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. |
Why do people consider Nazism and Fascism the same thing? It is an insult to Fascism. Ask any generic Fascist, Italian Fascist, or even Falangist organizations and they will tell you Nazism is its own political ideology. So why is it tought in schools and published in wikipedia that they are the same??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostanford22 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand what fascism is nor what it's ideology is? ELDRAS ( talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Those who are adamant that communism and Nazism are not the same beast seem to be carrying the day here. Could some of you please explain how, say, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were different in any aspect other than rhetoric? The refrain seen repeatedly on this talk page is that "Communism represents egalitarian ownership of the means of production by the people!" or some such. While that may be the rhetoric, it has never born out as the actual result. The same goes with Nazism--lofty rhetoric that results in abrasive tyranny.
It seems silly and frankly intellectually bankrupt to insist that Communism and Nazism were opposites just because they insisted they were, when it would be nigh impossible to tell the difference between the two absent the propaganda.
Communism: Everyone owns the property for the common good! (And then the Party takes your property) Nazism: You own the property, and we'll regulate it for the common good! (And then the government takes your property)
Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China are as different as 1984's Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. So really, is there a real difference aside from rhetoric? 204.111.250.207 ( talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)El Jefe
This is an article about the concept itself, so the underlying theory matters. The "practical" part is already covered in various historical articles. As this is an encyclopedia, it is important to represent these ideas accurately and concisely. And accounting for how fascists and communists see themselves in relation to each other is a part of ensuring such precision. Nobody would suggest that the complexities associated with the title
Roman Emperor be reduced to the one-liner "autocrat in purple toga."
24.69.170.138 (
talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, who was an anti- Zionist Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. In the 2000s, some commentators have compared extreme Islamism to fascism, using the disputed term Islamofascism.
The first half of the paragraph is wrong. Collaboration implies that the mufti was involved in their activities, which he wasn't. He was trying to get money and materials from them, with some success. But that doesn't make him a fascist. Saddam managed to get money and materials from the west, but that didn't mean that he subscribed to our ideology. We were just useful to him at the time, and vice-versa.
The second half is true, but content free. It doesn't contain any useful information that wouldn't be covered by adding to the see also, which I will do. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the mufti did help the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen-SS, the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), which participated in counter-partisan activities. King Henry V 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, Manachim Begin's Irgun got their first training in Italy under the ausipices of the Italian Fascist Navy. Zionist-Revisionism was in fact fascist, mimicing Fascists wearing Brown shirts and, beating up Jewish Communists. DavidMIA 08:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA
Why are these two being deleted? It is a fact that "The term fascism is sometimes applied" to these authoritarian regimes. ( JoeCarson 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Be boring This is an encyclopedia. I want to remind editors here to restrain themselves when it comes to including in the article whatever their idiosyncratic research into fascism happens to be, whether that be the secret history of the Catholic church's involvement, that Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist, that communism is really fascism, or whatever it is this week. This isn't the place for it. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
<- I don't like including China and the USSR because it seems to me to make the term arbitrarily broad, in a way that is not true when describing (eg) Franco as a fascist (which I wouldn't, BTW). Fascism and authoritarianism are not synonyms. But, as you imply, the whole section is weasel-worded and citation-free, and needs trimming or citing. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century By Gregor. A scholar of fascism who believes that Marxism in China and the Soviet Union was essentially fascist. ( JoeCarson 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
How long do we have to put up with this nonsense that fascism is left wing-and that communist regimes are (somehow) fascist? This appears to be nthing more than POV pushed by a couple of editors on this page, or reasons known only to themselves. Authoritarianism was a term coined to equate fascist and state communist societies(amongst others)-'authoritarian' does not equal fascist-no mater who slings the term around (as many do). Felix-felix 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"The term fascism is sometimes applied". That is the criteria for inclusion. If we are going to change it to "had many features in common with fascism", Pinochet at the very least should not be on the list and China (both then and today), Russia (Soviet era and today) and the US (New Deal and today) should all be on the list. ( JoeCarson 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
Request for Vision Thing:
Would you be good enough to share with the rest of us the actual text (and some of the surrounding text) in the two sources you've cited that, in your mind, supports the assertion that the USSR & the PRC -- both of which were run by Communist Parties -- somehow come under the heading of "fascism"? A few words about the authors would be nice, too. Cgingold 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this spurious section, which appears to have been based on a quote by Ronald Reagan. State intervention in the economy is not fascism. FelixFelix talk 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wolfgang Schivelbusch in Three New Deals writes:
The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip.
He also quotes from Hitler in his book
He told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Will Transcends the Interest of the Individual".
If Hitler thinks you're a fascist, you're probably a fascist. ( JoeCarson 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
So basically, Hitler doesn't count because he was bad. And what of the scholar who wrote the book? Clearly, the New Deal and FDR's administration had much in common with fascist policy in both Italy and Germany. It is appropriate to examine both the similarities and differences but it is biased to exclude the New Deal when Hitler himself viewed it as fascist and many scholars of fascism view it as essentially fascist. It is laughable to exclude the New Deal when Pinochet is included. Did Pinochet ever express admiration for Mussolini? Wikipedia is here to allow users to educate themselves and we cannot accomplish this when editors are ignorant about the topics they write about. ( JoeCarson 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Surely the New Deal is called fascist by its opponents, and deserves mention as an interwar regime that is often called fascist. The Soviet Union and China also deserve mention as postwar regimes that are sometimes called fascist. ( JoeCarson 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
This is the section to mention other regimes that have been called fascist, not "somewhere else". Many liberal scholars of fascism consider fascist and Communist states to be quite similar and have referred to Communist regimes as fascist. Furthermore, among American presidents FDR was second only to Lincoln in his authoritarianism. You are trying to obscure these facts. It is important to point out that most authoritarian regimes that are considered right-wing are called fascist, but it is also important to point out that many regimes often considered left-wing have also been called fascist. ( JoeCarson 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
If we are going to add the reasons for the New Deal being considered fascist, we must add reasons for all the regimes in this section. ( JoeCarson 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
According to Adam Curtis of the BBC, FDR believed that the Great Depression had shown that "laissez faire capitalism could no longer run industrial economies. It had become the job of the government." His new policies grabbed the attention of the Third Reich, especially Joseph Goebbels.
Goebbels: "I am very interested in social developments in America. I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path. We are dealing with the greatest social problems ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back. And this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem." [2]
" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.24.233 ( talk) 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The New deal was socialism, not fascism. You could, however, mention the Regan comment as an example of "fascism" being used used as a negative word to insult a political policy. Something like "People have at times have used the word 'fascism' to cast a negative light on political policies, for example Reagan said... blah blah blah..." futurebird 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, we currently have both these terms-which makes one of them redundant. To my mind, statism is the more accurate term, but one of them should definately go.Any ideas? FelixFelix talk 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think both are redundent if authoritarianism and totalitarianism are in there. Statism is a factor in authoritarianism and totalitarianism covers collectivism. Plus, the concept of totalitarianism was given its name by the Italian Fascists. - DNewhall 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
DNewhall makes a good point;
authoritarianism and
totalitarianism cover all the bases and then some. Totalitarianism forces the people into collectivism.
(
JoeCarson 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
Do totalitarianism and authoritarianism imply collectivism and statism? If they do and we still include the two latter terms, we are being redundant but accurate. However, if they do not and we do not include those terms, we are not being accurate. ( JoeCarson 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
A) How is it POV to say that Roosevelt's America was not authoritarian? In what way was America in the 30s authoritarian? There were free elections and respect for civil liberties. Given the number of actual authoritarian regimes in the 1930s, the idea that the US was authoritarian at this time is absurd, and it is not POV to mention this, since it is undisputed.
B) Is it actually accurate to say that the New Deal is normally perceived as "left wing"? The United States in the 30s had more of an actual Socialist and Communist left than at pretty much any other time - certainly than in any later time. And the relationship of those groups to FDR and the New Deal was, well, complicated. I'm not convinced that any of them would have accepted it as left wing. In a world where the far left was represented by the Soviet Union and the Comintern, it seems problematic to describe the reform liberal corporatism of the New Deal as "left wing", or as being generally perceived as such. It was obviously perceived that way by conservatives in America. But that's different.
C) I'd also like for somebody to check and see if the source cited actually calls the New Deal fascist, and if so, if it qualifies as a reliable source. I am highly dubious that any actual scholar would say the New Deal is fascist, rather than merely that it shared certain characteristics with fascism. john k 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson.
p. 18
He also quotes from Mussolini who found the New Deal
"reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"
p. 23
...the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip"
p. 190
Go to the library and check it out for yourself. ( JoeCarson 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
This topic will come up again and again and again as it has over the years. I continue to insist that to effectively comply with NPOV, it is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. This leads us away from simplistic and fundamentally stupid claims that "The New Deal was fascist" to the kinds of claims encyclopedias ought to have: "Some politicians have associated the New Deal with fascism in order to ...." and "Some scholars have called attention to the following similarities between the New Deal and fascism in order to ..." i.e. claims that are clearly situated and help better educate the reader rather than just push a certain POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will make a practical suggestion so as to avoid a tedious revert war with (Joe. We should either have a section called "Fascism as a form of corporatism" whcih provides non-fascist examples of corporatism and explains Fascism's place among them, or we should have a specifically historical section that addresses how Fascism was one of a variety of statist responses to the economic challenges of the 1930s. The quote about the New Deal would belong in either one of these sections, but obviously it has no place in a section on authoritarianism. I have made two proposals - they are worth discussing a couple of days before acting on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
FDR was not as successful in gaining power for himself. I do not believe he wished to model the on US Nazi Germany. Mussolini and Hitler's admiration for FDR is more relevant than the scorn of fascists in the US. To claim otherwise, that's rich.
(
JoeCarson 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Okay, who has actually checked out the source? The quotes are pretty clear. Shivelbusch (along with Hitler and Mussolini) considered the New Deal to be fascist. Corporatism is implied in one of the quotes. So what about that statement in the article is wrong? ( JoeCarson 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Schivelbusch did not consider the New Deal to be fascist. His book argues that there are similarities between the New Deal and fascism, but, so far as I can tell, does not argue that those similarities make the New Deal "fascist." There is a difference. john k 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the book. ( JoeCarson 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Inserting "even" before the USSR and China implies that the editor disagrees with this. It's fine to state that many scholars see important differences, but we should of course prevent the editor's POV from being obvious. ( JoeCarson 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
This page is not here to foist marxist propaganda on the reader. The sentence is fine w/o this weasel word. ( JoeCarson 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
The last part of the sentence makes it clear that most scholars make important distinctions. Adding "even" makes it clear what the editors belief is. The sentence makes it clear that some definitions of fascism are broad, cites two examples of how broad, and mentions that most scholars see important distinctions to be made between these examples and the archetypal forms of fascism. Even is superfluous in this context. ( JoeCarson 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
The sentence is not making a stance on any issue as it currently reads. However, the inclusion of "even" makes it clear what the editors stance is. ( JoeCarson 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Actually, I like the current version of the section, if we unhide the first paragraph and add the New Deal. I don't seen any weasel words in there and it separates name-calling among the USSR and China from scholarly works. ( JoeCarson 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
I think "even" is a natural thing to include, given that, as others have noted, explicitly fascist regimes are virulently anti-communist, and this is generally considered a key trait of fascism more broadly. As such, the word "even" seems more or less necessary. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident that all uneducated yet open-minded and curious readers will recognize the similarities between fascism and Communism upon further study. Those who are not curious probably wouldn't come here anyway. Those who are open-minded and educated will already understand the similarities. So I am for including these referenced portions of the section. ( JoeCarson 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
"In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson." Really? So FDR suspended human rights and the right to habeas corpus, arrested his leftwing opponents and bribed/coerced his centrist opponents to gain a suspension of the constitution, then abolished all other political parties, abolished the States, andfinally assassinated his opponents in the Democratic party?
I find it hard to believe this is a serious academic source. The comparison is obviously ridiculous.-- Triglyph 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The process was similar, as the quote states. The final outcome was different, but the quote does not address this directly. Triglyph is comparing the outcomes of the extra power. ( JoeCarson 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Suspension of human rights, habeus corpus, etc. are consequences of the process, although these and other actions were part of the process to gain more power. I don't feel like writing any more quotes from the book right now, but (one of) the whom is Shivelbusch. ( JoeCarson 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
His recognition that they were not the same does not negate the fact that they were very similar. I'm sure any scholar of fascism would recognize profound differences between the German and Italian variants, but these are both still considered fascist by most. This section is about regimes that have been called fascist. Most of the other regimes don't even have a reference. This one has a reference that points to the work of a scholar and two arch-fascists pointing out the similarities with fascism. If you were to apply your standards to all regimes in the section, the section would not exist. ( JoeCarson 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
I believe the current US administration should be listed as a regime which is often called fascist. But if we are only to include those regimes which are widely held to be fascist, then the list certainly needs some pruning. I am going to hide this section until we can agree on a NPOV rewrite.
(
JoeCarson 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Joe Carson-is there any reason you wish to smear FDR and the New Deal?
I do not know of the historical sources that claim Tojo's Japan was fascist, and woul dlike to know what they are. However, I think there is overwhelming agreement among historians that Franco's Spain was fascist - it was authoritarian if not totalitarian, relied on a highly exclusionary kind of nationalism, and was corporatist. I see no justification for removing the example, if anything we should add much more material on Spain. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think these comparisons are valuable but the article is currently not organized in a way to facilitate effective presentation of these scholarly debates. What do you suggest? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this was certainly a dominant theme of German National Socialism, it wasn't in Italian Fascism for example, so I've removed it from the defining characteristics of fascism in the intro. FelixFelix talk 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The entry does not seem to be dedicated to the narrow meaning of "fascism" (i.e., Mussolini's brand) but to the broader movement that included the Spanish Falangistas, the French, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc. nationalist/existentialist movements of the 30s. Broadly speaking, Fascism was anti-semitic. In addition, it is undeniable that Italian Fascism had a streak of xenofobia and nationalism in it, which if it did not extinguish the tiny Italian Jewish community, as the Germans did, it is doubtful that had the Axis won the war it would've not done it, too. In conclusion, the distinction is specious and in the given context, narroly casuistic. -- Damis 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for fascism being broadly anti-semitic? A separate section on the German form should certainly include this, but I do not believe anti-semitism was a defining quality of fascism. ( JoeCarson 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
Can an exception test (and confirm) the rule? I always thought that the answer was yes. Fascism was, by and large, antisemitic. German, French, Scandinavian, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Austrian (need I continue) brands of fascism were strongly and murderously antisemitic. If you want to qualify the statement you might probably say "While there were some regimes that did not practice overt anti-semitism (e.g., Italian or Spanish), most fascist movements have practiced various forms of antisemitism, from genocidal policies to discriminatory legislations." As for antisemitism in Mussolini's Italy see [5] -- Damis 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The majority of British people are white, but that does not mean that being white is an inherent part of the definition of a British person. Many fascist movements did adopt antisemitism at some stage, but this was rather a common expression of their palingenetic ultra-nationalism than a defining feature in itself. It so happened that Jews were a convenient and relatively uniquitous minority in 1930s Europe, and so proved an easy outlet and scapegoat for many fascists. As noted above, Italian Fascism, which it is fair to say was the founding and defining fascist movement, established itself in a country with relevatively few Jews and only implemented antisemitic legislation after 16 years in power (and under Nazi duress). Similarly, the main British fascist movement, the BUF, was founded without antisemitism as part of its programme, and this only developed later, in part as a desperate measure to gain support, and in part as a result of Jewish opposition to the BUF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.178.172 ( talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As this is covered by Totalitarianism,as discussed above [6], I've removed it from the intro. There's no point having multiple redundant characteristics in the intro, which should be punchy and to the point. FelixFelix talk 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion continues. "most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements." this is a defensible statement, easily documented, and discussed repeatedly here on this page and on other Wiki pages.-- Cberlet 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with adding that statement, but we shouldn't begin the intro with it. ( JoeCarson 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
The insertion of absurdly obscure citations to suggest that most major scholars of fascism agree with the increasingly distorted list of common features of fascism must be jolly fun if it is a contest, but for an encyclopedia, it is creating a biased and distorted entry. The issue is what most major scholars of fascism consider core elements. I am sure if I dug through obscure citations I could find equally absurd things to add to the list, but it would not make the entry accurate nor NPOV. We really need to discuss this troubling new pattern of edits.-- Cberlet 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And so we should rely on the more catholic interpretation of the socialist saturated academia? Perhaps it is not a contest, but you certainly give the impression as if you've already won and are annoyed at others continuing the race. You see, thinking and interpretation never cease, and perhaps more and more people are beginning to realize a basic reality - there are resources and there are those who control them. The control can be fluid and voluntary or they can be ordered by those with power. And while there can be jolly fun in making theoretical differences between ideologies, there is a basic principle that interaction can be free and voluntary, or there can be coercion and force. Regardless of what you call it, Statism is Socialism, the fight then is just between which axiomatic set of beliefs endows the righteous to coerce. Those who tend to quibble the most with the burgeoning libertarian interpretations tend to be Statists who resent the implication the THEIR brand of thuggery is somehow co-equal with others.-- 12.28.101.34 ( talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism-- Cberlet 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The mediation request was closed becasue not all listed editors agreed to the mediation. We still need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. I invite editors of this page to participate. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[ National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.-- Cberlet 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that people are still falling for fascist populist propaganda in the year 2007 is a bit depressing. Of course there was no greater anti socialist force than fascism. socialists were their first victims and collective control of state and industry were the opposite of what fascism created. furthermore, capitalists and elites were more accepting of fascism than trade unions.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
<-------------::Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.-- Cberlet 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord, not again!! Here is the final answer: the vast majority of scholars say no, a small but significant minority says yes, and all of your personal opinions do not matter. Period!! What's wrong with this place?-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The answer is NO! To JoeCarson and Billy Ego, and all you fanatically capitalist Ludwig von Mises/Friedrich Hayek/Ayn Rand nuts, assuming fascism is a subtype of socialism, by your very definition feudalism is a form of socialism! After all, feudalism entails a centrally-planned command economy with state ownership! So I guess (by your definition) socialism OUTLIVED CAPITALISM BY AT LEAST 3000 YEARS! After all, if socialism means state ownership and control of the economy, then feudalism is part of socialism, and the Roman Empire was a feudal society. Therefore the Roman Empire was socialist!
I think adding Jonah Goldberg's well-documented historical points from his Liberal Fascism would clarify many a point on this matter. Asteriks ( talk) 10:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I cannot help but wonder whether you wrote that paragraph without bothering to read Jonah Goldberg's book (at least in any depth). On the contrary, Liberal Fascism gives a plethora of examples of praise by leftists (famous as well as less famous, extremist as well as mainstream) for the régimes of Hitler and Mussolini — albeit at a time, of course, before World War II broke up. And why shouldn't they have? "Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state." Doesn't the core of fascism (without the — admittedly overbearing and rightly so — negative connotations) thus fit in with the outlook of the liberals?
So you've got things backward, I believe: Jonah Goldberg is not using "fascism" as an epithet to hurl, more or less irresponsibly, at leftists (the way they have been hurling it at conservatives for generations): "Throughout the 1920s and well into the 1930s, fascism meant something very different from Auschwitz and Nuremberg. Before Hitler, in fact, it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti-Semitism." Instead, he ( Jonah Goldberg) has gone back to the origin of the word — before the war and before the Holocaust — and discovered that Americans on the Left (who are for government intervention, etc) found much to admire — and much to be copy — in the system.
"'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State,' is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word ' totalitarian' to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept in which every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole." Asteriks ( talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether this is more to do with a nuance in difference in meaning between Americans and Europeans. What Americans regard as Socialism is perhaps not quite what Europeans do (and don't cite the wiki socialism article please!)... Think of what Americans call "Socialist" states: USSR, DPRK, China, Cuba etc... is there anything closer to Fascism than that?! The core of Fascism is that all members of the state are owned by the state: rather like ants, termites, and bees etc... However, in Europe, the word Socialism doesn't conjure up such images; it's more to do with "social" policies - what Americans would recognise as "Liberal". Rather than continue with the endless cyclic argument... why not take a survey of which side most Americans are on; and which side most EU-ers are on! Following on from the above comments... you might go for a description along the lines of "Palaeo-Socialism". Frankly, as I've always argued... this sort of argument would not arise if Wiki English had been split into English English & Wiki American English along the lines of Wiki Norwegian Bokmal and Wiki Norwegian Nynorsk, years ago (not to mention the other equally similar dialectal wikis) ...the issue is partly language, culture and meaning... MacDaddy 87.112.85.19 ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (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. |
Why do people consider Nazism and Fascism the same thing? It is an insult to Fascism. Ask any generic Fascist, Italian Fascist, or even Falangist organizations and they will tell you Nazism is its own political ideology. So why is it tought in schools and published in wikipedia that they are the same??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostanford22 ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand what fascism is nor what it's ideology is? ELDRAS ( talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Those who are adamant that communism and Nazism are not the same beast seem to be carrying the day here. Could some of you please explain how, say, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were different in any aspect other than rhetoric? The refrain seen repeatedly on this talk page is that "Communism represents egalitarian ownership of the means of production by the people!" or some such. While that may be the rhetoric, it has never born out as the actual result. The same goes with Nazism--lofty rhetoric that results in abrasive tyranny.
It seems silly and frankly intellectually bankrupt to insist that Communism and Nazism were opposites just because they insisted they were, when it would be nigh impossible to tell the difference between the two absent the propaganda.
Communism: Everyone owns the property for the common good! (And then the Party takes your property) Nazism: You own the property, and we'll regulate it for the common good! (And then the government takes your property)
Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China are as different as 1984's Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. So really, is there a real difference aside from rhetoric? 204.111.250.207 ( talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)El Jefe
This is an article about the concept itself, so the underlying theory matters. The "practical" part is already covered in various historical articles. As this is an encyclopedia, it is important to represent these ideas accurately and concisely. And accounting for how fascists and communists see themselves in relation to each other is a part of ensuring such precision. Nobody would suggest that the complexities associated with the title
Roman Emperor be reduced to the one-liner "autocrat in purple toga."
24.69.170.138 (
talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, who was an anti- Zionist Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. In the 2000s, some commentators have compared extreme Islamism to fascism, using the disputed term Islamofascism.
The first half of the paragraph is wrong. Collaboration implies that the mufti was involved in their activities, which he wasn't. He was trying to get money and materials from them, with some success. But that doesn't make him a fascist. Saddam managed to get money and materials from the west, but that didn't mean that he subscribed to our ideology. We were just useful to him at the time, and vice-versa.
The second half is true, but content free. It doesn't contain any useful information that wouldn't be covered by adding to the see also, which I will do. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the mufti did help the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen-SS, the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), which participated in counter-partisan activities. King Henry V 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, Manachim Begin's Irgun got their first training in Italy under the ausipices of the Italian Fascist Navy. Zionist-Revisionism was in fact fascist, mimicing Fascists wearing Brown shirts and, beating up Jewish Communists. DavidMIA 08:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA
Why are these two being deleted? It is a fact that "The term fascism is sometimes applied" to these authoritarian regimes. ( JoeCarson 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Be boring This is an encyclopedia. I want to remind editors here to restrain themselves when it comes to including in the article whatever their idiosyncratic research into fascism happens to be, whether that be the secret history of the Catholic church's involvement, that Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist, that communism is really fascism, or whatever it is this week. This isn't the place for it. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
<- I don't like including China and the USSR because it seems to me to make the term arbitrarily broad, in a way that is not true when describing (eg) Franco as a fascist (which I wouldn't, BTW). Fascism and authoritarianism are not synonyms. But, as you imply, the whole section is weasel-worded and citation-free, and needs trimming or citing. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century By Gregor. A scholar of fascism who believes that Marxism in China and the Soviet Union was essentially fascist. ( JoeCarson 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
How long do we have to put up with this nonsense that fascism is left wing-and that communist regimes are (somehow) fascist? This appears to be nthing more than POV pushed by a couple of editors on this page, or reasons known only to themselves. Authoritarianism was a term coined to equate fascist and state communist societies(amongst others)-'authoritarian' does not equal fascist-no mater who slings the term around (as many do). Felix-felix 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"The term fascism is sometimes applied". That is the criteria for inclusion. If we are going to change it to "had many features in common with fascism", Pinochet at the very least should not be on the list and China (both then and today), Russia (Soviet era and today) and the US (New Deal and today) should all be on the list. ( JoeCarson 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
Request for Vision Thing:
Would you be good enough to share with the rest of us the actual text (and some of the surrounding text) in the two sources you've cited that, in your mind, supports the assertion that the USSR & the PRC -- both of which were run by Communist Parties -- somehow come under the heading of "fascism"? A few words about the authors would be nice, too. Cgingold 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this spurious section, which appears to have been based on a quote by Ronald Reagan. State intervention in the economy is not fascism. FelixFelix talk 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Wolfgang Schivelbusch in Three New Deals writes:
The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip.
He also quotes from Hitler in his book
He told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Will Transcends the Interest of the Individual".
If Hitler thinks you're a fascist, you're probably a fascist. ( JoeCarson 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
So basically, Hitler doesn't count because he was bad. And what of the scholar who wrote the book? Clearly, the New Deal and FDR's administration had much in common with fascist policy in both Italy and Germany. It is appropriate to examine both the similarities and differences but it is biased to exclude the New Deal when Hitler himself viewed it as fascist and many scholars of fascism view it as essentially fascist. It is laughable to exclude the New Deal when Pinochet is included. Did Pinochet ever express admiration for Mussolini? Wikipedia is here to allow users to educate themselves and we cannot accomplish this when editors are ignorant about the topics they write about. ( JoeCarson 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
Surely the New Deal is called fascist by its opponents, and deserves mention as an interwar regime that is often called fascist. The Soviet Union and China also deserve mention as postwar regimes that are sometimes called fascist. ( JoeCarson 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
This is the section to mention other regimes that have been called fascist, not "somewhere else". Many liberal scholars of fascism consider fascist and Communist states to be quite similar and have referred to Communist regimes as fascist. Furthermore, among American presidents FDR was second only to Lincoln in his authoritarianism. You are trying to obscure these facts. It is important to point out that most authoritarian regimes that are considered right-wing are called fascist, but it is also important to point out that many regimes often considered left-wing have also been called fascist. ( JoeCarson 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC))
If we are going to add the reasons for the New Deal being considered fascist, we must add reasons for all the regimes in this section. ( JoeCarson 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
According to Adam Curtis of the BBC, FDR believed that the Great Depression had shown that "laissez faire capitalism could no longer run industrial economies. It had become the job of the government." His new policies grabbed the attention of the Third Reich, especially Joseph Goebbels.
Goebbels: "I am very interested in social developments in America. I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path. We are dealing with the greatest social problems ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back. And this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem." [2]
" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.24.233 ( talk) 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The New deal was socialism, not fascism. You could, however, mention the Regan comment as an example of "fascism" being used used as a negative word to insult a political policy. Something like "People have at times have used the word 'fascism' to cast a negative light on political policies, for example Reagan said... blah blah blah..." futurebird 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, we currently have both these terms-which makes one of them redundant. To my mind, statism is the more accurate term, but one of them should definately go.Any ideas? FelixFelix talk 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think both are redundent if authoritarianism and totalitarianism are in there. Statism is a factor in authoritarianism and totalitarianism covers collectivism. Plus, the concept of totalitarianism was given its name by the Italian Fascists. - DNewhall 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
DNewhall makes a good point;
authoritarianism and
totalitarianism cover all the bases and then some. Totalitarianism forces the people into collectivism.
(
JoeCarson 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC))
Do totalitarianism and authoritarianism imply collectivism and statism? If they do and we still include the two latter terms, we are being redundant but accurate. However, if they do not and we do not include those terms, we are not being accurate. ( JoeCarson 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC))
A) How is it POV to say that Roosevelt's America was not authoritarian? In what way was America in the 30s authoritarian? There were free elections and respect for civil liberties. Given the number of actual authoritarian regimes in the 1930s, the idea that the US was authoritarian at this time is absurd, and it is not POV to mention this, since it is undisputed.
B) Is it actually accurate to say that the New Deal is normally perceived as "left wing"? The United States in the 30s had more of an actual Socialist and Communist left than at pretty much any other time - certainly than in any later time. And the relationship of those groups to FDR and the New Deal was, well, complicated. I'm not convinced that any of them would have accepted it as left wing. In a world where the far left was represented by the Soviet Union and the Comintern, it seems problematic to describe the reform liberal corporatism of the New Deal as "left wing", or as being generally perceived as such. It was obviously perceived that way by conservatives in America. But that's different.
C) I'd also like for somebody to check and see if the source cited actually calls the New Deal fascist, and if so, if it qualifies as a reliable source. I am highly dubious that any actual scholar would say the New Deal is fascist, rather than merely that it shared certain characteristics with fascism. john k 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson.
p. 18
He also quotes from Mussolini who found the New Deal
"reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"
p. 23
...the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip"
p. 190
Go to the library and check it out for yourself. ( JoeCarson 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
This topic will come up again and again and again as it has over the years. I continue to insist that to effectively comply with NPOV, it is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. This leads us away from simplistic and fundamentally stupid claims that "The New Deal was fascist" to the kinds of claims encyclopedias ought to have: "Some politicians have associated the New Deal with fascism in order to ...." and "Some scholars have called attention to the following similarities between the New Deal and fascism in order to ..." i.e. claims that are clearly situated and help better educate the reader rather than just push a certain POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will make a practical suggestion so as to avoid a tedious revert war with (Joe. We should either have a section called "Fascism as a form of corporatism" whcih provides non-fascist examples of corporatism and explains Fascism's place among them, or we should have a specifically historical section that addresses how Fascism was one of a variety of statist responses to the economic challenges of the 1930s. The quote about the New Deal would belong in either one of these sections, but obviously it has no place in a section on authoritarianism. I have made two proposals - they are worth discussing a couple of days before acting on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
FDR was not as successful in gaining power for himself. I do not believe he wished to model the on US Nazi Germany. Mussolini and Hitler's admiration for FDR is more relevant than the scorn of fascists in the US. To claim otherwise, that's rich.
(
JoeCarson 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Okay, who has actually checked out the source? The quotes are pretty clear. Shivelbusch (along with Hitler and Mussolini) considered the New Deal to be fascist. Corporatism is implied in one of the quotes. So what about that statement in the article is wrong? ( JoeCarson 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Schivelbusch did not consider the New Deal to be fascist. His book argues that there are similarities between the New Deal and fascism, but, so far as I can tell, does not argue that those similarities make the New Deal "fascist." There is a difference. john k 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the book. ( JoeCarson 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Inserting "even" before the USSR and China implies that the editor disagrees with this. It's fine to state that many scholars see important differences, but we should of course prevent the editor's POV from being obvious. ( JoeCarson 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
This page is not here to foist marxist propaganda on the reader. The sentence is fine w/o this weasel word. ( JoeCarson 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
The last part of the sentence makes it clear that most scholars make important distinctions. Adding "even" makes it clear what the editors belief is. The sentence makes it clear that some definitions of fascism are broad, cites two examples of how broad, and mentions that most scholars see important distinctions to be made between these examples and the archetypal forms of fascism. Even is superfluous in this context. ( JoeCarson 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
The sentence is not making a stance on any issue as it currently reads. However, the inclusion of "even" makes it clear what the editors stance is. ( JoeCarson 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Actually, I like the current version of the section, if we unhide the first paragraph and add the New Deal. I don't seen any weasel words in there and it separates name-calling among the USSR and China from scholarly works. ( JoeCarson 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
I think "even" is a natural thing to include, given that, as others have noted, explicitly fascist regimes are virulently anti-communist, and this is generally considered a key trait of fascism more broadly. As such, the word "even" seems more or less necessary. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confident that all uneducated yet open-minded and curious readers will recognize the similarities between fascism and Communism upon further study. Those who are not curious probably wouldn't come here anyway. Those who are open-minded and educated will already understand the similarities. So I am for including these referenced portions of the section. ( JoeCarson 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
"In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson." Really? So FDR suspended human rights and the right to habeas corpus, arrested his leftwing opponents and bribed/coerced his centrist opponents to gain a suspension of the constitution, then abolished all other political parties, abolished the States, andfinally assassinated his opponents in the Democratic party?
I find it hard to believe this is a serious academic source. The comparison is obviously ridiculous.-- Triglyph 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The process was similar, as the quote states. The final outcome was different, but the quote does not address this directly. Triglyph is comparing the outcomes of the extra power. ( JoeCarson 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
Suspension of human rights, habeus corpus, etc. are consequences of the process, although these and other actions were part of the process to gain more power. I don't feel like writing any more quotes from the book right now, but (one of) the whom is Shivelbusch. ( JoeCarson 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
His recognition that they were not the same does not negate the fact that they were very similar. I'm sure any scholar of fascism would recognize profound differences between the German and Italian variants, but these are both still considered fascist by most. This section is about regimes that have been called fascist. Most of the other regimes don't even have a reference. This one has a reference that points to the work of a scholar and two arch-fascists pointing out the similarities with fascism. If you were to apply your standards to all regimes in the section, the section would not exist. ( JoeCarson 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
I believe the current US administration should be listed as a regime which is often called fascist. But if we are only to include those regimes which are widely held to be fascist, then the list certainly needs some pruning. I am going to hide this section until we can agree on a NPOV rewrite.
(
JoeCarson 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
Joe Carson-is there any reason you wish to smear FDR and the New Deal?
I do not know of the historical sources that claim Tojo's Japan was fascist, and woul dlike to know what they are. However, I think there is overwhelming agreement among historians that Franco's Spain was fascist - it was authoritarian if not totalitarian, relied on a highly exclusionary kind of nationalism, and was corporatist. I see no justification for removing the example, if anything we should add much more material on Spain. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think these comparisons are valuable but the article is currently not organized in a way to facilitate effective presentation of these scholarly debates. What do you suggest? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Although this was certainly a dominant theme of German National Socialism, it wasn't in Italian Fascism for example, so I've removed it from the defining characteristics of fascism in the intro. FelixFelix talk 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The entry does not seem to be dedicated to the narrow meaning of "fascism" (i.e., Mussolini's brand) but to the broader movement that included the Spanish Falangistas, the French, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc. nationalist/existentialist movements of the 30s. Broadly speaking, Fascism was anti-semitic. In addition, it is undeniable that Italian Fascism had a streak of xenofobia and nationalism in it, which if it did not extinguish the tiny Italian Jewish community, as the Germans did, it is doubtful that had the Axis won the war it would've not done it, too. In conclusion, the distinction is specious and in the given context, narroly casuistic. -- Damis 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference for fascism being broadly anti-semitic? A separate section on the German form should certainly include this, but I do not believe anti-semitism was a defining quality of fascism. ( JoeCarson 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
Can an exception test (and confirm) the rule? I always thought that the answer was yes. Fascism was, by and large, antisemitic. German, French, Scandinavian, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Austrian (need I continue) brands of fascism were strongly and murderously antisemitic. If you want to qualify the statement you might probably say "While there were some regimes that did not practice overt anti-semitism (e.g., Italian or Spanish), most fascist movements have practiced various forms of antisemitism, from genocidal policies to discriminatory legislations." As for antisemitism in Mussolini's Italy see [5] -- Damis 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The majority of British people are white, but that does not mean that being white is an inherent part of the definition of a British person. Many fascist movements did adopt antisemitism at some stage, but this was rather a common expression of their palingenetic ultra-nationalism than a defining feature in itself. It so happened that Jews were a convenient and relatively uniquitous minority in 1930s Europe, and so proved an easy outlet and scapegoat for many fascists. As noted above, Italian Fascism, which it is fair to say was the founding and defining fascist movement, established itself in a country with relevatively few Jews and only implemented antisemitic legislation after 16 years in power (and under Nazi duress). Similarly, the main British fascist movement, the BUF, was founded without antisemitism as part of its programme, and this only developed later, in part as a desperate measure to gain support, and in part as a result of Jewish opposition to the BUF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.178.172 ( talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As this is covered by Totalitarianism,as discussed above [6], I've removed it from the intro. There's no point having multiple redundant characteristics in the intro, which should be punchy and to the point. FelixFelix talk 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion continues. "most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements." this is a defensible statement, easily documented, and discussed repeatedly here on this page and on other Wiki pages.-- Cberlet 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with adding that statement, but we shouldn't begin the intro with it. ( JoeCarson 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
The insertion of absurdly obscure citations to suggest that most major scholars of fascism agree with the increasingly distorted list of common features of fascism must be jolly fun if it is a contest, but for an encyclopedia, it is creating a biased and distorted entry. The issue is what most major scholars of fascism consider core elements. I am sure if I dug through obscure citations I could find equally absurd things to add to the list, but it would not make the entry accurate nor NPOV. We really need to discuss this troubling new pattern of edits.-- Cberlet 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And so we should rely on the more catholic interpretation of the socialist saturated academia? Perhaps it is not a contest, but you certainly give the impression as if you've already won and are annoyed at others continuing the race. You see, thinking and interpretation never cease, and perhaps more and more people are beginning to realize a basic reality - there are resources and there are those who control them. The control can be fluid and voluntary or they can be ordered by those with power. And while there can be jolly fun in making theoretical differences between ideologies, there is a basic principle that interaction can be free and voluntary, or there can be coercion and force. Regardless of what you call it, Statism is Socialism, the fight then is just between which axiomatic set of beliefs endows the righteous to coerce. Those who tend to quibble the most with the burgeoning libertarian interpretations tend to be Statists who resent the implication the THEIR brand of thuggery is somehow co-equal with others.-- 12.28.101.34 ( talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism-- Cberlet 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The mediation request was closed becasue not all listed editors agreed to the mediation. We still need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. I invite editors of this page to participate. Thanks. -- Cberlet 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[ National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.-- Cberlet 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that people are still falling for fascist populist propaganda in the year 2007 is a bit depressing. Of course there was no greater anti socialist force than fascism. socialists were their first victims and collective control of state and industry were the opposite of what fascism created. furthermore, capitalists and elites were more accepting of fascism than trade unions.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
<-------------::Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.-- Cberlet 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord, not again!! Here is the final answer: the vast majority of scholars say no, a small but significant minority says yes, and all of your personal opinions do not matter. Period!! What's wrong with this place?-- Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The answer is NO! To JoeCarson and Billy Ego, and all you fanatically capitalist Ludwig von Mises/Friedrich Hayek/Ayn Rand nuts, assuming fascism is a subtype of socialism, by your very definition feudalism is a form of socialism! After all, feudalism entails a centrally-planned command economy with state ownership! So I guess (by your definition) socialism OUTLIVED CAPITALISM BY AT LEAST 3000 YEARS! After all, if socialism means state ownership and control of the economy, then feudalism is part of socialism, and the Roman Empire was a feudal society. Therefore the Roman Empire was socialist!
I think adding Jonah Goldberg's well-documented historical points from his Liberal Fascism would clarify many a point on this matter. Asteriks ( talk) 10:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I cannot help but wonder whether you wrote that paragraph without bothering to read Jonah Goldberg's book (at least in any depth). On the contrary, Liberal Fascism gives a plethora of examples of praise by leftists (famous as well as less famous, extremist as well as mainstream) for the régimes of Hitler and Mussolini — albeit at a time, of course, before World War II broke up. And why shouldn't they have? "Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state." Doesn't the core of fascism (without the — admittedly overbearing and rightly so — negative connotations) thus fit in with the outlook of the liberals?
So you've got things backward, I believe: Jonah Goldberg is not using "fascism" as an epithet to hurl, more or less irresponsibly, at leftists (the way they have been hurling it at conservatives for generations): "Throughout the 1920s and well into the 1930s, fascism meant something very different from Auschwitz and Nuremberg. Before Hitler, in fact, it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti-Semitism." Instead, he ( Jonah Goldberg) has gone back to the origin of the word — before the war and before the Holocaust — and discovered that Americans on the Left (who are for government intervention, etc) found much to admire — and much to be copy — in the system.
"'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State,' is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word ' totalitarian' to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept in which every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole." Asteriks ( talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether this is more to do with a nuance in difference in meaning between Americans and Europeans. What Americans regard as Socialism is perhaps not quite what Europeans do (and don't cite the wiki socialism article please!)... Think of what Americans call "Socialist" states: USSR, DPRK, China, Cuba etc... is there anything closer to Fascism than that?! The core of Fascism is that all members of the state are owned by the state: rather like ants, termites, and bees etc... However, in Europe, the word Socialism doesn't conjure up such images; it's more to do with "social" policies - what Americans would recognise as "Liberal". Rather than continue with the endless cyclic argument... why not take a survey of which side most Americans are on; and which side most EU-ers are on! Following on from the above comments... you might go for a description along the lines of "Palaeo-Socialism". Frankly, as I've always argued... this sort of argument would not arise if Wiki English had been split into English English & Wiki American English along the lines of Wiki Norwegian Bokmal and Wiki Norwegian Nynorsk, years ago (not to mention the other equally similar dialectal wikis) ...the issue is partly language, culture and meaning... MacDaddy 87.112.85.19 ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)