![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I find it odd that there is no mention of Fascism's attempt, by sanction of Mussolini's work of Giovanni Gentile's, to define Fascism by that theory given by them to their politics constructed to be without "presuppositions" in the meaning of Gentile's own philosophical stand-points on the reality of nature. That the material world, because it is external to perception, has no conceptual reality except known in the act of preceiving it, and thereby refuting Marxist Dialectical Materialism as an impossibility because it is disconnected from the realm of thinking. This "Fascist Idealism" also thereby justified all positions it had taken as they were similarly construed as a politic "without theoretical presuppositions or intellectualizing"; i.e. Democracy has no utility because it "presupposes" objectified conceptions held as tangible between divergent interest groups, the individual thinking of the external world was the nature of it's own being rather than an external material world so therefore the individual was not separate from the state. Social welfare for it's own sake "presupposed" an understanding outside of one's own thinking situation and therefore could have no reality or utility for persons, etc. So ultimately an entire form of orthodox Solipsism was created to compete with the Egalitarianism prevalent in so many of the other new political theories that were borne from Materialism. Nagelfar 05:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hand me a gun so that I may shoot you in your head, and prove for you in all finity the death of any notions of Solipsism and Idealism, and the very Realism of Materialism. To any Neo-Platonic fascist of the Gentilian variety or other; the cave you dwell in is yours and yours alone. Welcome to reality . . . Capone Aug 15 04
What "everyone"? I hate when I contradict myself. Capone Aug 18 04
In my earlier post directly above, I stated that rightly or wrongly Fascism derived its purpose from Actual Idealism. I was not clear in what I meant by "purpose", so perhaps sometime in the next few days I will be more clear in what I meant. Also, I apologize for making up the word 'autologocentric'. It seemed the best word for what I was trying to describe in contrast to the ego centered nature of my incoherent ramblings. Capone Aug 18, 1982
Also, why is there mention of the Nolan chart at all? This is not an article about Nolan OR Libertarianism - and besides which the Nolan chart is not even consistent in its own right where it is appropriate on the Nolan or Libertarian page as it compares theoretical models to models which existed. You just can't do this and I hope this idea will find some traction. Capone Aug 18, 2004
Capone 9-27-04
Moving the chart was a good compromise. Sam [ Spade] 01:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Once again we have an anonymous visit from the "fascism is socialism brigade", preaching the gospel according to St. Hayek. There may be something useful in what was added, so I'm not reverting immediately; conversely, I won't be surprised if there was something useful in what was deleted without comment.
Would someone else take this on this time? I've waded through an awful lot of these ideological edits lately in various articles, and I'm getting really tired of looking for the pearls among the dung. -- Jmabel 22:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
My search for "fascism" redirected me to G. W. Bush's entry. Mildly humorous, unless you've talked to someone who lived under a "real" fascist regime.
This article provides a different point of view on Fascism and its history. It might factor in to the entry.
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm The Mystery of Fascism <end of an anon contribution>
<start of a contribution contributed anonymously, but signed by Capone>
This anonymous poo-poo head lies. For one, fascism did not redirect anyone from George W. Bush, unless he spells George W. Bush "fascism".
Secondly has anonymous talked to someone who lived under a 'real' facist regime, or was that just another empty rhetorical platitude? Even if so, who cares about this anecdote? I know several holocaust survivors, one who's autoboigraphy I helped ghostwrite in 1993, and while he is dead now, he contended that even George Bush Snr. was a fascist. Perhaps jewish survivors of fascism are too 'paranoid' or 'sensitive' about creeping fascism when they seem to feel it, but you can't have it both ways. Few would say that the U.S living under a fascist regime, yet, but a leader being a fascist or having fascist tendendies or desires ala Bush who said "It'd be a heck a lot easier if America were a dictatorship . . . so long as I was the dictator!" is a seperate matter.
For thirds . . . The article on Mussolini linked by the anonymous coward has many interesting factual name references, but makes many errors in logic and in history. Anyone else who cares to read it may find the same. Look for the stunning contradictory reversals in the article re the basis of fascist support. First it claims it was not a tool of big business, then it claims it was. It claims Mussolini was on the extreme left wing of the Socialist Party in 1914, but he was not. It deduces this from the fact that Mussolini, like many many leftists at the time and today, had contacts with other leftists outside of their immediate party circle. It starts out saying that syndicalists were to the left of the Socialists. It then says that Mussolini became a syndicalist. It then shows how syndicalists started fascism (along with non leftist intellectuals who are adequately listed). But the revisionist trend in syndicalism which called for syndicates which united managers with workers was actually a right wing trend within syndicalism, a small one at that, (not having support among the rank and file) and, could be placed along side the revisionist right trends with Bernstein of the Social-Democrats and right leaning Italian Socialists. Then there are some post hoc fallacies regarding economics, and there are also outright falsifications, for one, claiming that Mussolini's turn away from liberal economics came before the Great Depression. This can only be viewed as true if one places the begining of the Great Depression in Italy in 1929. But the 1920's did not see much real growth in Italy given its mutilated victory in WWI. Italy suffered as if it been on the losing side, even though it was on the winning side. Italy could not even annex Fiume, to the dismay of right nationalists and right syndicalists, like D'Annunzio and co. The economic slump hit Italy and other developing nations of Europe and abroad (like Mexico)as early as 1925. A modern analogy is the Tiger Markets crash of the middle-late 1990's (1996) which led finally to the world stagflation which started towards the end of the summer of 2000. Italy's Corporatist model developed in the middle 1920's could best be, in retrospect, considered Keynesian. Or perhaps Keynes could just be considered a 'statist', whatever. You say potayto, I say potahto. This model allowed Italy to emerge from the depression in 1934, well ahead of the more 'liberal' economies of western europe and the u.s.
Again, there is much interesting factual information, and even usefull analysis in this article, but, unfortunately is based upon ill-informed assumptions and makes conclusions which are questionable at best. Capone 9-7-04
For what its worth, I found this to be rather interesting
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
TDC 21:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Does the PRC as it exists today fall within the definition of a fascist state? I am thinking about adding it to the list of nations as I beleive that it is a near perfect fit. Comments and feedback please. 21:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
[Unless I'm mistaken, the above is TDC, although he didn't sign it -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)]
If you were the same anonymous that posted the publiceye article on fascism, and you thought that criteria was fitting (as I thought it was more or less sound)then by that definition, no. Ok, I have an account I realized as I tried to log in. But what's that shortcut for signing the name with the official UTC stuff?
Capone 9-8-04
Responding to the anon remark above (which I believe was TDC:
Ardent nationalism basically sums up every nation I can think of on the face of the planet at present. It makes sense that a nation would extol the virtues of itself, right? The PRC does not have a cult of personality, does not glorify male youth as fighters, does not glorify female youth as future incubators. Mysticism is missing from official Chinese pronouncements too. Also missing is the stated goal of said society. Left Totalitarian regimes like China see a future where a hierarchy of work-production, and distribution can be overcome once production is more automated with robotics and technology and economic scarcity can be overcome. Allowing private property is a means towards an end in the case of China (market socialism). Right Totalitarian regimes see hierarchy as the natural and permanent order of things, and the existence of private property is not a mean to an end, but the end to be preserved within itself. A broad definition of fascism which would more correctly have to be termed corporatism if we say that mysticism, gender roles, and ideological heritage/stated aims aren't necessary conditions, then that would also allow us to place countries like the U.S since the 1930's, social-democratic Germany, and Keynesian Japan in that category. The main difference between fascism and capitalist-democratic or more benign corporatist states is the right for trade unions and combinations to engage in collective bargaining and even work stopages (strikes) against the immediate consent of the state or business. Unions have this right in China today, to a limited extent, as in the U.S to a limited extent. On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions. Unless I can be swayed from this line of thought, and I am open to it, I will mercilessly edit out grouping the PRC as fascist. Capone 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right, I was speaking of both China and Germany in the present, market-socialist China and capitalist-social-democratic Germany. Sorry if that wasn't clear to others. But all this aside, I may indeed still be off my rocker! Capone 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Italian facism does not exalt race, who is a typical national-socialist concept. When the Italian governement started its racial policy in the late 1930s, it was because he was following Nazi Germany, not original fascism. (unsigned, anonymous)
I think we are seriously missing the point here in simply focusing on Jews. I think to many Italian Fascists before the 1930s, Jews were a perfectly acceptable part of the new 'Risorgimiento', just other races were not. According to Paxton in 'The Anatomy Of Fascism' the Italians committed genocide in Libya and Italian East Africa due to racially motivated reasons. Hauser 02:56, 17 Dec 2004 (NZEST)
But what about Fascist Spain and Portugal? No signs of real racism there. And Japan was open to Jewish refugees. Including that line, you might as well make mention of Racism in an article on democracy. (unsigned)
I see that the section "Fascism and Christianity" has been changed to "Fascism and the Roman Catholic Church". That does seem to fit in with the material currently there, but certainly the Iron Guard were closely tied to the Romanian Orthodox Church; I'm guessing that there are other analogous situations in other non-Roman-Catholic countries, but I don't know much about this. Does someone else? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Might be better to have the main heading "Fascism and Christianity" and add some material about the Iron Guard, then cite Steigmann–Gall. -- Cberlet 23:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe even broader: "religion". It seems to me that one can find an at least an alliance between fascism and certain religious elements in countries that aren't Christian as well (Japan during the Thirties and WWII, arguably some Muslim countries, arguably an element in right-wing Israeli politics). Anyway, I think singling out Roman Catholicism is probably slightly unfair, at least in the sense of unfairly letting other religions off the hook. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised that noone has made use of Prof. Roger Griffin's article " The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" (PDF), in which he attempts to circumscribe an actual scholarly consensus on fascism. I mention this particularly in relation to the introductory characterization of fascism as "right wing," but Griffin contends more or less explicitly that it is not--at least insofar as "conservatism" is synonymous with "right wing." Herewith the quote:
The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.
Vorpal Suds 08:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Just because a prof's own website touts that he has created a "new consensus" doesn't make it the case, nor does Open University accepting a view make it the standard in academe. I think the broad consensus remains that fascism is right wing. Nevertheless we should probably mention Griffin and his theories. AndyL 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would agree that Fascism seems to take more the place of a centrist totalitarian society. Pinochet an example of a right wing form, and stalinism a left. Somewhere betweeen these two lies fascism. Corporativism is often seen as an alternative to socialism and capitalism. (unsigned comment February 28, 2005)
It would seem to be a service to the reader to note that fascism does not spring fully formed upon a society and that there are features or fascistic tendencies that can be discerned and should be resisted.
Does NPOV mean that fascism=bad is not allowable?
I think that the part of the definition that reduces the use of the term to a fringe critique of globalization essentially means that this term is no longer relevant to current political discourse. Perhaps it is overloaded or maybe wiki's aren't good for dealing with disputed topics.
For instance, it seems unlikely that wikipedia could ever include an entry that observed that the current executive of the U.S. espouses fascist ideals. Bush II extemporaneous comments about how it would be easier to advance the agenda if he were a dictator come to mind. (Anonymously posted 24 Nov 2004)
Actually, given the "living" nature of this encyclopedia, we should maybe modify the suggestion that the Bush administration cannot be labelled "Fascist" with the qualifier "yet". After all, the Bush family's commercial entanglements with the European Fascists of WWII may well yet militate for that very determination. Certainly, the two main fascist "concepts" (anti-intellectualism and anti-socialism)are, in many senses, being pursued policy goals of the Bush administration.
Hey everyone, I'm back after a bit of a hiatus, and unfortunately it seems little has changed with the page. Ah, well, gives us all something to do rather than that silly "Christmas" nonsense, eh? ;)
I only had two points: one rather perfunctory, one substantive.
I'll dispense with the inane first. I've cleaned up the archiving a little bit; upon noticing that there had never been a page 5 archived, rather simply skipped over, I took the liberty of moving 6 to 5 (after a couple of false starts with my formatting, albeit) and then archived this main page to 12. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this left 6 blank. In whatever case, I archived all the pages back, and then took the first half of 11 and made it 10, the rest of 11 and part of 12 (the new one) and kept that as 11, and left 12. This way everything is pretty much as it started, but with the error fixed, and confusion will be limited (not the least with future archives). Just be warned if the pages look a bit small or large, especially 10, 11 or 12, as they've been redone a bit, but with nothing removed.
That rambling explanation done, I see that the page title now refers to this article's subject as exclusively Italian fascism. Is that what has been generally decided, that fascism is and rightly deals only with that practiced by the Italians? If so, fine, but rereading the archives I find nothing detailing that, and given the number of fascist regimes, and even given Nazi Germany (for a state that, as the article's header would have it, is not a fascist one, it gets an awful lot of mention in this thing), this is both confusing and disingenuous. If I'm just rekindling an old flame, point me back to where everything was settled up and I'll be happy to withdraw any objections.
No rest to the weary, eh? Wally 21:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The_Manifesto_of_the_Fascist_Struggle#Contents_of_the_Fascist_Manifesto sounds socialist to me. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All right, a thought strikes me. Just above, I mentioned a problem with the intro, Jmabel edited it, and now it looks fine. Why don't we do this on down the line - go section by section, anyone here who sees fit to contribute, and fix each up to our satisfaction before moving on? That way we don't trip over ourselves and everything gets done in due course.
In that spirit, I'm fine with the intro. Any other problems with it, anyone? Wally 02:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd be glad to participate in discussion of any of this that someone feels needs it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
All right, I’ll begin with the section on “Definition”. I’ll refrain from commenting on minor grammatical things, unless the legibility of the passage is in question.
I. Definition
A. The fourth bullet under definition needs reworking; this is, IMO, if we keep the national socialism vs. fascism part under that fourth bullet at all, which I do not think we should. Not only is it something of a red herring at just that point, but it is also a discussion that needs far more than just two lines in a bullet. The fact that nationalism and occasionally racism are motivations towards fascism needs to be noted, however.
B. All subsequent discussion on Nazism as it relates to fascism needs to be moved to a separate section of the article, likely combined with any comments on national socialism. It’s an issue that deserves to be treated, and at some length, but to bring it up right in the section on the definition is, I think, needless saber-rattling. I’ve always felt that the definition section of an article ought to comprise only those elements that are beyond dispute – for the article to be at all serious, we need to at least present what facts we have agreed to right at the start, as that serves the reader best.
C. We make comments throughout this section that I do not feel are either wisely-placed here or accurate. For example:
“Outside of their [Nazism and facism’s] internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.”
This is not only a blanket statement, and subject to easy refutation (even if only in some element of minutiae), but I do not even believe on a general level that all of fascist thought can be said to have been abandoned, as closely-tied as it is with statism and nationalism and that being such important elements of many modern far-right parties (the BNP and French National Front come to mind). Such statements as these, where they occur, need to be changed – this goes for the whole article.
D. There is a good deal of discussion on present meanings and connotations of fascism; not only are these not properly put in a section on definition, but I believe that modern-day fascism (or it’s related progeny, anyway) should have its own section, complete with a discussion as to present day understanding of the term.
Just first thoughts on this section. Wally 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd suggest you use Talk:Fascism/staged contribution and alert us here when there is something to look at. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
(At this point, Wally made the edits straight into the article)
-- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
The following is about the link to [1].
Jmabel, I have a problem with you summarily deleting an external link I added. You remarked only that it was tendentious and not scholarly. The first is probably true, (but there are sufficient other points of view already represented that this shouldn't be a problem), and there's no policy stated anywhere I've seen that external links should be scholarly. I suspect you deleted it just because you disagreed with it, which is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia, especially without consulting me or anyone else. The NPOV page mentions the problem of POV in external links but seems to come down on the side of more points of view rather than fewer, so long as they're external. I think that makes more sense. In addition, it's pretty clear to me that the article I've linked (and now re-linked) says about the same as another article already linked there, but is more readable for the average person and therefore more informative on the whole.
I think that to be fair the link should not be removed without further discussion. Steverapaport 18:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The last paragraph of this section is as follows:
I think this needs work.
The reason the distinction isn't made now, except by fascists, is because it has never been made, not because of current political concerns. (The preceding is anonymous).
" June 5, 1933
All in all, this shows a mixed bag as to the degree to which the NYT viewed the two as the same phenomenon or different ones at the time. But it also tends to fit with my view (that's just "fit with"; I won't claim "confirm") that the left considered them two heads of the same beast and the right emphasized the distinctions; the NYT being reasonably centrist, found itself wandering back and forth between the two views, depending which correspondent was writing.
It might really be worth someone doing research on who was saying what at the time about whether they were the same or different; I would distrust any generalization without citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I would say:
As long as these points are acknowledged, I have no problem with the claim of continuity in most other respects. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the recently added section originally titled "The extent to which the ideology of Mussolini was based on 19th century ideas." I'm not sure this is all accurate -- there is a lack of citations for these influences, though most of what is here seems likely enough to me -- and at least now it's better written. Others should work out whether the claim of Nietzsche's influence on Mussolini has historical basis, and whether some of this might be redundant to material already in the article; however, I'm pretty sure there are some good points here, and it some of it is certainly worth keeping.
One specific quibble: the last paragraph of the section quotes someone named Layton. I have no idea who this might be, let alone whether the quote is accurate. An explicit citation is certainly called for. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
"Semi-capitalist"? You must be joking. You're begging the question by defining capitalism as only existing under democracy and thus ruling out any non-democratic states as possibly being capitalist, despite the fact that Chile, South Korea, Taiwan etc (and for that matter apartheid South Africa) had fully free markets and booming capitalist economies. Chile was a lab for the Chicago School and a leader in deregulation and privatization followed by Thatcher and Reagan. Just because you don't like the fact that several police states were successfully *fully* capitalist doesn't mean you can rewrite the definition of capitalism to exclude this from being possible. Don't let your dogma interfere with reality. AndyL 19:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph in dispute:
Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism. While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states [they both use force to obtain goals], and most other one-party states (including capitalist one-party states[this statement is attempting to support "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" yet at the time there were no examples clearly listed.])have also been police states. A few examples:
I regret that you witheld the other states you claim are capitalist. I believe the subjective statements would be understood better if the reader was aware of what states you believe to be capitalist societies. I think you should work this material into the article:
"Actually, there are numerous examples of capitalism existing quite nicely with a police state. Chile under Pinochet was a lab for the "Chicago school", South Korea and Taiwan were both strongly capitalist while under police state regimes and, yes, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Spain and fascist Portugal were all capitalist." AndyL 23:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyone knows Nazi Germany was capitalist, as long as you weren't jewish, weak, or had something the state wanted, you could maintain private property (wait, is that still called private property).
You say I'm begging the question? Another thing, I never said capitalism existed under democracy! You assumed I thought that. ==
There are some who say there's never been a true capitalist society and that not even the US or Japan are capitalist. That's a theory, however, and a fairly ideologically laden theory (there are also those who say there's never been a socialist society). It's not our job to apply that position in our articles. As far as most people are concerned and as far as most theorists who use the word "capitalist" are concerned the US, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc are and were capitalist. If it's your position that there is no such thing that's interesting but not at all relevent to the article. AndyL 21:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-The job is to apply facts to the articles. It's funny how we have to use the adjectives "fully", "true" or "total" to the word capitalism to imply a free market. The fact a nation is called a capitalist society does not mean it is. Once governments intervene in the economy (doesn't matter the rationalization) it is no longer a capitalist society (free market). The market is either free or it is not. Who defines these interventions and to what extent? Individuals, that support or suppress other individuals in the market place for some rationalized reason.
Socialists argue that it is impossible for a socialist society to be a police state. Perhaps we should just conclude that there are no such things as police states since both socialist and capitalist police states are impossibilities? AndyL 20:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
POLICE STATE
n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
n : a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
CAPITALISM
n.An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
n: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
I can list Nazi Germany as a capitalist system, that doesn't mean that statement is accurate. The paragraph intertwining capitalism and police states is degrading the validity of the article. It should be rephrased or omitted.
Don't back track AndyL, why not use the example of Nazi Germany as a capitalist society anymore in your statement?
Capitalism and statism are on different sides of the spectrum as the state gains ground the individual loses and visa versa. So trying to correlate the two is absurd.
I'm not backtracking. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal etc were all capitalist, indeed capitalism thrived in these countries - just ask all the industrialists who got rich, just ask IG Farben, the Fricks, Ford Motor Company etc.
What I was doing, however, was assailing your absurd argument that police states cannot be capitalist by presenting the strongest example, Pinochet's Chile, which was a model of Chicago School economic policy and a regime idolised by free marketers like Thatcher. Anyone who thinks Chile wasn't capitalist wouldn't think any country is capitalist at odds with most economists.
Incidentally, there are many who argue that Chile's Pinochet was also a modern example of fascism.
AndyL 21:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because there are no serious economists or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't capitalist. AndyL 21:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) To which I'll add, "and there are no serious historians or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't a police state." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism.[Stating "does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism" is vague, irrelevant and more like an editorial. You could also state "there could be a commonality between socialism and police states". It's a weak argument.] While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states,[Really? You stated it now support it!] and most other one-party states (including some capitalist one-party states) have also been police states. A few examples:
* Chile under General Augusto Pinochet * the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang, * Afghanistan under the Taliban, * Iran under the Shah (a monarchist police state). * South Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. during certain periods of their recent history.
Examples are not clear. Are the examples one-party police states or are you refering to the information in the parenthesis with these examples? If these are examples of capitalist one-party states the parenthesis are not needed. Since you are attempting to support your argument that "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" with capitalist one-party police states you need clear examples of capitalist police states. As of right now the examples read as "one-party police states" in general. One option would be to use the same strategy used with the Iran example.]-- David Swink 23:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to remove the quote from the Enciclopedia Italiana 1932 about Fascism and Corporatism (from Mussolini/Gentile) [2] [3] should discuss why first, and give a source that explicitly says those quotations are false.
If you take out Corporatism, fascism is just totalitarianism and hardly worth all this argument. Being pro-corporate and anti-labour was the Fascist's chief difference from the Socialists and any other dictatorship. Remove it and you remove the point of the article.
American Heritage Dictionary 1983
Encyclopedia Brittanica -- Steverapaport
Some anonymous user removed the entire introduction and definition yesterday. It's an improvement in some ways but I think some compromise could be reached, no? I suggest we revert and then take the best of their edits and redo them.
Steverapaport 09:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Worked for me anyhow. I think it's ok now. This is my first revert ever. Steverapaport 00:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)Steve
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.-- Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, Steve who put the quote here seems to be a generally good and well-intentioned editor, so I strongly suspect that if the quote is wrong, any problem was with his source, not with his intentions. Steve, what was your source on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone seems to have changed "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout. I Wikified the internal links to point to the actual article "Roman Catholic Church." I would think using the term for which there is an entry would be more appropriate, but thought I would ask here as to the policy on such matters.-- Cberlet 23:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
what about usa? l see a lot of elements of the italian, german fascism in the u.s. right now.
The ratio of real edits to vandalism/revert is getting depressingly low. Thanks to Chip and Joe for all the good reverts, maybe we should ask the admins to just protect this page in its current form for a while and let the trolls play elsewhere. If someone has new research or better writing to contribute maybe they should just ask an admin to open it up.
Steverapaport 13:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: these deletions:
I actually do not agree that apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia were fascist, but it is a fact that a number of scholars think this is so. Please talk first before deleting again. Thanks. -- Cberlet 02:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Folks really need to disuss changes on this page before deleting material that has taken a long time to construct. Most analysts call fascism a right-wing mass movement. After an anonymous deletion (how tiresome) I rewrote a paragraph as follows:
That's got a cite. If folks disagree, add a sentence with a cite. Don't just delete stuff. Then we can talk about it. I doubt if there is an editor that watches this page that agrees with 100% of it.-- Cberlet 19:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since there is controversy over whether it is left, right or center perhaps we should remove that. The sentence reads fine otherwise "Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini." Seems to be fine.
I agree. Most scholars call fascism a right-wing ideology.-- Cberlet 02:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pinochetism is to the Right, Stalinism to the left, Fascism to the Center. Simple. (anonymous, 13 March 2005)
This is a controversial subject, and just rewriting lines that leave the rest of the text nonsensical is just vandalism. Pinochet was hardly a socialist. -- Cberlet 19:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am calling people's attention to the recently added external link to a web site for something calling itself the American Fascist Movement. I know nothing about the group; I leave it to those more expert than I to decide whether this is an appropriate link or wikispam. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you first hand that it is quite serious, in fact, maybe we could expand the article to include the fascist movement today.
This was cut:
I support the anti-fascists who fought in Spain. This description is historically accurate. What is the problem? It's not anti-communism to accurately report history. Reverted! Get over it.-- Cberlet 03:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't really understand what the objection was in the first place. The paragraph is a bit POV ("it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism were doomed"), but not overly so, and it is informative. ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He seems to be reading alot into the fact that facism opposed communism. He is neglecting that both facism and communism / anarchism opposed social democracy. Sam Spade 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recent addition of an external link to the Italian- and German-language site of a present-day self-proclaimed fascist party. I am not familiar with the group in question and haven't really looked at the site myself, so I'm just raising a flag here. I don't believe the party is important enough to merit a link on the basis of its importance, but someone might want to look at the site and see if there is enough exposition of fascist ideology to merit keeping the link. Otherwise, I say delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I find it odd that there is no mention of Fascism's attempt, by sanction of Mussolini's work of Giovanni Gentile's, to define Fascism by that theory given by them to their politics constructed to be without "presuppositions" in the meaning of Gentile's own philosophical stand-points on the reality of nature. That the material world, because it is external to perception, has no conceptual reality except known in the act of preceiving it, and thereby refuting Marxist Dialectical Materialism as an impossibility because it is disconnected from the realm of thinking. This "Fascist Idealism" also thereby justified all positions it had taken as they were similarly construed as a politic "without theoretical presuppositions or intellectualizing"; i.e. Democracy has no utility because it "presupposes" objectified conceptions held as tangible between divergent interest groups, the individual thinking of the external world was the nature of it's own being rather than an external material world so therefore the individual was not separate from the state. Social welfare for it's own sake "presupposed" an understanding outside of one's own thinking situation and therefore could have no reality or utility for persons, etc. So ultimately an entire form of orthodox Solipsism was created to compete with the Egalitarianism prevalent in so many of the other new political theories that were borne from Materialism. Nagelfar 05:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hand me a gun so that I may shoot you in your head, and prove for you in all finity the death of any notions of Solipsism and Idealism, and the very Realism of Materialism. To any Neo-Platonic fascist of the Gentilian variety or other; the cave you dwell in is yours and yours alone. Welcome to reality . . . Capone Aug 15 04
What "everyone"? I hate when I contradict myself. Capone Aug 18 04
In my earlier post directly above, I stated that rightly or wrongly Fascism derived its purpose from Actual Idealism. I was not clear in what I meant by "purpose", so perhaps sometime in the next few days I will be more clear in what I meant. Also, I apologize for making up the word 'autologocentric'. It seemed the best word for what I was trying to describe in contrast to the ego centered nature of my incoherent ramblings. Capone Aug 18, 1982
Also, why is there mention of the Nolan chart at all? This is not an article about Nolan OR Libertarianism - and besides which the Nolan chart is not even consistent in its own right where it is appropriate on the Nolan or Libertarian page as it compares theoretical models to models which existed. You just can't do this and I hope this idea will find some traction. Capone Aug 18, 2004
Capone 9-27-04
Moving the chart was a good compromise. Sam [ Spade] 01:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Once again we have an anonymous visit from the "fascism is socialism brigade", preaching the gospel according to St. Hayek. There may be something useful in what was added, so I'm not reverting immediately; conversely, I won't be surprised if there was something useful in what was deleted without comment.
Would someone else take this on this time? I've waded through an awful lot of these ideological edits lately in various articles, and I'm getting really tired of looking for the pearls among the dung. -- Jmabel 22:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
My search for "fascism" redirected me to G. W. Bush's entry. Mildly humorous, unless you've talked to someone who lived under a "real" fascist regime.
This article provides a different point of view on Fascism and its history. It might factor in to the entry.
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm The Mystery of Fascism <end of an anon contribution>
<start of a contribution contributed anonymously, but signed by Capone>
This anonymous poo-poo head lies. For one, fascism did not redirect anyone from George W. Bush, unless he spells George W. Bush "fascism".
Secondly has anonymous talked to someone who lived under a 'real' facist regime, or was that just another empty rhetorical platitude? Even if so, who cares about this anecdote? I know several holocaust survivors, one who's autoboigraphy I helped ghostwrite in 1993, and while he is dead now, he contended that even George Bush Snr. was a fascist. Perhaps jewish survivors of fascism are too 'paranoid' or 'sensitive' about creeping fascism when they seem to feel it, but you can't have it both ways. Few would say that the U.S living under a fascist regime, yet, but a leader being a fascist or having fascist tendendies or desires ala Bush who said "It'd be a heck a lot easier if America were a dictatorship . . . so long as I was the dictator!" is a seperate matter.
For thirds . . . The article on Mussolini linked by the anonymous coward has many interesting factual name references, but makes many errors in logic and in history. Anyone else who cares to read it may find the same. Look for the stunning contradictory reversals in the article re the basis of fascist support. First it claims it was not a tool of big business, then it claims it was. It claims Mussolini was on the extreme left wing of the Socialist Party in 1914, but he was not. It deduces this from the fact that Mussolini, like many many leftists at the time and today, had contacts with other leftists outside of their immediate party circle. It starts out saying that syndicalists were to the left of the Socialists. It then says that Mussolini became a syndicalist. It then shows how syndicalists started fascism (along with non leftist intellectuals who are adequately listed). But the revisionist trend in syndicalism which called for syndicates which united managers with workers was actually a right wing trend within syndicalism, a small one at that, (not having support among the rank and file) and, could be placed along side the revisionist right trends with Bernstein of the Social-Democrats and right leaning Italian Socialists. Then there are some post hoc fallacies regarding economics, and there are also outright falsifications, for one, claiming that Mussolini's turn away from liberal economics came before the Great Depression. This can only be viewed as true if one places the begining of the Great Depression in Italy in 1929. But the 1920's did not see much real growth in Italy given its mutilated victory in WWI. Italy suffered as if it been on the losing side, even though it was on the winning side. Italy could not even annex Fiume, to the dismay of right nationalists and right syndicalists, like D'Annunzio and co. The economic slump hit Italy and other developing nations of Europe and abroad (like Mexico)as early as 1925. A modern analogy is the Tiger Markets crash of the middle-late 1990's (1996) which led finally to the world stagflation which started towards the end of the summer of 2000. Italy's Corporatist model developed in the middle 1920's could best be, in retrospect, considered Keynesian. Or perhaps Keynes could just be considered a 'statist', whatever. You say potayto, I say potahto. This model allowed Italy to emerge from the depression in 1934, well ahead of the more 'liberal' economies of western europe and the u.s.
Again, there is much interesting factual information, and even usefull analysis in this article, but, unfortunately is based upon ill-informed assumptions and makes conclusions which are questionable at best. Capone 9-7-04
For what its worth, I found this to be rather interesting
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
TDC 21:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Does the PRC as it exists today fall within the definition of a fascist state? I am thinking about adding it to the list of nations as I beleive that it is a near perfect fit. Comments and feedback please. 21:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
[Unless I'm mistaken, the above is TDC, although he didn't sign it -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)]
If you were the same anonymous that posted the publiceye article on fascism, and you thought that criteria was fitting (as I thought it was more or less sound)then by that definition, no. Ok, I have an account I realized as I tried to log in. But what's that shortcut for signing the name with the official UTC stuff?
Capone 9-8-04
Responding to the anon remark above (which I believe was TDC:
Ardent nationalism basically sums up every nation I can think of on the face of the planet at present. It makes sense that a nation would extol the virtues of itself, right? The PRC does not have a cult of personality, does not glorify male youth as fighters, does not glorify female youth as future incubators. Mysticism is missing from official Chinese pronouncements too. Also missing is the stated goal of said society. Left Totalitarian regimes like China see a future where a hierarchy of work-production, and distribution can be overcome once production is more automated with robotics and technology and economic scarcity can be overcome. Allowing private property is a means towards an end in the case of China (market socialism). Right Totalitarian regimes see hierarchy as the natural and permanent order of things, and the existence of private property is not a mean to an end, but the end to be preserved within itself. A broad definition of fascism which would more correctly have to be termed corporatism if we say that mysticism, gender roles, and ideological heritage/stated aims aren't necessary conditions, then that would also allow us to place countries like the U.S since the 1930's, social-democratic Germany, and Keynesian Japan in that category. The main difference between fascism and capitalist-democratic or more benign corporatist states is the right for trade unions and combinations to engage in collective bargaining and even work stopages (strikes) against the immediate consent of the state or business. Unions have this right in China today, to a limited extent, as in the U.S to a limited extent. On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions. Unless I can be swayed from this line of thought, and I am open to it, I will mercilessly edit out grouping the PRC as fascist. Capone 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right, I was speaking of both China and Germany in the present, market-socialist China and capitalist-social-democratic Germany. Sorry if that wasn't clear to others. But all this aside, I may indeed still be off my rocker! Capone 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Italian facism does not exalt race, who is a typical national-socialist concept. When the Italian governement started its racial policy in the late 1930s, it was because he was following Nazi Germany, not original fascism. (unsigned, anonymous)
I think we are seriously missing the point here in simply focusing on Jews. I think to many Italian Fascists before the 1930s, Jews were a perfectly acceptable part of the new 'Risorgimiento', just other races were not. According to Paxton in 'The Anatomy Of Fascism' the Italians committed genocide in Libya and Italian East Africa due to racially motivated reasons. Hauser 02:56, 17 Dec 2004 (NZEST)
But what about Fascist Spain and Portugal? No signs of real racism there. And Japan was open to Jewish refugees. Including that line, you might as well make mention of Racism in an article on democracy. (unsigned)
I see that the section "Fascism and Christianity" has been changed to "Fascism and the Roman Catholic Church". That does seem to fit in with the material currently there, but certainly the Iron Guard were closely tied to the Romanian Orthodox Church; I'm guessing that there are other analogous situations in other non-Roman-Catholic countries, but I don't know much about this. Does someone else? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Might be better to have the main heading "Fascism and Christianity" and add some material about the Iron Guard, then cite Steigmann–Gall. -- Cberlet 23:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe even broader: "religion". It seems to me that one can find an at least an alliance between fascism and certain religious elements in countries that aren't Christian as well (Japan during the Thirties and WWII, arguably some Muslim countries, arguably an element in right-wing Israeli politics). Anyway, I think singling out Roman Catholicism is probably slightly unfair, at least in the sense of unfairly letting other religions off the hook. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm kind of surprised that noone has made use of Prof. Roger Griffin's article " The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" (PDF), in which he attempts to circumscribe an actual scholarly consensus on fascism. I mention this particularly in relation to the introductory characterization of fascism as "right wing," but Griffin contends more or less explicitly that it is not--at least insofar as "conservatism" is synonymous with "right wing." Herewith the quote:
The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.
Vorpal Suds 08:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Just because a prof's own website touts that he has created a "new consensus" doesn't make it the case, nor does Open University accepting a view make it the standard in academe. I think the broad consensus remains that fascism is right wing. Nevertheless we should probably mention Griffin and his theories. AndyL 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would agree that Fascism seems to take more the place of a centrist totalitarian society. Pinochet an example of a right wing form, and stalinism a left. Somewhere betweeen these two lies fascism. Corporativism is often seen as an alternative to socialism and capitalism. (unsigned comment February 28, 2005)
It would seem to be a service to the reader to note that fascism does not spring fully formed upon a society and that there are features or fascistic tendencies that can be discerned and should be resisted.
Does NPOV mean that fascism=bad is not allowable?
I think that the part of the definition that reduces the use of the term to a fringe critique of globalization essentially means that this term is no longer relevant to current political discourse. Perhaps it is overloaded or maybe wiki's aren't good for dealing with disputed topics.
For instance, it seems unlikely that wikipedia could ever include an entry that observed that the current executive of the U.S. espouses fascist ideals. Bush II extemporaneous comments about how it would be easier to advance the agenda if he were a dictator come to mind. (Anonymously posted 24 Nov 2004)
Actually, given the "living" nature of this encyclopedia, we should maybe modify the suggestion that the Bush administration cannot be labelled "Fascist" with the qualifier "yet". After all, the Bush family's commercial entanglements with the European Fascists of WWII may well yet militate for that very determination. Certainly, the two main fascist "concepts" (anti-intellectualism and anti-socialism)are, in many senses, being pursued policy goals of the Bush administration.
Hey everyone, I'm back after a bit of a hiatus, and unfortunately it seems little has changed with the page. Ah, well, gives us all something to do rather than that silly "Christmas" nonsense, eh? ;)
I only had two points: one rather perfunctory, one substantive.
I'll dispense with the inane first. I've cleaned up the archiving a little bit; upon noticing that there had never been a page 5 archived, rather simply skipped over, I took the liberty of moving 6 to 5 (after a couple of false starts with my formatting, albeit) and then archived this main page to 12. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this left 6 blank. In whatever case, I archived all the pages back, and then took the first half of 11 and made it 10, the rest of 11 and part of 12 (the new one) and kept that as 11, and left 12. This way everything is pretty much as it started, but with the error fixed, and confusion will be limited (not the least with future archives). Just be warned if the pages look a bit small or large, especially 10, 11 or 12, as they've been redone a bit, but with nothing removed.
That rambling explanation done, I see that the page title now refers to this article's subject as exclusively Italian fascism. Is that what has been generally decided, that fascism is and rightly deals only with that practiced by the Italians? If so, fine, but rereading the archives I find nothing detailing that, and given the number of fascist regimes, and even given Nazi Germany (for a state that, as the article's header would have it, is not a fascist one, it gets an awful lot of mention in this thing), this is both confusing and disingenuous. If I'm just rekindling an old flame, point me back to where everything was settled up and I'll be happy to withdraw any objections.
No rest to the weary, eh? Wally 21:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The_Manifesto_of_the_Fascist_Struggle#Contents_of_the_Fascist_Manifesto sounds socialist to me. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All right, a thought strikes me. Just above, I mentioned a problem with the intro, Jmabel edited it, and now it looks fine. Why don't we do this on down the line - go section by section, anyone here who sees fit to contribute, and fix each up to our satisfaction before moving on? That way we don't trip over ourselves and everything gets done in due course.
In that spirit, I'm fine with the intro. Any other problems with it, anyone? Wally 02:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd be glad to participate in discussion of any of this that someone feels needs it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
All right, I’ll begin with the section on “Definition”. I’ll refrain from commenting on minor grammatical things, unless the legibility of the passage is in question.
I. Definition
A. The fourth bullet under definition needs reworking; this is, IMO, if we keep the national socialism vs. fascism part under that fourth bullet at all, which I do not think we should. Not only is it something of a red herring at just that point, but it is also a discussion that needs far more than just two lines in a bullet. The fact that nationalism and occasionally racism are motivations towards fascism needs to be noted, however.
B. All subsequent discussion on Nazism as it relates to fascism needs to be moved to a separate section of the article, likely combined with any comments on national socialism. It’s an issue that deserves to be treated, and at some length, but to bring it up right in the section on the definition is, I think, needless saber-rattling. I’ve always felt that the definition section of an article ought to comprise only those elements that are beyond dispute – for the article to be at all serious, we need to at least present what facts we have agreed to right at the start, as that serves the reader best.
C. We make comments throughout this section that I do not feel are either wisely-placed here or accurate. For example:
“Outside of their [Nazism and facism’s] internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.”
This is not only a blanket statement, and subject to easy refutation (even if only in some element of minutiae), but I do not even believe on a general level that all of fascist thought can be said to have been abandoned, as closely-tied as it is with statism and nationalism and that being such important elements of many modern far-right parties (the BNP and French National Front come to mind). Such statements as these, where they occur, need to be changed – this goes for the whole article.
D. There is a good deal of discussion on present meanings and connotations of fascism; not only are these not properly put in a section on definition, but I believe that modern-day fascism (or it’s related progeny, anyway) should have its own section, complete with a discussion as to present day understanding of the term.
Just first thoughts on this section. Wally 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd suggest you use Talk:Fascism/staged contribution and alert us here when there is something to look at. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
(At this point, Wally made the edits straight into the article)
-- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
The following is about the link to [1].
Jmabel, I have a problem with you summarily deleting an external link I added. You remarked only that it was tendentious and not scholarly. The first is probably true, (but there are sufficient other points of view already represented that this shouldn't be a problem), and there's no policy stated anywhere I've seen that external links should be scholarly. I suspect you deleted it just because you disagreed with it, which is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia, especially without consulting me or anyone else. The NPOV page mentions the problem of POV in external links but seems to come down on the side of more points of view rather than fewer, so long as they're external. I think that makes more sense. In addition, it's pretty clear to me that the article I've linked (and now re-linked) says about the same as another article already linked there, but is more readable for the average person and therefore more informative on the whole.
I think that to be fair the link should not be removed without further discussion. Steverapaport 18:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The last paragraph of this section is as follows:
I think this needs work.
The reason the distinction isn't made now, except by fascists, is because it has never been made, not because of current political concerns. (The preceding is anonymous).
" June 5, 1933
All in all, this shows a mixed bag as to the degree to which the NYT viewed the two as the same phenomenon or different ones at the time. But it also tends to fit with my view (that's just "fit with"; I won't claim "confirm") that the left considered them two heads of the same beast and the right emphasized the distinctions; the NYT being reasonably centrist, found itself wandering back and forth between the two views, depending which correspondent was writing.
It might really be worth someone doing research on who was saying what at the time about whether they were the same or different; I would distrust any generalization without citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I would say:
As long as these points are acknowledged, I have no problem with the claim of continuity in most other respects. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
I reworked the recently added section originally titled "The extent to which the ideology of Mussolini was based on 19th century ideas." I'm not sure this is all accurate -- there is a lack of citations for these influences, though most of what is here seems likely enough to me -- and at least now it's better written. Others should work out whether the claim of Nietzsche's influence on Mussolini has historical basis, and whether some of this might be redundant to material already in the article; however, I'm pretty sure there are some good points here, and it some of it is certainly worth keeping.
One specific quibble: the last paragraph of the section quotes someone named Layton. I have no idea who this might be, let alone whether the quote is accurate. An explicit citation is certainly called for. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
"Semi-capitalist"? You must be joking. You're begging the question by defining capitalism as only existing under democracy and thus ruling out any non-democratic states as possibly being capitalist, despite the fact that Chile, South Korea, Taiwan etc (and for that matter apartheid South Africa) had fully free markets and booming capitalist economies. Chile was a lab for the Chicago School and a leader in deregulation and privatization followed by Thatcher and Reagan. Just because you don't like the fact that several police states were successfully *fully* capitalist doesn't mean you can rewrite the definition of capitalism to exclude this from being possible. Don't let your dogma interfere with reality. AndyL 19:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph in dispute:
Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism. While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states [they both use force to obtain goals], and most other one-party states (including capitalist one-party states[this statement is attempting to support "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" yet at the time there were no examples clearly listed.])have also been police states. A few examples:
I regret that you witheld the other states you claim are capitalist. I believe the subjective statements would be understood better if the reader was aware of what states you believe to be capitalist societies. I think you should work this material into the article:
"Actually, there are numerous examples of capitalism existing quite nicely with a police state. Chile under Pinochet was a lab for the "Chicago school", South Korea and Taiwan were both strongly capitalist while under police state regimes and, yes, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Spain and fascist Portugal were all capitalist." AndyL 23:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyone knows Nazi Germany was capitalist, as long as you weren't jewish, weak, or had something the state wanted, you could maintain private property (wait, is that still called private property).
You say I'm begging the question? Another thing, I never said capitalism existed under democracy! You assumed I thought that. ==
There are some who say there's never been a true capitalist society and that not even the US or Japan are capitalist. That's a theory, however, and a fairly ideologically laden theory (there are also those who say there's never been a socialist society). It's not our job to apply that position in our articles. As far as most people are concerned and as far as most theorists who use the word "capitalist" are concerned the US, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc are and were capitalist. If it's your position that there is no such thing that's interesting but not at all relevent to the article. AndyL 21:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-The job is to apply facts to the articles. It's funny how we have to use the adjectives "fully", "true" or "total" to the word capitalism to imply a free market. The fact a nation is called a capitalist society does not mean it is. Once governments intervene in the economy (doesn't matter the rationalization) it is no longer a capitalist society (free market). The market is either free or it is not. Who defines these interventions and to what extent? Individuals, that support or suppress other individuals in the market place for some rationalized reason.
Socialists argue that it is impossible for a socialist society to be a police state. Perhaps we should just conclude that there are no such things as police states since both socialist and capitalist police states are impossibilities? AndyL 20:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
POLICE STATE
n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.
n : a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
CAPITALISM
n.An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
n: an economic system based on private ownership of capital
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
I can list Nazi Germany as a capitalist system, that doesn't mean that statement is accurate. The paragraph intertwining capitalism and police states is degrading the validity of the article. It should be rephrased or omitted.
Don't back track AndyL, why not use the example of Nazi Germany as a capitalist society anymore in your statement?
Capitalism and statism are on different sides of the spectrum as the state gains ground the individual loses and visa versa. So trying to correlate the two is absurd.
I'm not backtracking. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal etc were all capitalist, indeed capitalism thrived in these countries - just ask all the industrialists who got rich, just ask IG Farben, the Fricks, Ford Motor Company etc.
What I was doing, however, was assailing your absurd argument that police states cannot be capitalist by presenting the strongest example, Pinochet's Chile, which was a model of Chicago School economic policy and a regime idolised by free marketers like Thatcher. Anyone who thinks Chile wasn't capitalist wouldn't think any country is capitalist at odds with most economists.
Incidentally, there are many who argue that Chile's Pinochet was also a modern example of fascism.
AndyL 21:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Because there are no serious economists or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't capitalist. AndyL 21:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) To which I'll add, "and there are no serious historians or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't a police state." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism.[Stating "does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism" is vague, irrelevant and more like an editorial. You could also state "there could be a commonality between socialism and police states". It's a weak argument.] While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states,[Really? You stated it now support it!] and most other one-party states (including some capitalist one-party states) have also been police states. A few examples:
* Chile under General Augusto Pinochet * the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang, * Afghanistan under the Taliban, * Iran under the Shah (a monarchist police state). * South Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. during certain periods of their recent history.
Examples are not clear. Are the examples one-party police states or are you refering to the information in the parenthesis with these examples? If these are examples of capitalist one-party states the parenthesis are not needed. Since you are attempting to support your argument that "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" with capitalist one-party police states you need clear examples of capitalist police states. As of right now the examples read as "one-party police states" in general. One option would be to use the same strategy used with the Iran example.]-- David Swink 23:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to remove the quote from the Enciclopedia Italiana 1932 about Fascism and Corporatism (from Mussolini/Gentile) [2] [3] should discuss why first, and give a source that explicitly says those quotations are false.
If you take out Corporatism, fascism is just totalitarianism and hardly worth all this argument. Being pro-corporate and anti-labour was the Fascist's chief difference from the Socialists and any other dictatorship. Remove it and you remove the point of the article.
American Heritage Dictionary 1983
Encyclopedia Brittanica -- Steverapaport
Some anonymous user removed the entire introduction and definition yesterday. It's an improvement in some ways but I think some compromise could be reached, no? I suggest we revert and then take the best of their edits and redo them.
Steverapaport 09:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Worked for me anyhow. I think it's ok now. This is my first revert ever. Steverapaport 00:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)Steve
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.-- Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, Steve who put the quote here seems to be a generally good and well-intentioned editor, so I strongly suspect that if the quote is wrong, any problem was with his source, not with his intentions. Steve, what was your source on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Someone seems to have changed "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout. I Wikified the internal links to point to the actual article "Roman Catholic Church." I would think using the term for which there is an entry would be more appropriate, but thought I would ask here as to the policy on such matters.-- Cberlet 23:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
what about usa? l see a lot of elements of the italian, german fascism in the u.s. right now.
The ratio of real edits to vandalism/revert is getting depressingly low. Thanks to Chip and Joe for all the good reverts, maybe we should ask the admins to just protect this page in its current form for a while and let the trolls play elsewhere. If someone has new research or better writing to contribute maybe they should just ask an admin to open it up.
Steverapaport 13:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Re: these deletions:
I actually do not agree that apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia were fascist, but it is a fact that a number of scholars think this is so. Please talk first before deleting again. Thanks. -- Cberlet 02:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Folks really need to disuss changes on this page before deleting material that has taken a long time to construct. Most analysts call fascism a right-wing mass movement. After an anonymous deletion (how tiresome) I rewrote a paragraph as follows:
That's got a cite. If folks disagree, add a sentence with a cite. Don't just delete stuff. Then we can talk about it. I doubt if there is an editor that watches this page that agrees with 100% of it.-- Cberlet 19:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since there is controversy over whether it is left, right or center perhaps we should remove that. The sentence reads fine otherwise "Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini." Seems to be fine.
I agree. Most scholars call fascism a right-wing ideology.-- Cberlet 02:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Pinochetism is to the Right, Stalinism to the left, Fascism to the Center. Simple. (anonymous, 13 March 2005)
This is a controversial subject, and just rewriting lines that leave the rest of the text nonsensical is just vandalism. Pinochet was hardly a socialist. -- Cberlet 19:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am calling people's attention to the recently added external link to a web site for something calling itself the American Fascist Movement. I know nothing about the group; I leave it to those more expert than I to decide whether this is an appropriate link or wikispam. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I can tell you first hand that it is quite serious, in fact, maybe we could expand the article to include the fascist movement today.
This was cut:
I support the anti-fascists who fought in Spain. This description is historically accurate. What is the problem? It's not anti-communism to accurately report history. Reverted! Get over it.-- Cberlet 03:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't really understand what the objection was in the first place. The paragraph is a bit POV ("it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism were doomed"), but not overly so, and it is informative. ( Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He seems to be reading alot into the fact that facism opposed communism. He is neglecting that both facism and communism / anarchism opposed social democracy. Sam Spade 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recent addition of an external link to the Italian- and German-language site of a present-day self-proclaimed fascist party. I am not familiar with the group in question and haven't really looked at the site myself, so I'm just raising a flag here. I don't believe the party is important enough to merit a link on the basis of its importance, but someone might want to look at the site and see if there is enough exposition of fascist ideology to merit keeping the link. Otherwise, I say delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)