>>22913

> there are two main parties

Incorrect. You're too into this Seppo idea. Australian government has always had several parties in the parliament. In fact our current government is a coalition, primarily made up of the Liberals and the Nationals (former Country party), the very notion that you completely forget about our third major party just goes to show that you're a completely ignorant city-dweller or a Queenslander (where the Liberals have been completely subsumed by the Nationals since they don't have any support.)

The Nationals have 10 seats in parliament, the Liberal National Party (Which is just the Queensland branch of the National party) has 23 seats, while the Liberal party only has 44. 33 vs 44 to make up the very slim majority government of 77 seats? Its a very clear coalition government, its not some either-or situation.

> so nobody can have an actual agenda because otherwise they'd implode

In what world do parties not have different factions? You make out that these factions are somehow worthy of being a separate party? Yeah, there are a few people vying for leadership positions, but that doesn't really even divide them too much. The PM isn't even in the constitution, the party that forms government can choose whoever to be the public face of it, they don't even need to have a PM. It happens in minor parties all the time, its just completely out of the public eye because they've only got a single seat and we vote for people, not parties, so it is pretty much irrelevant.

Theoretically Australia doesn't even need to have political parties, it didn't for a while (the titles were just nominal), there is no reason why it couldn't go back to a partyless government apart from the culture which has developed. Its barely even enshrined into our constitution and wouldn't even be there at all if it weren't for some casual vacancy issues (parties sort any succession crisis naturally.)

> a lack of secondary industry

This isn't because of major parties anyway, its because the Greens (originally formed by anti-nuclear activists) prevent us from generating all sorts of electricity, not just coal and nuclear but others as well. The deadlock between the Coalition and Labor means that these minor parties are extremely influential and are overrepresented in the senate.

>>23427

>Secondly, "durak" is a masculine gender noun, so a female won't be called like that, unless it's her surname or something. Feminine gender variant of "durak" is "dura", and in case of "durachok" it is "durochka". There's also "duryokha", which is not as cutesy as "durochka" and a bit rude, but still more friendly than just "dura".

Oh yeah right I forgot about that. Come to think, me not using gender forms for fucking everything is probably an equivalent to Slavic article dropping.

>Well, firstly, the word "durak" isn't affectionate at all, it just means "fool", nothing else.

Meh I know what it means. I figured it could be an imaginary play on the soldiers gathering together for card games and finding out some story about her childhood background while drinking and playing cards, with the card tattoo and being a teasing in joke thing for the squad. Plus I simply like that word.

I also like this idea quite a lot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foolishness_for_Christ even though I'm using the wrong word.

>>23375
I would definitely agree. There is a lot of masterful engineering and design that took place under the Fascist regime. Some of which is even tied to Fascist thought. I have a real thing for the Lingotto factory. It is spectacular in how it harnesses movement in its design as production spirals upwards, culminating in its ultimate expression of speed. The testing track on the roof. Then you have the Italian arms industry. Known in part for its abortions, but also known for some of the finest pieces in Europe at the time. The Beretta 38, many of their fighter aircraft, their naval vessels. All were really quite advanced and happened in industries that were very much under the thumb of the authorities. I think that there is something of an influence there, though the demise of the intelligent fascist is pretty well documented. You can see it especially in art as time progresses. Italian Futurism that remains in touch with Fascism gets increasingly stagnant and retains an aesthetic without the soul, it's very prevalent if you follow the career of Marinetti before and after the Racial Laws of 1938 for example.

>>23377
Mussolini was noted as a flip-flopper even by his contemporaries who likened him to a vulture swooping on targets of opportunity. He himself made the interesting but unconvincing argument that in changing times, the regime must change and not be bound by rigid ideology. It pays lip service to the theory of Fascism without actually addressing it.

For the record, I don't think that the Italian regime was inclusive. Fascism is not meant to be inclusive. It's harnessing violent energy, emphasis on violent. It needs a target, but the foundational theory doesn't make the target internal, but external and subordinates everything to the state which focuses the violence into progress. There is nothing to say that the external enemy or the internal ally is a genetic thing, but rather it is a matter of national spirit. It is high theory and not really seen in practice, but that is the nature of political theory in general anyway.

t. has more than a passing historical interest in said Italian regime I'm also the Aussie whose ball is fucked up for some reason

>>23378
Accelerationism is meant here as focused on the future. You clearly went not very deep into accelerationist territory, Nick Land might be a key figure but todays accelerationism is an umbrella term under which many ideas gather and insofar that homogenity is lost. Speed is not acceleration, destruction vs. navigation, are just a few aspects to point out you are making it yourself too easy here. They all have in common that the future is very important tho. And lastly, it's way to young to give a clear vision of what it is supposed to be, the concept itself might be a process in constant vibration and change, open to contigency and not settled now (or never?). So basically accelerationism as a term is as unclear as postmodernism, might be even worse.

>I think one of the only solid futurists was actually Adolph Hitler. Everyone else, fascists and Communists included, ended up being too wrapped up in trying to preserve and romanticize something about the old way of life.
>preserve and romanticize something about the old way

They all were interested in technology, they all had prestigious building plans, even the 1930s US had the Hoover Dam. Look at the Art of Nazi Germany and it's kitschy cultural artefacts, the presentation of family and rural life.
Fascism as well as soviet communism where futurists in technology but romanticized a never existing the past.

Thinking of it, we have the same case today but the politics are different. Culture tends to look backwards whereas science marches forward regardless. The avant-garde wanted both.

>>23380
Thanks for the info on Italy and the Futurists.