What's happening in Syria right now??

Fascism is a word which has a meaning. Having one party is not fascism just as having two-party system is not fascism either.
Do you actually know anything about Ba'athism, or...?

And Syria is not one-party - there are a lot of parties there.
You don't really believe that this sub-Stalinist "national front" crap constitutes a genuinely pluralistic state, do you?

But really what's bad with having one major party? China is fine with one party, Russia is also fine enough with "United Russia" having most of seats in the parliament. And in the Kuwait they do not have any parties at all but doing excellent without.
I didn't realise that we could evaluate a country based solely on the financial well-being of its ruling elite.
 
Do you actually know anything about Ba'athism, or...?
Why exactly you consider Ba'athism to be "fascist"? I am not saying it is the best ideolody in the world but just throwing here and there words like "fascism" is a form of psychological manipulation but not real argument.

I didn't realise that we could evaluate a country based solely on the financial well-being of its ruling elite.
Citizens of Kuwait get quite a good share of state income and seems like they generally just enjoy the life. I am not lazy, I am just Kuwaiti as saying goes.
 
But really what's bad with having one major party?
Because it's inherently undemocratic and repressive?
 
Why exactly you consider Ba'athism to be "fascist"? I am not saying it is the best ideolody in the world but just throwing here and there words like "fascism" is a form of psychological manipulation but not real argument.
Ba'athism is an ideology of authoritarian, populist, palingenetic ultranationalism; in a word, fascism. An idiosyncratic fascism, sure enough, one that has drunk deeply enough from the well of Stalinism to appear left-wing under the right light, but fascism none the less. I don't throw these words around lightly- I wouldn't call the Franco, Horthy or Schuschnigg regimes "fascist", for example- so believe me when I am not at all engaged in vulgar rhetoric, but am using the word in a precise and accurate sense.

Citizens of Kuwait get quite a good share of state income and seems like they generally just enjoy the life. I am not lazy, I am just Kuwaiti as saying goes.
Gilded shackles are still shackles. One would have thought that a Russian, of all people, would know that much.
 
Why exactly you consider Ba'athism to be "fascist"? I am not saying it is the best ideolody in the world but just throwing here and there words like "fascism" is a form of psychological manipulation but not real argument.

If Fascism is defined as a political system that is authoritarian, extremely nationalistic, favors a system of economics that seeks to converge business interests with the interests of the state, opposes feminism and is militaristic, Ba'athism could easily qualify as a form of Fascism.

EDIT: I see TF beat me to it.

Because it's inherently undemocratic and repressive?

NOT! Since the end of WWII, Japan had a de-facto one-party rule for decades because the Japanese voters sincerely desired it so: Is Japan an undemocratic and repressive country?
 
Because it's inherently undemocratic and repressive?
What does "inherently" "undemocratic" and "repressive" exactly means? Did God said a country should be "democratic"? And if we are talking about biological nature of human where does "inherent multipartying" resides in human brain? :lol:
 
I would hesitate to call Ba'athism 'fascist', at least if we are following the example of Italian Fascism. While many of their policies were outwardly similar to Fascism, the underlying ideology was radicaly different. Italian Fascism was focused on the greatness of the country. Ba'athism, on the other hand, was a political group made up of Arab Nationalists (at least initialy) who emphasized the greatness of the Arabs in general (the UAR for example).
 
NOT! Since the end of WWII, Japan had a de-facto one-party rule for decades because the Japanese voters sincerely desired it so: Is Japan an undemocratic and repressive country?

What are you trying to say here?
 
What does "inherently" "undemocratic" and "repressive" exactly means? Did God said a country should be "democratic"? And if we are talking about biological nature of human where does "inherent multipartying" resides in human brain? :lol:

Interesting to note is that a great many 18th century European countries were relatively free despite being absolute monarchies. Sweden for example.

I would hesitate to call Ba'athism 'fascist', at least if we are following the example of Italian Fascism. While many of their policies were outwardly similar to Fascism, the underlying ideology was radicaly different. Italian Fascism was focused on the greatness of the country. Ba'athism, on the other hand, was a political group made up of Arab Nationalists (at least initialy) who emphasized the greatness of the Arabs in general (the UAR for example).

Basically, semantic bull. Fascism focuses on the greatness of the nation, period.

What are you trying to say here?

For like half a century, the Japanese liberal party held a majority of seats in the Imperial Diet, until recently that is. They met practically no resistance and were almost unchallenged, which made Japan practically a one-party state. A liberal democratic one-party state at that.
 
Basically, semantic bull. Fascism focuses on the greatness of the nation, period.
Which is what I said. Initialy, Ba'athism had been part of the Arab Nationalism movement and tried to create a lasting version of the UAR. However, it fell apart completely when neither Syria, Egypt, nor Iraq could get along for very long.
 
Interesting to note is that a great many 18th century European countries were relatively free despite being absolute monarchies. Sweden for example.



Basically, semantic bull. Fascism focuses on the greatness of the nation, period.



For like half a century, the Japanese liberal party held a majority of seats in the Imperial Diet, until recently that is. They met practically no resistance and were almost unchallenged, which made Japan practically a one-party state. A liberal democratic one-party state at that.

Then they weren't a one-party system, if a second party eventually took over. I would assume that there is an assumption that in a true one-party system, the barriers to entry for a second party are so high as to make it impossible for one to take power. Your point is kind of "semantic bull."
 
Interesting to note is that a great many 18th century European countries were relatively free despite being absolute monarchies. Sweden for example.
There are also modern examples. For example, Dubai while being "non-democratic" is pretty fine for Islamic state and good enough for secular people to work and live in. You also can arguably more personal liberties than in some so-called democratic countries. For example it is much more easier and safe to get a girl for a night in Dubai and to realize one's basic need for sex than in such democratic hellhole like Sweden. Even boring and more freedom-less Kuwait would be better than Sweden.
 
For example it is much more easier and safe to get a girl for a night in Dubai and to realize one's basic need for sex than in such democratic hellhole like Sweden.
Unfortunately, said girl may be exploited as a result of sexual slavery and human trafficing.
 
Unfortunately, said girl may be exploited as a result of sexual slavery and human trafficing.
Or she may earn a month salary of her homeland in a night. I wonder who is exploited here when you are paying a lot enough money for such simple thing?
 
There are also modern examples. For example, Dubai while being "non-democratic" is pretty fine for Islamic state and good enough for secular people to work and live in. You also can arguably more personal liberties than in some so-called democratic countries. For example it is much more easier and safe to get a girl for a night in Dubai and to realize one's basic need for sex than in such democratic hellhole like Sweden. Even boring and more freedom-less Kuwait would be better than Sweden.

I'm a bit afraid to fully understand your example.

EDIT: paying for sex fills NO need.
 
Syria is already a failed state, bro. It's in a terrible economic situation and politically reduced to Iran's and now Russia's lapdog.

If you have to rationalize one party dictatorship (might come natural to a Russian but whatever) and sexual abuse to stay in your "my country right or wrong" mode, you only proceed to show how ridiculous this position is.

And before you go to accuse Western powers of hypocrisy, the US eventually did drop Mubarak.
 
I'm a bit afraid to fully understand your example.
Let me explain for you. I am not religious, that's why speeches on how wonderful to be "democratic" does not really impress me. What exact goodies democraticness will delivery I wonder? I've travelled over the world a bit and what I saw is that "democratic" country does not really always equal to a country where you have more personal liberties and freedoms. And as for my example with a girl for a night - what exactly confuse you? A need for sex is one of the basic needs for man and if I do not have a girlfriend at the time I just go and pay for the service to a pro. I do not think sexual work is bad work or something - it is a honest way to earn money though prices could be little lower in my opinion.

EDIT: paying for sex fills NO need.
Man is almost always paying for sex - it is just that often he does it less explicitly.
 
Let me explain for you. I am not religious, that's why speeches on how wonderful to be "democratic" does not really impress me. What exact goodies democraticness will delivery I wonder? I've travelled over the world a bit and what I saw is that "democratic" country does not really always equal to a country where you have more personal liberties and freedoms. And as for my example with a girl for a night - what exactly confuse you? A need for sex is one of the basic needs for man and if I do not have a girlfriend at the time I just go and pay for the service to a pro. I do not think sexual work is bad work or something - it is a honest way to earn money though prices could be little lower in my opinion.


Man is almost always paying for sex - it is just that often he does it less explicitly.

I didn't know if you simply meant prostitution. Some of your views strike me as very scary, but in this case your position turned out to be mundane.

I don't think there is a physical need for sex. You can just masturbate if you can't take it. However, there is a psychological one and paying for sex wouldn't fulfill that need for me. But, I agree. Prostitution should be legal. If it is a crime, which it isn't, it is surely a victimless one. Thus, there is no reason to outlaw it.
 
There are also modern examples. For example, Dubai while being "non-democratic" is pretty fine for Islamic state and good enough for secular people to work and live in. You also can arguably more personal liberties than in some so-called democratic countries. For example it is much more easier and safe to get a girl for a night in Dubai and to realize one's basic need for sex than in such democratic hellhole like Sweden. Even boring and more freedom-less Kuwait would be better than Sweden.

I think Monaco, Liechtenstein and Hong Kong would be better modern-day examples than Dubai.
 
Or she may earn a month salary of her homeland in a night. I wonder who is exploited here when you are paying a lot enough money for such simple thing?
Wait, did you try and justify sexual slavery?
 
Top Bottom