This thread is for discussing politics, political science, and other politics-related topics in a general, non-country/region-specific context. Do mind sensitive topics, especially controversial ones; I think we'd all rather the thread stay free of Flame Wars.
Please consult the following threads for country/region-specific politics (NOTE: The list is eternally non-comprehensive; it will be gradually updated whenever possible).
- For Asian countries, see the following:
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
.
- For China, see Official China Discussion Thread
.
- For North Korea, see North Korea
- For the Philippines, see Philippine Politics
.
- For South Asian countries, see The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread
.
- For Southeast Asian countries, see Southeast Asia Politics Thread
.
- For East Asian countries, see East Asia News & Politics Thread: China, South Korea, Japan...
- For Australia, see General Australian Politics Thread
.
- For Europe as a collective whole, see European Politics Thread
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
.
- For Finland, see Finnish politics
.
- For France, see French Politics
.
- For Germany, see German Politics Thread
.
- For Ireland, see Irish Politics Thread
.
- For Poland, see General Polish Politics/Other Issues Thread
.
- For Russia, see The General Russia Thread
.
- For the United Kingdom, see British Politics Thread
.
- For Ukraine, see War in Ukraine
.
- For Eastern Europe as a whole, see Eastern European Politics
- For the Middle Eastnote and North Africa in general, see General Middle East & North Africa Thread
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
was locked accordingly.
- For the Arab Spring specifically, see The Arab Spring
.
- For Turkey, see Turkish Politics
.
- For Iran, see Iran Discussion
.
- Discussion regarding Israel and Palestine is banned indefinitely and their thread
- For Northern Americanote ...
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
was locked accordingly.
- For Canada, see Canadian Politics
.
- Discussion regarding the United States of America is banned and its thread
- For Latin America, see The Latin America thread (VE, BR, AR, CU, MX...)
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
.
- For Venezuela, see Venezuela and the Chavez Legacy
.
- For Argentina, see Argentine Politics Thread
- For the South Caucasusnote , see South Caucasus thread
.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 25th 2025 at 9:51:19 AM
In response to your previous question, go right ahead, there's no united term for both.
Different people use different words, there's no real consensus.
As to your second question, location names don't really follow the rules of belonging to a particular language, so it's not really a meaningful question to ask "do other places have co-official names in the same language", because proper nouns don't really follow the rules of belonging to a particular language super consistently. There are plenty of places with several co-official names, but the lines are really blurry on whether those names really count as being part of different languages or not.
Another example, is the country of Saint Kitts and Nevis, whose constitution explicitly states that it may be referred to as "Saint Christopher and Nevis or Saint Kitts and Nevis or the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis or the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis."note I'm on the fence over whether it fits what I was asking about, though, because "Kitts" is just a diminutive form of "Christopher".
That said, FWIW, my definition of "same language" includes cases like, say, an Anglicized version of a non-English name (e.g. Copenhagen from København) being considered an English name.
EDIT: Oh hey, there is a name for this practice — dual naming
, though it's not limited to having two names in the same language. And it gives another neat example: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
, whose alternate names refer to its abundant coconut trees and to the islands' discoverer William Keeling
.
Edited by MarqFJA on Jun 14th 2022 at 4:26:32 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Yeah political entities and locations follow the same rules is what I'm saying. Sorry if that wasn't super clear.
A nationstate doesn't have to control any territory to have a name. Same with more ill-defined political entities.
Proper Nouns and "being part of a particular language" interact really weirdly.
I'm going to bring this here because the topic has come up before in a few threads and I feel like this is the most appropriate place to discuss it.
How do we define fascism?
There's a lot of debate over whether or not a given country counts as fascist (for example, the Putin regime in Russia). I have my own stance on what fascism consists of, but I feel it'd be important to see what others believe fascism is in order to get on the same page.
In my opinion it has to posses following traits.
- totalitarian
- extreme nationalism
- agressive foreign policy
- militarism
- cult of personality around the leader
- mythical past
- revolutionary
- state is very involved in economy - it is opposed to both socialism and free market capitalism
Edited by Risa123 on Jun 19th 2022 at 10:22:18 AM
From what i understand the features integral to fascism are a support for authoritarian rule, extreme nationalism (usually with a "glorious ancient culture corrupted and weakened over the ages due to outside influences" style myth making), economic self sufficiency (autarky), heavy usage of modern propaganda mediums and finally support for the military and violence.
Edited by xyzt on Jun 18th 2022 at 2:19:06 PM
The revolutionary ultranationalism with the mythicalized past, only downward social mobility possible within a rigid hierarchy that is based on some generally immutable characteristic, and insistence that it's at war in some sense with the world around it who want to crush "the people" referring to "only the people at the top of the hierarchy" at all times is good enough for most other political scientists, and it's good enough for me. Corporatism isn't strictly necessary.
(So for example, North Korea is fascist, Franco's Spain wasn't, the USSR wasn't, Putin's Russia is trying very hard to be, etc.)
Personal definition I go with is Nationalist Totalitarian Militarism. But to elaborate some general features:
- Worship of Culture: Essentially, fascists have a romanticized ideal of culture, viewing it as a sort of collective "soul" of a people. This is part of why they often like to appear ancient, as if to connect with this soul.
- Nationalism-based Collectivism: Nationalism is a Collectivist ideology obsessed with the unity of a nation. The individual exists to serve The Nation, and the broad appeal of Fascism I feel is the feeling of belonging.
- Totalitarianism: This one is self-explanatory. Fascists do not value the individual and often believe in giving The State incredible power with which to stamp out nonconformists.
- Cult of Personality: Fascist states like to rally around a single leader. It is not uncommon for fascists to view their heads of state as effectively living gods.
- Militarism: Fascists essentially view war not as a necessary evil, but a positive good. Even if fascists can't go to war they usually like to build up an enemy and militarize as much as possible. War is viewed as a unifying element.
- Xenophobia: Xenophobia is a common trait of fascist states as a consequence of many of the above traits. Enemies are useful to fascists, and other cultures are often viewed as an infection on the purity of culture.
Fascists to my understanding don't strictly have an economic philosophy but generally lean towards a heavily state-controlled corporatist philosophy. Fascists are generally extremely anti-communist, though some communist states do sometimes take on fascist-like elements.
Leviticus 19:34Also, the "enemy" that fascist want to rally against has to be both dangerous enough to be an actual threat yet weak enough that it can be exterminated if only the "superior race" got their bearings together.
Or in other words, their "enemy" has to be vermin that is problematic by its mere existence so erradicating or oppressing it is justified. This is why the Usonian Confederacy can be considered a proto-fascistic state and why the Armenian Genocide at the hands of the Ottomans and Turks was looked up by fascists later on.
Edited by raziel365 on Jun 18th 2022 at 2:44:44 AM
Instead of focusing on relatives that divide us, we should find the absolutes that tie us.If I could give my own definition:
Fascism is defined by its opposition to liberalism, parliamentary procedure (what we would call liberal democracy), and the notion of liberal democracy in general. One can point to how numerous regimes that are almost universally-accepted as being fascist have an obsession with a particular aesthetic of an idealized nationalist past or an obsession with war and forcibly suppressing opposition via state-sanctioned terrorism, but the main feature that defines fascism is in its view of democracy and the state.
Mainstream liberalism and conservatism are supportive of parliamentary procedure with multiple political parties. Fascism is inherently opposed to this because it views such procedures as chaotic. A strong, centralized dictatorship with a powerful executive leadership is, in the mind of the fascist, what is necessary to end this "political chaos". This can take many forms. A mass movement like the NSDAP, a military coup like what we've seen throughout Latin America, Africa, and other countries (coups which explicitly "suspend democracy" until the "chaos" is passed), or even just a natural evolution owing to particular political circumstances (Imperial Japan being the main example). In some states, multiple political parties *can* exist, but if they lack any power or the parliament functions as a rubber stamp, then it falls under
The role of the state under fascism is as a strong regulatory body. The state strongly controls the economy instead of laisses-faire style economics, leading to what is termed "economic corporatism". Mussolini was a major proponent of such economic methods. Even a state associated heavily with neoliberal economics like Pinochet's Chile had a strong hand over the economy. The state under fascism is inherently opposed to class struggle and seeks to "balance" the "interests" of the corporations and the workers...which, of course, usually involves destroying independent, non-state unions or methods of political organization. Some figures I would consider fascist (Brazil's Getulio Vargas and Argentina's Juan Peron) openly positioned themselves as populists who were leaders of the workers and the downtrodden, but they were very obviously not communists (they opposed communism and the communists opposed them) and took heavy influence from European fascists.
In fact, that populism is another trait. Fascism often seeks to appeal to *everyone*. Its opposition to class struggle means it seeks to appeal to both the rich *and* the poor. Sure, it'll condemn some of the rich, but not *all* of them. Hitler condemned some of Germany's richest (with obviously anti-Semitic rhetoric, of course) but he was financed by some of those same richest. Mussolini bragged that Italy was "not a capitalist, but a corporatist state", but he only came to power with the aid of the monarchy and some of the richest in the country. Fascism does not always have to have a cult of personality, but more often than not it has one.
Beyond that, fascism inherently varies from country to country. It will be dependent on the conditions of a given country's history. We also can't confuse the terrorism of fascism with the kind of suppression regular democracies can utilize. The United States had its own operations against radical groups during the 60's and 70's, but it was still a democracy.
So, to put it simply, fascism is defined by:
1. Opposition to liberal democracy and the liquidation of parliamentary procedure
2. Absolute power to a strong, centralized state government with a heavy hand over the economy and political organizing
3. Populism that seeks to maintain mass appeal among all classes (though ultimately siding with the richest classes)
I would say that fascism is less opposed to liberal democracy in particular and more opposed to the idea of egalitarianism (i.e. all nationalities, ethnic groups, gender identities, etc. are equal), which underlies both liberal democracy and socialism/communism, as the ultranationalist factor in fascism drives its believers to hold their chosen national identity as supreme above all others, whether or not this takes on a racialist bent. This is why the prototypical fascist states considered communists to be their ideological nemesis, even though they were also opposed to liberal democracy; the two were at opposite extremes of the left-right political spectrum.
Wikipedia offers a nice definition that is in common use by several reliable sources:
Payne's definition of fascism focuses on three concepts:
- "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism.
- "Fascist goals" – the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a
- modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire.
- "Fascist style" – a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership.
One should note that conservatism is often held to lie somewhere between liberalism and fascism, hence why fascism is defined by having "anti-conservatism" as an essential element (by dint of being a revolutionary ideology, which is anathema to conservatism). Fascism is not just right-wing, it's a far-right ideology, comparable to communism being a far-left ideology.
Edited by MarqFJA on Jun 18th 2022 at 7:53:30 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.![]()
![]()
Yeah, your definition is wrong.
There's no bones about it, it's just outright wrong. It's overbroad and I've never actually seen anything similar in academic literature on fascism. You hit upon a few points that get featured regularly in academic discussion, but miss others, and added many caveats and carveouts. Your definition is very distant from the current academic consensus on what fascism is.
Now, if the consensus shifts, your definition might become more or less wrong, but as it stands, your definition is neither the one in collective general societal consciousness nor one of the common academic ones.
Is it now accepted that Franco's Spain was not fascist? I read his government was similar to Mussolini and Hitler in many ways while being different in other ways such as with its support for the Church.
Same in the wiki, where it is stated that it started out as a semi fascist regime before later becoming a developmental dictatorship with fascist trappings.
Edited by xyzt on Jun 19th 2022 at 3:47:53 PM
It's pretty much why conservatives throughout history saw fascists either as allies or as a useful tool to cement their own power (which usually backfired on said conservatives, with a few notable exceptions) - fascist movements generally shared their backwards worldview, but were a lot more... crass about it.
For example, the Prussian military elite didn't dislike the Nazis for their ideology, but because they were considered to be uncouth upstarts.
Franco is usually considered to be one of the few arch-conservatives who successfully instrumentalised their country's fascist movement without being replaced or subsumed by it - if that makes his own regime fascist is still a matter of debate (Salazar in Portugal falls into the same category).
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Jun 19th 2022 at 12:19:30 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyWell, you could be militarist and egalitarian. But that wouldn't be Fascism anymore.
Since it is so hierarchical and bases hierarchies on "biological" or "inherent" traits, the sexism is inevitable.
The sexism is also intertwined with the racism. Since interbreeding is seen as weakening the nation, sexuality has to be controlled.
Aggressive foreign policy is not an inherent part of fascism. Plenty of states already have aggressive foreign policies and aren't fascist. The United States is quite infamous for such aggressive foreign policy, but it isn't fascist. Vargas and Peron both liquidated parliamentary procedure and were influenced by European fascists (Vargas by Salazar, Peron by Mussolini). Vargas's rise to power is as textbook a rise of fascism as Hitler's.
Of course, if you wanted to include a state that most certainly did have an aggressive foreign policy, then Pilsudski's Poland would be considered fascist (though for multiple other reasons as well)...and while I don't think that's an incorrect assessment, others would disagree.
I don't particularly care what the academic consensus is. I find the academic consensus to be too fascinated with creating a dividing line between fascism and "authoritarian conservatism" or too focused on defining fascism as inherently needing a mass movement a la Nazism.
To understand fascism, one must read fascist theory. Know thy enemy, as they say. What does the enemy say of their beliefs? I've had the misfortune or reading a bit of fascist theory and it leads itself back to the fascist conception of the state that I had mentioned earlier. Like, this pops up in Mussolini and Mosely's writings.
Where is an aggressive foreign policy an inherently necessary part of fascism and how is it different from the aggressive foreign policy of non-fascist states?
If it is to do with militarism (and I would agree that militarism, while not exclusive to fascism, is a VERY big element of fascist regimes), then I would say that depends heavily on the state in particular. Brazil and Argentina didn't really have much of an expansionist desire for territory at the time, so their fascist governments didn't really pursue such designs. By contrast, Nazi Germany, an imperialist state with a desire to colonize eastern Europe, had an openly aggressive foreign policy to expand its borders and influence.
Edited by Diana1969 on Jun 20th 2022 at 12:31:09 AM
again im not saying that "how is it different from the aggressive foreign policy of non-fascist states? "
"Where is an aggressive foreign policy an inherently necessary part of fascism" Because Mussoliny the first fascist and the person inspired by him Hitler advocated it ?
Edited by Risa123 on Jun 19th 2022 at 4:33:41 PM

I'm going to assume in good faith that the silence to my previous question is of the "Eh, I really don't know. I'll let someone else take a shot." kind. In all honesty, I am guilty of doing that sometimes.
That aside... Learning about North Ossetia
and South Ossetia
, and how each has passed laws that made the name "Alania" co-official with their respective "default" names, I'm curious to know if there are any other polities (whether sovereign states or subnational entities) that have two or more co-official names in the same language.note The Republic of China counts since its government did de facto adopt Taiwan as an alternative official name through denoting itself as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", and "Taiwan (ROC)" in government publications, right?
Edited by MarqFJA on Jun 13th 2022 at 8:37:19 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.