Poll of the Day > How Fascist are you? (Test inside)

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.idrlabs.com/fascism/test.php

I scored 31%

---

31% also

---

You are 40% Fascist, which makes you a Fascist Fellow-Traveler.

I'll be honest. I didn't understand a fair few questions but I also don't care for politics at all. Hell, I don't even know what fascism is.

---

To paraphrase something I said back when playing NationStates, my ideal government tends to be a fiscally conservative/socially liberal small government libertarian model, unless I get to be the one in charge, in which case it would be a fascist dictatorship where people are strictly controlled and treated as resources to serve the greater glory of the state.

I scored 34% on the test, but I'd probably be a hell of a lot higher if I was answering questions from the perspective of someone running things and not someone forced to live in the system.
---

You are 58% Fascist, which makes you a Crypto-Fascist.

hup

@EvilMegas

---

41 percent

---

"You are 50% Fascist, which makes you a Crypto-Fascist"

Fascism in simple terms https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I'll try later

---

You are 28% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist.
<img src="https://www.idrlabs.com/misc_pictures/fascism-button-icon.png">
While your political outlook may share a few (or even quite a few) of fascism's fundamental doctrines, it is overall safe to say that your political orientation is *not* a fascist one. Now, you may find this result unsurprising, but in reality, most people have at least some points of agreement with fascism since fascism is really a mix of communism, socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, with a few innovations of its own thrown in. Hence, adjusting for these factors, even though your fascism percentage might seem quite high, there is really nothing surprising about these agreements, when viewed in their proper historical context, so rest assured: Your political beliefs are definitely not fascist.


---

You are 29% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist

---

i'm still winning

---

You are 68% Fascist, which makes you a Bona Fide Fascist.

Daddy wins

---

i bet you did it on purpose!

---

49%

---

I am 20% Fascist.

CTLM posted...

Pretty bad image, seeing how I'm supposedly a "Social Democrat"

It's like people just think about guns... idgaf about guns. Just a wealth redistribution system that targets the upper class.

---

I'm 40% fascist.

---

54%
---

Sahuagin posted...

You are 29% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist

---

You are 25% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist.
While your political outlook may share a few (or even quite a few) of fascism's fundamental doctrines, it is overall safe to say that your political orientation is *not* a fascist one. Now, you may find this result unsurprising, but in reality, most people have at least some points of agreement with fascism since fascism is really a mix of communism, socialism, conservatism, and liberalism, with a few innovations of its own thrown in. Hence, adjusting for these factors, even though your fascism percentage might seem quite high, there is really nothing surprising about these agreements, when viewed in their proper historical context, so rest assured: Your political beliefs are definitely not fascist.

Democracy is dangerous to competent statecraft because it forces every political decision to be lowered to a level of stupidity that the masses can understand.

If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it well enough yourself.

---

Not fascist. Since the scale considers socialism on par with fascism the whole survey is a fallacy.

---

26%. I was torn on that worth of a nation by its history question, given that it potentially had multiple interpretations.

SunWuKung420 posted... Not fascist. Since the scale considers socialism on par with fascism the whole survey is a fallacy.

More like you don't understand it and, because it tells you things you dislike, are going to complain. It pretty much spells out that these systems share common elements and it's unsurprising that two systems that put the state ahead of the individual are going to share commonalities.

---

26% is my result and im not fascist.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Not fascist. Since the scale considers socialism on par with fascism the whole survey is a fallacy.

fascism has no true political home it can and has been performed by socialists and conservatives over the centuries.

---

You are all weak

---

53%

Humans are terrible and require a firm Dragonius hand to guide them.

Look what has happened recently, when the Dragonius have backed off and allowed the humans to have real agency!

The humans fought amongst their own tribes with such vigour they sent this planet back to the stone age! Further, they lost contact with all the other colonies.

And from the ashes of their folly, they have rebuilt alongside terrible, hateful and destructive ideas rooted in pure fantasy. Their so called gods are more vile than the True Daemons of old!

You are 28% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist.

---

26%

---

18%, not fascist.

---

18%, not fascist.

---

Got a 23%

That's fine. Especially since some of the questions are so broad or vague it was tough to truly agree or disagree to the entire thing.

You are 25% Fascist, which makes you Not Fascist.

Whatever. I reject being labeled either way.

---

I wasn't expecting to spend so much time thinking about one of the questions.

This one really threw me for a loop:

"It's not logical or efficient to have several companies all making the same tire, the same wrench, the same cable, etc., so the state should step in to coordinate their efforts."

Like....there's a difference between a wrench....and your internet provider. You know?

Monopolies are bad. And depending on what the service is.....it would be extremely dangerous if every American had the same exact internet provider. If that one provider got hacked....we'd ALL be fucked.

But I also think it's ridiculous that there are 87 brands of batteries, if they are all, scientifically, physically, essentially....the same.

---

GreenKnight127 posted...

I wasn't expecting to spend so much time thinking about one of the questions.

This one really threw me for a loop:

"It's not logical or efficient to have several companies all making the same tire, the same wrench, the same cable, etc., so the state should step in to coordinate their efforts."

Like....there's a difference between a wrench....and your internet provider. You know?

Monopolies are bad. And depending on what the service is.....it would be extremely dangerous if every American had the same exact internet provider. If that one provider got hacked....we'd ALL be fucked.

But I also think it's ridiculous that there are 87 brands of batteries, if they are all, scientifically, physically, essentially....the same.

This is wrong even in a communist society or socialist society as competition between multiple brands leads to innovation. Pure socialism where everyone gets paid the same amount and there is no competition for products is actually bad for innovation because of this (to some degree), that does not mean we need to be purely capatalistic and all about the competition, but a melding of both systems would be the best solution.

Just having one company build a product could easily lead to stagnation and while a monopoly would not be that dangerous if it was regulated by the govermnent (which it obviously is if there is only one company), it could prevent new technologies rising to replace old and we could be stuck with batteries from the 80's, in 2020 if that was the case.

A version of socialism where everyone has a base level of income but you can make more, have better living spaces, purchase extra luxiories etc if you work harder (or better) etc, and some competition still exists, is the best solution.

Our current system is wacked for a majority of citizens. Competition does work to spur innovation, but we have the resources for everyone to have a comfortable life and not even need to work 30 hours a week. While some alterations would certainly benefit the majority, getting rid of all competition and the ability to have a better life, more things etc, based on your hard work and efforts would be a serious mistake.

A more equal distribution of wealth is what we need more than anything, along with a tax system that is fair and allows for some socialist ideals (free health care for all, free education for all, and the assurance of a job that will pay for a comfortable life for every american).

Sadly all the power is in the wealthy in this country which makes such changes very unlikely. Even if you voted in someone who actually would fight for such changes, you would then need to vote in enough people in congress etc that also believe in such changes and usually the options/choices don't include them at all.

Therefore, I predict that things won't change much naturally with our current political system, we may not even see a fair tax system without loopholes etc in the near future. I could be wrong, but pretty much in the 30 years I have been voting, I do not feel like anything has actually been changed for the better, and we have not worked as a nation on our infrastructure at all since Hoover.

I could live another 20 years, or only a couple more, but sadly I don't expect to see large changes in my lifetime, unless global warming gets so extreme they are forced apon us.

---

GreenKnight127 posted...

But I also think it's ridiculous that there are 87 brands of batteries, if they are all, scientifically, physically, essentially....the same.

Even if the end products are identical, the companies making them can compete to improve their production efficiency and other factors, and use that to lower prices to increase sales. The competition will still improve the overall situation, even if the products themselves don't improve.

---

38%...whatever that means

wolfy42 posted...

Pure socialism where everyone gets paid the same amount and there is no competition for products is actually bad for innovation because of this (to some degree), that does not mean we need to be purely capatalistic and all about the competition, but a melding of both systems would be the best solution.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone gets paid the same and there's no competition. Firstly, even in the USSR people were heavily rewarded for hard work, so the whole "now everyone's paycheck is the same" was always a myth. And in a market socialist system, you can have competition between multiple worker-owned enterprises, without even a hint of capitalism.


---

CTLM posted...

"You are 50% Fascist, which makes you a Crypto-Fascist"

Fascism in simple terms https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

So being 50% Fascist means you are in the center which is still more right than Dems and Republicans.

---

Decoy77 posted...

So being 50% Fascist means you are in the center which is still more right than Dems and Republicans.

Or...you know.... that graph is just complete BS that oversimplifies and misrepresents political ideologies.

ZeldaMutant posted...

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean that everyone gets paid the same and there's no competition. Firstly, even in the USSR people were heavily rewarded for hard work, so the whole "now everyone's paycheck is the same" was always a myth. And in a market socialist system, you can have competition between multiple worker-owned enterprises, without even a hint of capitalism.

I did say "pure socialism" as in there is no privately owned property and the net profits or resources are split equally among the citizens. I did not state there has been a pure socialist society, I was just stating that such a society would not be a good thing, at least for innovation.

I do think things need to change now that we have more technology and many jobs could be automated. A more socialist setup would make sense at this point because menial labor is much less important or needed over all, and you could probably halve the amount of work hours humans need to do. Splitting the "profits" from automated work in such a case would make alot of sense, and then individuals could actually work and earn additional profits themselves (but the profits from automated work itself would be enough for average citizens to live comfortably.)


---

Holy shit this "test" is scary af

Organizations like the Freemasons and similar secret lodges cannot be trusted since they have their own agendas.

It doesn't matter. Everyone here, and the person who has written the test will never have the power to control the agenda of the organizations that they are suspect of. Biased questions are fucking stupid.

The economic losses from worker strikes and employer lock-outs are just too massive to allow market forces to sort these things out by themselves.

Questions like this aren't even applicable to "normal" people, at least in a country that doesn't unionize like the United States.

btw I got 28%. Most of the questions asked were so absurd, I had to put a neutral answer to them as neither answer makes any coherent sense to my day to day life. The concept that someone could be superior to another one just via discrimination is fundamentally flawed.

---

You are 35% Fascist, which makes you a Fascist Fellow-Traveler.

Judgmenl posted...

Holy shit this "test" is scary af

Mostly because the questions are statements that fascists would agree with. You have the option to disagree. It isn't the test that is scary, it's fascism.

---

CTLM posted...

"You are 50% Fascist, which makes you a Crypto-Fascist"

Fascism in simple terms https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

There it is, a visual representation of cancer.

If you seriously agree with this, give your head a shake. Or better yet, read a book.

---

faramir77 posted...

Mostly because the questions are statements that fascists would agree with. You have the option to disagree. It isn't the test that is scary, it's fascism.

The Disagrees are equally as scary as the put emphasis on the opposite ideology, or like I said, put emphasis on caring about "secret societies", and prejudice based on race/sex/whatever.

---

So I'm taking Political Compass like I do every few years and I'm talking about questions like this:

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

I have no control over military action, and I don't have the authority on the subject to determine whether or not its justified. I have no idea how to answer this. The best I could provide is a "no answer", but the test does not allow that. I don't agree with military action unless it's for defense or as a deterrent, however, I don't necessary disagree with the statement. Action is justified if it is as an act of defense, but international bureaucracies do not necessarily care about your defense.
The statement's just weird.

Economic questions also have this sense of bias:

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.

Like I really, really don't care. I, as with most people do not have any control over the economy.

---

Judgmenl posted...

The Disagrees are equally as scary as the put emphasis on the opposite ideology, or like I said, put emphasis on caring about "secret societies", and prejudice based on race/sex/whatever.

Saying you don't agree that secretive private societies "cannot be trusted" doesn't mean that you agree or care about the potential agendas of those organizations. I see nothing problematic there.

And what do you mean by the prejudice comment? Which questions would have a negative implication either way? I put neutral for a few of them but I can't recall which ones.

---

Judgmenl posted...

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.

I have no control over military action, and I don't have the authority on the subject to determine whether or not its justified. I have no idea how to answer this. The best I could provide is a "no answer", but the test does not allow that. I don't agree with military action unless it's for defense or as a deterrent, however, I don't necessary disagree with the statement.
The statement's just weird.

Ah, okay. Again though, the neutral option provides an out on this one. That's your "no answer".

---

faramir77 posted...

Ah, okay. Again though, the neutral option provides an out on this one. That's your "no answer".

Nah I'm talking about Poltiical Compass now, which doesn't have a "no answer". Either you agree or disagree.

---

Judgmenl posted...

Nah I'm talking about Poltiical Compass now, which doesn't have a "no answer". Either you agree or disagree.

Political Compass definitely does have a strong Left bias though. It shows when you pick the "more stances" option because it ends up reading something like this:

Q: Are babies edible?

1. Yes, babies can provide a source of nourishment in a well-balanced diet.
2. Yes, and we should eat all babies. Women should be forced to have babies so we can all eat more of them. An all-baby diet will make strong alpha males to protect our baby-eating way of life which is superior to all other systems.
3. No. They're poisonous.
4. No, children are our future but we shouldn't have any without weighing the possible environmental and social justice consequences of procreation.
5. No, and we shouldn't eat animals either. We should only begrudgingly eat plants, engineer plants to consent to being eaten, and you're literally Hitler if you live indoors and don't pocket mulch.

The aggregate of responses after 50 questions leads to about 1 of 3 outcomes. Anarchist, libertarian/left libertarian, or fascist/authoritarian and the questions seem to group strongly on just a few hot button issues at any given time instead of a spectrum of issues since you'll basically see similar questions 2 or 3 times, just phrased differently.

---

wolfy42 posted...

I did say "pure socialism" as in there is no privately owned property and the net profits or resources are split equally among the citizens.

Even in "pure socialism" where private property is completely abolished, there's no requirement for all resources to be split evenly between every citizen. You can have some citizens with more personal property and some with less personal property.


---

*Not part of the 1000 odd people that's educated and informed enough to answer quiz.