Excellent Political Quiz

[Auftrag]

A few more words for you I've read Marx I've read Hitler they are two peas in the same pod.

How? Hitler rejected Marx's historical materialism, rejected class struggle, rejected the idea of humans as collectively sociable, rejected the destruction of capitalism.

How..I mean, how are they two pea's in the same pod. They fundamentally disagree on the basis of each others ideologies. I mean, it isn't a slight disagreement. Hitler rejected the fundamental premise of marxism.

You're an idiot!

 

[Comrade Brian]

Mao's China and the Soviet Union are the purest forms of socialism

Quite wrong my friend.

they adobted every single tennant of Marx

No they didn't, E.g., in the Crtitque od the Gotha Programme Marx stated that scholls should "be free from both religion and government", there's one for ya, and many others too. Say democracy, Marx said that "Democracy is the road to socialism", Trotsky said "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen", and there are many more things too.

as we have already established a stateless socialist nation is simply impossible

We did?

These people that claim that Socialism and Stalinism are different are just trying to fool themselves

No, one main difference is that Stalin preached "socialism in one country", which is what he considered socialism practiced in one country only, and he was often critisized because he was a nationalist. Marxists and other socialists are Internationalists, not to mention about a 100 bazillion other differences.

How is it that you can argue that the people should be expected to give up their individual rights for the good of society

I have never supported losing "individual rights", only private property that is not immediately needed for the person.

the only social system suitable to Democracy is that of capitalism in which people are not only free to own property but our also free to do with it what they wish.

Disagreed, I find it completely impractical that one "can simply do what they wish" in any society.

 

[Comrade Brian]

How? Hitler rejected Marx's historical materialism, rejected class struggle, rejected the idea of humans as collectively sociable, rejected the destruction of capitalism.

How..I mean, how are they two pea's in the same pod. They fundamentally disagree on the basis of each others ideologies. I mean, it isn't a slight disagreement. Hitler rejected the fundamental premise of marxism.

You're an idiot!

I think this one of the few things we'll agree on little Nazi man. Hitler and Marx are fundamentally opposite.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Fascism does not provide a "free-market".

Fascism equals capitalism minus "free-market, or maybe fascism is just another form of capitalism, one that most don't advocate.

Pinochet was a fascist who was supported by America and had a free market.

Hitler actually didn't have the free market like the one we have here, but did have class division and a somewhat free market.

I provided a name of a German who lived in his economic peak during Hitler's regime on my last post. Hia name was something like Oskar Shilider

 

[Comrade Brian]

Yeah I know, fascism seems to be one odd ideology, its different in almost every case of it, the only thing that combines it, is the nationalism, totalitarian practices, and usually a utopian belief that those from above are "obligated" to help those below, and usually think they do so. Though what I have seen is that the "top" usually just supresses the "below" and usually has them fooled by propaganda, nationalism, and sometimes just downright suppression by force.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah I know, fascism seems to be one odd ideology, its different in almost every case of it, the only thing that combines it, is the nationalism, totalitarian practices, and usually a utopian belief that those from above are "obligated" to help those below, and usually think they do so. Though what I have seen is that the "top" usually just supresses the "below" and usually has them fooled by propaganda, nationalism, and sometimes just downright suppression by force.

No what combines them is the lack of political freedom which in turn makes it socialist because though you may own private property the state can still tell you what to do with it.

 

[LeftyHenry]

No what combines them is the lack of political freedom which in turn makes it socialist because though you may own private property the state can still tell you what to do with it.

there's no private property in Communism so what are you arguing? Everyone shares everything fairly in Communism but not in Facsism. Trajan, your arguement has no substance. Drop it because it's getting really boring. Both a Fascist and two Communists have told you you're wrong but still you persist.

 

[Comrade Brian]

No what combines them is the lack of political freedom which in turn makes it socialist because though you may own private property the state can still tell you what to do with it.

Again with your little "theory" that socialists are equated with fascists, you totally ignore the points of either, e.g. socialists are internationalist, fascists are extreme nationalists, and as Auftrag also pointed out was that most fascists deny classes, or that they play any necessary part(which I noted already in a handful of occasions).

 

[Comrade Brian]

there's no private property in Communism so what are you arguing? Everyone shares everything fairly in Communism but not in Facsism. Trajan, your arguement has no substance. Drop it because it's getting really boring. Both a Fascist and two Communists have told you you're wrong but still you persist.

I agree with this fully, except Auftrag is a Nazi, not a fascist, as Naziism is fascism plus extreme racism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How? Hitler rejected Marx's historical materialism, rejected class struggle, rejected the idea of humans as collectively sociable, rejected the destruction of capitalism.

How..I mean, how are they two pea's in the same pod. They fundamentally disagree on the basis of each others ideologies. I mean, it isn't a slight disagreement. Hitler rejected the fundamental premise of marxism.

You're an idiot!

Think of it like this you have two triangles one Isocolese and one obtuse you put them on a table and all you might see are the differences, they have different angles different lengths etc, however, now you add a square so that the differences in the two triangles seem minimum in comparison.

The same can be said for social structures in these cases Communism where you have no economic freedom and Fascism were you have no political freedom if you put them both together on the table all you might see are the differences yet add another social structure in this case Capitalism where you have both political and economic freedom, now the differnces in Communism and Fascism seem minimul.

The one main differnce in Communism and Fascism is that in Fascism you may be able to own your own property, however, the state is still able to tell you what to do with that property for the so called social good so the net result is the same; a socialist structure in which you lose both political and economic freedoms.

Both Communism and Fascism have the same net results the end of Political and Economic liberty and the installation of a tyrant to lead.

For someone who loves Hitler you really don't know much about his political ideology:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.
(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

Your mind has been poluted by this bigoted sh!t who the hell taught you to follow the tennants of this socialist moron who rejected the tennants of the enlightenment instead of the tennants of Locke and Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton et al. Why would you prescribe to a doctrine that grants all authority to the state over individual liberty?

Read this nazi it's the basis for the American institution and is the antithesis to both that moron Marx and that maniac Hitler:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/2nd-contents.html

Here's a little taste:

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another....

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Though the earth...be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has a right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature has provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
...the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property without the assignation and consent of any body.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

there's no private property in Communism so what are you arguing? Everyone shares everything fairly in Communism but not in Facsism. Trajan, your arguement has no substance. Drop it because it's getting really boring. Both a Fascist and two Communists have told you you're wrong but still you persist.

Oh wow two Communists and a Fascist, there's three really objective positions read this and get back to me I have not made this assertion without first studying the tennants of both while in fascism you may own private property the state can still tell you what to do with said property for the so called greater good making it socialist in nature:

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again with your little "theory" that socialists are equated with fascists, you totally ignore the points of either, e.g. socialists are internationalist, fascists are extreme nationalists, and as Auftrag also pointed out was that most fascists deny classes, or that they play any necessary part(which I noted already in a handful of occasions).

The points are not lost on me they are lost on you if you even read that article I gave you then you would understand that the similarities between the two social structures far out way the differences.

 

[Thorgasm]

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, small-government, protectionist, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person.

Individual vs Social 56

Theist vs Materialist 77

Big Government vs Small Government 75

Nationalist vs Internationalist 44

Protectionist vs Free Trader 30

Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist 72

Controlled Market vs Liberal Market 35

Marxist vs Non-Marxist 44

 

[jackarmstrong]

I took four different tests to see how they differed...
One:

Two:

Three:

And finally, on the big one (the one that started this thread):

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you an individually-orientated, nationalist, free-trade, liberal-market kind of person.

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of libertarian. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.

Individual vs Social
You scored 33 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social.

Theist vs Materialist
You scored 46 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist.

Big Government vs Small Government
You scored 57 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government.

Nationalist vs Internationalist
You scored 35 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist.

Protectionist vs Free Trader
You scored 76 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader.

Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
You scored 54 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist.

Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
You scored 80 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market.




I find the last one strange since i'm mostly conservative... as the other three quizzes showed. This one had a lot of vague quesitons - i put 'neutral' for bunch of them....


Soo... yeah.


Oh, PS - Hi, i'm new here

 

[Auftrag]

Think of it like this you have two triangles one Isocolese and one obtuse you put them on a table and all you might see are the differences, they have different angles different lengths etc, however, now you add a square so that the differences in the two triangles seem minimum in comparison.

That's a ridiculous analogy.

The same can be said for social structures in these cases Communism where you have no economic freedom and Fascism were you have no political freedom if you put them both together on the table all you might see are the differences yet add another social structure in this case Capitalism where you have both political and economic freedom, now the differnces in Communism and Fascism seem minimul.

That makes no sense and has no rational or logical value. It's a hatched up assertion.

The one main differnce in Communism and Fascism is that in Fascism you may be able to own your own property, however, the state is still able to tell you what to do with that property for the so called social good so the net result is the same; a socialist structure in which you lose both political and economic freedoms.

Oh for god sake…

First you talk about Communism, then you talk about socialism in the context of talking about communism, so which is it?

Secondly, what socialism are you talking about because there are different kinds? There is Marxian socialism which is, in Marxist language, the transitional phase between capitalism and communism, there is reformist socialism which advocates the reformation of capitalism, rather than its complete destruction and then there is National Socialism, which within it has two different strands of political thinking in terms of Socialism.

Thirdly, Communism is a stateless society, which is why Fascism opposes it so the idea that Communism restricts economic freedoms is a fallacy, because in order to restrict freedoms there has to be organised institutions to enforce it.

Both Communism and Fascism have the same net results the end of Political and Economic liberty and the installation of a tyrant to lead.

But this is the problem. You have a lack of basic understandings for both communism and fascism, yet talk with authority using stereotypical prejudices and language.

It's your subjective opinion that fascism instils a tyrant, it is not an objective political analysis.

Further, communism the theory of a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society, so how can it install a tyrant as a leader? You are taking reference from Soviet Russia under Stalin. A reference that you have been spoon fed. Soviet Russia was never a communist society. It was a socialist dictatorship in the context of Marxism.

For someone who loves Hitler you really don't know much about his political ideology:

I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and penpushers have timidly begun...I had only to develop logically what Social Democracy repeatedly failed in because of its attempt to realize its evolution within the framework of democracy. National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.
(Hitler to Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, pg. 186).

Was this a speech, was this a documented conversation?

On the presumption that Hitler said this, I don't see how it proves your point that Fascism and Marxism is the same thing?

Now, during the classical period of National Socialism the rhetoric of Hitler and Rohm was indeed revolutionary, and in this respect very similar to Marxism. But only in the context of overthrowing ruling elite: Namely the Jews, instead of some ruling class.

I'll repeat myself. National Socialism rejects historical materialism as a way of understanding history, instead asserting that Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest is how human history has developed. Secondly, National Socialism rejects the idea of class struggle, I fundamental tenet of Marxism. National Socialism asserts that it's not classes that struggle against each other, but races: Aryans against Jews...

Thirdly, Marxism asserts that human beings are ostensibly the same and therefore can live in harmony and co-operation with each other. National Socialism outright rejects that fundamentally, asserting that human beings are genetically different, and that the weak cannot co-operate and live in harmony with the strong.

How different can you get?

Your mind has been poluted by this bigoted sh!t who the hell taught you to follow the tennants of this socialist moron who rejected the tennants of the enlightenment instead of the tennants of Locke and Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton et al.

Nonsensical.

Why would you prescribe to a doctrine that grants all authority to the state over individual liberty?

What is individual liberty and why is it an important and vital aspect of being a human being?

The state is like a god. It's the logical conclusion of human relations and interactions. It's a natural entity.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's a ridiculous analogy.



That makes no sense and has no rational or logical value. It's a hatched up assertion.



Oh for god sake…

First you talk about Communism, then you talk about socialism in the context of talking about communism, so which is it?

They're the same damn thing.

Secondly, what socialism are you talking about because there are different kinds? There is Marxian socialism which is, in Marxist language, the transitional phase between capitalism and communism, there is reformist socialism which advocates the reformation of capitalism, rather than its complete destruction and then there is National Socialism, which within it has two different strands of political thinking in terms of Socialism.

They are all the same they lead to political and economic tyranny and the loss of mans liberty.

Thirdly, Communism is a stateless society, which is why Fascism opposes it so the idea that Communism restricts economic freedoms is a fallacy, because in order to restrict freedoms there has to be organised institutions to enforce it.
[/QUOTE
Communism has never been stateless the Soviet regime was just as authoritarian as the Nazi party.

But this is the problem. You have a lack of basic understandings for both communism and fascism, yet talk with authority using stereotypical prejudices and language.

You don't even know the roots of your own ideology and you're telling me that I lack an understanding.

It's your subjective opinion that fascism instils a tyrant, it is not an objective political analysis.

Franco, Pinochet, Hitler, Mussolini, et al they were all tyrants.

Further, communism the theory of a stateless, classless, non-hierarchical society, so how can it install a tyrant as a leader? You are taking reference from Soviet Russia under Stalin. A reference that you have been spoon fed. Soviet Russia was never a communist society. It was a socialist dictatorship in the context of Marxism.

Never has Communism been without classes, states, or Dictators to rule them that is the lesson of history.


Was this a speech, was this a documented conversation?

On the presumption that Hitler said this, I don't see how it proves your point that Fascism and Marxism is the same thing?

Now, during the classical period of National Socialism the rhetoric of Hitler and Rohm was indeed revolutionary, and in this respect very similar to Marxism. But only in the context of overthrowing ruling elite: Namely the Jews, instead of some ruling class.

I'll repeat myself. National Socialism rejects historical materialism as a way of understanding history, instead asserting that Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest is how human history has developed. Secondly, National Socialism rejects the idea of class struggle, I fundamental tenet of Marxism. National Socialism asserts that it's not classes that struggle against each other, but races: Aryans against Jews...

Thirdly, Marxism asserts that human beings are ostensibly the same and therefore can live in harmony and co-operation with each other. National Socialism outright rejects that fundamentally, asserting that human beings are genetically different, and that the weak cannot co-operate and live in harmony with the strong.

How different can you get?



Nonsensical.



What is individual liberty and why is it an important and vital aspect of being a human being?

The state is like a god. It's the logical conclusion of human relations and interactions. It's a natural entity.

Lol the state is not a natural entity it is a creation of man the natural law is one of life, liberty, and property with out state interference.

Read this your precious fascism is a product of the Bolshevik hordes you're a pawn of the socialists and your ideology has the same net result as Communism an end to freedom:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

 

[Auftrag]

Lol the state is not a natural entity it is a creation of man the natural law is one of life, liberty, and property with out state interference.

Read this your precious fascism is a product of the Bolshevik hordes you're a pawn of the socialists and your ideology has the same net result as Communism an end to freedom:

http://www.geocities.com/jonjayray/musso.html

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You've excelled yourself...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

​

Here are my results. Not sure what this makes me.

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a small-government, internationalist, free-trade, non-absolutist, kind of person.​

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of libertarian. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.​

​

You scored 57 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.​

​

​

You scored 55 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.


​

You scored 70 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.​

​

​

You scored 67 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.


You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.


You scored 41 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.


You scored 52 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

​

 

[galenrox]

I got 48 on the individualist/social thing

You scored 48 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

28 on the theist/materialist

You scored 28 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

91 on the big/small government

You scored 91 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

I got 85 on the nationalist/internationalist thing

You scored 85 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

and 100 on the protection/free trade thing

You scored 100 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies

Other things said about me:

These characteristics would put you in the overall category of libertarian. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Liberalism area.

# 31% of test takers were more individual than you.
# 67% of test takers were more social than you.

# 9% of test takers were more theist than you.
# 90% of test takers were more materialist than you

# 97% of test takers were more big government than you.
# 3% of test takers were more small government than you.

# 94% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
# 5% of test takers were more internationalist than you.

# 97% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
# 0% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Trajan, I don;t know what to say. I simply cannot sway your idiotic theory. Words coming from a fascists mouth don't even change your ignorant theory. This is the last post I'll place on this issue.

A quote from hitler goes as following

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."

--Adolf Hitler


http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/PRINT/newdeal/quotes.html

 

[Comrade Brian]

Trajan, I don;t know what to say. I simply cannot sway your idiotic theory. Words coming from a fascists mouth don't even change your ignorant theory. This is the last post I'll place on this issue.

I have also stopped posting about Trojan's "theory", I still haven't found a person who hasn't denied it, and since Trojan has a history of bull**** like this, and doesn't listen to literally anyone, I to have decided to say "boyctt" his further claims on this issue.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Individual vs Social
"The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."


Individual Social

You scored 33 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

11% of test takers were more individual than you.
88% of test takers were more social than you.



Theist vs Materialist
"The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."


Theist Materialist

You scored 92 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

96% of test takers were more theist than you.
3% of test takers were more materialist than you.




Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."


Big Gov Small Gov

You scored 71 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

78% of test takers were more big government than you.
21% of test takers were more small government than you.



Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."


National International

You scored 79 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

87% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
11% of test takers were more internationalist than you.



Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."


Protection Free-Trade

You scored 88 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

90% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
9% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.



Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."


Absolute Non-Absolute

You scored 66 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

80% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
17% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.



Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."


Controlled Liberal

You scored 57 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

78% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
21% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.



Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."


Marxist Non-Marxist

You scored 59 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

77% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
21% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.



Lastly just to weigh into the Facism/Communism debate, I would like to clarify things.

Facism and communism are both leftist, because they devalue individual liberties, and place the collective, or the 'people' ahead of the individual.

Sure Hitler did not adopt many of the policies of Karl Marx, but the huge state spending programs, and state regulation of German industrial production, is a collectivist/socialist policy.

Communism, and Nazism differ in that Communism divides people by classes, and class structure. Whilst Facism/Nazism is divided by ethnic groups.

In reality Nazism is for people that like the whole notion of state intervention and the glory of the state, except that they only want it for their own VOLK, whilst communists want socialist programs applied for the workers/slash POLITERATE.

Nazism and Communism are not diametircally opposed. Where they differ is in who the enemy of the 'people' is. Nazis = non- ayrans, Communists = capitalists.

See how both Nazism and Communism are obsessed by struggle?

So I agree with you here Trojan. :applaud

 

[libertarian_knight]

Individual vs Social : 11

Theist vs Materialist : 69

Big Government vs Small Government : 88

Nationalist vs Internationalist : 51

Protectionist vs Free Trader : 97

Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist : 50

Controlled Market vs Liberal Market : 74

Marxist vs Non-Marxist : 53

hehe I like the 50 absolutist not absolutist stance of mine. Kind of funny I think. I am absolutely middle of the road.

Bah, marx. I hate how non-marxist ideals are labeled marxist all the time.

 

[Loxd4]

Individual vs Social : 11

Theist vs Materialist : 69

Big Government vs Small Government : 88

Nationalist vs Internationalist : 51

Protectionist vs Free Trader : 97

Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist : 50

Controlled Market vs Liberal Market : 74

Marxist vs Non-Marxist : 53

hehe I like the 50 absolutist not absolutist stance of mine. Kind of funny I think. I am absolutely middle of the road.

Bah, marx. I hate how non-marxist ideals are labeled marxist all the time.

I wounder why everone hate a marxist ideals???

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't know. I dug Groucho.