This looks like fun. The 'test' is certainly a light-hearted and engaging way of adding to discussion of a definition. I came across this site by googling the words 'pseudo-left definition'. The site seems to have a sexual liaison content, which makes it all the more intriguing that such a test would appear there. It says:

This will test whether your leftwingness is a true reflection of a set of beliefs with a great historic pedigree, or whether you have been seduced by the pseudo left that has stalked the land in the last few years...

 http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=3380847742017282203 

By the way, I also checked an on-line dictionary but there was no entry for pseudo-left. I think part of any struggle to have the term popularized would include seeking its entry into the mainstream dictionaries. I believe the publishers of dictionaries are always inviting new terms from the public, for consideration. Does anyone recall the controversy over the attempts to include "Pilgerism" in, I think, the Oxford dictionary? From memory, Pilger took them to court (and won?).

I'd be happy to put together a proposal to a dictionary along those lines - once this site has further discussed and developed the concept/definition. Youngmarxist, I'll look forward to learning from what you put together based on previous discussions on this site.

And, as I've often said in the past, I think that letters to editors are a good, practical, way of challenging descriptions of, for example, the Australia Institute as 'Left-wing'. The concept of pseudo-left is catching on, I think.

I haven't posted for a long time, mainly because I took up a new job over a month ago and have been very busy trying to prove that my services are indispensible and therefore the contract should be made into a permanent position. Also, the usual problem: I'm not able to do the research to enable me to speak from a solid factual basis on the new issues and also do not have the political nouce of other contributors. But, it's fun learning - and my aim is to contribiute more as cirucmstances improve for me personally.

Regards,

Barry

Here's my result:

vvvv

Semi pseudo-lefty
You scored 27 per cent pseudiness
"There is in every village a torch: the schoolmaster - and an extinguisher: the parson." - Victor Hugo You have some tendencies towards pseudo-leftism. But it is certainly not too late for you. Read some Nick Cohen in the Guardian or Johann Hari in the Independent and you can be saved. Think about what being left-wing really means. Is it about mouthing the latest knee-jerk anti-American slogan, or is it about forging bonds of solidarity with liberal muslims and jews and supporting trades unionists and democrats in Britain and abroad? Granted, the US isn't always helpful in building coalitions for social justice - but is Bush really worse than Ayatollah Khomenei?! Drop me a line if this has piqued your interest in the issues. Remember that the "Resistance" in Iraq is murdering trades unionists, socialists, liberals and democrats on a daily basis - they're no friends of the left. Take a look at http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/ and http://www.labourfriendsofiraq.org.uk/ if you're interested in looking at some alternative left-wing views.


^^^^

I guess my 27% failure was due to the following answers:

1. 911: A wake up call. US foreign policy was to blame.
(Even Bush has said so, but the liberals still don't get it).

6. George Galloway - none (couldn't stomache calling him a Stalinist when he's in fact an opportunist and apologist for Sadaam Hussain).

8. "I will not vote Labour - they're not really different to the Conservatives. It doesn't matter which of these two win."

(I'm guessing that doesn't make any sense to "labourfriendsofiraq" even though most of the Labor party opposed solidarity with Iraq and most of the Tories supported it).

9. Globalization - none. (I support globalization for the same reason I support world revolution, not because I believe in "global regulatory frameworks" nor believing it only helps the multi-nationals).

10. Capitalism - none. (I don't believe it can be abolished now by "protests demonstrations and strikes", nor that it will reform itself out of existence nor that "regulated capitalism can produce social justice" - whatever any of that iss supposed to mean).

11. People who voted for Bush. None. Many probbly just couldn't stomache the politics of the Democrats and John Kerry - unanimously supported by the liberals at Harry's Place who therefore would probably prefer the answer that people voted for Bush because they are conservative.

12. The war on terror and islamic fundamentalism - none. I guess I could have agreed with "A real threat exists that must be dealt with through intelligence, military, diplomatic and political action." But I also could have agreed with "A figment dreamed up by Bush, Blair etc to further their own right-wing agendas at home and abroad." since they are actually fighting a democratic revolution not a war on terror and are clearly callied with some islamists (eg SCIRI and Daawa in Iraq) against autocrats and fascists not against "fundamentalists" but have had to obscure this to keep both the right and the liberals confused as keeping them confused suits their own right-wing agenda better.

13. Alliance between socialists and radical Islamists? (Ie RESPECT and the Muslim Association of Britain)

Not sure if I picked "none" out of sheer irritation with liberals who still haven't realised both "socialists" and communists and anyone supporting the liberation of Iraq ARE allied with "radical Islamists" against the autocracies and islamo-fascists or whether I chose the "correct" answer:

"An abdication of progressive and enlightenment values and a slap in the face to liberal muslims."

Nothing against muslims per se but I really do think liberals of any religion need a good slap complete with their sanctimonious "progressive and enlightenment values".

14. "Internment without trial/ control orders (house arrest)/ increased use of stop and search powers?" .

None. I partly agree that "Some of these may be necessary. Civil liberties and security must strike a balance, but we must be vigilant for abuse." which is probably the "correct" answer, but its typical liberal waffle since how could anyone possibly disagree that something "may" be necessary.

I also partly agree with "Liable to increase Islamophobia and a backlash in the muslim community." since it obviously has and has also obviously been a knee-jerk response that encourages sloppy incompetent security work instead of mobilizing the people, including the muslim community.

15. Israel. I picked "Systematic human rights abusers - but killing Israeli civilians is wrong." Perhaps I'm being uncharitable but I suspect the "correct" answer was supposed to be "Both sides are committing violent acts. We need a return to negotiations." I was also tempted to pick "Fascists. Support the Palestinians' violent struggle." since obviously there has to be violent struggle when the only alternative is "negotiations" that leave fascist occupiers (as opposed to all Israelis) comfortably in charge.

I think the Euston Manifesto's crowd popularizing the term pseudo-left is a very good thing and they do apply it to essentially the same people we do and for quite similar reasons. But the sheer arrogance of their religious assumptions that liberalism is the way, the truth and the light is highlighted by not even bothering to explain which answers they actually consider correct and why. It simply doesn't occur to them that people who oppose the pseudo-left with much the same sort of disgust that they do, and for quite similar reasons, might nevertheless not automatically see the world from the only perspective that makes sense to liberals - liberalism.

With typical smugness the parson thinks that simply telling people to read Nick Cohen and Johann Hari is consistent with the Victor Hugo quote against parsons. While I'm a communist who doesn't feel like being "saved" by this parson I suspect that any conservative Bush supporter would also not take kindly to the assumption that not agreeing with some liberal twerp implies being "anti-American" or believing that Bush is worse than Khomeini.

If being left-wing was "about forging bonds of solidarity with liberal muslims and jews and supporting trades unionists and democrats in Britain and abroad?" it would be no wonder that so many people identify as "right-wing". Pretty well everyone except liberal christians muslims and jews and trade unionists and Democrats think that liberal christians muslims and jews and trade unionists and Democrats are the absolute pits.

Naturally we prefer them to fascists but like most people, "solidarity" with these self absorbed narcisissits is just not what my poliics is "all about".

I don't have time for discussion myself but if someone else wants to copy this to the author as requested in his or her "drop me a line" and invite discussion here one could take that request as being open to discussion rather than simply sermonizing like a parson.

That's the trouble with liberals. They are so intolerant and illiberal that it's just much more productive and less of a waste of time to argue with people who understand that there are other world views and are comfortable about actually defending theirs against others rather than simply telling people to be more politically correct.

So I'd be pleasantly surprised if the author did respond to such an invitation but would leave it to whoever does the inviting to actually respond seriously if he or she does as I both don't have time and am too irritated with liberals myself to do so constructively at the moment.