History questions not worth their own thread V
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
A new thread...Can someone tell me the history of the History Questions not worth their own thread franchise.
J.J. Abrams started it to great fanfare, but despite an exciting beginning it eventually grew tired and confusing. He left the thread to ruin the Star Trek franchise, and Damon Lindelof took over.
Have there been any Fascist parties that managed to either gain power or come close to it since the end of WWII. The Falange excepted, of course.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
The "Srpska Radikalna Stranka" was a Serb ultra nationalist party that managed to achieve significant votes and power in the 1990's but it did have a paramilitary wing and its leader (Vojislav Šešelj) is the Hague now. I dont know if you'd consider him fascist but his methods were similiar to those of other fascist leaders.
I was thinking the Balkans and Latin America were the likely suspects.
Eriteria in the sense of an all-encompassing state which itself is just an army with a country. At some point the government conscripted everyone into the military and set them to work doing stuff. But it doesn't have any of the ideological quirks that make fascists, fascist. So I suppose it's not really fascist in the way Falange was.
It does however have a lower media freedom than North Korea. So +1 for that.
It does however have a lower media freedom than North Korea. So +1 for that.
That depends which definition of Fascism you want to use.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
I just read up on Eritrea. Wow....just wow. Below North Korea, a nation that has struggled to be the worse for 58 years, blown away by a relatively new African nation. Eritrea is my new North Korea.
Believe it or not, till about the 1960's and perhaps even later North Korea was doing far better economically than South Korea. South Korea was an agrarian state run by a dictatorship while North Korea had developed industry, good economic growth and overall was doing better than South Korea for a good chunk of time. It was only following South Korea's economic reforms and the toppling of its dictatorship that it really boomed.
North Korea by contrast had it's main ally, the Soviet Union collapse, and things like fuel that it relied on were cut off, plus it was hit by massive famine at the same time.
North Korea by contrast had it's main ally, the Soviet Union collapse, and things like fuel that it relied on were cut off, plus it was hit by massive famine at the same time.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Sort of like the situation where Cambodia before the takeover of Pol Pot and before him the Military government had a higher GDP per capita than the newly independent Singapore. Sure it relied mostly on agriculture and mineral wealth but it was seen as a potential success story, especially with the King allying to the French to get monetary aid, which the french were glad to give just to not get another Vietnam.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Who is John Abraham Godson?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=John+Abraham+Godson
Was that so hard?
I was going with Third Way Fascism that emphasised national unity over class conflict and capitalism.Algeroth said:
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
Thanks! That was hard only for ace99.
I think if we had to state a 'fundamental fascist principle', it would be the belief that the State and its individual leader ought to have total dominance over every aspect of the country which it governs, and has no accountability to those people whom it rules.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
I'd disagree with that and say it's the Nation which lacks accountability, and the leader serves as the interpreter/prophet of that collective will.
Key distinction that would rule out say...Trujillo, or Idi Amin from this category.
Key distinction that would rule out say...Trujillo, or Idi Amin from this category.
That just sounds like a Populist.
You may be right, except that Fascist states demand unquestioning obedience to the leader: Mussolini issued two sets of 'Ten Commandments' to his troops, and each included 'Mussolini is always right'. Similarly, Hitler's Fuehrerprinzip has been summarised as 'the Leader's word is above written law'. So I'd argue that although that distinction may exist in theory, in practice fascism features government without accountability.
EDIT: What you're describing is essentially radical nationalism, which - although fascism is inherently nationalistic - I don't think quite crosses the line into fascism without absolute government.
EDIT: What you're describing is essentially radical nationalism, which - although fascism is inherently nationalistic - I don't think quite crosses the line into fascism without absolute government.
I think you're forgetting that fascism is revolutionary, in the sense it wants to fundamentally reshape society. The Falange, the Italian Fascists the Nazi's all were a significant departure from the cookie cutter right-wing dictatorships that came before. They sought to change social, economic and political relations entirely.
NedimNapoleon
Weird Little Human
Stating that a leader is always right isn't just a fascist thing. Both Monarchists (Absolute Monarchists that is), Religious groups (saying lets say a Caliph or Pope or Lama is always right) and other cult of personalities do the same thing.
The difference is fascism is intent on military power, the power of the nation and general uber nationalistic ideas.
The difference is fascism is intent on military power, the power of the nation and general uber nationalistic ideas.
- Status
Similar threads
