![]() | 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. |
Seeking consensus implies a conversation, not a deluge of text.-- Cberlet ( talk) 02:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Gennarous, you are not paying any attention to the note at the top of the page about seeking consensus before making substantial edits, and other than posting personal attacks and POV claims that represent only one narrow view on this contentious topic, you are not engaging in meaningful discussion. Furthermore, by making up to 50 edits per day, you make it impossible for any other editor to have any meaningful input into the page. Please discuss this here.-- Cberlet ( talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And how is labeling it "Nazism" rewritting history? That what it was called and that's the name the editors choose for it's repective article. Putting in Nazism links directly to the article while in other for National Socialism to link to it you have to do National Socialism|Nazism. But going though that effort it seems you are the one with the agenda, by linking Nazism to Socialism. Bobisbob ( talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two competing leads (let's define it as the first three paragraphs) being proposed. The older consensus version here and the newer Gennarous version here. Please indicate if you support or oppose the the newer Gennarous version.
Oppose -- Cberlet ( talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose but I the think the current Italian fascist section and the sections on other fascist ideologies can stay -- Bobisbob ( talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that we should vote on lead, especially because Gennarous is blocked from editing for a week. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? The above is an obviously fake discussion between Chip Berlet and Chip Berlet. I for one (and only one) support Gennarous's version. The systematic whitewashing in this article of any relation between fascism and socialism is akin to Stalin calling anyone who became a political enemy a "Troskyite" and a "fascist." If fascism and socialism aren't the same thing, it's a difference of degree and context, not ideology. -- Anacreon ( talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The excellent section on Italian Fascism by Gennarous on the main Fascism page here has been plonked onto a recreated Italian Fascism page with additional material from the older, mostly uncited, page. Let's go passionate advocates of this page--have at it! After a few days, I will see if others want to reduce the size of the section on Italian Fascism here on this page.-- Cberlet ( talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the idea was that we do not change the lead (in my mind the first three paragraphs in this entry) without first seeking consesus. I have restored the lead from before the edit wars. Please, please, please discuss content changes for the lead here first. See the note at the top of the page. -- Cberlet ( talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There are some great additions to this page, but the length and detail is way overboard. We need to start moving whole blocks of text to the various exisiting subpages. Please think about what can be moves, and where. The section on Italisn Fascism clearly should have the entire bottom moves to the Italism Fascism page. Anyone want to help?-- Cberlet ( talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to say the fascists opposed capitalism. They certainly did not oppose busniess or private property. Saying they opposed laizze faire capitalism would be better. Bobisbob ( talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with…"
That said, I don't have a particular proposed rewording, but I'd welcome one. I suspect that "mass movements" can be moved out of the lead sentence and that later in the lead we can say that there have been numerous fascist mass movements and regimes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This section seems very tendentious. First it proposes the "Third Way" view. Then it rejects the view of fascism as being on the right before reluctantly conceding it partly back with the quoted phrase "gravitating toward the extreme Right".
As far as I know, the predominant scholarly consensus is that despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force. I believe that this section as it stands gives undue weight to a minority view while failing to adequate present the dominant view. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that Tazmaniacs read my comment as a personal statement. When I said "this is my view" I do not mean that this is my personal view about fascism. The personal views of editors are irrelevant to articles and I won't use this page as a soap-box for my personal views about fascism or fascists. I was describing what I consider a very notable scholarly view of fascism, and one which I find useful for understanding 20th century history. It has no particular impact on how I make my own political or moral decisions, or view the decisions of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, my point was not that Fascism is of the left, nor that it is of the right, and insofar as they are notable any debates in reliable sources concerning this question should be included in the article. I was pointing out that there is another approach to examining Fascism both in its historical context and comparitavely. I do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the section currently oddly named "Fascism and Religion" (shouldn't "religion" be lowercase?) makes no mention of Romania's Iron Guard, also known as the "Legion of the Archangel Michael". The latter name indicates the strength of their ties to religion, and I would think that any definition of "fascism" that isn't confined to Italy would include them. Any reason for the omission? - Jmabel | Talk
Gen, I removed the text from the Italian fascism section because it's already in the Italian fascist article. We need to summarize the section as much as possible and leave the detail to the main article. Don't accuse me of "covering up fascism's involvement in the government." Bobisbob ( talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and do what you want with it. But I think the Italian fascist article needs to be expanded. Bobisbob ( talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Anatomy of Fascism
by Robert O. Paxton
Excerpts:
Page 22
"In this book I use liberalism in its original meaning, the meaning in use at the time when fascism rose up against it, rather than the current American usage noted above. European liberals of the early twentieth century were clinging to what had been progressive a century earlier, when the dust was still settling from the French Revolution. Unlike conservatives, they accepted the revolution's goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but they applied them in ways suitable for an educated middle class. Classical liberals interpreted liberty as individual personal freedom, preferring limited constitutional government and a laissez-faire economy to any kind of state intervention, whether mercantilist, as in the early nineteenth century, or socialist, as later on. Equality they understood as opportunity made accessible to talent by education; they accepted inequality of achievement and hence of power and wealth. Fraternity they considered the normal, condition of free men (and they tended to regard public affairs as men's business), and therefore in no need of artificial reinforcement, since economic interests were naturally harmonious and the truth would out in a free marketplace of ideas. This is the sense in which I use the term liberal in this book, and never in its current American meaning of "far Left." Conservatives wanted order, calm, and the inherited hierarchies of wealth and birth. They shrank both from fascist mass enthusiasm and from the sort of total power fascists grasped for. They wanted obedience and deference, not dangerous popular mobilization, and they wanted to limit the state to the functions of a "night watchman" who would keep order while traditional elites ruled through property, churches, armies, and inherited social influence."
"More generally, conservatives in Europe still rejected in 1930 the main tenets of the French Revolution, preferring authority to liberty, hierarchy to equality, and deference to fraternity. Although many of them might find fascists useful, or even essential, in their struggle for survival against dominant liberals and a rising Left, some were keenly aware of the
want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."
Page 8
"Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital."
Page 102
"In a situation of constitutional deadlock and rising revolutionary menace, a successful fascist movement offers precious resources to a faltering elite."
"Fascists could offer a mass following sufficiently numerous to permit conservatives to form parliamentary majorities capable of vigorous decisions, without having to call upon unacceptable Leftist partners. Mussolini's thirty-five deputies were not a major weight in the balance, but Hitler's potential contribution was decisive. He could offer the largest party in Germany to conservatives who had never acquired a knack for the mass politics suddenly introduced into their country by the constitution of 1919."
"The fascists offered more than mere numbers. They offered fresh young faces to a public weary of an aging establishment that had made a mess of things. The two youngest parties in Italy and Germany were the communists and the fascists. Both nations longed for new leaders, and the fascists offered conservatives a fountain of youth."
"In sum, fascists offered a new recipe for governing with popular support but without any sharing of power with the Left, and without any threat to conservative social and economic privileges and political dominance. The conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors"
Page 140
"Even if public enthusiasm was never as total as fascists promised their conservative allies, most citizens of fascist regimes accepted things as they were. The most interesting cases are people who never joined the party, and who even objected to certain aspects of the regime, but who accommodated because its accomplishments overlapped with some of the things they wanted, while the alternatives all seemed worse."
This is a respected source, and provides a good source of information on fascism's stance on conservatism. -- Qualcuno75 ( talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The above source clearly supports the statement. How about sources that goes against the clearly stated above that fascism allied and aided conservatism. I also have another source in addition to above that fascism arose as a response to the growing power of liberalism. If you dispute anything, either provide a source or tag disputed unsourced statements with a "citation needed". -- Qualcuno75 ( talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever one's personal opinions on Fascism, you must admit that a quote like this "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" which is used by Paxton and shown in the discussion board above, is very opinionated. Every author has biases which others must recognize and point out. Fascists in power were indeed very much in favour of conservative social values and made alliances with conservative political forces on these points, but aside from social values, fascists were much different in other areas to conservatives. The provision of social welfare programs by fascist states was more progressive than even those of liberal states of the time which rejected social welfare programs. Secondly, Paxton's conclusion does not take into account that fascists in Germany and Italy both condemned reactionary politics. In addition, Reactionaries in Europe during the French Revolution rejected nationalism as being a threat to established monarchies and states not formed on national boundaries. Unlike reactionaries, fascists fully embrace nationalism and in Italy, much like liberals had desired, fascists pushed the monarchy into a figurehead position while Mussolini effectively became the ruler of Italy. Reactionaries rejected revolutionary politics and looked down upon civil violence while fascists supported revolutionary politics and violence. Unlike Paxton says, fascists were not just endorsed by elites, as in many countries they did have significant popular support, and elites supported them largely as a means to counter the rise of communism, while on other issues, elites and fascists often squabbled. It appears to me at least that on social value issues, fascists in power were indeed very conservative and anti-progressive, while on other political issues, especially economic issues, fascists ranged from centrist to even progressive. It is these differences that make it necessary to discern that fascism is a unique movement of its own, which I will admit is closer to reactionary in its social values than many other political movements, but deviates from reactionary politics in other areas.-- R-41 ( talk) 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Argentina in the 70's. Neutralaccounting ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Columbia from late 40's to the 1950's. Neutralaccounting ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In one section on fascism's position on religion, Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies are compared to that of fascists based on the idea that Khomeni's demand for strict obedience to religion. This is a very controversial claim. There have been many fundamentalist religious movements that have advocated strict obedience to religion, such as the Puritans who were known for persecuting non-believers. But strict obedience to religion even with persecution does not automatically equate to fascist stances on religion. I'm not sure as to what the editor was trying to point out, but I want to clarify one thing: some editors may point out perceived anti-Semitism in Islamist government in Iran as demonstrating "fascist" religious policy, but bear this important point in mind, fascism does not always promote anti-Semitism nor does a fascist movement require any xenophobia to be fascist, i.e. Italian Fascism opposed anti-Semitism and racism until pressured to endorse them by Germany in the late 1930s. A lot of references and explanations would be needed to effectively demonstrate why Khomeni's religious polcies should be equated as similar to fascist religious policies.-- R-41 ( talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit war over whether fascism opposes conservatism. From what I've examined, fascism opposes some elements of conservatism while it is supportive of others. Unfortunately every time I try to post information on the general social policies of fascism, someone keeps removing them, including an anonymous user who vandalized the section by removing it completely on the false claim that the section on social policy was original research. In it mentioned that fascists have typically endorsed a number of social conservative policies. I listed a number of references that showed Italian Fascism's positions such as a reference for the Fascist government's law that banned abortion, as well as having a reference for the Fascist government's decision to outlaw homosexuality, as well as others. Another editor added important points with references on fascism's appeal to men behave in a heroic masculine manner. Now this being said, I still believe that debate is still open as to whether fascism opposes other parts of conservatism. But this is debated, as one reference on this page by historian and scholar Robert Paxton has claimed that fascism largely served the interests of reactionaries. On the other hand, fascists claim to oppose conservatism. Some believe this is true, others disagree, and note that fascists have typically allied with conservative political forces when rising to power. It is a debated issue, fascism has individual traits in social policy that I mentioned before that were conservative, but also others that were more progressive. But once again, sadly a user has removed material that they disagreed with and claims that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. I urge other users to be aware of this edit war, and actively find referenced information that can clarify this dispute.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that fascism sometimes banned abortion does not at all make it a conservative policy, that is merely a gloss of an editor's personal opinion. In fact, in all of the dozen or so sources I looked at about the battle for births, every single one of them talked about increasing the population or growing the number of fascists, none of them mentioned moral opposition or concern for the rights of the unborn child. This is leftist social engineering (like China's one child policy), not at all conservatism. Also, Nazis actually expanded abortion in some contexts, even making it compulsory (as communist China has also sometimes done). Contrary to the assertions made above, the Encyclopedia of World history (a teriary source, not the opinion of a single author such as Griffin) does explicitly say that fascism is not a socially conservative perspective. The attempts to color it as such are POV and, even worse, counterfactual. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A while ago someone removed socialism for the list of thing fascism opposes by noting Roger Griffin's writing about Fascism form a new type of socialism. Well that same scholar says that fascism is not completely anti-conservative and writes about "conservative revolution" and it's relationship to fascism in Chapter 6 of "Fascism and Mordernism". Therefore I have removed conservatism from the above list. Bobisbob ( talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The fascist negations, anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, are a longstanding part of an exhaustive definition of fascism which has general consensus (although many prefer a shorter but consistent definition). I think that to reword or remove one of those three elements is OR. There may be some that disagree with the forulation as part of a definition of fascism, but that can be said about many parts of every definition, and the article intro recognizes that. There have been repeated edits which fiddle with the accepted statement of the fascist negations. I think such edits are blatantly OR. I would suggest that we list all three negations (not two of three - which misrepresents the scholarship on the subsect with a specific POV) in their ordinary wording (not some SYN or OR reformulation by editors). Can we get a consensus on this so we can have a stable intro. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there room here for a topic on eco-fascism or environmental fascism? I think there is definently scope for it given many countries are forcing climate change laws on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.231.252 ( talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that under the search-word on wiki: World domination. It seems Fascism does not seek that as an overarching objective. It should be mentioned, because the popular belief is that it was precisely world domination that was the idea of Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.183.65 ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Should KKK be in this article, even in the parafacism section? I know the klan has had association with neo-fascists but that doesn't mean they are fascist. Communists, monarchists and other nonfascist groups have also made common cause with fascists in the past. The sourcing in the KKK section also seems kind of weak. I think we need a solid reliable source, preferably a scholar of the subject, that says they are fascist or parafascist. Thoughts? Mamalujo ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't compare the relationship between the KKK and Nazis to the relationship between the Nazis and those other groups. They are nearly indistingushable, at least today. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the intro is out of place and poorly sourced. It is out of place because it launches into a discussion of the economic features of fascism, which is a controversial subject to say the least. I could try to balance it by adding opposing views, but the point is that controversial assertions about fascism do not belong in the intro. I will move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the appropriate place in the article, which is to say the "economic policies" section.
And this brings us to the second problem with that paragraph, the fact that it is largely unsourced. First, I challenge the use of the phrase "Soviet-style" in the first sentence. The USSR did not invent price controls or wage controls; I'd like to see a direct quote from the source being used to support the sentence in question. Second, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and will therefore be removed. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: I wanted to move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the Economic policies section, but then I saw that they were already there. It appears that someone in fact moved them up to the intro, while adding words and phrases not supported by the sources in question. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism." This statement implies that there is a lot of common ground between fascism and socialism, which is highly contentious. There is no similarity between the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of France or the New Labour Party of Britain and fascist movements. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ralph Nader defines Fascism as "government controlled by private economic power". [1] Elsewhere he also uses the term "Corporate Fascism". While this has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, and may be considered demagoguery, I think the use of this definition is enlightening, because it helps explain why so many people link fascism with the far right and laissez faire economics.
I'm not sure how to integrate this viewpoint into the article, or perhaps it would go better on an entry such as Economics of Fascism. Is anyone else up to it? Sharkey ( talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that this definition is helpful. Although fascist governments are "controlled by private economic power", so arguably are most other governments. Fascism has other aspects however that differentiate it. If fascism is defined so broadly, it loses meaning. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mussolini was a committed socialist and the National Socialists i.e. the NAZI's were obviously also socialists. The communists in Germany were constantly switching sides and becoming national socialists in the beginning. The reason that fascists are called that and ignorantly thought to be "right-wing" is because of the split between Moscow and other countries such as Italy and Germany, that Stalin, using Marxist prophecy, labeled as "other" and "right wing" in order to maintain some control of the movement after the idea of workers across the world uniting died philosophically due to things like nationalism and cultural differences. Fascist movements were explicitly socialist in their doctrines. The fascists expropriated wealth and nationalized or socialized (the two words are synonymous ) big business to the state, etc , etc. This is not complicated at all. Fascists fought for control of the left not the right. Fascism is not the antithesis of communism at all. That is imported soviet propaganda language in essence not a true analysis of the doctrines. JohnHistory ( talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you disagree with? Let me put it this way, if the state is not socialist in nature - it can never be fascist.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Look up socialism and you will see that fascist countries employed socialist tenets in the running of the nations. Mussolini was a committed socialist, even saying that socialism was in his blood.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
No no, I believe it was more complex than that. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob2 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What you think of as the "right" in american politics is something totally different then what the Stalin and Mussolini were talking about (and he specifically says he is a socialist, and Gregor Strasser - one of the idealogical founders of the National Socialists said - "We are Socialists" of course it is more complicated then socialism as an abstract term but so is fascism and every form of socialism because it does not form and exist in a vacuum. The "Right" in america are individualistic in nature, often characterized as religious in outlook. these two things, and the concept inherent in them of a small government are fundamentally at odds with tenants of fascism which are socialistic ( socialization of industry, secularization even destruction of religion, etc, etc) Mussolini was a dedicated socialist. he never renounced socialism - he writes about realizing that the idea of marxism - were not applicable in terms of marxist idea of the destruction of nationalism. again, the right wing of socialism (which using Stalin's terminology, remember Stalin called Trotsky a "right winger" also. anyone stalin disagreed with in the socialist world became "right-wing" . so be careful throwing these terms around) would still be socialists even under your incorrect view of the term "right". I will change the article later when I have time.
JohnHistory (
talk)
04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Here's the main point, since the article lists all the things associated with fascism (nationalism, etc etc) then it should invariably have socialism too. though I believe these movements were socialist in nature to a high degree, for you to say that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the long list of things "assoicated" with fascism in the intro is very illogical.
JohnHistory (
talk)
18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
To whoever requested it here is the full quote and the sources. This should be enough proof. how could it not be? I'm bringing facts from the horse's mouth while this article is chalk full of garbage - yet it is I who is challenged. ironic.
Here is the full quote by Mussolini and the source. mussolini was a socialist his whole life - he just realized that the idea that nations shouldn't exist was ludicrous and impractical. mussolini - like hitler- saw men of all strata's fighting in WWI this made him realize the power of nationalism etc.
[(ALSO, RIGHT WING SOCIALISM IS STILL SOCIALISM AND DEFINITELY HAS NO CONNECTION TO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS(individualism, religion, etc)]
In response to fascism being labeled by Stalin "right -wing" (right wing socialism that is) Mussolini emphasizes his opposing view in the following passage from Heaven on Earth by Muravchik page 148- citing The Life of Benito Mussolini by Margherita Sarfatti on page 263...
"You hate me because you love me love me still" addressing Italian Socialists..."whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. SOCIALISM IS IN MY BLOOD."
after being forced to resign from the socialist magazine Avanti (mainly because of his support for WWI and embrace of nationalism) mussolini said "you think you can turn me out, but you shall find I will come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones." JohnHistory ( talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right.
71.192.116.68 (
talk)
04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
SirRubenstein, you are the one who asked for the source to the mussolini quote, then I give it to you and you say "this is irrelevant" and can't be included, etc. What? JohnHistory ( talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
And by the way, to finish answering your question of whose view this is - it's MUSSOLINI'S VIEW! JohnHistory ( talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
This article is bad. I would rewrite it but I am too lazy now. The whole intro is wrong. there were several fascist governments and they had differences and the intro seems to dwell on something other then the doctrine which is what this article should be about. otherwise it's all just allusions to the holocaust and Germany. JohnHistory ( talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. JohnHistory ( talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I have to agree with JohnHistory, though he's not trying very hard to fight against what seems to be the consensus on this article. The article really is terribly wrong, and frankly I think it has been compromised by left-wing ideologue
Chip Berlet, who seems pretty active in the edits. To exclude the idea that fascism is inherently socialist is just wrong. What I'll call Berlet's Consensus is a perfect illustration of the word "fascism" in current usage. It simply refers to something that the utterer of the pejorative doesn't like. I believe George Orwell notes this in his "Politics and the English Language." At any rate, Berlet's is a deeply personal and blunt application of the word is most unhistorical, except as it serves to illustrate the uselessness of the word today. However, Wikipedia is in the business of providing a general view, not a contemporary, partisan position paper. It is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. And frankly, this entire article takes at face value the Soviet assertion that the fascists were right-wing and the opposite of everything that socialism represents, which is simply bold and untrue propaganda. The difference between fascism and international socialism is internationalism. And that's pretty much it. This article also completely fails to account from the remarkable similarities between the logic of nationalistic, non-militaristic or even non-nationalistic, non-militaristic social and progressive causes and the logic of fascism. Indeed, fascist regimes were, and are champions of these causes. This article pretty much ignores that. I have read the entire discussion page, not including archives, and I feel I have to point out how bad this article is. I am not trolling. I am starting a discussion in the hopes that other like-minded people will respond and take action. --
Anacreon (
talk)
08:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we do now since like you said there appear to be vested interests here (what's new, right) I agree, as you know, that to exclude socialism (at a minimum) is blatantly not honest - especially when you list things associated with Fascism in the intro. This is really not complicated. The problem with just saying "national socialism" is that that terminology exclusively conjures up NAZI's and misses the role that socialism in general played in these movements. in other words, people read national socialist and they think simply nazi. this article, which was worse a week ago believe it or not, really is just a stand in for the word "evil" by folks on the left. They are not honestly dissecting fascism - to the point of even dismissing my quotes from Mussolini stating how committed a socialist he was.
JohnHistory (
talk)
20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I mean, this article even associates "mysticism" with fascism. Is mysticism also listed under the marxism article -marxist prophecy? Many nations use national myths to mobilize the public - the communists did this. My point is there are so many weird things associated with fascism in this article while missing the 800 pound Guerilla of Socialism sitting across the table from us.
JohnHistory (
talk)
20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Completely agree. Unfortunately, there is no honest desire on the part of the most eager editors of this article to have it reflect reality. The best we can do is register our complaints here in case someone decides to read the bottom of a really long edit page. I don't have the time or patience to involve myself in a Wikipedia edit war. -- Anacreon ( talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. - according to the section "What is Fascism?" in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932, written by Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile [9]
And there is Italian Fascism's declaration that it is focused on nationalist collectivism and statism but specifically states that Italian Fascism is NOT socialist and NOT left-wing, but that it is a unique movement to itself. The "800 pound gorilla of socialism" which some users mentioned as fascism being has just ceased to exist. Like I have said before, fascism certainly has socialist elements to it just as it has syndicalist elements to it and even capitalist elements on the Italian Fascists' notion of the general superiority of private enterprise over public enterprise. These socialist, syndicalist, and capitalist elements are fused into the economic ideology of corporatism whereby labourers and businessmen are to be on equal grounds, class conflict is to be avoided and replaced by class collaboration must negotiate with each other, but that abdication from this negotiation, especially through labour strikes is strictly forbidden under Italian Fascist corporatism. To Johnhistory I say this, look carefully, the "800 pound gorilla" staring you down in the eyes is a Frankenstein monster-type, with sections of socialist skin, syndicalist skin, laissez-faire skin, statist skin, and a predominantly nationalist-oriented and obsessed brain.-- R-41 ( talk) 10:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists. JohnHistory ( talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Racism is not a tenet of Fascism, it was a part of National Socialism, however, specifically in Germany due to the anti-semitism that was already present in the culture. The Italian fascists, for example, did not practice killing jews at all and refused to turn any over to the Germans until they were taken over by the NAZI's in 1943. Spain is another example of that. Spain refused to take part in WWII. each of these three countries practiced their own form of fascism.
Dachau, the German concentration camp, had the largest organic farm in the world. The nazi's were always into vegetarianism and helped pioneer the whole grains movement, along with the Green party movement which was started in nazi Germany. why not have discussions of PETA (the nazi's were heavily into animal rights, and seriously considered mandating vegetarianism for all Germans. At least those are accurate links not the KKK. By the standard set here those are higher relevance. JohnHistory ( talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I checked about a half dozen of the top sources and either they didn't mention Peron or Peronism at all, or briefly mentioned it calling it something other than fascism. We all know that fascism is an epithet and a political football, so editors of this article need to be particularly rigourous about requiring reliable sources, otherwise this article is going to be loaded with every movement or government that has had this label thrown at it. The idea that it is fascism is either a novel or fringe idea, and thus it does not belong in the article. I'm going to remove the section, if good sourcing is cited (doubtful), I won't object to it being reincluded. Mamalujo ( talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Griffin specifically states that corporatism is not a core element of fascism. Payne notes that although many fascists did incorporate corporatist economics, the German National Socialists explicitly rejected them. In light of this, a statement in the intro that fascism is a corporatist ideology is blatantly erroneous. I think a better approach would be to term it third way economics or something of that sort. Payne in Fascism: Comparison and Definition lists as one of the goals of fascism a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Mamalujo ( talk) 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Third Position economics means, I believe, something broader which would include corporatism. Corporatism is not "the third position between capitalism and communism", it is a third position, one of many. For example, national socialism is a third position which is not corporatism. You say that Griffin is one source, and you have found six, but you haven't. I've read the cites, they do not say fascism is corporatist, they say a specific facist movement is corporatist. You say to "ask yourself was the National Socialist German Workers Party truly representative of socialists". Well the sources say that it was quasi-socialist, involved significant government control of the economy (particularly finance), and it rejected corporatism. While I appreciate your analysis of the issue, your analysis, as well as mine, is beside the point. What is important is what reliable sources say. What I've noticed the most is that the sources overwhelmingly say that fascist economics were subordinated to other matters and were adaptive. When they needed to nationalize they nationalized, if it made sense to act as capitalists, they did that. I think Payne sums it up well when he says the economic goal of fascism was a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Payne also explicitly says ""No point remained less clear in the doctrines of most fascist movements than economic structure and goals. To make fascism synonymous with corporatism is obviously incorrect since only a minority of Italian fascists espoused corporatism before Musolini's compromise with the monarchy and fusion with the nationalists." ( see here). Payne, and most other reliable sources, say that fascist economics were adaptive, varied and subordinated to the state. The precise articulation of what they were was usually left unclear. (see previous link at top of page 10). Thus to say fascism and fascists were corporatist is incorrect and goes too far. In goals they weren't always corporatist and in practice they weren't either. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted a deletion of a subtantial amount of sourced material re expansion of the welfare state and other similar matters. These matters are not controversial and are well recognized. For example, as noted in the social welfare section of the article, the Italian government expanded from about 500,000 to a million jobs in 1930 alone, And health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. Both of these statements are sourced as was the earlier general statement in the article which was deleted. The other matters deleted are likewise sourced and well established. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But according to Richard Evans' Third Reich in Power this was not the case for Nazism. In addition "anti-capitalism" is debated. The text about price controls and private property is already down below in the economic section and we need to keep the lede more general and less details. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See section on social welfare, there is a page cite. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Mamalujo is right. Expansion of welfare state was a key policy of fascism. Also, if it was part of Italian fascism it was definitely part of fascism, because there is no consensus that "fascism" has some broader meaning. Nevertheless, it's true that it was part of national socialism as well.
Please go on, Mamalujo. Valois bourbon ( talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The definition of fascism is changing EVERYDAY. When capitalist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say on economics that "fascism is a type of socialism" when socialist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say "fascism involves capitalism". Well I am a social democrat and I reject that fascism as a whole is either capitalism or socialism, it is inbetween. As of now the article says fascism involves capitalism, I expect that tommorow it will say fascism involves socialism. This outlook ignores the other sides of the argument. So I say let's debate it right here on the discussion board and vote on an acceptable definition.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have finally had enough of Wikipedia. I have doen so much, posted multiple sources, debated with good will and intelligence, and yet no one listens or cares. They want to say "fascism is socialism", fascism is capitalism", and on and on. I had my falling out with Wikipedia on a number of occasions but when people have DELETED my well-sourced information to promote their views to which they provided NO SOURCES, that was the last straw. Scholars refuse to accept Wikipedia because of the POV pushers and vandalism and I am retiring from Wikipedia, I doubt I will ever return, its just a never-ending addictive viscious cycle, if you don't quit you'll be hooked to it until the day you die and NOTHING will be learned. But my last advice for any good-intentioned users on this article is this: you are going to have to debate and prove wrong the radical individual POV pushers and provided MANY (such as 20 or more) reliable sources to prove them wrong, plus you are going to have to have a vote on the issue. If that doesn't work then Wikipedia truly has become a dead-end. I've wasted enough hours trying to help, and I have completely had it with the B.S. Thrasymachus sophist-types on Wikipedia who believe that winning an argument is by humiliating people and screaming at people in anger who disagree with you. What the web really needs is a "Scholarpedia" where actual scholars debate and come to conclusions, as it seems that most of the average Joes or Janes out there are highly opinionated and have little content to back them up. I hope those few intelligent users who are open to different opinions prevail. Good bye.-- R-41 ( talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that so many of the citations are lacking the page in the source where the fact can be found. Doesn't Wikipedia policy favor in line citations to the page in the source so the fact can be verified? I have even seen multiple times in this article where a source is cited to a specific page or pages and the cite is changed to a different format and the page cite is deleted. Mamalujo ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevent?
Nazis arrested and killed thousands of Catholic clergy (18% of the priests in Poland were killed), eventually consigning thousands of them to concentration camps (2600 died in Dachau alone).[106] Although Jews were obviously the greatest and primary target, Hitler also sent Roman Catholics to concentration camps along with the Jews and killed 3 million Catholic Poles along with three million Jewish Poles.[107]
Were the Catholic Poles killed because they were catholic or because of their Polish ethnicity?? Is there any evidence they were killed because of their religion? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It simply isn't coherent to insist that scholars clearly agree that fascism is intrinsically totalitarian only to to turn-around and admit that they don't. In fact, the fascists as they came to power didn't universally preach totalitarianism, even the Nazis didn't try for totalitarism until the Second World War was well under way. And note, for example, whence Giovanni Gentile was coming when he was assassinated. — SlamDiego ←T 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between two separate arguments here: The argument that Nazi Germany and/or Fascist Italy were totalitarian and the argument that all fascists everywhere are totalitarian. It's certainly true that the majority of historians agree with the first argument, but do they agree with the second? I doubt it; the sources don't seem to support that view. Since this article talks about the general use of the word "fascism," including many movements and countries besides Italy and Germany, I think the term "authoritarian" is more appropriate. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 06:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed Barack Obama is listed. I may not like his socialist tendencies, but I'm not sure he could accurately be described as a fascist... FusionKnight ( talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
What about the wikipedia editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.35.244 ( talk) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"Fascists oppose liberals. End of story." That is the essence of everything that is wrong with this article. It is political claptrap, and not objective in any way.-- Anacreon ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed him again. It was an obvious piece of vandalism. R-41, you didn't have to delete the entire list to remove Obama. AlexTiefling ( talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the deletion by Spylab, of the sentence declaring fascism to be revolutionary.
[15]</ref>
I contend that revolution and revolutionary is incorrectly used in this context; revolutionary, elsewhere on this page,(appear to have been removed) and on other pages(notably,
Francisco Franco). For the moment, I shall confine my discussion to the above material and the material it links to.
The citation of Payne, to support that Fascism is revolutionary: The citation is from his book, but Payne himself says nothing, in the cited passage, to the effect of Fascism being revolutionary, let alone it being a requirement of the definition of fascism.
The mention of fascism in the cited text is not a written opinion of Payne's, it is a quotation from Renzo de Felice. Renzo does not say that fascism is revolutionary, he says -italian- fascism was revolutionary. He then goes on to say -German fascism- wasn't revolutionary, thereby obliterating the argument that fascism is revolutionary.
Payne: "...analysts...distinguish between the two faces of Fascism. The first, in certain undeveloped countries, had the goal and also the effect of accelerating modernization, while the second, in Germany and certain other countries, was regressive and fundamentally anti-modern.
Renzo de Felice, the foremost historian of Italian fascism, largely agrees with this approach. He views Italian fascism as having progressivist and revolutionary origins, stemming from the French Revolution, while regarding Nazism as antimodernist and regressive."
In my first draft to explain the edit I ended up not having to make, because Spylab did it for me, I theorized that this inconsistency was based on poorly cited OR assertions that previously existed on the page; it is less explicable now that they have been removed:
"I believe what has happened here is that the editor has in good faith attempted to validate what is already on the page: assertions that fascism is revolutionary. While this might in many cases work out fine, in this case he is replicating what appears to be
WP:FRINGE, inasmuch as it is not only not a theory accepted by the mainstream, but not asserted by the author of the citation.
Attention must be paid to the possibility that the page already includes unfounded assertions, when seeking to replicate the assertions of the page, especially in the lead."
Anarchangel (
talk)
01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article may be growing too long. A lot of useful information was added in recent months - most of it by R-41 - but there are also many unsourced assertions, and some information is duplicated in several different parts of the article. I believe a degree of reorganization is needed. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, I was speaking about the length of the article as a whole, not the introduction in particular...
But on the topic of the "third position" feature of fascism, I need to point out that any attempt to find a comprehensive definition of fascism is likely to fail. The best we can do is quote the various different definitions used by different authors. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, going back to the length of the article: R-41, you have added a large amount of content (which is a very, very good thing), but I think the article could use some summarization and restructuring to reduce the number of sub-sections. Please let me know when you are finished adding content so that we may work on structure together. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this as a compromise "Fascism is a highly authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology that seeks to form a highly-centralized autocratic, single-party government of a country led by a dictator, which seeks large-scale indoctrination and regimentation of society...". If "highly authoritarian" is identified along with totalitarian and subsequent description of how fascist states operate it recognizes the level of state control over society and recognizes the goals of multiple fascist movements such as Italian Fascist, Nazi, Iron Guard, and Japanese fascists' attempt to form totalitarian states, while at the same time leaving open room for debate over whether Franco's authoritarian nationalist rule in Spain can count for fascism.-- R-41 ( talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If Baathism and Francoism can be put in "alleged fascisms". Then certainly the Klu Klux Klan is worthy of being on the list. It has had more profound connections to Fascism/Nazism (as least compared to Baathism). Also the comparisons of Saddam to fascist reigmes are uncited you could easily say Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot are alleged fascists too. 207.118.232.73 ( talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Previous version of this section was a consensus one. This section is arguably the most controversial in the whole article, so please discuss major changes to it on talk before editing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It says in the article that fascism opposes conservatism, I think it should be deleted or changed. it makes snese that fascism is incompatible with capitalism, but conservatism? See, what I mean is, fascist regimes seem to have endorsed traditional values and so forth. That is why I think this part of the article should be modified.
![]() | 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. |
Seeking consensus implies a conversation, not a deluge of text.-- Cberlet ( talk) 02:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Gennarous, you are not paying any attention to the note at the top of the page about seeking consensus before making substantial edits, and other than posting personal attacks and POV claims that represent only one narrow view on this contentious topic, you are not engaging in meaningful discussion. Furthermore, by making up to 50 edits per day, you make it impossible for any other editor to have any meaningful input into the page. Please discuss this here.-- Cberlet ( talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
And how is labeling it "Nazism" rewritting history? That what it was called and that's the name the editors choose for it's repective article. Putting in Nazism links directly to the article while in other for National Socialism to link to it you have to do National Socialism|Nazism. But going though that effort it seems you are the one with the agenda, by linking Nazism to Socialism. Bobisbob ( talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
There are two competing leads (let's define it as the first three paragraphs) being proposed. The older consensus version here and the newer Gennarous version here. Please indicate if you support or oppose the the newer Gennarous version.
Oppose -- Cberlet ( talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose but I the think the current Italian fascist section and the sections on other fascist ideologies can stay -- Bobisbob ( talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that we should vote on lead, especially because Gennarous is blocked from editing for a week. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this a joke? The above is an obviously fake discussion between Chip Berlet and Chip Berlet. I for one (and only one) support Gennarous's version. The systematic whitewashing in this article of any relation between fascism and socialism is akin to Stalin calling anyone who became a political enemy a "Troskyite" and a "fascist." If fascism and socialism aren't the same thing, it's a difference of degree and context, not ideology. -- Anacreon ( talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The excellent section on Italian Fascism by Gennarous on the main Fascism page here has been plonked onto a recreated Italian Fascism page with additional material from the older, mostly uncited, page. Let's go passionate advocates of this page--have at it! After a few days, I will see if others want to reduce the size of the section on Italian Fascism here on this page.-- Cberlet ( talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the idea was that we do not change the lead (in my mind the first three paragraphs in this entry) without first seeking consesus. I have restored the lead from before the edit wars. Please, please, please discuss content changes for the lead here first. See the note at the top of the page. -- Cberlet ( talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There are some great additions to this page, but the length and detail is way overboard. We need to start moving whole blocks of text to the various exisiting subpages. Please think about what can be moves, and where. The section on Italisn Fascism clearly should have the entire bottom moves to the Italism Fascism page. Anyone want to help?-- Cberlet ( talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to say the fascists opposed capitalism. They certainly did not oppose busniess or private property. Saying they opposed laizze faire capitalism would be better. Bobisbob ( talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with…"
That said, I don't have a particular proposed rewording, but I'd welcome one. I suspect that "mass movements" can be moved out of the lead sentence and that later in the lead we can say that there have been numerous fascist mass movements and regimes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This section seems very tendentious. First it proposes the "Third Way" view. Then it rejects the view of fascism as being on the right before reluctantly conceding it partly back with the quoted phrase "gravitating toward the extreme Right".
As far as I know, the predominant scholarly consensus is that despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force. I believe that this section as it stands gives undue weight to a minority view while failing to adequate present the dominant view. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that Tazmaniacs read my comment as a personal statement. When I said "this is my view" I do not mean that this is my personal view about fascism. The personal views of editors are irrelevant to articles and I won't use this page as a soap-box for my personal views about fascism or fascists. I was describing what I consider a very notable scholarly view of fascism, and one which I find useful for understanding 20th century history. It has no particular impact on how I make my own political or moral decisions, or view the decisions of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record, my point was not that Fascism is of the left, nor that it is of the right, and insofar as they are notable any debates in reliable sources concerning this question should be included in the article. I was pointing out that there is another approach to examining Fascism both in its historical context and comparitavely. I do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the section currently oddly named "Fascism and Religion" (shouldn't "religion" be lowercase?) makes no mention of Romania's Iron Guard, also known as the "Legion of the Archangel Michael". The latter name indicates the strength of their ties to religion, and I would think that any definition of "fascism" that isn't confined to Italy would include them. Any reason for the omission? - Jmabel | Talk
Gen, I removed the text from the Italian fascism section because it's already in the Italian fascist article. We need to summarize the section as much as possible and leave the detail to the main article. Don't accuse me of "covering up fascism's involvement in the government." Bobisbob ( talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and do what you want with it. But I think the Italian fascist article needs to be expanded. Bobisbob ( talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Anatomy of Fascism
by Robert O. Paxton
Excerpts:
Page 22
"In this book I use liberalism in its original meaning, the meaning in use at the time when fascism rose up against it, rather than the current American usage noted above. European liberals of the early twentieth century were clinging to what had been progressive a century earlier, when the dust was still settling from the French Revolution. Unlike conservatives, they accepted the revolution's goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but they applied them in ways suitable for an educated middle class. Classical liberals interpreted liberty as individual personal freedom, preferring limited constitutional government and a laissez-faire economy to any kind of state intervention, whether mercantilist, as in the early nineteenth century, or socialist, as later on. Equality they understood as opportunity made accessible to talent by education; they accepted inequality of achievement and hence of power and wealth. Fraternity they considered the normal, condition of free men (and they tended to regard public affairs as men's business), and therefore in no need of artificial reinforcement, since economic interests were naturally harmonious and the truth would out in a free marketplace of ideas. This is the sense in which I use the term liberal in this book, and never in its current American meaning of "far Left." Conservatives wanted order, calm, and the inherited hierarchies of wealth and birth. They shrank both from fascist mass enthusiasm and from the sort of total power fascists grasped for. They wanted obedience and deference, not dangerous popular mobilization, and they wanted to limit the state to the functions of a "night watchman" who would keep order while traditional elites ruled through property, churches, armies, and inherited social influence."
"More generally, conservatives in Europe still rejected in 1930 the main tenets of the French Revolution, preferring authority to liberty, hierarchy to equality, and deference to fraternity. Although many of them might find fascists useful, or even essential, in their struggle for survival against dominant liberals and a rising Left, some were keenly aware of the
want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."
Page 8
"Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital."
Page 102
"In a situation of constitutional deadlock and rising revolutionary menace, a successful fascist movement offers precious resources to a faltering elite."
"Fascists could offer a mass following sufficiently numerous to permit conservatives to form parliamentary majorities capable of vigorous decisions, without having to call upon unacceptable Leftist partners. Mussolini's thirty-five deputies were not a major weight in the balance, but Hitler's potential contribution was decisive. He could offer the largest party in Germany to conservatives who had never acquired a knack for the mass politics suddenly introduced into their country by the constitution of 1919."
"The fascists offered more than mere numbers. They offered fresh young faces to a public weary of an aging establishment that had made a mess of things. The two youngest parties in Italy and Germany were the communists and the fascists. Both nations longed for new leaders, and the fascists offered conservatives a fountain of youth."
"In sum, fascists offered a new recipe for governing with popular support but without any sharing of power with the Left, and without any threat to conservative social and economic privileges and political dominance. The conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors"
Page 140
"Even if public enthusiasm was never as total as fascists promised their conservative allies, most citizens of fascist regimes accepted things as they were. The most interesting cases are people who never joined the party, and who even objected to certain aspects of the regime, but who accommodated because its accomplishments overlapped with some of the things they wanted, while the alternatives all seemed worse."
This is a respected source, and provides a good source of information on fascism's stance on conservatism. -- Qualcuno75 ( talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The above source clearly supports the statement. How about sources that goes against the clearly stated above that fascism allied and aided conservatism. I also have another source in addition to above that fascism arose as a response to the growing power of liberalism. If you dispute anything, either provide a source or tag disputed unsourced statements with a "citation needed". -- Qualcuno75 ( talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever one's personal opinions on Fascism, you must admit that a quote like this "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" which is used by Paxton and shown in the discussion board above, is very opinionated. Every author has biases which others must recognize and point out. Fascists in power were indeed very much in favour of conservative social values and made alliances with conservative political forces on these points, but aside from social values, fascists were much different in other areas to conservatives. The provision of social welfare programs by fascist states was more progressive than even those of liberal states of the time which rejected social welfare programs. Secondly, Paxton's conclusion does not take into account that fascists in Germany and Italy both condemned reactionary politics. In addition, Reactionaries in Europe during the French Revolution rejected nationalism as being a threat to established monarchies and states not formed on national boundaries. Unlike reactionaries, fascists fully embrace nationalism and in Italy, much like liberals had desired, fascists pushed the monarchy into a figurehead position while Mussolini effectively became the ruler of Italy. Reactionaries rejected revolutionary politics and looked down upon civil violence while fascists supported revolutionary politics and violence. Unlike Paxton says, fascists were not just endorsed by elites, as in many countries they did have significant popular support, and elites supported them largely as a means to counter the rise of communism, while on other issues, elites and fascists often squabbled. It appears to me at least that on social value issues, fascists in power were indeed very conservative and anti-progressive, while on other political issues, especially economic issues, fascists ranged from centrist to even progressive. It is these differences that make it necessary to discern that fascism is a unique movement of its own, which I will admit is closer to reactionary in its social values than many other political movements, but deviates from reactionary politics in other areas.-- R-41 ( talk) 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Argentina in the 70's. Neutralaccounting ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Columbia from late 40's to the 1950's. Neutralaccounting ( talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In one section on fascism's position on religion, Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies are compared to that of fascists based on the idea that Khomeni's demand for strict obedience to religion. This is a very controversial claim. There have been many fundamentalist religious movements that have advocated strict obedience to religion, such as the Puritans who were known for persecuting non-believers. But strict obedience to religion even with persecution does not automatically equate to fascist stances on religion. I'm not sure as to what the editor was trying to point out, but I want to clarify one thing: some editors may point out perceived anti-Semitism in Islamist government in Iran as demonstrating "fascist" religious policy, but bear this important point in mind, fascism does not always promote anti-Semitism nor does a fascist movement require any xenophobia to be fascist, i.e. Italian Fascism opposed anti-Semitism and racism until pressured to endorse them by Germany in the late 1930s. A lot of references and explanations would be needed to effectively demonstrate why Khomeni's religious polcies should be equated as similar to fascist religious policies.-- R-41 ( talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There is an edit war over whether fascism opposes conservatism. From what I've examined, fascism opposes some elements of conservatism while it is supportive of others. Unfortunately every time I try to post information on the general social policies of fascism, someone keeps removing them, including an anonymous user who vandalized the section by removing it completely on the false claim that the section on social policy was original research. In it mentioned that fascists have typically endorsed a number of social conservative policies. I listed a number of references that showed Italian Fascism's positions such as a reference for the Fascist government's law that banned abortion, as well as having a reference for the Fascist government's decision to outlaw homosexuality, as well as others. Another editor added important points with references on fascism's appeal to men behave in a heroic masculine manner. Now this being said, I still believe that debate is still open as to whether fascism opposes other parts of conservatism. But this is debated, as one reference on this page by historian and scholar Robert Paxton has claimed that fascism largely served the interests of reactionaries. On the other hand, fascists claim to oppose conservatism. Some believe this is true, others disagree, and note that fascists have typically allied with conservative political forces when rising to power. It is a debated issue, fascism has individual traits in social policy that I mentioned before that were conservative, but also others that were more progressive. But once again, sadly a user has removed material that they disagreed with and claims that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. I urge other users to be aware of this edit war, and actively find referenced information that can clarify this dispute.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that fascism sometimes banned abortion does not at all make it a conservative policy, that is merely a gloss of an editor's personal opinion. In fact, in all of the dozen or so sources I looked at about the battle for births, every single one of them talked about increasing the population or growing the number of fascists, none of them mentioned moral opposition or concern for the rights of the unborn child. This is leftist social engineering (like China's one child policy), not at all conservatism. Also, Nazis actually expanded abortion in some contexts, even making it compulsory (as communist China has also sometimes done). Contrary to the assertions made above, the Encyclopedia of World history (a teriary source, not the opinion of a single author such as Griffin) does explicitly say that fascism is not a socially conservative perspective. The attempts to color it as such are POV and, even worse, counterfactual. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A while ago someone removed socialism for the list of thing fascism opposes by noting Roger Griffin's writing about Fascism form a new type of socialism. Well that same scholar says that fascism is not completely anti-conservative and writes about "conservative revolution" and it's relationship to fascism in Chapter 6 of "Fascism and Mordernism". Therefore I have removed conservatism from the above list. Bobisbob ( talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The fascist negations, anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, are a longstanding part of an exhaustive definition of fascism which has general consensus (although many prefer a shorter but consistent definition). I think that to reword or remove one of those three elements is OR. There may be some that disagree with the forulation as part of a definition of fascism, but that can be said about many parts of every definition, and the article intro recognizes that. There have been repeated edits which fiddle with the accepted statement of the fascist negations. I think such edits are blatantly OR. I would suggest that we list all three negations (not two of three - which misrepresents the scholarship on the subsect with a specific POV) in their ordinary wording (not some SYN or OR reformulation by editors). Can we get a consensus on this so we can have a stable intro. Mamalujo ( talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there room here for a topic on eco-fascism or environmental fascism? I think there is definently scope for it given many countries are forcing climate change laws on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.231.252 ( talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that under the search-word on wiki: World domination. It seems Fascism does not seek that as an overarching objective. It should be mentioned, because the popular belief is that it was precisely world domination that was the idea of Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.183.65 ( talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Should KKK be in this article, even in the parafacism section? I know the klan has had association with neo-fascists but that doesn't mean they are fascist. Communists, monarchists and other nonfascist groups have also made common cause with fascists in the past. The sourcing in the KKK section also seems kind of weak. I think we need a solid reliable source, preferably a scholar of the subject, that says they are fascist or parafascist. Thoughts? Mamalujo ( talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't compare the relationship between the KKK and Nazis to the relationship between the Nazis and those other groups. They are nearly indistingushable, at least today. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the intro is out of place and poorly sourced. It is out of place because it launches into a discussion of the economic features of fascism, which is a controversial subject to say the least. I could try to balance it by adding opposing views, but the point is that controversial assertions about fascism do not belong in the intro. I will move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the appropriate place in the article, which is to say the "economic policies" section.
And this brings us to the second problem with that paragraph, the fact that it is largely unsourced. First, I challenge the use of the phrase "Soviet-style" in the first sentence. The USSR did not invent price controls or wage controls; I'd like to see a direct quote from the source being used to support the sentence in question. Second, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and will therefore be removed. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: I wanted to move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the Economic policies section, but then I saw that they were already there. It appears that someone in fact moved them up to the intro, while adding words and phrases not supported by the sources in question. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism." This statement implies that there is a lot of common ground between fascism and socialism, which is highly contentious. There is no similarity between the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of France or the New Labour Party of Britain and fascist movements. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ralph Nader defines Fascism as "government controlled by private economic power". [1] Elsewhere he also uses the term "Corporate Fascism". While this has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, and may be considered demagoguery, I think the use of this definition is enlightening, because it helps explain why so many people link fascism with the far right and laissez faire economics.
I'm not sure how to integrate this viewpoint into the article, or perhaps it would go better on an entry such as Economics of Fascism. Is anyone else up to it? Sharkey ( talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that this definition is helpful. Although fascist governments are "controlled by private economic power", so arguably are most other governments. Fascism has other aspects however that differentiate it. If fascism is defined so broadly, it loses meaning. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Mussolini was a committed socialist and the National Socialists i.e. the NAZI's were obviously also socialists. The communists in Germany were constantly switching sides and becoming national socialists in the beginning. The reason that fascists are called that and ignorantly thought to be "right-wing" is because of the split between Moscow and other countries such as Italy and Germany, that Stalin, using Marxist prophecy, labeled as "other" and "right wing" in order to maintain some control of the movement after the idea of workers across the world uniting died philosophically due to things like nationalism and cultural differences. Fascist movements were explicitly socialist in their doctrines. The fascists expropriated wealth and nationalized or socialized (the two words are synonymous ) big business to the state, etc , etc. This is not complicated at all. Fascists fought for control of the left not the right. Fascism is not the antithesis of communism at all. That is imported soviet propaganda language in essence not a true analysis of the doctrines. JohnHistory ( talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you disagree with? Let me put it this way, if the state is not socialist in nature - it can never be fascist.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Look up socialism and you will see that fascist countries employed socialist tenets in the running of the nations. Mussolini was a committed socialist, even saying that socialism was in his blood.
JohnHistory (
talk)
01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
No no, I believe it was more complex than that. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob2 ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
What you think of as the "right" in american politics is something totally different then what the Stalin and Mussolini were talking about (and he specifically says he is a socialist, and Gregor Strasser - one of the idealogical founders of the National Socialists said - "We are Socialists" of course it is more complicated then socialism as an abstract term but so is fascism and every form of socialism because it does not form and exist in a vacuum. The "Right" in america are individualistic in nature, often characterized as religious in outlook. these two things, and the concept inherent in them of a small government are fundamentally at odds with tenants of fascism which are socialistic ( socialization of industry, secularization even destruction of religion, etc, etc) Mussolini was a dedicated socialist. he never renounced socialism - he writes about realizing that the idea of marxism - were not applicable in terms of marxist idea of the destruction of nationalism. again, the right wing of socialism (which using Stalin's terminology, remember Stalin called Trotsky a "right winger" also. anyone stalin disagreed with in the socialist world became "right-wing" . so be careful throwing these terms around) would still be socialists even under your incorrect view of the term "right". I will change the article later when I have time.
JohnHistory (
talk)
04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Here's the main point, since the article lists all the things associated with fascism (nationalism, etc etc) then it should invariably have socialism too. though I believe these movements were socialist in nature to a high degree, for you to say that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the long list of things "assoicated" with fascism in the intro is very illogical.
JohnHistory (
talk)
18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
To whoever requested it here is the full quote and the sources. This should be enough proof. how could it not be? I'm bringing facts from the horse's mouth while this article is chalk full of garbage - yet it is I who is challenged. ironic.
Here is the full quote by Mussolini and the source. mussolini was a socialist his whole life - he just realized that the idea that nations shouldn't exist was ludicrous and impractical. mussolini - like hitler- saw men of all strata's fighting in WWI this made him realize the power of nationalism etc.
[(ALSO, RIGHT WING SOCIALISM IS STILL SOCIALISM AND DEFINITELY HAS NO CONNECTION TO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS(individualism, religion, etc)]
In response to fascism being labeled by Stalin "right -wing" (right wing socialism that is) Mussolini emphasizes his opposing view in the following passage from Heaven on Earth by Muravchik page 148- citing The Life of Benito Mussolini by Margherita Sarfatti on page 263...
"You hate me because you love me love me still" addressing Italian Socialists..."whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. SOCIALISM IS IN MY BLOOD."
after being forced to resign from the socialist magazine Avanti (mainly because of his support for WWI and embrace of nationalism) mussolini said "you think you can turn me out, but you shall find I will come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones." JohnHistory ( talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right.
71.192.116.68 (
talk)
04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
SirRubenstein, you are the one who asked for the source to the mussolini quote, then I give it to you and you say "this is irrelevant" and can't be included, etc. What? JohnHistory ( talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
And by the way, to finish answering your question of whose view this is - it's MUSSOLINI'S VIEW! JohnHistory ( talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
This article is bad. I would rewrite it but I am too lazy now. The whole intro is wrong. there were several fascist governments and they had differences and the intro seems to dwell on something other then the doctrine which is what this article should be about. otherwise it's all just allusions to the holocaust and Germany. JohnHistory ( talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. JohnHistory ( talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I have to agree with JohnHistory, though he's not trying very hard to fight against what seems to be the consensus on this article. The article really is terribly wrong, and frankly I think it has been compromised by left-wing ideologue
Chip Berlet, who seems pretty active in the edits. To exclude the idea that fascism is inherently socialist is just wrong. What I'll call Berlet's Consensus is a perfect illustration of the word "fascism" in current usage. It simply refers to something that the utterer of the pejorative doesn't like. I believe George Orwell notes this in his "Politics and the English Language." At any rate, Berlet's is a deeply personal and blunt application of the word is most unhistorical, except as it serves to illustrate the uselessness of the word today. However, Wikipedia is in the business of providing a general view, not a contemporary, partisan position paper. It is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. And frankly, this entire article takes at face value the Soviet assertion that the fascists were right-wing and the opposite of everything that socialism represents, which is simply bold and untrue propaganda. The difference between fascism and international socialism is internationalism. And that's pretty much it. This article also completely fails to account from the remarkable similarities between the logic of nationalistic, non-militaristic or even non-nationalistic, non-militaristic social and progressive causes and the logic of fascism. Indeed, fascist regimes were, and are champions of these causes. This article pretty much ignores that. I have read the entire discussion page, not including archives, and I feel I have to point out how bad this article is. I am not trolling. I am starting a discussion in the hopes that other like-minded people will respond and take action. --
Anacreon (
talk)
08:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So, what do we do now since like you said there appear to be vested interests here (what's new, right) I agree, as you know, that to exclude socialism (at a minimum) is blatantly not honest - especially when you list things associated with Fascism in the intro. This is really not complicated. The problem with just saying "national socialism" is that that terminology exclusively conjures up NAZI's and misses the role that socialism in general played in these movements. in other words, people read national socialist and they think simply nazi. this article, which was worse a week ago believe it or not, really is just a stand in for the word "evil" by folks on the left. They are not honestly dissecting fascism - to the point of even dismissing my quotes from Mussolini stating how committed a socialist he was.
JohnHistory (
talk)
20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I mean, this article even associates "mysticism" with fascism. Is mysticism also listed under the marxism article -marxist prophecy? Many nations use national myths to mobilize the public - the communists did this. My point is there are so many weird things associated with fascism in this article while missing the 800 pound Guerilla of Socialism sitting across the table from us.
JohnHistory (
talk)
20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
Completely agree. Unfortunately, there is no honest desire on the part of the most eager editors of this article to have it reflect reality. The best we can do is register our complaints here in case someone decides to read the bottom of a really long edit page. I don't have the time or patience to involve myself in a Wikipedia edit war. -- Anacreon ( talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. - according to the section "What is Fascism?" in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932, written by Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile [9]
And there is Italian Fascism's declaration that it is focused on nationalist collectivism and statism but specifically states that Italian Fascism is NOT socialist and NOT left-wing, but that it is a unique movement to itself. The "800 pound gorilla of socialism" which some users mentioned as fascism being has just ceased to exist. Like I have said before, fascism certainly has socialist elements to it just as it has syndicalist elements to it and even capitalist elements on the Italian Fascists' notion of the general superiority of private enterprise over public enterprise. These socialist, syndicalist, and capitalist elements are fused into the economic ideology of corporatism whereby labourers and businessmen are to be on equal grounds, class conflict is to be avoided and replaced by class collaboration must negotiate with each other, but that abdication from this negotiation, especially through labour strikes is strictly forbidden under Italian Fascist corporatism. To Johnhistory I say this, look carefully, the "800 pound gorilla" staring you down in the eyes is a Frankenstein monster-type, with sections of socialist skin, syndicalist skin, laissez-faire skin, statist skin, and a predominantly nationalist-oriented and obsessed brain.-- R-41 ( talk) 10:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists. JohnHistory ( talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Racism is not a tenet of Fascism, it was a part of National Socialism, however, specifically in Germany due to the anti-semitism that was already present in the culture. The Italian fascists, for example, did not practice killing jews at all and refused to turn any over to the Germans until they were taken over by the NAZI's in 1943. Spain is another example of that. Spain refused to take part in WWII. each of these three countries practiced their own form of fascism.
Dachau, the German concentration camp, had the largest organic farm in the world. The nazi's were always into vegetarianism and helped pioneer the whole grains movement, along with the Green party movement which was started in nazi Germany. why not have discussions of PETA (the nazi's were heavily into animal rights, and seriously considered mandating vegetarianism for all Germans. At least those are accurate links not the KKK. By the standard set here those are higher relevance. JohnHistory ( talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory
I checked about a half dozen of the top sources and either they didn't mention Peron or Peronism at all, or briefly mentioned it calling it something other than fascism. We all know that fascism is an epithet and a political football, so editors of this article need to be particularly rigourous about requiring reliable sources, otherwise this article is going to be loaded with every movement or government that has had this label thrown at it. The idea that it is fascism is either a novel or fringe idea, and thus it does not belong in the article. I'm going to remove the section, if good sourcing is cited (doubtful), I won't object to it being reincluded. Mamalujo ( talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Griffin specifically states that corporatism is not a core element of fascism. Payne notes that although many fascists did incorporate corporatist economics, the German National Socialists explicitly rejected them. In light of this, a statement in the intro that fascism is a corporatist ideology is blatantly erroneous. I think a better approach would be to term it third way economics or something of that sort. Payne in Fascism: Comparison and Definition lists as one of the goals of fascism a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Mamalujo ( talk) 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Third Position economics means, I believe, something broader which would include corporatism. Corporatism is not "the third position between capitalism and communism", it is a third position, one of many. For example, national socialism is a third position which is not corporatism. You say that Griffin is one source, and you have found six, but you haven't. I've read the cites, they do not say fascism is corporatist, they say a specific facist movement is corporatist. You say to "ask yourself was the National Socialist German Workers Party truly representative of socialists". Well the sources say that it was quasi-socialist, involved significant government control of the economy (particularly finance), and it rejected corporatism. While I appreciate your analysis of the issue, your analysis, as well as mine, is beside the point. What is important is what reliable sources say. What I've noticed the most is that the sources overwhelmingly say that fascist economics were subordinated to other matters and were adaptive. When they needed to nationalize they nationalized, if it made sense to act as capitalists, they did that. I think Payne sums it up well when he says the economic goal of fascism was a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Payne also explicitly says ""No point remained less clear in the doctrines of most fascist movements than economic structure and goals. To make fascism synonymous with corporatism is obviously incorrect since only a minority of Italian fascists espoused corporatism before Musolini's compromise with the monarchy and fusion with the nationalists." ( see here). Payne, and most other reliable sources, say that fascist economics were adaptive, varied and subordinated to the state. The precise articulation of what they were was usually left unclear. (see previous link at top of page 10). Thus to say fascism and fascists were corporatist is incorrect and goes too far. In goals they weren't always corporatist and in practice they weren't either. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted a deletion of a subtantial amount of sourced material re expansion of the welfare state and other similar matters. These matters are not controversial and are well recognized. For example, as noted in the social welfare section of the article, the Italian government expanded from about 500,000 to a million jobs in 1930 alone, And health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. Both of these statements are sourced as was the earlier general statement in the article which was deleted. The other matters deleted are likewise sourced and well established. Mamalujo ( talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
But according to Richard Evans' Third Reich in Power this was not the case for Nazism. In addition "anti-capitalism" is debated. The text about price controls and private property is already down below in the economic section and we need to keep the lede more general and less details. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See section on social welfare, there is a page cite. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Mamalujo is right. Expansion of welfare state was a key policy of fascism. Also, if it was part of Italian fascism it was definitely part of fascism, because there is no consensus that "fascism" has some broader meaning. Nevertheless, it's true that it was part of national socialism as well.
Please go on, Mamalujo. Valois bourbon ( talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The definition of fascism is changing EVERYDAY. When capitalist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say on economics that "fascism is a type of socialism" when socialist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say "fascism involves capitalism". Well I am a social democrat and I reject that fascism as a whole is either capitalism or socialism, it is inbetween. As of now the article says fascism involves capitalism, I expect that tommorow it will say fascism involves socialism. This outlook ignores the other sides of the argument. So I say let's debate it right here on the discussion board and vote on an acceptable definition.-- R-41 ( talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have finally had enough of Wikipedia. I have doen so much, posted multiple sources, debated with good will and intelligence, and yet no one listens or cares. They want to say "fascism is socialism", fascism is capitalism", and on and on. I had my falling out with Wikipedia on a number of occasions but when people have DELETED my well-sourced information to promote their views to which they provided NO SOURCES, that was the last straw. Scholars refuse to accept Wikipedia because of the POV pushers and vandalism and I am retiring from Wikipedia, I doubt I will ever return, its just a never-ending addictive viscious cycle, if you don't quit you'll be hooked to it until the day you die and NOTHING will be learned. But my last advice for any good-intentioned users on this article is this: you are going to have to debate and prove wrong the radical individual POV pushers and provided MANY (such as 20 or more) reliable sources to prove them wrong, plus you are going to have to have a vote on the issue. If that doesn't work then Wikipedia truly has become a dead-end. I've wasted enough hours trying to help, and I have completely had it with the B.S. Thrasymachus sophist-types on Wikipedia who believe that winning an argument is by humiliating people and screaming at people in anger who disagree with you. What the web really needs is a "Scholarpedia" where actual scholars debate and come to conclusions, as it seems that most of the average Joes or Janes out there are highly opinionated and have little content to back them up. I hope those few intelligent users who are open to different opinions prevail. Good bye.-- R-41 ( talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that so many of the citations are lacking the page in the source where the fact can be found. Doesn't Wikipedia policy favor in line citations to the page in the source so the fact can be verified? I have even seen multiple times in this article where a source is cited to a specific page or pages and the cite is changed to a different format and the page cite is deleted. Mamalujo ( talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevent?
Nazis arrested and killed thousands of Catholic clergy (18% of the priests in Poland were killed), eventually consigning thousands of them to concentration camps (2600 died in Dachau alone).[106] Although Jews were obviously the greatest and primary target, Hitler also sent Roman Catholics to concentration camps along with the Jews and killed 3 million Catholic Poles along with three million Jewish Poles.[107]
Were the Catholic Poles killed because they were catholic or because of their Polish ethnicity?? Is there any evidence they were killed because of their religion? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It simply isn't coherent to insist that scholars clearly agree that fascism is intrinsically totalitarian only to to turn-around and admit that they don't. In fact, the fascists as they came to power didn't universally preach totalitarianism, even the Nazis didn't try for totalitarism until the Second World War was well under way. And note, for example, whence Giovanni Gentile was coming when he was assassinated. — SlamDiego ←T 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between two separate arguments here: The argument that Nazi Germany and/or Fascist Italy were totalitarian and the argument that all fascists everywhere are totalitarian. It's certainly true that the majority of historians agree with the first argument, but do they agree with the second? I doubt it; the sources don't seem to support that view. Since this article talks about the general use of the word "fascism," including many movements and countries besides Italy and Germany, I think the term "authoritarian" is more appropriate. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 06:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed Barack Obama is listed. I may not like his socialist tendencies, but I'm not sure he could accurately be described as a fascist... FusionKnight ( talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
What about the wikipedia editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.35.244 ( talk) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
"Fascists oppose liberals. End of story." That is the essence of everything that is wrong with this article. It is political claptrap, and not objective in any way.-- Anacreon ( talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed him again. It was an obvious piece of vandalism. R-41, you didn't have to delete the entire list to remove Obama. AlexTiefling ( talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I support the deletion by Spylab, of the sentence declaring fascism to be revolutionary.
[15]</ref>
I contend that revolution and revolutionary is incorrectly used in this context; revolutionary, elsewhere on this page,(appear to have been removed) and on other pages(notably,
Francisco Franco). For the moment, I shall confine my discussion to the above material and the material it links to.
The citation of Payne, to support that Fascism is revolutionary: The citation is from his book, but Payne himself says nothing, in the cited passage, to the effect of Fascism being revolutionary, let alone it being a requirement of the definition of fascism.
The mention of fascism in the cited text is not a written opinion of Payne's, it is a quotation from Renzo de Felice. Renzo does not say that fascism is revolutionary, he says -italian- fascism was revolutionary. He then goes on to say -German fascism- wasn't revolutionary, thereby obliterating the argument that fascism is revolutionary.
Payne: "...analysts...distinguish between the two faces of Fascism. The first, in certain undeveloped countries, had the goal and also the effect of accelerating modernization, while the second, in Germany and certain other countries, was regressive and fundamentally anti-modern.
Renzo de Felice, the foremost historian of Italian fascism, largely agrees with this approach. He views Italian fascism as having progressivist and revolutionary origins, stemming from the French Revolution, while regarding Nazism as antimodernist and regressive."
In my first draft to explain the edit I ended up not having to make, because Spylab did it for me, I theorized that this inconsistency was based on poorly cited OR assertions that previously existed on the page; it is less explicable now that they have been removed:
"I believe what has happened here is that the editor has in good faith attempted to validate what is already on the page: assertions that fascism is revolutionary. While this might in many cases work out fine, in this case he is replicating what appears to be
WP:FRINGE, inasmuch as it is not only not a theory accepted by the mainstream, but not asserted by the author of the citation.
Attention must be paid to the possibility that the page already includes unfounded assertions, when seeking to replicate the assertions of the page, especially in the lead."
Anarchangel (
talk)
01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the article may be growing too long. A lot of useful information was added in recent months - most of it by R-41 - but there are also many unsourced assertions, and some information is duplicated in several different parts of the article. I believe a degree of reorganization is needed. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, I was speaking about the length of the article as a whole, not the introduction in particular...
But on the topic of the "third position" feature of fascism, I need to point out that any attempt to find a comprehensive definition of fascism is likely to fail. The best we can do is quote the various different definitions used by different authors. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, going back to the length of the article: R-41, you have added a large amount of content (which is a very, very good thing), but I think the article could use some summarization and restructuring to reduce the number of sub-sections. Please let me know when you are finished adding content so that we may work on structure together. -- Nikodemos ( talk) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this as a compromise "Fascism is a highly authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology that seeks to form a highly-centralized autocratic, single-party government of a country led by a dictator, which seeks large-scale indoctrination and regimentation of society...". If "highly authoritarian" is identified along with totalitarian and subsequent description of how fascist states operate it recognizes the level of state control over society and recognizes the goals of multiple fascist movements such as Italian Fascist, Nazi, Iron Guard, and Japanese fascists' attempt to form totalitarian states, while at the same time leaving open room for debate over whether Franco's authoritarian nationalist rule in Spain can count for fascism.-- R-41 ( talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If Baathism and Francoism can be put in "alleged fascisms". Then certainly the Klu Klux Klan is worthy of being on the list. It has had more profound connections to Fascism/Nazism (as least compared to Baathism). Also the comparisons of Saddam to fascist reigmes are uncited you could easily say Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot are alleged fascists too. 207.118.232.73 ( talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Previous version of this section was a consensus one. This section is arguably the most controversial in the whole article, so please discuss major changes to it on talk before editing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It says in the article that fascism opposes conservatism, I think it should be deleted or changed. it makes snese that fascism is incompatible with capitalism, but conservatism? See, what I mean is, fascist regimes seem to have endorsed traditional values and so forth. That is why I think this part of the article should be modified.