The whole test is presented under a false dichotomy between Liberalism and Fascism . Most of us socialists are presented with a neutral response when we really want neither or none of the above . Several were basically Do you think The Fascist State or the Liberal Capitalist Free Market should solve it ? Most socialists want neither . Let ' s examine these The individual is more important than the state . Difficult to answer . There is no conflict between the individualist and the collectivist outside of the absolute extremes on either side the individual has the most to gain through the support of their community and the community is strongest when it respects the interests of the individual . But why is this contrasted exclusively against The State ? So I want to hit disagree because I do not find The State to be more important , but that does not mean I agree with the biggest parasite to society The Rugged Individualist . The individual cannot really claim any rights against the state , since it is the state that grants him these rights in the first place . A sad reality is that this is factually true . However , it is because of this sad reality that one of my chief goals in my political beliefs is to alter this dynamic . Do I agree with the factual statement or disagree because it is my goal to end it ? 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 . What kind of democracy ? Some are good , some are bad . The economic losses from worker strikes and employer lockouts are just too massive to allow market forces to sort these things out by themselves . What ? Neither of the above . People who seek happiness through money and material comfort will never achieve it . bold my ownThe absolute statement makes this false , but there are quite a few people out there whose selfworth is tied directly to their monetary worth most capitalists and procapitalists are like this . Those people definitely find fulfillment in monetary earnings . But most people find fulfillment through other means and monetary earnings are a tool to achieve those other goals . Agree or disagree ? Eerreehh , I don ' t know because everyone ' s different . 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 . More fascism vs liberalism . None of the above . Competition in the market is good , it is also wasteful . It means that neither the mythical free market nor The State have a perfect solution . The free market is the most efficient way of organizing the economy known to man . Again , more of the false dichotomy and a false absolutist statement . Markets are a good thing and can be very efficient , more efficient than centralized planning . It is far from perfect and far from the most efficient . They can be very inefficient especially when it comes to labor markets under Capitalism as they incentivize that most people work to the bare minimum of their abilities . So . Neither ? Classical liberalism is essentially an ideology of the past and modern attempts to reinstate it a . k . a . neoliberalism are bound to lead to wars . While I do agree , in this ongoing context of Liberalism vs Fascism hitting agree would push me closer to fascism which I also find to lead to more wars . They ' re both prone to war so do I agree because it ' s true or do I disagree because the problem is universal to both fascism and liberalism ? Running a business is not very hard , and as a rule , the business owner doesn ' t possess any special skills that are not also possessed by his workers . Running a business is hard , so disagree . However , the business owner doesn ' t possess any special skills that are not also possessed by his workers , and that ' s a reason why those are best shared so that no one person has to take on all those responsibilities themselves . So agree ? Going neutral leaves me stuck between Liberalism and Fascism when I oppose both .