drumwolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 01:00 PM
Original message |
Could the following regimes have been classified as "fascist"? |
|
Were either of these regimes, strictly speaking, "fascist"?
(1) The nationalist regime in Japan during World War Two
(2) Serbia under Milosevic
|
TN al
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Sure, Why would you have to ask? |
|
While somebody may come back with the strict definition of Fascism and find some idiosynchartic point that would eliminate either one I would think that any nationalistic regime runs the risk of being labeled a fascist regime. I would call the * regime a Fascist regime as well based on their extreme Nationalism among other things.
|
drumwolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. funny you should bring up the * regime in this context... |
|
because that's EXACTLY why I asked this question in the first place.
I actively avoid comparisons to Nazi Germany because they are so facile and ridiculous as to be meaningless. And I really don't know enough about Fascist Italy to compare Bush to Mussolini.
However, I have very much noticed the similiarities of Bush and conservative Republicans to both the WW2-era Japanese nationalists and to that part of the Serbian population which supported Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Balkans. That's why I asked if WW2 Japan and '90s Serbia were fascist regimes.
|
drumwolf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
3. another similarity between US wingnuts and ethnic-cleansing Serbians... |
|
Both thought of themselves as the victims. The Serbians have enough history to point to that they could claim they were the ones who were the victims of the Croats, Bosnians, etc. Meanwhile, US wingnuts claim they're the ones who are victims of Islamic terrorism.
|
nemo137
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 02:38 PM
Response to Original message |
4. technically, they were more authoritarian conservative than fascist. |
|
but that's sort of a fine point, and our old friend semantic drift has caused the meaning of fascist to drift from "an authoritarian, nationalistic regieme that incorporates both far left and far right elements" to "any authoritarian regieme."
|
troublemaker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message |
|
You don't need every possible symptom to have the disease.
|
H2O Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-30-04 04:44 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Fascism: (strictly speaking) |
|
is a political movement (which may become a regime) that exalts the idea of nation and race (at the expense of the individual), and is headed by a dictatorial leadership which runs a centralized, autocratic form of government. Fascism has rigid economic/social regimentation, and has severe suppression of any opposition. There tends to be a blending of police & military. The concepts of "right wing" and/or "left wing" are not actually part of what defines fascism.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:03 AM
Response to Original message |