Both are totalitarian systems. Which is better/worse, solidarity in violence or the Koran? The military-industrial complex or the Salem witch trials? Marching in style or Biblical terror?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 2:57
I'm not sure these two are mutually exclusive, but I'd rather take fascism if I had to choose.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 5:41
Much of the world was theocratic during the rennaissance and middle ages and eventually they gave way to parliaments for the landowners etc etc..
I don't know what the distant future would be like for a fascism. All fascisms came to sticky ends last century, so there is nothing empirical to draw from.
I would lean towards theocracy as they are easy to predict. I always wonderred what would happen when the fascism finally killed off all the skapegoats, they'd probably find some other group to attack and the witch hunt will never end. With a theocracy all you have to do is contribute to an armed gang with ties to the church and if you stay active, in the public eye and don't do anything stupid you're safe from a violent death unless there are any major wars in which case there will be opportunities to gain power along with the risk of death.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 9:57
ideologi wise it's basically same shit different wrapping, one puts the nation or the people as being superior to all others, the other puts the religion being superior than all others. One thinks it can't fail because of the unique greatness of its people, the other because of the unique greatness of its religion.
i'd probably go with fascism, at least there isn't religious mumbo jumbo mixed up with that.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 11:10
Id prefer Dalai Lama before Hitler any day. Dalai Lama has even declared that marxism has a lot in common with buddism and that he is not an anti-communist, despite what china has done to his country. So, a theocracy under him doesnt seem that bad to me (even though women are not free to choose in Lhasa).
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 16:07
This is not a rhetorical question, either. Americans are going to have to choose between these two VERY soon. As for me, I'm with the fascists. I'll take imperial guard over Space Marines any day.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 16:37
I say fascist at least people would have prode for their country instead of fear of it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 17:03
Is it correct to say that if you are rightwing then you prefer fascism while leftwingers prefer theocracy?
Im a lefty and my gut response is theocracy, seems that industrialized genocide is to organized for a theocracy to produce, while not so for the fascist state. Plus, fascism seems more warlike, meaning that under fascism then there is a high risk that one is sent to the eastern front, dying in an unnessecary war.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-25 21:05
why would leftwingers prefer theocracy? Most of the leftwingers on this site are probably atheists
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-26 2:15
>>8
I would much rather die in an unnecessary war against my enemies than be burned at the stake because I don't go to church.
>>9
Pat Robertson is a theocrat, and he's hardly left-wing.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-26 2:28
>>9
Yeah, but most are anti-fascists also. What i meant is that leftwingers see theocracy as the lesser evil and vice versa.
Anywho, my gut reaction is theocracy. At least under that there's a guide to how the state will act (bible/koran/whatever). Under facism there's none of that, and i don't really want to know what'll happen when the jews, ethnics & gays have all gone. Will they kill everyone else off? At least a theocracy saves anyone who says they're a christian
Once they're all dead things lose steam and maybe return to some semblence of normalcy and perhaps a return to a somewhat more democratic society. Depends on how they run it in the beginning though.
With the theocracy you're stuck with that shit for a long time.
I'd rather be kicking ass in style then blowing myself up personally
>>19
Where has Cardinal Fang left the soft cushions? There are confessions to extract!
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-09 1:40 ID:4BqBCE2a
Theocracy, because at least with Theocracy you could cite scripture to argue to your rulers why your policy would reflect the word of God much better than whatever the current policy was.
Want to be a bit Liberal? Teachings of Jesus and interpretations of his actions.
Want to be Conservative? God in the Old Testament.
there are other religions than christianity.
A theocracy is ruled by the holy leader, the person who is the most in contact with god. You can argue all you want, which would eventually lead to your execution for going against the holy leader.
that depends on how the power structure and shifts in power structure works internally in the theocracy. You could have a theocracy where the last man standing was the holy one and got to decide.