Re: CHAT: Support/Oppression of Conlanging

>Except that by your very definition you already don't preserve its original
>meaning. I find the definition I learnt just making more sense than the one
>you
>use. If you want to oppose the regimes of USSR and Germany, use the words
>stalinism and nazism, they are perfect for the purpose. But don't equate
>nazism
>and fascism, they are *not* equal.
I don't think anyone has done that. However, most people will agree that
nazism is a _kind of_ fascism (as long as we don't restrict "fascism" to
refer solely to Mussolini's regime).

>If we take their pure meanings, fascism
>refers *only* to the Italian regime. If we take a larger meaning, I can't
>see
>why you can include in it nazism, franquism and the Japanese militaristic
>regime of that time without including stalinism.
I don't think I've ever seen the Japanese military regime in the 1930s and
early 40s ever labled as "fascist". Undoubtedly, there are people who'd
claim it was (hey, I know people who think Bill Clinton 's a fascist!), but
it's interesting you should introduce it here.

Would you call it Fascist? What modern, non-democratic governments would you
not call Fascist? (Please don't take those two questions as any kind of
insults - I'm genuinely curious how devide this semantic space, and in
particular what, in your opinion, is the difference between "fascism" and
"totalitarianism".)

                                                       Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

Reply