What is the difference between Patriotism, Nationalism and Fascism?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Sangar one important aspect of discussing (and this goes to everyone) is that we can`t generalize major political phenomena just one the basis of select individuals. Especially since we take one aspect of their regime and ignore everything else. Mussolini and Hitler played at certain times on nationalist sentiment, but to consider it a solely nationalist movement is misleading. One aspect of fascism can be rabid fascism and nationalism, but it is not the end all be all of it.

Plus, according to Mussolini Fascism is essentially corporatism.

Thank you for your lecture on "discussing".

But it seems like a problem to nationalists to explain hitler or the nationalist movement with reference to the development of the ideology in Europe's recent history.

The fact is, that prior to the European Nationalist movements, the ideology was alien to the rest of the world.

What did existed was tribalism. And you, Pashtun Nationalists deny to be involved in tribalism. But claim that Nationalism is something holy and far superior than any other belief or ideology. And it united apostates, hindus and muslims based on language and ethinicty.

So I am puzzled how this ideology is any different than that of Hitler and Mussolini.

If this ideology of yours really is other than Tribalism or German Fascism, then why are you Pashtun Nationalists so hostile to other ethnicities?

Take for example, my nickname change. I deliberately changed my name to Khurasani to see how people react on this forum. And what do you know? Emmidiately, all Nationalists started hurling insults and profanity at me threatening me with beheading and what not.

Even the secularists (who advocate tolerance here on Pashtunforums and claim that secularism means respecting others who have a different opinion ) were not able to restrain themselves when I started defending the name change of Afghanistan into Khurasan.

Both secularist views and nationalism of the PF members serve as a reference to the true nature of both ideologies.

So why do you Nationalists keep denying the obvious? That your ideology is in no way different than that of the German and Italian Fascists of the early 20th century?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Patriotism: Long live my country, death to yours!
Facisim: Long live We, death to anyone that's not like us!
Nationalism: Long live my people, my heritage, and my motherland. They are as good as yours!

You could be a religious person and nationalist at the same time. When your nationalism turns into hate for others just because they are different, that's when things turn ugly.

You could be religious and a nationalist at the same time. But this implies that you are probably a fool. because having love for your kin does not constitute hostility to others. Which is clearly the case with nationalists.

Even if you ask these outspoken Nationalists here on PF, they will tell you that the fact that Pashtuns do not reign supreme is a motive for them to unite with one another based on mutual language and kinship. Which means that they unite because they want power and authority. So language and ethinicity becomes merely a means to rally support for political goals.

And this sentiment of us against them is perpetuated by emphasizing the differences between us and them.

Which means that there is a strong hostility towards Punjabis and Tajiks.

So how can one be religious when one is simultaneously hostile to other people ( muslims) because of their ethnicity and language?

[شمله ور خراساني]

Hitler very successfully played on the sentiments of a broken, battered, defeated and unjustly-treated people. The Treaty of Versailles created the perfect opportunity for someone like Hitler to come into power. The unjust "peace" of Versailles championed German nationalism. Hitler just played his role. I'm a neorealist, you see.

Bismarck and Garibaldi were the real nationalists. They brought unification and strength to their people. Hitler and Mussolini only brought death and misery.

a value judgement such as "such and so was the real nationalist" is useless information.

Because after world war 1 Germany was in shatters. And it was Hitler who made Germany worlds most powerful country within a decade by playing on people's sentiments.

And Hitler did unite all Germanic people under one flag.

Compared to him, the achievements of Bismarck looks like peanuts.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Thank you for your lecture on "discussing".

But it seems like a problem to nationalists to explain hitler or the nationalist movement with reference to the development of the ideology in Europe's recent history.

The fact is, that prior to the European Nationalist movements, the ideology was alien to the rest of the world.

What did existed was tribalism. And you, Pashtun Nationalists deny to be involved in tribalism. But claim that Nationalism is something holy and far superior than any other belief or ideology. And it united apostates, hindus and muslims based on language and ethinicty.

So I am puzzled how this ideology is any different than that of Hitler and Mussolini.

If this ideology of yours really is other than Tribalism or German Fascism, then why are you Pashtun Nationalists so hostile to other ethnicities?

Take for example, my nickname change. I deliberately changed my name to Khurasani to see how people react on this forum. And what do you know? Emmidiately, all Nationalists started hurling insults and profanity at me threatening me with beheading and what not.

Even the secularists (who advocate tolerance here on Pashtunforums and claim that secularism means respecting others who have a different opinion ) were not able to restrain themselves when I started defending the name change of Afghanistan into Khurasan.

Both secularist views and nationalism of the PF members serve as a reference to the true nature of both ideologies.

So why do you Nationalists keep denying the obvious? That your ideology is in no way different than that of the German and Italian Fascists of the early 20th century?

First of all, you are welcome for that lecture...hopefully it helped. Second of all, nationalism predates both Mussolini and Hitler, and is not one uniform concept. There are different forms of nationalism. You are puzzled because you are mixing everything together. In terms of the nationalism of Pashtun parties, well the two major ones (ANP and PKMAP), I know are on record saying that they accept all people who live within lar au bar Afghan watan as sons of the soil. I have heard Achakzai say this and there are hindkos as well as other groups within ANP. This is a known fact. Now if a few members or individuals are hostile to other ethnic groups that doesn't make them the representatives of everyone. Again no one can go to each and every nationalist and ask them what or how they feel about x,y,z community. We can go to the major leaders, their literature and use that as a basis. In terms of that, the only party that were even on this level were Afghan Millat (however they have softened their stance and quite frankly are not as relevant as they once were).
The fact that they unite hindus, apostates or muslims under one ideology does not make it fascist...this is a classic case of apples and oranges. The two can't be compared in such a way.

Why should they tolerate the name change? If a so called Pashtun nationalist can't even have the backbone to defend the only state with their name on it, what type of a Pashtun is that? Would you take them seriously? What you suggested is just not sensible, a regular Pashtun for the most part won't accept what you are asking, what makes you think a pashtun nationalist will? Especially considering that his or her ideology revolves around safeguarding the interests of his/her nation. These are very rudimentary concepts.

Mussolini and Hitler were primarily fascists, and they may have catered to nationalist sentiments but were not necessarily nationalists. These concepts can overlap. Fascism itself is not one monolithic movement either....I mean there are differences between the Fascist regime of Romania and that of Germany or Mussolini.

Franco Tudjman of Croatia was a nationalist but he was not a fascist per say (his movement was quite different from that of the Ustasha regime before him).

[Mayana]

Patriotism < Chauvinism < Nationalism

Patriotism: I love Afghanistan <3 [rather healthy compared to the rest]
Chauvinism: I hate you, Pakistan & Iran. I love you, Afghanistan. You're my life and everything I have <3 [exaggerated Patriotism]
Nationalism: I love Afghanistan. I hate everything else. >=| [Hi, I'm Hitler.]

[Wrayun]

So how can one be religious when one is simultaneously hostile to other people (muslims) because of their ethnicity and language?

It's very simple. If your fellow Muslims like Tajiks and Punjabis make deals with your enemies that compromises your state of affairs, or uses your religion against you to further their political goals at the expense of yours, you have the right as a Muslim to be an intelligent human being to stand up for what's yours and demand what's just. Being Muslim doesn't equate to bending over to any so-called Muslim beradar who screws you over. God is not going to compensate for our stupidity. He has given us brains with intelligence to use. Blindly following anything and everything sugarcoated as religious obligations insults that intelligence.

[akbarkhan]

You could be a religious person and nationalist at the same time. When your nationalism turns into hate for others just because they are different, that's when things turn ugly.

Do you consider this fellow to have better understanding of Islam than yourself?

[شمله ور خراساني]

First of all, you are welcome for that lecture...hopefully it helped. Second of all, nationalism predates both Mussolini and Hitler, and is not one uniform concept.

Are you affirming that both Hitler aswell as Mussolini were Nationalists? Or are you saying they were fake Nationalists. Just like some Muslims call certain historic figures in Islam to be fake Muslims just because they had a different interpretation of Islam?

Because if you do, then that would be a very childish argument. Since we all know that Nationalism as it is coined in the past few centuries was championed by Hitler and Mussolini. The only people who deny that, are a few people here on Pashtunforums.

There are different forms of nationalism.

Please give me reference to a few scholarly works by prominent authors who have researched different Nationalist movements.

You are puzzled because you are mixing everything together.

I am not mixing anything. It is you and fellow Nationalists who are either in denial. Or it could be that you are doing taqiya.

My little experiment with a change of nickname and the controversy around it is a perfect manifestation of the true nature of Pashtun Nationalism. The most outspoken nationalists lost their temper and started using profanity and attacked me just because I was sharing an opposing view. This hostility and intolerance for other views is the clear evidence of the fascist sentiments that are hidden under a cover of a few nice liberalist words that Nationalists use for a specific purpose. And that is, to represent their movement as a moderate and progressive movement. But they fail miserably because of the lack of self restraint and tact. This primarily because Nationalism is a irrational ideology. Just like Marxism or any other ideology derived from the teachings of Rousseau and Marx.

In terms of the nationalism of Pashtun parties, well the two major ones (ANP and PKMAP), I know are on record saying that they accept all people who live within lar au bar Afghan watan as sons of the soil.
I have heard Achakzai say this and there are hindkos as well as other groups within ANP.This is a known fact.

All Nationalists say stuff like that when they are weak and lack broad public support. Just like Afghan Millat in Afghanistan. Initially they even attracted Uzbeks and Hazara's. But lateron along the way their true identity emerged as a fascist political movement.

Similarly another closely related movement with an ideology close to that of Nationalists - the Marxists of Afghanistan initially represented themselves as a non-violent and tolerant movement. They even named their party "Democratic". But we have all seen how tolerant they were. Their indiscriminate killing of religious people and even major cases of communist fratricide was so widespread that they even shocked Moskow.

Now if a few members or individuals are hostile to other ethnic groups that doesn't make them the representatives of everyone.

Where do these people get these hostile sentiments from? These hostilities and racism the outspoken Nationalists are known for are associated to their political ideology. Denying that there is a connection between Nationalist parties and hostility and animosity towards people of other ethnic background is like trying to hide the sun with one finger. I've posted a very useful article about this particular phenomenon.

The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? - Worldwide Pashtun Community

Again no one can go to each and every nationalist and ask them what or how they feel about x,y,z community.

That's true. We cannot poll the Nationalists at the moment. But considering that what I have said here above, could you honestly claim that Nationalists are not hostile to people of other ethnicity. It is Ramadan. Be honest.

We can go to the major leaders, their literature and use that as a basis. In terms of that, the only party that were even on this level were Afghan Millat (however they have softened their stance and quite frankly are not as relevant as they once were).

The literature is irrelevant because the literature of a political party is specifically designed in order to convey a political message. And the manifesto of a party or the books political leaders author are by no means a true and fair representation of their political motives.

Only a fool would believe anything a political party writes in their manifesto's pamphlets and books.

The fact that they unite hindus, apostates or muslims under one ideology does not make it fascist...this is a classic case of apples and oranges. The two can't be compared in such a way.

Well, then answer me: On what ground do the nationalists want to unite with people of various creeds? A common passion for lamb and red wine? Maybe Attan Music? Or Ghani Khan's vulgar and heretic poetry?

It is an undeniable fact that Nationalists want to unite people based on language and ethnicity. So how can a "Pashtun" nationalist movement repserent "non-Pashtuns".

It is a total contradiction that your leader Mahmood Khan Achakzai is preaching. HIndko's participating in Pashtun Nationalist movement that is founded on secularism. Aside from religion and the fact that Hindkos and Hazara's live on the same piece of land as their Pashtun counterparts, what other commonalities do they have?

Why should they tolerate the name change?

Because Nationalists claim to be tolerant and liberal. So if someone suggests a name change, they should at least be able to discuss this without resorting to profanity and personal attacks, no?

If a so called Pashtun nationalist can't even have the backbone to defend the only state with their name on it, what type of a Pashtun is that?

Defending by what means? Someone changes his nickname on a public forum and suddenly all Nationalists are mad as hell. LOL! It's not like the name is already changed or the proposition is presented to Kharzai and walasi jirga.

So whats all the emotional ranting for?

Would you take them seriously? What you suggested is just not sensible, a regular Pashtun for the most part won't accept what you are asking, what makes you think a pashtun nationalist will?

I don't need anyone to accept it. But the reaction of the liberal so called tolerant Pashtun Nationalists to a name change of a member on a public forum was enough to expose the true nature of Pashtun Nationalism and it's similarity to groups like English Defense League and such. Emotional ranting bunch of hot-heads.

Especially considering that his or her ideology revolves around safeguarding the interests of his/her nation. These are very rudimentary concepts.

Safeguarding the interests of one's nation does not mean hostility to others or intolerance to opposing views.

Mussolini and Hitler were primarily fascists, and they may have catered to nationalist sentiments but were not necessarily nationalists.

Who are you to be saying this? Have you invented Nationalism and are you an expert on Nationalism and able to distinguish fascism from Nationalism?

So far, the question I have posed in this discussion is not answered by anyone. All I have received so far are childish comments or people participating in this discussion for the sake of arguments.

These concepts can overlap. Fascism itself is not one monolithic movement either....I mean there are differences between the Fascist regime of Romania and that of Germany or Mussolini.

If there is an overlap, then there certainly is a commonality. So why are you vehemently denying this and yet admitting it at the same time? Be consistent in your argumentation.

Franco Tudjman of Croatia was a nationalist but he was not a fascist per say (his movement was quite different from that of the Ustasha regime before him).

Who?

[شمله ور خراساني]

It's very simple. If your fellow Muslims like Tajiks and Punjabis make deals with your enemies that compromises your state of affairs, or uses your religion against you to further their political goals at the expense of yours, you have the right as a Muslim to be an intelligent human being to stand up for what's yours and demand what's just. Being Muslim doesn't equate to bending over to any so-called Muslim beradar who screws you over. God is not going to compensate for our stupidity. He has given us brains with intelligence to use. Blindly following anything and everything sugarcoated as religious obligations insults that intelligence.

But the Pashtun Nationalists like Afghan Millat, ANP and PKAMP are all allies and supporters of America and are outspoken enemies of Islamic movements in Afghanistan.

So they are making deals with our enemies and are opposing the establishment of Shariah in Afghanistan. Their political party's manifesto's explicitly say that they are secularists.

So why shouldn't we fight and oppose Nationalists? Even though they are our fellow Pashtuns?


The thing is, Nationalism is not baes on protecting your own interests and defending yourself from external threat.

Nationalism as an ideology is by its nature alien and opposing to our religion and values.

So by joining hands with other Pashtuns who have received money and are being supported to promote their nationalist ideology in the mass media we are in fact bending over as fools to are allowing the enemy from within to destroy us.

Therefore Islam and Nationalism cannot co-exist. They are mutually exclusive.

[khyaal]

It's very simple. If your fellow Muslims like Tajiks and Punjabis make deals with your enemies.......

Wrayun! With just this sentence you completely exposed yourself and your intentions otherwise you could carry this on for much longer.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Sangar I will get you a list of some works in time. However, you are twisting words. I never affirmed any of that, I said they overlap. Even kids understand such rudimentary things. Now I will ask you to do the same. Show me that they are exclusively nationalists..show me that in fact these ideologies all did not overlap. I even gave you examples which you overlooked. Again you are using a classic case of a straw man argument.

People can use and find commonalities in everything. I have seen a documentary (Power of Nightmares), which had a number of individuals/academics, where the first parts initially drew parallels between the beginnings of neo-conservatism and Syed Quthb. Now are they now one and the same? Shall I consider Wolfowitz under the same light as followers of Qutb? Clearly I can't and this would be flawed way of looking at it.

Also stop dramatizing, everyone rejected your idea of name change. From nationaliyaan to non nationaliyaan. No one was even considering it bar Catya Sher. In fact the irony is that the only people who will even welcome it are Tajik and Khorasni nationalists. You are holding onto a thread.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

Oh are you an expert on nationalism, fascism, or any other ideaology? You made the claim and I gave rebuttal....throwing around such childish assertions won't do you any good. Your own argument is childish and people have answered it. You just want to believe anything that makes you comfortable. Neocons peddle the same thing you do, that any of these muslim movements (bar suffism) are just different forms of Islamofascism.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Sangar I will get you a list of some works in time. However, you are twisting words.

This is a false claim often used by people who can't address the challanges and seek a side rout to escape it.

I never affirmed any of that, I said they overlap.

In order to overlap, there must be a strong connection. Otherwise an overlap is impossible. Don't deny it.

Even kids understand such rudimentary things.

Wow! I guess the debates 101 course really benefited you.

Now I will ask you to do the same. Show me that they are exclusively nationalists..show me that in fact these ideologies all did not overlap. I even gave you examples which you overlooked. Again you are using a classic case of a straw man argument.

I don't need to give you evidence of anything. I am here posing the question. I asked what are the differences between Patriorism, Nationalism and |Fascism. You offered your answer which is full of holes like swiss cheese. Why do you want me to prove otherwise when you are the one teaching me what those three things are?

This is the same evasive method Qadiani was using to avoid painful questions.

People can use and find commonalities in everything. I have seen a documentary (Power of Nightmares), which had a number of individuals/academics, where the first parts initially drew parallels between the beginnings of neo-conservatism and Syed Quthb. Now are they now one and the same? Shall I consider Wolfowitz under the same light as followers of Qutb? Clearly I can't and this would be flawed way of looking at it.

Power of Nightmares is a conspiracy theorist documentary. It is useless information what conspiracy theorists claim and what they think is overlapping.

You need to answer the intial questions I posed in this discussion and not avoiding it by playing a game of hide and seek.

Also stop dramatizing, everyone rejected your idea of name change. From nationaliyaan to non nationaliyaan. No one was even considering it bar Catya Sher. In fact the irony is that the only people who will even welcome it are Tajik and Khorasni nationalists. You are holding onto a thread.

It is not dramatizing. You are now trying to avoid what I have given as proof.

My change of nickname was a great experiment. It was so succesful that I didn't even have to open a thread. The Thread was made by Admin Khan who seperated my conversation with Agnostic Pashtana from another thread.

Your style of evasion in discussion is very unproductive. When addressed, you pick and choose what to reply to and you avoid everything else because you don't have an answer.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Oh are you an expert on nationalism, fascism, or any other ideaology?

New academic year has started and I just enrolled in my 4th course on Political Philosophy. I am by no means an expert. I am a student. That is why I am asking the questions.

You made the claim and I gave rebuttal...

Don't lie. I did not make a claim. I posed a question and you gave me a vague reply and I replied back to you asking for clarification. Which you are avoiding vehemently.

throwing around such childish assertions won't do you any good.

You cant address any of what I said and now you are accusing me of being childish? Why?

Your own argument is childish and people have answered it.

What argument is childish? I ask a question about the three ideologies and I am called childish because I demand a decent answer and not some evasive and vague response?

You just want to believe anything that makes you comfortable.

You are now making statements about my intentions and my personal prefences? Are you a |Sufi pir who can see the unseen?

Neocons peddle the same thing you do, that any of these muslim movements (bar suffism) are just different forms of Islamofascism.

Instead of making accusations have the courage to post decent answers instead of silly stuff.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

This is a false claim often used by people who can't address the challanges and seek a side rout to escape it.


In order to overlap, there must be a strong connection. Otherwise an overlap is impossible. Don't deny it.



Wow! I guess the debates 101 course really benefited you.



I don't need to give you evidence of anything. I am here posing the question. I asked what are the differences between Patriorism, Nationalism and |Fascism. You offered your answer which is full of holes like swiss cheese. Why do you want me to prove otherwise when you are the one teaching me what those three things are?

This is the same evasive method Qadiani was using to avoid painful questions.



Power of Nightmares is a conspiracy theorist documentary. It is useless information what conspiracy theorists claim and what they think is overlapping.

You need to answer the intial questions I posed in this discussion and not avoiding it by playing a game of hide and seek.



It is not dramatizing. You are now trying to avoid what I have given as proof.

My change of nickname was a great experiment. It was so succesful that I didn't even have to open a thread. The Thread was made by Admin Khan who seperated my conversation with Agnostic Pashtana from another thread.

Your style of evasion in discussion is very unproductive. When addressed, you pick and choose what to reply to and you avoid everything else because you don't have an answer.

No it isn't I am member of this forum, so clearly I am not going to run away lolzz. Your sarcasm is much appreciated. Power of Nightmares maybe a conspiracy theory, but I made a point (which you overlooked).

Your nickname wasn't really a great experiment at all, you are really over reaching with that. You make it seem as if in doing so you have shown how flawed nationalism is. The reality is that no one of any political background here is going to accept it. The only people who are, are ironically, tajik and khorasani nationalists.

However I will give you the definition of fascism from the very own mussolini you are so ardent on using as an example.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

^^He iz zee Nat10n4l5t durr :-P
To be fair, one can search for other regimes to add on such as Romania's Ceausescu, Usthasha of Croatia and so on so forth.

Here is an rudimentary work by Stanford University.

Nationalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

A little on patriotism

Historical dictionary of the ... - Google Books


Now from these basics you can see that there are times where each can used but they are fundamentally different concepts. You don't have to be a nationalist per say and be a patriot. You don't have to be a nationalist and be a fascists, since one major aspect of fascism is corporatism. There are nationalists who are leftists and nationalists who are classic liberals.

The whole point of your "question" was your lame attempt at proving that nationalists are fascist...this has been one of your major points (if you can call it that) against nationalists. Quite frankly I couldn't care, I don't even lose sleep.