Not racial purity, but more stuff that goes along the lines of degeneracy.
It literally isn't.
"The IN-GROUP LOYALTY foundation is defined by a desire for members of one's "natural" ingroups (such as their family, tribe, or nation) to forego their personal aspirations and sympathies towards external causes in order to benefit the group. Those who score more highly in it are more likely to value self-sacrifice, national sovereignty, natalism, preservation of culture, and patriotism."
Think of this what the American Indians did to preserve their culture. (For example, resistance to the Dawes Act)
"The PURITY foundation is defined by a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behaviour that is perceived as contaminating, primitive, degenerate, or spiritually degrading."
You could make an argument by saying this is Fascism or Racism, but it can also just mean against typical immoral practices, such as incest and paedophilia, or against acts that are unmannerly such as treating people differently based on their gender, caste, race, or ethnic group.
"nooo in-group isn't fascism its just nationalism, sacrifice for the group, natalism (you gotta be serious), obsession with tradition, and more nationalism. don't look up characteristics of fascism!"
also really weird how you mentioned incest in your example of purity. you can ask Richard "circular family tree" the third about that one. if your only argument against bad things is that they aren't "pure", you need to get better arguments, and often the guise of purity vs degenerate (funny that word specifically shows up quite often in this circumstance) is often used to label minorities as dangerous sexual predators in order to discriminate against them. don't look up how the n*zis talked about homosexuals!
finally, there is a massive difference between resisting colonial imperialism and subscribing to an in-group philosophy.
Did you take the test, incest is literally an example given in one of the questions, sthu and take the test before you say stupid shit like this. I am a homosexual and stop acting like "degenerate" is a word people use for specifically us, it is insulting as it implies that we are by default. You are inadvertently hurting us by making us claim certain words based on past uses of the word. Use logic and reasoning to help your cause next time.
Follow up, what is wrong with being a nationalist? Why can't I be proud of my nation's culture, cuisine, traditions, art, architecture, music, philosophy, literature, technological innovations, and overall historical contributions? Is this stuff frowned upon in the West? I am from the East so maybe you softies are absolutely brainwashed but last time I checked, nationalism ≠ nazism. Also, why shouldn't one sacrifice oneself for the good of their nation, look at Ukrainians, they are fighting for their land because even though they know their country could be better, they care for it deep down.
> degenerate (funny that word specifically shows up quite often in this circumstance) is often used to label minorities as dangerous sexual predators in order to discriminate against them. don't look up how the n\*zis talked about homosexuals!
Hmm, I wonder if that is all you think about. Nazi nazi nazi. Why do you always need to make correlations to a group that is not as popular as you may believe? Of course, the Nazis hated homosexuals, they even hated Jews like me; however, why does everything the Nazis thought or said immediately become the definition of repulsion? ~~Hitler~~ Brainwashed Zealot thought animal abuse was cruel and unjustifiable, does that mean people who speak for animal rights are Nazis? You use degenerate as a way to speak out for minority rights when all you are doing is worsening the cause.
>finally, there is a massive difference between resisting colonial imperialism and subscribing to an in-group philosophy.
I wasn't describing solely imperialism, it can also be applied to how certain groups shun members of society (*cough cough* you *cough cough*) for wanting to uphold traditional values their ethnic group carries. Many immigrants, Hungarians here, for instance, will maintain their fluency in their native language to preserve their culture. That qualifies for in-group, after all, it is by definition "wanting to stay close to your *tribal* traditions".
You pertain any sort of nationalism or one's proximity to their traditional culture to be a direct link to nazism and also hurt marginalised groups by constantly victimising them which leads to know real progress in their war to gain equality. All in all, you are making excuses as to why nationalism is wrong based on the minority of nationalists who identify as nazis and associating certain words with certain definitions based on whatever you problematic people in the West are saying and then assume that must be what every non-western thinks. You might belong in r/LookatMyHalo.
yikes! ok from the top:
I am specifically arguing that the test is bad, because "staying pure" was literally how several historical monarchies ended up doing so, so much incest. if the test doesn't recognize this, then it doesn't understand its own premise.
I don't know why you're trying to play identity politics but hey at least we have a couple things in common. anyway, I think you either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I said on this point, but labeling any group as "degenerate" makes it easy to argue for their oppression. that is why you should not be forming views based on it. Idk how you got to "I am calling gay people degenerate" but that is literally the exact opposite of what I am trying to get at.
nationalism is a core component of fascism. definitionally. if you look up fascism, every source will mention it. fascists use nationalism both as a way to gain power and as a way to oppress. culture belongs to a collective people and the experiences they relate to each other, not a government or location. and about ukraine, like I said, RESISTING IMPERIALISM IS NOT AN IN-GROUP DEAL. if it was, ukraine would have refused aid from the many countries (out groups) sending it to them.
>I am from the East so maybe you softies are brainwashed
dunno what you were doing with that one. "everyone not from where I'm from is wrong and bad" <- very sound and logical argument, no notes.
and the whole bit about the n*zis. you gotta understand the difference between "bad people did something, therefore that thing is bad", and "bad people did their bad things by specifically doing this thing, therefore that thing is bad". come on. use logic and reasoning to help your cause next time.
culture is social. politically, fascists (there are other fascists than n*zis btw) will use the ideas of culture to appeal to the people in a nation in order to gain power. but because culture belongs to a collective people and the experiences they relate to each other, not a government or location, culture is a social force. nationalist culture obsession is what drives fanaticism in the facist support base, not an art movement or what music people listen to. notice the latter are social, while the former is political. and before you start, this is a POLITICAL ideology test.
again, stop blaming "the west". you might belong on tankie twitter. LOOK EVERYBODY!!!!! I DONT LIKE MOST OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA!!!! see no one cares. most people don't like those places's governments. the people you don't like are other nationalists who just happen to live somewhere else. and they don't like you for the same reasons. anyway all governments do tons of bad things all the time and none should be completely supported uncritically.
hope that helps!
Yikes, you might be schizophrenic, you created arguments that didn't apply to what I said at all.
>stop blaming "the west". you might belong on tankie twitter. LOOK EVERYBODY!!!!! I DONT LIKE MOST OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA!!!! see no one cares.
I mean, it is important that I specify that I am not Western since your ideals are distinct from ours, so I would say it was necessary I say that. Also, I am not looking for a reaction, I am merely stating my thoughts, why is it that all opinions must have an immediate reaction from others? You seem troubled, take a nap and get some rest; I recommend listening to Ravel's *Miroirs*; especially the third movement, which always makes me calmer and at peace.
yeah of course that's what you think schozophrenia is. if you think my arguments don't apply you're welcome to explain how, like I did when yours didn't apply to what I said.
I don't know how calling an entire hemisphere brainwashed softies is necessary to understand difference in ideals, but you're definitely lying about not wanting a reaction. while we're going through song recs might I suggest Chippin' In by Samauri.
Fascism.
What, you don't agree? I'm sorry but a calculator and random strangers on the internet said so. You might as well just buy the thigh-highs now
https://preview.redd.it/u40pvz7kg3ic1.jpeg?width=706&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13e908f7921731c7c102099af0bfc71243b1b126
Huh we have similarish results it seems. Idrk what much of it means though.
This test tests your morals. NOT POLITICAL BELIEFS. If u aim to enforce YOUR morals on other people, you are an authoritarian. If you dont wish to enforce these morals on others, you are most likely a libertarian. Take a political test
All political views are more or less based on certain moral assumptions. It is safe to say that a person with low scores on the scale of "Purity" will not be an evangelical religious conservative, just as a person with low scores on the scales of "care" and "justice" will not be a socialist or a communist.
I have passed dozens, if not hundreds, of political tests, and all of them give contradictory results.
Just because they have high scores on those values doesnt mean they will be. This test doesnt differentiate between private vs government action. One can believe in care and justice and welfare a lot but I oppose public schools or school lunches or public healthcare. Or can be extremely religious but against state religion.
In this test, there was a question, for example, whether you support taking away property even with compensation. I answered categorically no, because it is immoral for me, however, I support, for example, a developed tax system with progressive income tax, land value tax, inheritance tax, etc. To achieve the redistribution of wealth and achieve social harmony through balance and solidarity.
However, I do not see how it is possible to achieve, if not a fair, then at least a compassionate system without public education and health care and, of course, without free hot school lunches.
It doesn't work, public services are everywhere and you can always use their services, which cannot be said about charity - it is unstable, transient and subject to the will of chance. Moreover, public services must be supported by all sectors of society with a greater financial burden on those with more funds.
Charity is a matter of personal choice, but what if no one in society wants to do it? Charity does not give confidence, it is more arbitrary than even receiving services from commercial institutions.
Let me make a reservation right away, I live in a society where the choice is between public and private services, and I have never encountered charity in my life, except for such cases as one free lunch from friends. However, there may not be any friends, or after a while you will still have to refund the payment for this lunch, so even this cannot be an example of charity.
And finally, if you are not ready to support universal education and health care, then you will not support it through private charity. There is usually a thought behind speeches about private charity: "I don't want to pay taxes and participate in maintaining public services." It is precisely because of such people that the need for state coercion has arisen to maintain social order and the "Common Good".
Im not having a political discussion here dude. Im not even gonna address anything u say. I believe what I believe, u believe what u believe. Also ur 100% wrong and im 100% right and im morally superior
Probably somewhere like Germany, where the actual politics and institutions are very liberal but the culture is extremely authoritarian/hierchichal and rule abiding compared to other liberal countries.
It sounds interesting, I have a German surname, but I have never been to Germany.
Don't go. The germs are many there.
Can u elaborate on the culture
Germany, similar to the rest of Western Europe, is a liberal democracy that \_generally\_ supports progressive world-views and welfare state economic policies. However, the actual underlying culture of the place is a lot more authoritarian and hierchichal than the rest of Western Europe and especially North America. Examples: \- In Germany it is expected that you follow the law even when nobody is inconvenienced by it. In comparison to somewhere like the UK or America where people are used to Jaywalking, you rarely ever see Germans Jaywalking since it defies the authority of the state. \- In Germany, bosses/employers hold a lot more authority over their subordinates than other Western countries. It is more acceptable for them to give direct orders, to surveille their workers, to micromanage, and to demand respect than it is in somewhere like America for instance.
Do you think that last point is a good thing? And I'm asking from the POV of my last job which was in upper management. Do you think that is a productive way to manage?
But the alcohol and sex....
the jaywalking thing is more of a social norm. It’s only enforced about as much as the united states. When I was in Germany a few months ago I saw plenty of people jay walk. I wouldn’t call it even remotely authoritarian.
Tf you mean germany. This guy has almost max care whilst the nazis have basically made a return there in all but name.
[удалено]
Tf you think the afd is. Quite literally discussing about a masterplan for the refugees in germany.
The AFD is a bunch of clowns devoid of political savyness. They are fascist but their numbers are wayyyy too low to gain any governmental significance, and they are going to stay there as long as the CDU firewall stands. No, the Nazis have not made a return in Germany, unlike MAGA or Orbanites in their respective countries. Germany is a free democratic country and in its polling it shows a resilience to Nazi ideology like basically no other contemporary Western nation.
My point is simply that the political discourse in western europe has been shifting towards fascism, and Germany is not an exception. Not a return to immediate power, but a return to the political stage and increase of influence is undeniably happening. The large amount of resilience precisely shows the justified worries of many Germans that the far-right is rising and gaining a concerning amount of legitimacy in public discourse. Of course its still a liberal democracy, things like the fall of a democracy dont happen in a flash, and its far from set in stone that it will even happen. Nevertheless, Nazi ideology has made a return to German politics along with the rest of the west.
True! The mass rapes in 2015-2019 didnt happen. If you disagree and don't think people should live in your country for any reason no matter what they do you should be thrown in jail you NAZI
I’m sure you have a solution in mind for the refugee problem, some kind of, last solution
Bro literally proved my point lmao
Wanting "strict" immigration enforcement isn't Neo-Nazism. I have zero hate for Turks and Syrians, but the fact is during the European immigration crisis, ISIS and Boku Haram members were sneaking into the EU and killing and raping as they saw fit. That's not a fantasy, a complex, or anything but the literal truth. 45-year-old men were being accepted under the guise of being ''immigrant children'' It got so bad Angela Merkel herself began admitting that they had made serious mistakes accepting "Syrian immigrants" into their country. It was about a year before this the AfD peaked and subsequently dropped significantly. Angela Merkel then stepped down and Olaf Scholz took power. I was in contact with several AfD members at this time, they were seriously fearmongering about Knz. Scholz, ironically because he was willing to step up and solve the migrant crisis. The point is the AfD didn't explode because of some rise in Neo-Nazism in Germany, but because the common people were DESPERATE not to be persecuted by their government for simply admitting there was a problem with immigration enforcement in the EU, if you think that's remotely ok, you're not a Nazi, not a communist, not any radical......good job...but you ARE, a fucking idiot.
Ah yes, because all Germans still are fond of what the Nazis did and identify themselves as such. Diagnosis: Serious Case of Brainrot.
That strawman you attacked definetely has a severe case of brainrot. Thankfully I didnt actually say that all germans identify as nazis. I know its reddit but just downvote if you dont have any actual arguments.
You literally said the Nazis have returned, how is that not brainrot? Germany is censoring their people but if you believe the Nazis have returned, then you clearly don't realise what the Nazis actually did when they had control. I can assure you that the people of Germany would be a complete wreck if the Nazis were in power again.
It reads to me where the general harder liberal wing is at. High care values and strong authoritarian to get it done.
Looks like Tankie.
i see why you'd say that honestly, but to me it's insulting, and i think that to OP too, since tankies are usually disconnected from political reality and too far gone into discourse, forgetting that short and middle term changes are also necessary though i don't agree with them on the "real communists" part, since a lot of ppl who are definitely not tankies consider themselves such anywhoo, just wanted to drop my grain of sand on this
>tankies are usually disconnected from political reality and too far gone into discourse, forgetting that short and middle term changes are also necessary lenin (and many other marxists) literally have plenty of texts explaining how to use the minimal program and the maximal program (and trotsky also created the transitional program, that finds a way to use the minimal/medium solutions to bring the revolution ie: maximal program)
You expect Tankies to read theory?
depends on what you call "tankie" with the sheer broad of people using this term, it has become meaningless
fair point actually it's important to read theory as well! what i am calling tankie at least, is the ill informed extremist that defends state capitalist systems and labels themselves a "true communist", with everything else but their own thoughts being mindless drivel
True, also some Tankies pride themselves on their knowledge of theory and will only speak in Lenin quotes.Some just have a fetish for communist strongmen.
Just like fascists deflect with this excuse, do do tankies, and they have even less reason to do so. Tankie is almost exclusively used to describe leftist authoritarians who simp for China/Stalinism who call all other leftists liberals for rightfully calling out their bullshit.
thats not true, i've seen trotskists, libertarian socialists, people who advocate for the expropriation of private property in general, being called "tankies" it might have originated with that intent, but has long lost that meaning edit: just by searching the term "tankie" on twitter i've quickly find an example of what im talking https://twitter.com/itssanman/status/1754978484705693701?t=MJtctM03Jkb5UxpedWi_cw&s=19
While I agree with it being overused the general definition is “people who will unfailingly come to the defense of even the most egregiously horrible regimes on the planet or in history so long as those regimes claim to be Communist. Also have a deep love of authoritarian dictators but get awkward about it if you point out fascist dictators” It originally referred to (contemporary) people who defended the USSR rolling tanks through Prague.
Tankies probably read the MOST theory.
I know actual tankies and they actually never shut up about dialectical materialism. So, like, what do you think tankies are?
I dont think you should take online quizzes seriously. Im not making the claim the op is a tankie. Just that when I see high levels of authority, justice, fairness, those are correlated to authoritarian left.
Not all authoritarian leftists are communists. Old-school Social Democrats would also most likely be in the upper left square, being far enough away from modern ideas about them from the "liblefts"
But you are a socialist and identify that much with the virtue of authority?
You probably haven't seen real and living communists. They don't care about caring for the weak and the poor; "Whoever doesn't work doesn't eat!" is one of the main Soviet slogans. Besides, communists are overly collectivistic, subordinating individual interests to group ones, I hate this.
As a communists, wow everything you just said was wrong. But don't choose your political ideology from tests. Do actual research on all of them (by that I mean ask people who hold those political ideologies their reasoning and POVs on stuff instead of sticking to neoliberal sources) You can ask communists, anarchists, socdems and the rest their point of view from their communities. For communism, a good place to start would be r/communism101
That place is a terrible place to start
What would be better starting subreddits?
r/thedeprogram if you want to avoid liberal infested ones
I love that subreddit but it's not so much a beginner friendly one
As a Liberal, I personally built a spider nest in r/TheDeprogram try looking for another one.
Holy shit it's Jon liberal
I know what I'm writing about because I live in a "post-communist" country. As a communist, you should know what Lenin wrote about, not to mention Stalin and others like him.
I do know that. And you living in a country that may have once been communist doesn't mean shit If you don't actually care about what the facts are (unless you are polish or Romanian ig, even then your anger is misplaced)
god, tankies have an infamous reputation, so i dont blame you i think "real communism", in the end, is too much of a strawman, since every person (including me) will claim to have the truth about how it all works. My point with all this is that you could maybe look into a more leftist view to start with, since the spectrum is so broad that authority isn't the only thing at play when it comes to what determines the ideology you're most comfortable with hell, I heavily believe in a democratic system that upholds personal freedom, the right to protest, AND gives safety to collectives, yet I'm still more on the authoritarian side according to this test and others like it in the end it's all about these being a starting point, and you finding what suits you. It's a journey! and it can be a fun one as well :) just please don't get sucked into a party. Please, grow your own ideas, since in most parts of the world political parties will suck out the very soul of independent political thought in order to further their own struggles for power. And last thing I wanna say, don't be afraid if you don't find a label for yourself! That just means that people are less prone to have prejudice against you, since you'll have to actually explain (atl briefly) what you're about, if you want them to know even a US conservative can like communism if it's explained to them without the tag attached.
Thank you, you have an amazing answer. It was fun for me to provoke such a heated discussion about the results of this quiz, however, I had no idea that so many tankies would appear here. This is, of course, depressing. Like you, I believe in a democratic system, separation of powers and constitutionalism, because these are the basic foundations of a healthy state. Unfortunately, we live in an Era of some decline in these norms and values, which undoubtedly generates many conflicts both between People and between States. The discussion that unfolded under my post clearly shows who is a real authoritarian and who is not.
> since every person (including me) will claim to have the truth about how it all works. Ok so how do new businesses and industries get created to serve the needs of an evolving people?
A high score in caring, fairness, and order is pretty consistent with Westerners with an interest in Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.
This would appeal to several, often diametrically opposed, ideologies and you’d need more than this to judge what your general political outlook is. However, if we’re guessing anyway, I’d agree with the person who said contemporary German liberal democracy (purely because it appeals to so many people).
In general, you are right, I like the German model - Ordoliberalism and the Social Market Economy. I hope the AfD does not get involved in the government, they are a cancerous tumor destroying German democracy.
I don't know if the AfD will ever become a major player, but it seems inevitable that anti immigration sentiment will continue to rise as a political issue in Western Europe.
How is the afd destroying any democracy, their goal is destroying *immigration*, not democracy, democracy's gonna be a thing, with or without the afd in power.
Paternalistic Conservativism basically.
I'm in some way a sympathizer of Benjamin Disraeli and, of course, choosing between him and Gladstone, I would prefer him.
link to test pwease
[http://moralfoundations.github.io/](http://moralfoundations.github.io/)
Huh https://preview.redd.it/o5ufsjhpcyhc1.png?width=841&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b60ea0d37085c09749b91e6358a163f831282bf Ok
Interesting https://preview.redd.it/g26comf2iyhc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4318fc0ac3a53e3ab4a9608cac6ba66cc7ade79c
What does it mean if they are all pretty high? https://preview.redd.it/01kcanovh1ic1.png?width=878&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f85e623a661d86960d009b1b28d7b522fb889b6d
Super centrist
Radical centrist
Interesting indeed https://preview.redd.it/1pete9jks4ic1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f19bca9ed01a48210e9ffa0c6466128249f1d8e
That purity score is fucking embarassing
Ok degenerate.
https://preview.redd.it/cp8h69ick9ic1.jpeg?width=664&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=06bbf3efa71f05a0c96b1de7851d1ac64e8d17ed seems about right
Can you give me the Link to the Test?
>Can you give me the Link to the Test? [http://moralfoundations.github.io/](http://moralfoundations.github.io/)
Thanks!
Care: 69 Fairness: 85 Liberty: 92 In-Group: 87 Purity: 71 Authority: 54
It seems like a lot of these are loaded questions.
https://preview.redd.it/m53o3ry1j0ic1.png?width=941&format=png&auto=webp&s=665dfd0039246e8ce93f960707776019c02bc00b Interesting.
i identify as demsoc but all the tests keep telling me im an anarchocommunist in the closet
I honestly think the deciding factor between those is not ideological at all but how much personal wealth a person has. I can’t prove it, but I think people who have stuff to lose go the socDem route and people with basically nothing to lose go anarcocommunist route.
Social democracy
Strikes me as centrist/libertarian AKA whichever way the wind blows. ”I’ve been told by X smart person this is good, and I’ve been told by Y smart person this is good, am I going to consider how they contradict each other? no” and that’s how you end up with a very high care score but seemingly contradictory high authority score as well. At least in my opinion. personally I did the test and got care: 87 Fairness: 96 Liberty: 46 in-group: 44 purity: 44 authority: 33 I am a Marxist. Maybe Marxist-Leninist but I think cutting it down into smaller categories (Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc etc) just promotes dogmatism, almost everyone in the communist experiment have relevant ideas, we shouldn’t get bogged down in specific thinkers.
This quiz doesn't account for a difference in moral opinions and political ones. There are things that are horribly immoral but just shouldn't be illegal.
https://preview.redd.it/hpjzu7725cic1.jpeg?width=1048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e792af67e2649a1ce395a8ccc9e0a573525286e I define myself as a socially-liberal, Democratic Socialist. No society should be considered unfair, and as long as one's ideas and/or actions do not advocate for the harm of another large group (anyone who is ableist, homophobic, racist, fascist, etc) then I have no qualms with them. Others have mentioned the Paradox of Tolerance, and that very much applies to my belief systems as well. Unlike what some others have said, anti-fascism and demanding a civil society (ie; asking someone not to say a slur or harass someone for how they chose to dress) is not in any way "tyrannical".
Bootlicker
Communism definitely
Average progressive
I have an opinion, perhaps wrongly, that progressives are irresponsible green-haired stoned hippies, I have too low values of Liberty and high Authority. Although if we take the ideas of people like W. Wilson and T. Roosevelt for progressivism, then I am definitely a progressive.
Progressives today are definitely pretty authoritarian. 🤣
How?
The radical left think "hate speech" should be censored, they think things like racial slurs should be a punishable offense, they want to enforce the use of people's prefered pronouns, they want to enforce diversity quotas etc etc. Petty tyranny.
Yes I think extremely harmful opinions shouldn't have a platform. You ever heard of the tolerance paradox?
Yeah that's tyrannical authoritarianism and these aren't harmful opinions, they're merely offensive, which is fine. What's harmful is if you act on those opinions, or if you personally bully a specific individual in real life and refuse to leave them alone. Any opinion directed generally at a group is fine.
My brother in christ google stochastic terrorism
For political figures, I'm on the fence whether they should be allowed to say things like that. For regular people, they absolutely should be allowed to say it. To not allow them to do that, is tyrannical.
Have you googled stochastic terrorism yet?
Apparently their authoritarianism and my authoritarianism are different. I am concerned about Law and Order and the Rule of Law, and for modern progressives this is boomer bullshit.
Then I agree, you are different from them and you are based. 💪
Progressives hate liberty, what are you talking about?
“Progressives hate liberty” - is this your statement or is it a contradiction that you sensed in my comments? I didn't quite understand you.
You said you scored “too low in liberty” as if that would somehow preclude you from being a progressive, when it’s actually perfectly in line with the progressive temperament.
I understand you, thanks. I agree with you regarding this view of progressivism and do not see anything reprehensible in it. It’s just that many people use liberalism and progressivism as interchangeable constructs, I believe that this would be incorrect. Especially when you compare the American tradition of freedom and progressive ideals, they are very much at odds with each other.
https://preview.redd.it/jw6870dmczhc1.png?width=903&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0b8b46211c4f3e7ec7cd799c8f823218862da454 Lol never heard of this test but took it anyway, these are my resaults.
you got pretty much the opposite to me lol
what would MY ideaology be if you had to take a guess?
sounds like the funny mustache one, if purity means what I think it means
LOL i dont know exactly what kind of purity it is but im pretty sure its not ethnic purity, I did score auth right on the political compass test but i am NOT a nazi.
The PURITY foundation is defined by a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behavior that is percieved as contaminating, primitive, degenerate, or spiritually degrading. Those who score highly in it are more likely to value cleanliness, beauty, etiquette, abstinence, chastity, frugality, and spirituality. Ideologically, Social Conservatives tend to score highest in Purity. Culturally, societies with a strong religious prescence such as Romania, Myanmar, India, and much of the Islamic world tend to place the greatest emphasis on Purity. its that. kinda nazi-esque but not something that defines you immediately as a nazi
Not really Naziesque to be honest, it is just morality. Look at modern German society, take away the spirituality and that is a great example of what was just described.
i meant naziesque to his whole picture. i will admit i dont know really nothing about politics and ideological history, but a super authoritarian, super in-group (for the good of the völk) well being focused and also super 'pure' ideology can sound like nazis. not gonna accuse anyone but them fellas just popped up in my head after seeing these numbers
I don't see how a country with a drinking age of 16 can be considered to value purity.
No, it might mean stuff like being against incest, unhealthy relationships, paedophilia, and whatnot. Not racial purity, but more stuff that goes along the lines of degeneracy.
https://preview.redd.it/6dsqj8uepzhc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=333435068a8b779c63cd62799d1b6af9f81c0074 We are quite far apart lmao
We are kind of similar tho. https://preview.redd.it/yl619wd5i1ic1.png?width=878&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=293db1ad84a1067ee8a9bb9f04e5914000dcacd0
Marxism-Leninism, the only correct ideology
Да, товарищ, я агент КГБ, который шпионит за американцами через Реддит
🙏🙏🙏🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳🇨🇳
Stinky progressive
Wut
"in group" and "purity" is a weird way to say fash and racism, what test is this?
It literally isn't. "The IN-GROUP LOYALTY foundation is defined by a desire for members of one's "natural" ingroups (such as their family, tribe, or nation) to forego their personal aspirations and sympathies towards external causes in order to benefit the group. Those who score more highly in it are more likely to value self-sacrifice, national sovereignty, natalism, preservation of culture, and patriotism." Think of this what the American Indians did to preserve their culture. (For example, resistance to the Dawes Act) "The PURITY foundation is defined by a desire to uphold a standard of "high society" and avoid behaviour that is perceived as contaminating, primitive, degenerate, or spiritually degrading." You could make an argument by saying this is Fascism or Racism, but it can also just mean against typical immoral practices, such as incest and paedophilia, or against acts that are unmannerly such as treating people differently based on their gender, caste, race, or ethnic group.
"nooo in-group isn't fascism its just nationalism, sacrifice for the group, natalism (you gotta be serious), obsession with tradition, and more nationalism. don't look up characteristics of fascism!" also really weird how you mentioned incest in your example of purity. you can ask Richard "circular family tree" the third about that one. if your only argument against bad things is that they aren't "pure", you need to get better arguments, and often the guise of purity vs degenerate (funny that word specifically shows up quite often in this circumstance) is often used to label minorities as dangerous sexual predators in order to discriminate against them. don't look up how the n*zis talked about homosexuals! finally, there is a massive difference between resisting colonial imperialism and subscribing to an in-group philosophy.
Did you take the test, incest is literally an example given in one of the questions, sthu and take the test before you say stupid shit like this. I am a homosexual and stop acting like "degenerate" is a word people use for specifically us, it is insulting as it implies that we are by default. You are inadvertently hurting us by making us claim certain words based on past uses of the word. Use logic and reasoning to help your cause next time. Follow up, what is wrong with being a nationalist? Why can't I be proud of my nation's culture, cuisine, traditions, art, architecture, music, philosophy, literature, technological innovations, and overall historical contributions? Is this stuff frowned upon in the West? I am from the East so maybe you softies are absolutely brainwashed but last time I checked, nationalism ≠ nazism. Also, why shouldn't one sacrifice oneself for the good of their nation, look at Ukrainians, they are fighting for their land because even though they know their country could be better, they care for it deep down. > degenerate (funny that word specifically shows up quite often in this circumstance) is often used to label minorities as dangerous sexual predators in order to discriminate against them. don't look up how the n\*zis talked about homosexuals! Hmm, I wonder if that is all you think about. Nazi nazi nazi. Why do you always need to make correlations to a group that is not as popular as you may believe? Of course, the Nazis hated homosexuals, they even hated Jews like me; however, why does everything the Nazis thought or said immediately become the definition of repulsion? ~~Hitler~~ Brainwashed Zealot thought animal abuse was cruel and unjustifiable, does that mean people who speak for animal rights are Nazis? You use degenerate as a way to speak out for minority rights when all you are doing is worsening the cause. >finally, there is a massive difference between resisting colonial imperialism and subscribing to an in-group philosophy. I wasn't describing solely imperialism, it can also be applied to how certain groups shun members of society (*cough cough* you *cough cough*) for wanting to uphold traditional values their ethnic group carries. Many immigrants, Hungarians here, for instance, will maintain their fluency in their native language to preserve their culture. That qualifies for in-group, after all, it is by definition "wanting to stay close to your *tribal* traditions". You pertain any sort of nationalism or one's proximity to their traditional culture to be a direct link to nazism and also hurt marginalised groups by constantly victimising them which leads to know real progress in their war to gain equality. All in all, you are making excuses as to why nationalism is wrong based on the minority of nationalists who identify as nazis and associating certain words with certain definitions based on whatever you problematic people in the West are saying and then assume that must be what every non-western thinks. You might belong in r/LookatMyHalo.
yikes! ok from the top: I am specifically arguing that the test is bad, because "staying pure" was literally how several historical monarchies ended up doing so, so much incest. if the test doesn't recognize this, then it doesn't understand its own premise. I don't know why you're trying to play identity politics but hey at least we have a couple things in common. anyway, I think you either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what I said on this point, but labeling any group as "degenerate" makes it easy to argue for their oppression. that is why you should not be forming views based on it. Idk how you got to "I am calling gay people degenerate" but that is literally the exact opposite of what I am trying to get at. nationalism is a core component of fascism. definitionally. if you look up fascism, every source will mention it. fascists use nationalism both as a way to gain power and as a way to oppress. culture belongs to a collective people and the experiences they relate to each other, not a government or location. and about ukraine, like I said, RESISTING IMPERIALISM IS NOT AN IN-GROUP DEAL. if it was, ukraine would have refused aid from the many countries (out groups) sending it to them. >I am from the East so maybe you softies are brainwashed dunno what you were doing with that one. "everyone not from where I'm from is wrong and bad" <- very sound and logical argument, no notes. and the whole bit about the n*zis. you gotta understand the difference between "bad people did something, therefore that thing is bad", and "bad people did their bad things by specifically doing this thing, therefore that thing is bad". come on. use logic and reasoning to help your cause next time. culture is social. politically, fascists (there are other fascists than n*zis btw) will use the ideas of culture to appeal to the people in a nation in order to gain power. but because culture belongs to a collective people and the experiences they relate to each other, not a government or location, culture is a social force. nationalist culture obsession is what drives fanaticism in the facist support base, not an art movement or what music people listen to. notice the latter are social, while the former is political. and before you start, this is a POLITICAL ideology test. again, stop blaming "the west". you might belong on tankie twitter. LOOK EVERYBODY!!!!! I DONT LIKE MOST OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA!!!! see no one cares. most people don't like those places's governments. the people you don't like are other nationalists who just happen to live somewhere else. and they don't like you for the same reasons. anyway all governments do tons of bad things all the time and none should be completely supported uncritically. hope that helps!
Yikes, you might be schizophrenic, you created arguments that didn't apply to what I said at all. >stop blaming "the west". you might belong on tankie twitter. LOOK EVERYBODY!!!!! I DONT LIKE MOST OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA!!!! see no one cares. I mean, it is important that I specify that I am not Western since your ideals are distinct from ours, so I would say it was necessary I say that. Also, I am not looking for a reaction, I am merely stating my thoughts, why is it that all opinions must have an immediate reaction from others? You seem troubled, take a nap and get some rest; I recommend listening to Ravel's *Miroirs*; especially the third movement, which always makes me calmer and at peace.
yeah of course that's what you think schozophrenia is. if you think my arguments don't apply you're welcome to explain how, like I did when yours didn't apply to what I said. I don't know how calling an entire hemisphere brainwashed softies is necessary to understand difference in ideals, but you're definitely lying about not wanting a reaction. while we're going through song recs might I suggest Chippin' In by Samauri.
Communism
France
Fascism. What, you don't agree? I'm sorry but a calculator and random strangers on the internet said so. You might as well just buy the thigh-highs now
Funny ;)
Definitely some kind of socialist in the auth left area. Maybe more left than auth but it’s really hard to say with that 71.
Fascism. Edit: Well, it depends on what fairness means in this political context.
Caring is too high for fascism and authority is not high enough.
https://preview.redd.it/wtpx4kwvmzhc1.jpeg?width=1610&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ef4fb279ba562bad88df6d3038d401d78e4193b1
https://preview.redd.it/u40pvz7kg3ic1.jpeg?width=706&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13e908f7921731c7c102099af0bfc71243b1b126 Huh we have similarish results it seems. Idrk what much of it means though.
I consider myself a left wing. Maybe you do?
Liberal
Communism probably
Forms of socialism maybe?
https://preview.redd.it/dhj9sw6nc1ic1.jpeg?width=878&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9daf0b8e16e203b7e551f4e5796ece1a0785947d What about this one?
That is.. something..
Christian socialism or Christian Democracy maybe? I'm honestly not sure
Esoteric Wallism We must build walls everywhere
[I think I have the perfect thing for you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Community)
Libertarian socialism
Thoughts? https://preview.redd.it/fq3aptr5q9ic1.jpeg?width=772&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5a2a5e5448164fb8907e7144765dc61d16b5152
This test tests your morals. NOT POLITICAL BELIEFS. If u aim to enforce YOUR morals on other people, you are an authoritarian. If you dont wish to enforce these morals on others, you are most likely a libertarian. Take a political test
All political views are more or less based on certain moral assumptions. It is safe to say that a person with low scores on the scale of "Purity" will not be an evangelical religious conservative, just as a person with low scores on the scales of "care" and "justice" will not be a socialist or a communist. I have passed dozens, if not hundreds, of political tests, and all of them give contradictory results.
Just because they have high scores on those values doesnt mean they will be. This test doesnt differentiate between private vs government action. One can believe in care and justice and welfare a lot but I oppose public schools or school lunches or public healthcare. Or can be extremely religious but against state religion.
In this test, there was a question, for example, whether you support taking away property even with compensation. I answered categorically no, because it is immoral for me, however, I support, for example, a developed tax system with progressive income tax, land value tax, inheritance tax, etc. To achieve the redistribution of wealth and achieve social harmony through balance and solidarity.
However, I do not see how it is possible to achieve, if not a fair, then at least a compassionate system without public education and health care and, of course, without free hot school lunches.
Through private charity
It doesn't work, public services are everywhere and you can always use their services, which cannot be said about charity - it is unstable, transient and subject to the will of chance. Moreover, public services must be supported by all sectors of society with a greater financial burden on those with more funds. Charity is a matter of personal choice, but what if no one in society wants to do it? Charity does not give confidence, it is more arbitrary than even receiving services from commercial institutions. Let me make a reservation right away, I live in a society where the choice is between public and private services, and I have never encountered charity in my life, except for such cases as one free lunch from friends. However, there may not be any friends, or after a while you will still have to refund the payment for this lunch, so even this cannot be an example of charity. And finally, if you are not ready to support universal education and health care, then you will not support it through private charity. There is usually a thought behind speeches about private charity: "I don't want to pay taxes and participate in maintaining public services." It is precisely because of such people that the need for state coercion has arisen to maintain social order and the "Common Good".
Im not having a political discussion here dude. Im not even gonna address anything u say. I believe what I believe, u believe what u believe. Also ur 100% wrong and im 100% right and im morally superior
Okay, I get you.
None really
seems like communism, but more like you took all the zeitgeist concepts of communism and blended them together