Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

Preechr wrote: Saracen wrote: Preechr wrote: I’m still not ready to give this one up. There is nothing to say that Religion can not be authoritarian. In fact some believe that the Caliph under Shariah law is authoritarian. A Caliph ruling over a quasi-syndicalist economy could very easily fall into the category of fascism. Fascism without racism.

Well, believe it or not, Sharia Law is not at best 100% authoritarian. Same can be said for Halakha (Jewish) and Canon (Christian) Law. With Iran’s Guardian Council shutting down dissenting newspapers because they are against the will of Allah, or the Taliban enforcing some of the crazy stuff they did because it was the will of Allah, I have a hard time buying into a Caliph not being able to be completely authoritarian if he so chose.

Well, there's a difference. He's not really incorporating Sharia Law in its correctness. In that sense, he (Ahmadinejad) is a radical, and imposes it at his own whims. However, I still stick to my assertion that fascism is secular and authoritarian. Religion can never be fascist, as it is a means to submit to authority, not become it.

[Preechr]

Saracen wrote: Preechr wrote: Saracen wrote: Preechr wrote: I’m still not ready to give this one up. There is nothing to say that Religion can not be authoritarian. In fact some believe that the Caliph under Shariah law is authoritarian. A Caliph ruling over a quasi-syndicalist economy could very easily fall into the category of fascism. Fascism without racism.

Well, believe it or not, Sharia Law is not at best 100% authoritarian. Same can be said for Halakha (Jewish) and Canon (Christian) Law. With Iran’s Guardian Council shutting down dissenting newspapers because they are against the will of Allah, or the Taliban enforcing some of the crazy stuff they did because it was the will of Allah, I have a hard time buying into a Caliph not being able to be completely authoritarian if he so chose.

Well, there's a difference. He's not really incorporating Sharia Law in its correctness. In that sense, he (Ahmadinejad) is a radical, and imposes it at his own whims. However, I still stick to my assertion that fascism is secular and authoritarian. Religion can never be fascist, as it is a means to submit to authority, not become it.

I don’t want to get into a debate over Sharia law, but it’s not Ahmadinejad I’m referring to. It’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and regardless of his actions being whims or divine revelation, the power he wields in the name of Allah makes me believe a theo-fascist government would be very possible.

[cap'n queasy]

Many Islamic theo-fascist governments exist at this time. Saying that they are not using Islam correctly really doesn't mean anything. They would say that Muslims who say this are themsleves not using Islam correctedly and they are the majority, which is why they are running the government there, and a look at their religious writings seems to support the latter. The principles of this religion are rigid and do not lend themselves to syncretizing with other societies and say so within the text itself. For example, woman have certain requirements in Islam, that cannot be ignored and still follow Islam. They must cover themselves to practice Islam.

These regimes are, in fact, doing as the Koran directs them to do in many respects.

[Il Principe]

Kumar wrote: I came across some articles today while studying for exams that interested me. There are those who believe that fascism is unfairly portrayed in today's media as something guaranteed to be associated with racism. Their basic premise was that Mussolini's Italy is a better model than Hitler's monster in Germany, and the level of racism, at least on an institutional level, was not particularly greater than that of a country like France prior to 1939. They maintain that an ideal fascist system, though nationalist, would view all races as equal. Is there some merit to this?

And not only that, but can an ideology that places so much emphasis on the superiority of the nation even withstand the power of xenophobia and racism?

No only Hitler's National Socialist state was "racist" as such - Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain were nationalist.

[cap'n queasy]

Fascist Italy may have been slightly better than Nazi Germany, but Mussolini ended up hanging from a lightpost after it was all said and done.

I don't think the Italians liked him that much for destroying their country with Fascism.

[Il Principe]

cap'n queasy wrote: Fascist Italy may have been slightly better than Nazi Germany, but Mussolini ended up hanging from a lightpost after it was all said and done.

I don't think the Italians liked him that much for destroying their country with Fascism.

Thats becuase most of the blackshirts got martyred on the front, its not so much that there werent enough Italians for supporting Mussolini, its just there werent enough who were "alive" ..

ANd what about Franco?

[Kumar]

Il Principe wrote: Kumar wrote: I came across some articles today while studying for exams that interested me. There are those who believe that fascism is unfairly portrayed in today's media as something guaranteed to be associated with racism. Their basic premise was that Mussolini's Italy is a better model than Hitler's monster in Germany, and the level of racism, at least on an institutional level, was not particularly greater than that of a country like France prior to 1939. They maintain that an ideal fascist system, though nationalist, would view all races as equal. Is there some merit to this?

And not only that, but can an ideology that places so much emphasis on the superiority of the nation even withstand the power of xenophobia and racism?

No only Hitler's National Socialist state was "racist" as such - Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain were nationalist.
Well, I would agree with you on Mussolini up to 1939, but after that, it became illegal to do things like marry someone of another race.

[cap'n queasy]

Il Principe wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Fascist Italy may have been slightly better than Nazi Germany, but Mussolini ended up hanging from a lightpost after it was all said and done.

I don't think the Italians liked him that much for destroying their country with Fascism.

Thats becuase most of the blackshirts got martyred on the front, its not so much that there werent enough Italians for supporting Mussolini, its just there werent enough who were "alive" ..


If you don't think that may have had something to do with his fate, I don't know what to tell you.

People generally get pretty upset when you piss away their country. I doubt they really cared much about politics anymore at that point in time.

[cap'n queasy]

And the blackshirts were hardly "martyred". :lol:

The were the victims of Mussolini's lack of military competence.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: ANd what about Franco?

Being he was an actual military man instead of a glorified rabble rouser like Hitler or Mussolini, he survived quite a bit longer.

I think he ended up being declared a saint or something.