Thus Fare Fake Democracies

SR: You may disagree with the policies of the Bush government - but as you should know, it has been elected through due process, and so cannot be called a fascist regime.

You are too intelligent to throw around terms carelessly - leave that for lesser people than you.

Re: # 60 vivek

Thank you for the agreement, but on the fascist issue, please refer to response to Ahmed sahib.

...SR

SR,
Agreed with you that this govt.`s policies are not the best but they are not fascists.

tahmed,
The BJP was elected to power too, but if I remember right, you did call them fascist in one of your posts.

vivek: Please dont say I said something unless you can cut and paste what I wrote. Dont waste time claiming I said something if you ``remember right``. I think the BJP philosophy is a despicable one, but I dont go around throwing pseudo-intellectual labels like the some chowk posters do.

Re: # 85 Urstruly: {``...pricks like me...``}

What can I say...? Those are your own word, not mine. I wouldn`t have gone that far.

regards,

...SR

Re: # 84

There is no need to be defensive. It will pass in a week or two and everybody will forget except a few pricks like me. I was just checking whether you will come out to defend them or not.

Re: # 77 {``... But they think of people like you or tahmad, for example, not much more than dogs. ...``}

Dear Urstruly,

I cannot speak for Ahmed sahib, but personally speaking, please rest assured that I have NEVER, not even once in 24 years, at an individual level been thought of as a dog by any of my associates. Now it depends on who in your book are these mysterious folks you refer to as they?? If its the facist elements in the elite or the neo-cons or some such other group, then I will not contest your assertion. However, my suspicion is that you mean the average, decent, friendly American people. If those are the ones you are referring to, then you just don`t know what you are talking about. I doubt if you`ve known (I mean at a presonal, close frienship level) an average American, apart from the superficial work place assocoiation or an office Christmas party. That being the case, I`m afraid you are simply projecting your own prejudice.

Respectfully,

...SR

Re: # 75 SR

But they think of people like you or tahmad, for example, not much more than dogs. Is that the reason you are so depressed? But being a dog sure beats being a terrorist, I reckon. resistance is futile.

Re: # 65 {``... US form of government is a shining example that the rest of humanity has accepted. The opposite of everything fascism stands for. ...``}

Ahmed sahib,

You are quite right in spirit and theory. I also, like millions the world over, embraced those same ideals in my youth that you defend and speak of here. I am (as surely you must be too) still committed to, and believe in those same ideals. In earlier messages I referred to them as the Jeffersonian ideals (though Jefferson was only one of those early visionary idealists who initiated this great civic experiment in human history). However, our point of departure is in our appraisal of the contemporary ground reality. In your view Eden is still alive and well. In my view the serpent has already done his dirty trick. You seem content with whatever exists and are unwilling to see that any ground has been lost, I on the other hand, lament the ``Paradise Lost``... In my humble view a modicum of ``...common sense and an ounce of intellectual honesty tells us that...`` something has gone badly amiss. You do not see it that way. That is perfectly fine. We can agree to disagree.

respectfully,

...SR

SR: There is certainly a tendancy, to greater or lesser extents, in the Bush administration to some of these things. As there is not one political party on earth, nor one human society, nor one human being, who can claim to be completely free from these vices. Chowk is littered with examples of nationalism and scapegoating, for example. So, to provide a list of human vices and associate them with Bush may be emotionally satisfying, but as I said it lies in the realm of lesser individuals than you.

The term ``fascist`` itself (as you probably know) means nothing more than a collection of sticks - representing strength in unity (since while a single stick may be easily broken, a collection of sticks is very hard to break) and was a symbol used in ancient Rome. It was adopted by Mussolini, and is most closely associated with the forms of power in Italy and Germany - namely, supremacy of the state with individual rights being totally subservient to the supposed ``greater good``.

Common sense and an ounce of intellectual honesty tells us that US form of government is a shining example that the rest of humanity has accepted. The opposite of everything fascism stands for.

Re: # 66 Alephnull

Thank you for the Humanism page link that discusses fascism. I shall quote a line from that article as it struck a chord with me:

...fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm...

I am not sure why you quoted this particular article because having read it I feel re-affirmed in my assertions. You, however, seem to have reached a different conclusion. So be it.

Regards

...SR

SR #62

A slightly enlarged 14-point list of common characterisitics of fascist regimes, and a more extended discussion, can be can be found here:

Fascism Anyone?

From everything I’ve read Pakistan appears to conform to the 12/14-point description of a fascist state far more closely than any other I know of.

In any case, simply presenting a long laundry list of common characteristics of fascist regimes seems methodologically unsatisfactory without an explanation for why this set of characteristics recurs in regimes all over the globe. One possibility could be conscious imitiation of the four original Fascist regimes of Europe (Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, Salazar’s Portugal, Franco’s Spain). This probably occurs to an extent.

It is likely though that a much smaller number of factors is generative of the common attributes of a fascist regime. My candidate for the ideological generative principle is: the notion that human individuals are, or should be, primarily defined and circumscribed by a single characteristic – typically ‘race’, or religion, or nationality – and that they cannot or should not exist except to glorify this characteristic. The development of a full-blown fascist regime might require the presence of other factors – perhaps, a burgeoning lower middle-class of industrial workers – but I strongly suspect that the anti-individualistic principle is the ideological sine qua non.

Re: # 67

The problem HP is that you do not have any concept of Alephnull. If you did you would immediately recognise that what you said can be immediately applied to what you said....

Now just go and check up what Alephnull is, then along the way other aleph`s and then Cantor on to the end

Re: # 67 {``...In your zeal to prove something that is not there, you are quoting attributes that have been generalized to fit a particular point of view and may not be of significant value in this debate. I recommend you read at least two articles that I have linked above and better still if you pay attention to corporate sponsors of the known fascist regimes of the 20th century. ...``}

HP:

Thanks for giving the links of two very good pieces on the subject of fascism.

Here is a quote from the second link you provided:

Generic fascism has its critics, some of whom deny that the concept has any validity. To them, fascism is the creation of historians` loose thinking. They insist that each authoritarian regime was separate and unique. In Italy the Fascists came to power and in Germany the Nazis, while elsewhere there was a variety of monarchical and military dictatorships which were all different. Very few parties, they argue, actually called themselves fascist, and most authoritarian regimes - for instance in Spain, Hungary and Poland - were buttressed ideologically not by any new anti-positivist ideology but by old-fashioned Catholicism. Furthermore, most of these regimes were actually opposed by small fascist-like parties, often on Mussolini`s payroll. To apply to them the common label `fascist` is, therefore, to assert a similarity where, in reality, there were only differences.

The above supports what you seem to be saying about my assertion (the contemporary USSA has fascist leanings), and if that is what you believe then we do have a divergent viewpoint.

However, the first article you linked says the following:

Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national ... renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ... national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis.

This above statement seems to reflect the kind of approach I am taking. So ultimately it all boils down to semantics. Be that as it may, we`ve all expressed our points of view and no one is likely to change anyone else`s mind.

Regards

...SR

#66

Now this stupid bum A-hole shows up to prove that Pakistan is a fascist state. And how he does it? By linking to another idiot’s article that is out to prove that the US is a Fascist government.
12/14 of those would apply to most of the govts in the world. Why? Because the whole purpose of the article by Laurence W. Britt is to discuss “a future America dominated by right-wing extremists”
Why Ahole wants to use Laurence Britt and not
This article “What Is Facism?” by: Roger D. Griffin, BA, Ph.D. Professor, Department of History,
Oxford Brookes University. Which is only the second link if you search fascism on Google?
OR
And what about this article by another scholar

A-hole is basically a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt person. People burning with hate and malice would attempt to find anything that is remotely connected to their cause. Another form of fundamentalism and fascism.

#62
SR,
In your zeal to prove something that is not there, you are quoting attributes that have been generalized to fit a particular point of view and may not be of significant value in this debate. I recommend you read at least two articles that I have linked above and better still if you pay attention to corporate sponsors of the known fascist regimes of the 20th century.

Re: # 52

``a non personality centric system which can exist without the individual``

That is how Hinduism is. So for India, democracry was not too difficult to digest and adopt.