Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?

It is apparent you don't actually understand what fascism is.

You also appear very shaky on your understanding of other ideologies.

Yet another political questionaire which grants only "yes" and "no" answers to broad and nuanced questions, in an effort to lump everyone into boxes whose labels have very broad and nuanced meanings.

I have my suspicions on what specific nuances you're speaking, but obviously you've made no specific argument and I'm not going to argue against something you haven't said. For the first part, it results in people moving the goalposts: "I never said that." and for the second, I may simply be misinterpreting you unless you spell it out.

What specifically do you have a problem with? Feel free to explain the nuance and broad meaning you're concerned about specifically.

The problem is how binary this system of classification is. Even if we agreed with your use of the terms "anarchist", "classical liberal", "communist", etc (which itself is questionable), why should we categorise people's political belief system based on how they would respond to one specific issue (the "existential threat", whatever that may be)?

This isn't how political classifications typically work, for good reason. People don't usually hold political opinions that are absolutely on one side of the spectrum or the other, the reality is that most people have a broad range of views which can sit on various sides. Typically we would look at the range of views as a whole and look for a pattern (e.g. left leaning, right leaning, etc). To base someone's political classification based on a sole issue would be to ignore the nuance and depth of everything else they could think. Politics isn't just about one issue.

Okay, I see what we're going through here, so let's think about it:

1) Does someone who wants to centralize power to the state likely hold Anarchist or Classical Liberal views? No. It's clear that these are anathema to that. The decentralization of power was central to the creation of states like the United States, or the development of a Constitutional Monarchy from its Monarchical leanings in Britain. This is true universally for those political leanings, unless you have a problem with that specifically? In those conceptions, the State -is- the universal threat.

And then 3) If you want your God/Prophet to take over, by definition you are a Theocrat. That's the very definition of it. I assume you're not arguing that.

Which means your -real- concern is with Socialist/Communist and Fascist, right? You didn't give a specific concern, so please be specific about what your concern is with those definitions. That will enable me to use Marx's own words to explain why it's correct if it's the Socialist/Communist definition, and Mussolini/Gentile/Rocco/Mosley if it's the Fascist definition.

I suspect you fell on the Fascist side, which you hate, and that's why you're giving woolly non-specific concerns about the definitions. And there's no shame in that. Socialism/Communism and Fascism are the natural leanings when people leave their Democratic/Liberal leanings.

There's a reason Athens elected a Tyrant like Pisistratus, France turned to Napoleon, and Rome turned to Augustus Caesar. Society tends to be cyclical and people either want to centralize power or decentralize power. When there is a history of decentralizing power, people will start to think that centralizing power is the only way solve their existential crisis. And there is always an existential crisis.

I don't see how this addresses the point I made in my post. Why are you trying to categorise people's political positions based on a sole question? What value does that serve anyone, especially since current classifications address the breadth of views an individual might have (at least better than your own)?

This is my main issue with these types of questionaires. They are useless in their simplicity, disregard for the reality of what people think and the complexity of what these ideas / philosophies mean.

Even within your questions you have taken binary definitions of ideas that are extremely broad. Take 'decentralisation of power', which can have a whole range of meanings and applications which do not solely sit on one side of the political spectrum or the other. Anyone can claim to want to decentralise power, it doesn't matter if they are an anarchist, classical liberal, centrist, social democrat, socialist, etc.

Okay. You don't understand, so let's go one by one and you can correct me.

You don't see how the binary question: "Do you think God or a prophet should be the one running the government. If you do, you're a theocrat." neatly encapsulates that political position? That's binary.

It isn't binary, no, because it again falls victim to wanting to classify people based on how they would respond to a single issue.

Someone might believe that religious leadership is necessary and desired for the existential threat, but not all other issues pertaining to government (human rights, law enforcement, taxation, etc).

Okay - I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

So your opinion is that someone who would want either an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent leader or the mouthpiece of said leader might want that for an existential threat but would rather have a lesser, more corruptible being in charge for every other part?

I'm just too fascinated to turn away at this point. Can you tell me how you envision that working? If someone believes in an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being(And his mouthpiece being someone who speaks directly to him or represents such a figure), in what circumstances do you perceive that person saying "You know what? I want someone who's corruptible and fallible to take over."

Just... Walk me through your thought process on that one.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am pointing out the simplicity of your question and why political classifications don't (and shouldn't) work this way in practice.

I'll give an example. Suppose someone is deluded enough to think that gay marriage will cause the end of the world. To them it would be the external threat. They would want someone religious, particularly a religious conservative, in charge of marriage (either as the head of governmenf or as a member of government responsible for marriage, e.g. the Home Office).

According to you that would make them a theocrat, but it ignores all other aspects of government and what that individual thinks about them. They could have a strictly 'theocratic' view on how government should address marriage, but otherwise be a complete anarchist who thinks that the government should be as small as possible. Or they could be a hardcore theocrat and want religion to take charge of every government function to curtail all civil liberties, or they could be somewhere in between. And that doesn't even cover what this individual might think about taxation, democracy, public ownership, wealth distribution, etc.

What use is it describing them as a "theocrat" when it ignores all other aspects of government and public life?

Fascism means anything they want it to mean

People say Isreal is fascist.. I agree

People say India is fascist.. sometimes, there's a lot of religious conflict in there and Hindu nationalism

We're fascist for resisting demographic replacement of our population..

Which when you think about it, is whats happened to Palestinians..

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am pointing out the simplicity of your question and why political classifications don't (and shouldn't) work this way in practice.

I'll give an example. Suppose someone is deluded enough to think that gay marriage will cause the end of the world. To them it would be the external threat. They would want someone religious, particularly a religious conservative, in charge of marriage (either as the head of governmenf or as a member of government responsible for marriage, e.g. the Home Office).

According to you that would make them a theocrat, but it ignores all other aspects of government and what that individual thinks about them. They could have a strictly 'theocratic' view on how government should address marriage, but otherwise be a complete anarchist who thinks that the government should be as small as possible. Or they could be a hardcore theocrat and want religion to take charge of every government function to curtail all civil liberties, or they could be somewhere in between. And that doesn't even cover what this individual might think about taxation, democracy, public ownership, wealth distribution, etc.

What use is it describing them as a "theocrat" when it ignores all other aspects of government and public life?

Great argument! Care to be specific?

What you just did was an argument by fiat. You made a flat statement without any supporting argument.

But go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong and I'll use only the words of Mussolini, Gentile, Mosley and Rocco to argue back.

Rather than quoting Mussolini, you need to start with a basic primer on political ideology. Then you’d be able to give a broad definition of fascism that covers what it stands for and what it is opposed to (hint, hint, hint). Instead you’ve just made up your own meaningless definition.

Rather than acknowledge that, you’ve doubled down by being confidently incorrect and that is why your thread is turning into a car crash.

Ah! I see the problem. You don't know what a theocracy is.

Okay - A theocracy is not 'electing someone religious'. Nearly every leader of every nation in the western world has been religious, at least outwardly. That did not make them theocracies.

The definition of Theocracy is: government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

Do you want to rethink your response now? Or should I explain what 'divinely guided' means?

Do me a favor, SHallowvale: Order this book:

Essays on Fascism by Mussolini, Benito (amazon.co.uk)

Read it. You will be terrified that you agree with 90% of what these men say. The key to fighting it is to understand the 10% that leads to monstrous evil. You will see the arguments for Fascism that were used in the 1920s and 30s, and see that they're the exact same arguments you see now.

You want nuance, and that is the way you get it. You're smart. I know you are. Once you've read it, you'll see how Fascism has slipped in to the modern political arena and how it can be fought. If you don't, you won't truly understand what Fascism is other than a vague, feel-bad word. You won't know how to stop it because you won't be able to identify it.

Rather than quoting Mussolini, you need to start with a basic primer on political ideology. Then you’d be able to give a broad definition of fascism that covers what it stands for and what it is opposed to (hint, hint, hint). Instead you’ve just made up your own meaningless definition.

Rather than acknowledge that, you’ve doubled down by being confidently incorrect and that is why your thread is turning into a car crash.