nilsz
bzzt
What!? Australia most certainly has its embarrassing history with its treatment of native Australians. You should see the film Rabbit-Proof Fence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Facism Anyone? History Comparison
- Thread starter tytlyf
- Start date
What!? Australia most certainly has its embarrassing history with its treatment of native Australians. You should see the film Rabbit-Proof Fence.
hexler
Member
I did not say they have no problems. In Australia happened the same things to the Aborigines what happened to the Afro-American, the american Aborigines, a.s.o.
But you must admit it cannot compared with fascistic countries. Adolf wanted an empire to last 1000 years. Did you know that the spanish inquisition had all symptoms of the Nazi-regime - with one exception: They were not in war involved. But they survived 300 years!!
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/f...entation-des-grauens-fotostrecke-18938-2.html
Last edited:
If fascism is viewed from the perspective of the oppressed, then Australia isn't off the hook.
One can think of the elements of fascism within a country, without actually calling it "fascist".
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Then the question is, where do we draw the line?
hexler
Member
Why should we draw a line? The past is gone. We just need to look that there is no more humiliation. On the other hand I must say that there is no need for stupid behaviour. We should remember which excuses some historians have, when explaining Hitler's success: People had no labour, Hitler gave them work, therefore they became his fans. But what about the anti-fascists? Also they had no work. But they had principles.
Besides this: Nazis are ultra-conservatives. And there is no excuse for being conservative, except being silly.
We each choose.
I don't have hard & fast criteria.
But like porn, I know it when I see it, eg, N Korea, Nazi Germany, USSR
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I wonder how many European countries, or any other country for that matter, would classify the US as fascist. Sometimes, it's hard to criticize oneself, all the while accusing others of the same thing we're guilty of.
Meh...does anyone care what Eurotrashiastanians think of us?
hexler
Member
This was the way the Pharoah thought... he is gone. Also the roman emperors thought so. Gone. Nebuchadnezar thought so. Gone. This list could become long.
I'm much younger than they are though.
I'll be around a while longer.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
We should. It seems to me that Americans have a poor grasp of political philosophy. Repubs and conservatives seem to think that the Democrats are so liberal that they're socialists, when that's not even close to being true. Europeans seem to have a better grasp on such things. Not to mention, since we can't seem to objectively judge ourselves (as a nation), we need outside sources to compare to. So, yeah, we should care what they think.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I have too. I can see a lot of parallels between the US over the past few years and Germany in the years leading up to the rise of nazism.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I wonder how long it'll be before enough people realize this to do something about it before it's too late.
Do you think enough people will?
hexler
Member
If you watch history and how politicians make it you begin to shiver. If you live in a moderate society you don't relize how true this word is: Powerful people do not want that you become a thinking person. I have watched this in Europe. 30 years ago in most european countries we had a higher social standard as we have today. What happened?
Some super conservative ideologists used an inglorious method: Now and then right winged terror was carried out. What for? The reason is, if the people are frightened, they do care for themselves, not for the neighbour. So by and by the conservative parties took over. But this can only happen if people are uneducated. Stupid people swallow every lie.
Some super conservative ideologists used an inglorious method: Now and then right winged terror was carried out. What for? The reason is, if the people are frightened, they do care for themselves, not for the neighbour. So by and by the conservative parties took over. But this can only happen if people are uneducated. Stupid people swallow every lie.
One of the most important aspects of fascism is basically identical to communism: the equating of the people with the state. Let us not forget that Nazi was an acronym that referred to the party of the "workers" (not unlike the term proletariat; recall that Marx was German and like Nietzsche intricately tied into an intellectual movement that originated largely in post-Revolutionary French thought and that defined German identity in ways that set the stage for the Nazi party).
Fascist systems have their most immediate roots in French revolutionary movements, French pre- and post-revolutionary intellectual circles, and ideas about a "people's" nation that defined itself largely in contrast to elitist systems such as monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, or any system in which the people were not equated with the nation (not really the government, as "government" requires a governed people not just in practice but in name). In practice, like communism, fascist systems have continually spoken of the ways in which the nation is hoi polloi, but have created power structures to ensure that what "the people" are, desire, believe, etc., was exactly what the party was, desired, believed, etc., however large the distinction.
What's the difference? It's an old book I read because I "borrowed" (stole) it from one of my parents' bookshelves in high school, but it has continued to prove invaluable as a source to understanding to the defining processes of totalitarian parities/authoritarian governments: Unger, A. L. (1974). The Totalitarian Party: Party and People in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (International Studies). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
What distinguishes "Communist" from "Fascist" tyranny is arbitrary. In the case of Germany vs. Russia, it was the degree to which the Nazis had in place media outlets for propaganda, a geographically smaller region to control, and other surface differences. Ideologically, fascism and communism have centrally concerned making hoi polloi be (nominally) the nation and creating (however fictitiously) a defining narrative of the people (the nation) that hearkens back to the ways in which Vergil's Aeneid did the same for Rome. Indeed, the term "fascism" directly linked Mussolini with the Roman Empire. Whether the "German Worker's Party" or the "People's Republic of China", it all traces back to Fraternité and a reversal of classical (particularly Platonic) notions of the horrific idea of power in the hands of hoi polloi vs. not only an actual elite (but nominally democratic, egalitarian, etc.), but a very fundamentally espoused elitism.
Hmm....I look at Europistan, & see problems which rival ours.
I wouldn't look to them for superior political understanding.
Generally (some exceptions), they're as dumb as we are.
You're right, of course. Authoritarians and authoritarian followers are pretty much the same regardless of whether they identify themselves as of the Left or of the Right.
The statement you were responding to was misleadingly phrased by me, though. I didn't mean to imply a significant difference between fascist and communist dictatorships. I only meant that, in the US, a dictatorship would currently seem more likely to arise from people on the political Right than from people on the political Left, given that the Left has been pretty much destroyed in the US.
Republicans, Democracy, and Fascism each are entirely different systems.
A strict government, on the other hand, is a feature found in all governmental systems that tend to have some sort of major involvement with its governing territory.
Man is imperfect, so they compose a government, made of more people, and somehow this creates the delusion that the government is perfect.
I tell you, each government that has gained such control has gained that because the people depended on them too much. One situation that requires huge government involvement is all it takes.
A strict government, on the other hand, is a feature found in all governmental systems that tend to have some sort of major involvement with its governing territory.
Man is imperfect, so they compose a government, made of more people, and somehow this creates the delusion that the government is perfect.
I tell you, each government that has gained such control has gained that because the people depended on them too much. One situation that requires huge government involvement is all it takes.