The problem with that analysis is that fascism and national socialism are tightly defined ideologies. If you try to redefine them in a loose manner then where do you draw the line? How do you decide what national socialism is and isn't? If I say the USSR was national socialist how do you prove me wrong? You've already torn up the definition. "Republic" by contrast is an extremely broad word, covering most things that aren't monarchism. It shoudl be expected for republics to differ. >As much of a human fart as zizek is I think he's essentially right that it is our generation's business to move beyond the political dichotomy of the last century. I think that means fashioning new ways from the best of the previous ideologies and not being so afraid of mixing them up a bit. I fully approve of that, I just don't get why we need to lift names from some of the broken ones. If you invent something new, call it something new. >We already face erasure, experimental systems are better than sticking with a broken one. Right, I agree. Actually I support maximum experimentation in the form of voluntaryism.