A small request.

You are right. I also want to add something.People easily accuse together such as you are a communist1 for ex. I am not happy with these kind of situations.

Originally posted by Spartakus It's�a good thing to know that at least someone agrees with me!

I agree with you as well, Spartakus.

I think the most over used term is "Fascist."

How many here really know what the term means?  I'll bet most who use it don't have the faintest idea what the meaning or background of the term is.

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 I think the most over used term is "Fascist." How many here really know what the term means?  I'll bet most who use it don't have the faintest idea what the meaning or background of the term is.

Fascist means totalitarian: it is correctly applied to:

• People who rejoice on the damage caused by their weapons on civilians
• People who consider that it's ok to cause damage on others as long as there's a nationalist/patriotic excuse behind
• People who have a dogma and want everybody else to accept it (i.e. fundamentalists)
• People who believe that their nation/race/faith is better than the rest
• People who don't think that Human Rights apply but in their own case
• People who favor the existence of ghettos/neocolonies in our unified World
  
• Etc.
  

Sadly the term fascist has not lost its ability to correctly describe the most pernicious realities in our world. Sadly humans can still be described well with that term.

You emphasize the less relevant characteristics of fascisms. Mussolini or Franco didn't make torch parades. You are blinded by the unique characteristics of Nazism.

Mussolini did like some exotic parafernalia... but he was a Leo: he liked to attract attention.

Fascism is synonim of right-wing authoritarism - and I admit that you can use it also for left-wing authoritarism, particularly Stalinism, though it loses its meaning largely because of its socialist character (Stalin nationalized much more than Lenin ever did).

Franco never risked the fate of Mussolini: he was an ally of the allies as well. He was cared by the USA - and he was always a fascist.

You put the emphasis in the trivia, not in the essence.

Fascism is not fascism then, because fascism has never attempted to change society.

There's nothing specific in fascism that isn't in other unspecific right-wing authoritarisms since the times of Sharrukin. The only thing is that maybe they copied some paraphernalia from Socialism, particularly Stalinism - but that was just aesthetics. You don't judge a political ideology for the aesthetics but for the substance.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Originally posted by Maju Fascism is not fascism then, because fascism has never attempted to change society. It did. The Germany and Italy of 1940 were definately very different from the Germany and Italy of 1920.

Sure: the Chile of Pinochet was also very diferent of democratic and socialist Chile. The Spain of Franco was sdefinitively diferent that the Spain of the Republic. The Portugal of Salazar was totally diferent from the democratic Portugal before his coup.

sh*t happens, you know.

There's nothing specific in fascism that isn't in other unspecific right-wing authoritarisms since the times of Sharrukin. The only thing is that maybe they copied some paraphernalia from Socialism, particularly Stalinism - but that was just aesthetics. You don't judge a political ideology for the aesthetics but for the substance. I think it's the other way around. Conservative authoritarian regimes have borrowed some of the aesthetics of fascism (Peron and Vargas are good examples of this) without becoming fascist themselves.

Peron is a ver odd character and Peronism is as well. Go figure that the current leader of Argentina, friend of Lula and Ch�vez and fierce critic of Bush is a Peronist himself.

I'm not sure who's Vargas now. Dominican Republic maybe?

But if you say that South American military juntas like that of Pinochet weren't fascist, show me anything they are diferent at (apart of some mediatic approach, more a fashion of the 30s than a character of fascism itself).

Mussolini defined fascism but his regime wasn't diferent from other many militarist nationalist regimes that had existed before him since Napoleon or Cromwell or would exist after him.