I'd like to start a discussing on the merits & flaws of these items. Nationalism, for those who don't know & are too lazy to look it up themselves:
the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
And ethnocentrism:
the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture.
Adding my own opinions:
I dislike both of these. Often they go hand in hand, but not always. My thoughts & feelings go with a world-view & set of interests that benefit the planet, not those that are purely set to better a single nation or people.
I find the idea that a group of people, divided by religion, breeding, geographical heritage, or other criteria somehow being simply 'better' then everyone else particularly offensive.
A few things that irk me on the subject:
The Olympics. Why is it that these days it always seems to be about what country won how many gold medals? Where is the spirit of competition, or the celebration of incredible team, or individual effort and achievement?
Proclamation that your nation is the best nation on the planet, despite the fact that they have never travelled abroad or studied a foreign country, much less *all* of the other countries in the world.
It also surfaces in pro sports, like the world cup. People of every nationality support their countries team in such a flagrant "I'm better then you because I was born in the same country as the one that won the world cup".
Well, that's my bit for now. What does everyone else think?
Just make your definition broad enough to cover what is necessary.
Shame. I'll try and do what I can. Because I do not see a single trait that all Fascist states/Parties shared, except for the fact that they wanted a single strong dictator with an elite.
I could chime in a definition of Fascism, but it would be drawing the discussion significantly off the original scope of the topic. Little later for that already maybe.
Nichodemus is right, no two regimes have ever been the same (though that can be said to just about anything, not just fascism). Even Mussolini & Hitler ran things differently. If I had to pin it down to a common element, it would be similarly, a strong dictator with an aggressive agenda to retain the authoritarian power they have obtained, including significant civil rights violations.
While progress has frequently been attributed to competition, I think this is simplistic and does not take into account that competition has also driven people to greater depths. More appropriately progress can be thought of as the result of a balancing act between cooperation and competition. Furthermore, how does competition not involve pride?
Of course - take a look at the stand off between the U.S.S.R. & the U.S.A. during the cold war. The competition there drove the Soviets into the ground economically & the U.S.A. did significantly better. In the same example though, it shows how competition can have more to do with other elements, like fear, rather then pride.
Is there a point to arguing fascism if we don't agree on what it is? We may as well debate the English language. Also as I stated in my last post, we're way off base on what I originally had intended as the topic in the thread & it's not holding as much interest for me (why I didn't make a post about Fascism).
