I've been reading a series of articles at www.411mania.com/politics about the defining characteristics of fascism, and was curious to whether or not these apply to Gran Colombia.

These fourteen key points are considered by the author to be typical of a fascist state:

1.  Continuing expressions of nationalism:  Yes

2.  Disdain for human rights:  Yes

3.  The use of enemies as a uniting force::  Not so much now, but a powerful source of persuasion during the Cuba/Amazonas/IC annexations.

4.  Growth of Militarism:  Yes

5.  Rampant sexism::  Not specifically addressed, but probable.

6.  State-controlled mass media::  Yes

7.  Obsession with national security:  Well, yeah - but it is a military sim.

8.  Linkage between religion and the ruling elite:  Modest at the most.

9.  Protection of corporate power:  Well, yeah.

10.  Suppression of the labor force:  Not specifically addressed, but probably.

11.  Disdain and suppression of intellectuals:  Not specifically addressed, but likely.

12.  Obsession with crime and punishment:  Yes.

13.  Rampant cronyism and corruption:  Cronyism, yes; corruption, no.  Play by the rules the government sets, or else...

14.  Fraudulent elections:  What are these "elections" you speak of?

So let me ask you - does Gran Colombia remind you guys of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, or the like?

Ahoj!
Some hairy bottom fondling braindead commie twit wrote that - a fascist state requeries a fascist ideology.
To answer your question - no.
It reminds me more of Paraguay under the Lopez family. Which I suspect you used as inspiration.
Borys

Never heard of them, but now I'm going to go check it out.

Edit:  Okay, I can see some resemblance there.  More with the elder Lopez than the younger one, though.

Ahoj!
Yup, the younger one was a nutter.
Borys

I found the phrase, "Family Dictatorship" in Wikipedia.  Describes my view of the government perfectly, and one example given is of the Lopez bunch:

Quote...a form of dictatorship that operates much like an absolute monarchy, yet occurs in a nominally republican state.

When the dictator of a family dictatorship dies, one of his relatives (usually his son) becomes the new ruler of the country. This transition often occurs after years of "grooming" the dictator's successor as heir apparent.

What makes a family dictatorship unique is that this hereditary order of succession is not formally enshrined in law, as it is in a monarchy.

I'm prone to agree with Borys. Especially because of these lines:
1.) Rampant sexism - sexism has nothing to do with fascism.
2.) Linkage between religion and the ruling elite - fascism would (unless in a theocracy) be in competition with religion, rather than linked to it, as it preaches nothing is more important than the State.
3.) Suppression of the labor force - Sorry to admit it, guys... but old Uncle Benito and his buddy Mr. Hitler did more for the average Italian/German worker than any 5 combined heads of state prior to them. Standards of living shot up like a first-stage ICBM under them... well, before they got blowed up, anyway.
4.) Fraudulent elections - Elections were not 'fraudulent' in either country; the fascist elements genuinely won the hearts and minds of the people by promising what the people wanted to hear.


'Fascism'- since it's most modern coining by Benito Mussolini- has had no clearcut definition. It's mainly been used as a 'political bad guy,' indicating gross opposition to whatever political ideology is warning against it at the time and taking on the opposite values of that particular movement in addition to: totalitarianism, oppression, and racism/sexism/intolerance.

Most broadly- and thus with politics, most accurately- fascism is a system of government with an overriding nationalistic ideology, espousing protection for domestic businesses and indigenous peoples, and also generally smacking of Manifest Destiny.
It can be either dictatorial or republican in nature, and can be either secular or theological in nature. It's foundations would be dependent on the the group which starts the movement.


G.C. would be more of a totalitarian police state, IMO.
EDIT: A hereditary dictatorship police state. Borys is right.

Good points there, thanks.  "Fascism" certainly does seem to have nothing but negative connotations - "The bad guy", as you say.

Fascism - while, mind you, not necessarily a good thing - got tarred and feathered through its association with the Nazis; most people would consider fascism and nazism to be one and the same, because of that, which they really aren't - but that's what gave fascism its bogeyman status. Throw out the alliance with Germany, and Mussolini's Italy would be seen through a much different lens...

And remember, it was fascism that made the trains run on time.  ;D


Anyway, I totally agree about the 'hereditary dictatorship' status for GC - incidentally, I've nicked that status for the African superstate I fiddle with off and on, after I realised that making it a monarchy would contraindicate buying arms from the Soviets in the 1970s.  :D

Gran Columbian nationalism is less pronounced IMO. Mainly due to the acquisition of heterogenous colonies. The stuff that holds GC together are the strong military and business-friendly environment. And loyalty is rather to El Presidente, not the state.

Fascism/nazism has a revisionist component too, which is completely lacking in case of Gran Columbia.

True - the acquisition of various non-Spanish territories may eventually have the effect of turning Gran Colombia into a (shudder) cosmopolitan society.

No, no need to revise history - Gran Colombia's quite proud of theirs.

Quote from: P³D on August 22, 2007, 02:16:47 PM
Fascism/nazism has a revisionist component too, which is completely lacking in case of Gran Columbia.

Fascism has little inherent revisionism... the societies/nations that have practiced it did use this, but it's not an inherent necessity. Arguably, this can be directly contributed to their downfall- they refused to accept reality in either the past or present, leading to untenable situations causing collapse.

Oh, Fascists are not the same as Nazis any more than American Liberals with socialistic leanings are the same as dedicated Communists. Nazism is a type of fascism, just as Communists are a type of left-wing liberals... but then again just because a house cat and a Siberian Tiger are related doesn't mean they are the same thing. ;) Saying all things that can be collapsed into a larger category are the same is a good way to get your hand bitten off by mistake. :D

And, yes, I do look on fascism as having a lot of good elements. In the abstract, it's an excellent system; in reality, it too often mixes with poor agendas... but then again, so do all forms of government.
Representative fascism (as it works in theory), IMO, would be a decent form of government- one I wouldn't mind living under.