Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (203427)	9/18/2006 1:49:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I think fascism is a stage that historically most, maybe all, democracies go through on the way to maturity. I might agree to such a contention were you to say dictatorship, rather than the more systemic ideological "fascism". I know that sometimes there's a fine line between the two, but I would not considering replacing one oppressive totalitarian regime for another as "progress".. Pinochet, controversial though he might be, seems more of a dictator than a fascist. He perceived a threat from Communism and he and his fellow generals acted in a violent manner to prevent Chilean democracy from falling prey to communism (according to their perception). But from my perception of his rule, he considered himself a "paternalistic dictator", and not someone who wished to remain in power, or to create a dynasty. He wanted to restore a balance between socialism and capitalism. And the fact that the Chilean economy has reflected tremendous success since the overthrow of Allende, he probably deserves a bit more credit for helping Chile avoid the problems of other Latin countries. But Fascism, according to Mussolini's definition, is a far more systemic ideology that is a bit more than restoring the equiliburium between "freedom and order". And maybe I'm trying to paddle against the current of historical precedence, but I would just like to believe that this kind of pain and suffering is just unecessary. We cannot impose a settlement upon the various powerful interests that exist in these societies, but we can be the referee (and bouncer, when necessary) while assisting them to arrive at a compromise they all can settle for. At least I still believe this may be possible in Iraq. I sincerely hope I'm not proven mistaken. The cost in blood will far exceed what has been spilled up to present day. Hawk