![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why isn't there a section about the superpower US and it's current embracement of Facism? If these bail-outs, and Obama's 100% Wall Street political cabinet arn't proof enough of Facism, what more would it take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.101.190 ( talk) 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Weird that Stalin isn't or Soviet Union until the death of Stalin isn't mentioned at all. Though this is often discussed and called either red fascism or similiar. So it would be a good thing to cover the other side of fascism as well, Googe books&scholar gets some nice references for the beginning [1] [2], though I am not able to do that now, so I started a section here at the talk page. -- Pudeo ⺮ 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Chris holte ( talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to work on this page, and give it a crack. I have several books that take a historical approach and use the words of the original Fascists, and I'm going to see if I can't make this page make sense without either speaking for modern day Fascists and their apologists, or for those who want to use the Concepts of Fascism to advance present day political views. I'm going to start mercilously deleting some real garbage in this text. But first I'm going to add some real content. All this talk about left or right is anachronistic or even propagandistic garbage. Better to let these people speak for themselves. They told the world they were a "third way." They were, like the Communists, among the first to use modern advertizing techniques to brand themselves (and rebrand themselves when necessary) and they were defined more by who and what they opposed than any particular defining characteristic except Corporo-Syndicalism, authoritarian discipline (Fascii), and the influences of both romantic philosophy, and highly cynical notions from Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Machievelli.
At some point, the article will have to use a definition of "fascism" which is not just "I don't like it" in nature about any perceived "bad political group." The current melange makes no objective sense. Should it be used to cover all examples of "oppressive, dictatorial control" as one dictionary definition has it? Or should it be restricted to authoritarian governments using strict central economic authority" Or to all governments having a strong nationalistic aim? Or to any government or movement which may be racist in nature? Right now, the answer is unclear -- with a lot of groups labelled "fascist" which have no relationship to any single definition of the word. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The purpose, as I understand it, of a "reference" or "citation" is to provide a source for a claim made in an article. There is no need to add editorial matter to the reference, not to have googlebooks links for the references. There is no need to have more than a few references made for any single claim. Piling Ossa on Pelion is not how WP works. See WP:CITE This article has far too many references, has too many with edito=orial comments (the WP guideline is for a "short quote" only used if the cite is likely to be challenged) and has googlebooks links, which are not suggested nor recommended by any WP guideline. Thus, I made a small first step in bringing this article in conformity with WP practices. Right now, the entire article is bloated with absurd lists of references, absurd lists of "maybe fascist-like, or maybe not organizations" and the like. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My imagination, or is the article finally showing some sensible order? Collect ( talk) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The ability of Nazism and Facism to develop were in part the result of the moral decay that ocurred in Europe especially Germany after WWI and the fall of the Monarchs and the class structure ?
In reference to Marlene Dietrich, documentaries have alluded to this, who was apart of the cultural decay scene of the times....
This is not currently part of this listing and should be included to improve the article.
Google books shows some information on the 'moral decay' post WWI
Seems this is not included.
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is much better than it has been, but it still is dragging out too long. For instance, the section explaining examples of fascist movements is taking up large amounts of space, I think that the section has to be condensed down to describe only essential matter such as why the particular political movement is deemed fascist and which scholars agree or disagree, the main articles on those political movements are where viewers should access in-depth information. Secondly the "fascist minimum" section is becoming too long and there are too many subsections. It should be split up into three parts: 1) social policy which includes only confirmed generic fascist elements such as nationalism, fascists' social interventionism, and mixed economy; common social views; 2) economic policy such as class collaboration, economic nationalism, and economic planning; 3)foreign policy such as nationalism (in the form of irredentism and expansionism), militarism and common foreign policy agendas such as anti-communism and anti-internationalism (i.e. opposing the legitimacy of the League of Nations). The section on religion is the worst section of the article, it contains various patches of information from a variety of sources about multiple individual fascist movements while not definatively explaining what or if there is any coherent generic fascist stances on religion. The section on religion talks about the Iranian Revolution twice, one reference to compare the current Iranian theocracy to a fascist movement that existed in Romania forty years earlier and other reference on the Iranian Revolution to claim that fascism moved to endorse religion. Whatever one's personal views are on the autocratic nature of the theocratic government of Iran it does not identify with the common trends of fascism - i.e. it is not a single-party state, the leader of the Iranian Revolution from 1979-80, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, from what I have read did not endorse nationalism as fascism does and said that nationalism was causing the Muslim world to be divided.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Is not RS as it traces back to "freepedia" which traces back to ... WP. (see WP:RS) Collect ( talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point, Francoism which is described in the article as being not fascist likely does not belong in the article. Also sections from "Social Darwinism" down to "economic policies" are odd as they all pretty much state that fascists do not agree on them <g> making them orthogonal as issues. Ditto the Racism and Religion sections -- if the topic is not generally associated with Fascism as a topic, it does not really belong here. Collect ( talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The reference, which is from a book called "Fascism in Spain", says that Franco was not a '"core" fascist', but that he was "pro-fascist", lead a fascist party and ran a fascist government. In any case the section is is called "Early Falangism (Spain)" which was a fascist movement. As for the other sections, it is not important that all fascists agree. So I would keep. By the way I hope I was not impolite toward you. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted! I have combined falangism and francoism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Other than the reference in the article to francoism, is there any reason why you do not consider it to be fascist? The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you mentioned what tenets he did not adopt that meant he was no longer considered fascist. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between building and "maintaining" an empire, which is the actual word I used. Franco gave support to the Axis powers without actually declaring war or as people said then "neutral on the side of Germany". After the war Spain was refused membership in NATO because it was a fascist dictatorship. Juan Carlos was only named Franco's heir after he swore allegiance to fascism, and the legitimate pretender to the throne was by-passed.
Anyway the section on Falangists makes no mention of the Spanish Falange after 1937, although it continued to govern for another 38 years. It would be helpful if the section explained, with proper sources, what happened during that time, whether fascism ended in Spain or if not how fascism developed in Spain during those years.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The assertion that Spain 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. Do not confuse Spain with Portugal, another dictatorship that was allowed membership because it had been trully neutral during WWII and was not considered fascist. Juan Carlos was only able to become king after swearing allegiance to the Movimiento Nacional, and was expected to uphold his oath. (Like Mussolini, Franco had been unable to abolish the monarchy.) The Falange did not cease to exist in 1949, but continued until 1975, although after 1949 it formed part of the Movimiento Nacional. But is the assertion now that fascism ceased to exist in Spain in 1949? The term Pretender does have a precise meaning, but it should not be confused with the more common use as some who makes false assertions, e.g., someone pretends to be someone he is not.
The article does not properly explain when Spain ceased to be a fascist state. I am not asserting any opinion on the matter, merely pointing out that this is an omission from the section, and it would be helpful to have a properly sourced explanation.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Spain was legally neutral..." Yes, but the statement it 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. "Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain" is incorrect. It was the official party, and no other parties were allowed. There was no "break with the old line Falangists". If the word "pretender" is used properly, then the sentence "The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne" is a non-sequiter. What year did the official party get "swallowed up"? (It still exists.)
I would be interested to know where all this misinformation comes from. Could you tell me in what source this all appears? The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not calling the section on Spanish Falangism misleading, merely pointing out that it does not state when (i.e., the year) Spain ceased to be fascist and what specific changes meant that it was no longer fascist. The statement that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" is misleading. If he did not want "continued authoritarianism" he would have allowed the rightful pretender (i.e., the rightful king) to become king rather than chosing someone of whom he required an oath of allegience to the Movimiento Nacional. I don't know why you are asking for "reliable sources" because I am not editing the section, merely pointing out that it is incomplete. If you have any sources, it would be helpful. Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing The Crown with the physical Crown (headgear). I'm sure lots of people claim to be the king of England. Lots of people claim to be Napoleon. You may be one of them. It proves nothing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fascism is a part of Third Position. Fascism is a multi-racial ideology. Your idea of what Fascism is is totally wrong. Fascism is an actual Ideology, and not simply a tyrannical state! Mussolini allowed for more freedom than you americans have today with your so-called "liberal democracy"!! Especially since your president is trying to ban guns, ban free speech, and tax the poor and middle class...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- "[When the] city dies, the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers[...] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race." Benito Mussolini, 1928. [1]
" Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. [...] National pride has no need of the delirium of race. Benito Mussolini, 1933." [2]
"Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict." Alfredo Rocco [3]
Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Whereas Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the term the "new left wing fascism" is used in the section defining fascism yet appears no where else in the article. Although alternative and non-mainstream theories should be presented they should always be described as such. Moreover, whoever wrote this section appears to have absolutely no understanding of fascism or political theory for that matter. The summary of the sources shows a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the original sources and therefore it has been removed.
By the way, a search for the "new left-wing fascism" only returns this site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22new+left+wing+fascism%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Although Wikipedia should present non-mainstream views, it should not be their origin. People who have non-mainstream views should develop some support for them (e.g., peer-reviewed papers) before including them in WP articles. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
People actually read read these articles for information and it is a disservice to them to provide misinformation.
By the way Mosely should not be mentioned using his honorific title. In the New York Times, which you mention, people are initially referred to by their full names, and their titles are used in subsequent references. E.g., "Oswald Mosley", then "Sir Oswald" for future references. Notice that they would apply this rule consistently, e.g., "John Smith", then "Mr. Smith". I notice that the NYT times recently does not use British titles. Look up Paul McCartney, Anthony Hopkins, Conrad Black. Also http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DB143CF931A2575BC0A9679C8B63 In fact although you are referring to the NYT MOS, you are misapplying it and it is irrelevant anyway because the article does not follow the NYT MOS. However, errors in style are just irritating, and are trivial compared with providing fundamentally flawed, misleading and incoherent misinformation.
Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. But notice that they also use Mr., Ms., etc. and this WP article does not. Why are you even bringing up the NYT MOS? It's not even recommended for academic writing. Why not use the MLS style book? And why look at examples of what NYT does instead of referring at their style book? But you should be consistent. Roger Griffin is not called "Mr. Roger Griffin" in the section although he is also from the UK and is probably entitled to that title. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Again you are totally ignoring what was said, which was that (1) you have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. (2) However do not try to figure out what is in their stylebook by reading the paper, look at the stylebook itself. (3) Also, the article Fascism does not follow the NYT style book so it does not matter what the style book says anyway. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the incoherent comments on the new left wing fascism as there is no commonality specific to fascism in the topic, I wonder just what relevance it has. Adding material which is not really related directly to Fascism seems to be quite misleading and one might reasonably deduce the section has nothing at all to do with fascism. We ought to focus on what is in common, and this side stuff really does not belong. Does this make sense? As for "left-wing" being in any way peculiar to fascism -- not only were many fascists not left-wing, many totally non-fascist nations are or were left-wing (I would suggest parts of the US were "left-wing" at exactly the same time as Groupuscles were, and there is evidence that leftism may well persist in China, and definitely does in large parts of Africa. The more clearly we can define "Fascism", the better this article can become. Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I reversed a recent edit to the abortion eugenics etc. section. There should be consensus on major changes. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the sections on social Darwinism and eugenics, abortion etc. ought to be more closely attached to the Race and racialism section which is now separate from the 'Core Tenets' section. With the examples shown from Brazil etc, its difficult to use race policy as a sweeping tenet for all fascist groups. Also that new section thrown in at the beginning about the origins of Italian Fascism simply doubles up on the section below it. Its out of place and overly long. Mdw0 ( talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what it says in Italian Fascism is correct: "there is no agreement about which aspects of structure, tactics, culture, and ideology represent the 'fascist minimum' core". It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph for "Core Tenets" which notes the problem and identifies usual tenets of fascism, properly sourced. Different writers may disagree, so it might help to have several sources. I've always thought of fascism as relating to parties that claimed to follow fascism, and all these parties have either died out or (in a few cases) transformed. And fascist ideology is not on the same intellectual level as conservative, liberal or left-wing ideology, so you wouldn't expect the same level of coherence or consistency in fascist tenets. The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What is your point? The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The individual parties had tenets. Many WP articles are about groups where individual members do not necessarilty share all attributes but those attributes are discussed nonetheless. I refer to the Cat article as an example. Some cats are domestic, some are feral, but the article does not omit this because neither attribute is common to all cats. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be pedantic, your definition of "tenet" is inaccurate, it need not be either "core" or "of a group". And domestic means being in a household. Their ancestors were domesticated, which is why they are called feral and not wild.
Some of the sections are about attributes that are not common to all cats, e.g., " Fondness for heights: Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching". Apparently it is not true for all cats, but is there nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right, it is not a core tenet of fascism, but it is a core tenet of some fascist groups. Do you think that the heading "Core tenets" should be changed or how do you think racism should be classified in this article? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Race policy is strongly associated with fascism in general, so it should be dealt with on that basis, but it should be separateed out from the core tenets simply because there are a number of groups who believe it is irrelevant. Isn't that a fair compromise?
I dont think the Nazis ever claimed to be following the Italians. Just because we use the Italian name to describe this particular political type doesn't mean they follow the Italian model. Mdw0 ( talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A distinction was drawn between "core tenets" of fascism and "common traits". I think the problem is the title - it assumes that there are common tenets when in fact there are only common traits. I suggested (above) that the section explains this. So change the title or qualify the subject and then everything is clear. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Racism was never part of Communist theory and never "formalised". Racism practised in individual Communist states was indigenous and was not the result of the countries becoming communist, and the countries did not co-ordinate racial policies. So there was no connection between racism in the USSR and in the DPRK, while there was a connection between racism in various fascist countries. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The Manifesto of Race and the Nuremburg Laws show that racism was central to fascist thought. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. The mainfesto of race article says "Until the actual publication of the official Manifesto of Fascist Racism, biological racism, as it was understood by National Socialist theorists, had literally no place in Fascist doctrine. Thereafter, the Fascist position on this subject became increasingly confused. Fascists, and most Actualists, were opposed to any racism that shared significant properties with the racism of Hitler's Germany. In that context, persons who had long been dismissed as lacking any significance, made their reappearance among Fascist intellectuals." and the Nuremberg laws were strictly Hitler's fantasy. Nothing about a "core tenet" of anything at all. Collect ( talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Manifesto was alluded to but I edited the article to include it with a hyperlink. I notice that Ian Adams devotes a whole chapter of "Political Ideology to "Racism and Fascism" so having a section on racism in a fascism article isn't totally off the wall. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ony7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=Racism+and+Fascism+ian+adams&lr= The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The whole article's looking a lot better, people. Its not perfect and the debate will go on, as it should, but the article's been been reorganised and improved, its clearer and reads better and seems more neutral and balanced, but that just could be my biased opinion. Anyone disagree to removal of the top banner? Mdw0 ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I just added this point about fascism opposing non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements to show that fascists were not only opposed to communists but other labour-minded movements and ideologies that they deemed a threat to national unity, as fascists persecuted social democrats and other non-Marxist labour organizations based on these points.-- R-41 ( talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I have changed the lead sentence by removing the synthesis and instead have added multiple references which speak of fascism's radicalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. I have also removed other material that was a synthesis of multiple sources. Are these changes acceptable so far?-- R-41 ( talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the tags off, but I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What fascism opposes is necessary to be identified in the article because a number of its negations are important parts of its ideology, especially its opposition to communism, democracy, individualism, and pacifism.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The list comprises a rather full spectrum of just about everything else. One can describe a "tomato" in a grocery store without saying it is not a banana, an orange, an artichoke, an avocado etc. <g>. I would further state that since we already establish it is "one party" that people will figure out that it is not democratic. And since we say it prepares a nation for war, people can figure out that it is not pacifist. Collect ( talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Fascism word is used as a general insult (good sense9 in many countries-Meaning is distorted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 ( talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's important to specify that fascism is against "classical liberalism," rather than just "liberalism." It's classical liberalism that the fascists rallied against. That's what they were referring to when they spoke of "liberalism." If you look at the economic program of modern liberalism, with it's rejection of laissez-faire in support of regulation of the means of production and a welfare state it's very similar to fascism, so it's misleading to say that it's simply against "liberalism." Many Heads ( talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are the relevant references (bolding mine):
Notice that none of those quotes specify that fascists only oppose classical liberalism, so please stop using spin to push your opinions. Spylab ( talk) 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The three references say liberalism, period, not classical liberalism, modern liberalism or any other specific type of liberalism. Stop trying to spin the references to fit your political agenda. Spylab ( talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources just say liberalism, you can interpet that to mean classical liberalism all you want but it's just OR. All forms of liberalism endorse individual liberty and that's what fascism opposes most about liberalism. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The references say fascists oppose liberalism, period. End of argument. Stop trying to spin them to fit your blatant libertarian laissez-faire capitalist agenda. Spylab ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was nation or race, as the article previously said. Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not question that Mussolini wanted an empire. I am asking where specifically he says that in Fascism the "collective" that the individual must submit to is the "empire" (rather than "nation"). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You still have not answered my question: Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect, they do need to use the word "collective," or you are violating NOR. No one is disputing the Fascist's imperialist aims. But empire was only one facet of their project. Another was the construction of a collective identity. The point is not to use another word for "collective." The point is that you shouldn't change a sentence the subject of which is the "collective" and the object of which is which kind of collective. There are all sorts of ways different people imagine or construe collective identities - "collective" is not an aggregate, it is not just some group of individuals taken together; in this context it has a particular meaning. If you want to add a sentence about their imperialist aims, fine, but let's keep the sentence on the collective and the sentence on the empire separate. In Fascist thought the collective is not identified with "the empire" it is identified with the nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the sentence to the original and accurate form. Collect, I think the point you wish to make is already made in the second sentence. If you feel it needs elaboration, I certainly do not object but your point was related to the second, not third, sentence. That said, I think the second sentence is sufficient and think elaboration belongs in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you just ignoring what I wrote, or do you really not understand? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is disputing that fascists are interested in empire. The point is that fascists were also interested in subordinating the individual to the collective, and that for Italian fascists that collective was the nation. Whatever the Italian fascists may have thought about empire, it does not pertain to this issue. john k ( talk) 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself. You already said that the sources you are talking about do not use the word "collective." They are talking about something else. You are either violating WP:NOR by making your own synthesis between two distinct issues, or you do not understand the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. The deleted sentence did not have the word "collective" in it because you deleted the word "collective as you said you would when you wrote, "Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal". Please see WP:OWN You do not own this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. You thin when you change someone else's work that is always an improvement, and when someone improves your work it is "censorship?" Please calm down, hysterics are not going to help. As I have made clear, no one doubts that the Fascists and nazis had imperialist aims, this is covered by the second sentence, The third sentence is about the relationship between the individual and collective. Your edit claimed that the "collective" in this point is empire, and as you admitted, your own sources do not say that. That violates WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a claim that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism. Please provide sources. An author that something is related to fascism is very controversial, so the author's intentions and views on social democracy will have to be taken into perspective, i.e. an author with a personal distaste towards social democracy is very likely to be an unreliable source.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. "What is Fascism? (and not trying to use definitions -- they do not sere to make this very comprehensible at all? a. etymology (history of fasces here) 'in unity there is strength" "dictator" as ancient concept b. Mussolini's view of fascism (he was the one who coined the term after all) stress on unity of the community (in Italy's case, the empire and nation) the recreation of a nation's greatness through such unity c. how people have extended the meaning (including use as epithet for anyone one does not like)
2. "Fascism" during WWII - the Axis powers (possibly including how each matched Mussolini's view) a. Italy, Empire and Italian Social Republic (il Duce's last stand) b. Germany and Hitler (racism in Germany not found in Mussolini's views), German Reich 1. Austrian National Front c. Japan and its "Imperial Rule" with stress on empire and unity of purpose
3. Fascism and Corporatism a. definition of corporatism b. Ireland c. Spain d. Portugal 1. Brazil e. other "corporatism" movements
4. Fascism as it relates to other issues a. Religious unity (hence include anti-semitism in some cases) b. Governmant control of the economy (central planning)
eliminating all sorts of side issues, I hope ... such as "political spectrum" which basically has no conclusions, "core tenets" which is currently a catchall (gosh -- "eugenics" is specifically related to fascism as an issue? "gender roles"? Most of these issues appear, frankly, to be totally unrelated to whether a nation is "fascist" or not -- this is just a convenient place to stick them in?)
5. List of fascists (trimmed -- folks have been on this list because of "I don't like him"-itis.
first draft -- think it would work? Collect ( talk) 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sir Oswald Mosely is customarily referred to with the "Sir" vide the WP article on him. The NYT used the "Sir" as a rule, and WP generally follows its lead. That specific title is rarely elided, and has been in this article for a very long time. You may well not like him, but he had the title. Collect ( talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see any distinction between hereditary and life peerages or knighthoods in that section. My reading is that in some cases, e.g., Father Couglin and Mother Theresa where their titles are commonly applied to their names that it should be used but that does not apply here. Of course it is appropriate to use these titles in lead sections of articles about titled people. Also, I do not think that adding the title provides any useful information to the article, particularly when it is not clear that the title was hereditary. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The section you are quoting is guidance for articles created about people, not for articles that mention them. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) ( talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect has stated that because Oswald Mosley was an hereditary baronet that out of respect to him we should refer to him in the article as "Sir Oswald Mosley". My opinion was that Wikipedia should not give special status to British or any other titles. If we call some people "Sir" then me must call other people "Mr.", "Ms.", "Dr.", "Professor", etc. This conversation can be read above. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect, what makes you think it is not an honorific? According to MoS "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles". -- 84.13.68.135 ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It's all perfectly interesting, but the MoS does not seem to make exceptions based on how a title was acquired or how highly the title-holder ranks. -- 89.240.156.98 ( talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, but why are you telling me this? The MoS has a guideline against using honorific titles inline. It doesn't appear to matter that the title is inherited or that it is aristocratic or that it is non-honorary. Are you confusing "honorary" and "honorific"? The two are not the same. OM's title is honorific, although not honorary. -- 89.240.156.98 ( talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some articles refer to individuals' memberships which would have to be updated, e.g., an article about a newspaper would have to be updated to show that the managing director had been elevated to the peerage. I do not think that that Wikipedia requires that articles use persons' titles provided they are British and rank as baronets or higher. Very few people actually understand the British honors system. I remember watching CNN interview "Lord Jeffrey Archer" about the death of "Princess Diana", the daughter-in-law of the "Queen of England". There are several ways that contemporary newspapers handle titles. In some people are referred to by their full names less title but are then referred to by their titles and either Christian or surname (with titles including Mr.), or by their surnames alone. Some newspapers apply titles on first mention to people of a certain rank on first mention then continue using the title, while other newspapers only use the title on first mention. (Examples: the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Independent, the New York Times. I realize that some historical figures are invariably referred to by their titles, e.g., the the Duke of Wellington. Today, the Duke of Westminster, the late Marquess of Bristol and Lord Longford and members of the British Royal family are generally referred to using their titles, not their family names. (Note that the their titles are different from their surnames, they are better known by their titles, although the Duke and the Marquess were both referred to by the names on their birth certificates when they appeared in court.) But I see no reason why WP should give special status to people who have British titles. I note that European and other foreign titles are rarely used, e.g., Count Ignatieff, Edler von Mises. The Four Deuces ( talk) 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone has removed my question about Fascism's point of view towards disabled people (why?).
( 86.148.145.120 ( talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
I don't see why Mobutism is included in the article. There were numerous similar post-colonial regimes. Peronism and the Lebanese Phalange have more obvious connections with fascism, but they are not included. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not dismissing your opinion, you may be absolutely right. However, The Congo from Leopold to Kabila does not state that Mobutism was fascism. "African party states were authoritarian rather than totalitarian" (p. 165). But this is not the place to determine what fascism is. The article is supposed to present the reader with academic opinion about fascism, indicating what theories are most accepted. I refer to Wikipedia's policy:
The best source for Mobutism = fascism would be a book about fascism. Using Nzongola-Ntalaja's book as source would be selective. If Mobutism is fascism, then it is likely it is not the only example of post war fascism. The book says the regime "acquired all the characteristics of personal rule then found elsewhere in Africa: a one party dictatorship under the authoritarian control of a single individual" (p. 141).
I will answer your question, although I giving my own opinion (which may be wrong) and hope it does not generate endless debate. Fascism is a middle class reaction against their perceived loss of status, which demonizes ruling elites, the poor, minorities and foreigners. It is a mass movement that organizes as a political party in order to compete in parliamentary elections. The party however continues after power is attained and operates as a parallel government, because existing institutions like the army, the courts and the church remain as rivals. Mobutu was a military dictator imposed on The Congo by Belgian and American intelligence without local backing. The party was organized later in order to assist the regime. Fascists attempted to advance the nationalistic interests of the countries that they ruled, while Mobutu ruled to advance foreign interests.
BTW my comment to Collect was phrased in the same manner as numerous comments he has made to me and you have never commented on them or suggested you would report him to the authorities.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd add something uncontroversial about the cosy Catholic relationship with Franco and the Nazis but it was promptly removed. I wonder why? PS I also removed some rubbish that was there about "3 million Polish Catholics and 3 million Polish Jews were sent to concentration camps" (the reference given was a Catholic website!) Zombie president ( talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PPS It was my first ever contributtion so it would be great to get an answer. Cheers Zombie president ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks Zombie president ( talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Gee, look at Wikipedia's article on left-wing fascism. It doesn't say anything about fascism being a left-wing ideology, and it also contradicts Collect's supposed argument that that the Frankfurt School promotes left-wing fascism and that Horowitz claims that fascism is left-wing. I won't bother pasting sections here; just click on the link and read it there. Spylab ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, WP articles are NOT RS for WP zarticles. And GUESS WHO has just edited there? WOW! Sorry, pointing to an article you just edited as proof of anything fails miserably. As does insertion of claims that the "left wing fascists" named by Horowitz and Bale were "right wing" as an example of WP:SYN and WP:OR -- and even WP:UNTRUTH when the cite does not even have "fanchin" mentioned in it at all! [28] cited as a source on Fanchin does not even has his name in it once. Now can we just let it be that some people call something "leftwing fascism" without trying to falsify that fact? Thanks! (Example of edit just made there: The term has also been adopted by conservative American political commentators to describe extreme or intolerant forms of leftist ideology. The term is also in increasing use in contemporary thought to explore unusual hybrid alliances characterizing late 20th and early 21st century political movements. [1] Collect ( talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Some readers might find it confusing that the political spectrum section now has a large discussion about the new left-wing fascism, but there is no reference to it anywhere else in the article. Nor is there any mention of neo-fascism. Even more confusing that most of the discussion of the new left-wing fascism is about their influences not their members. The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting a merger. However, one cannot fail to notice that the article describes various fascist groups, e.g., Nazis, Italian fascists, phalangists, all of which have their own articles, but totally omits any discussion of the new left-wing fascism, except under the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with merging content from the left-wing fascism article here is that — as the referenced content in that article shows — there is disagreement/contradictions about what the term actually means. Some use the term to describe socialists who have characteristics similar to fascists (such as authoritarianism, violent methods and/or anti-semitism (or at least alleged anti-semitism) and/or team up with neo-fascists for certain goals; others use the term to describe far right nationalists who team up with pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamist and/or pro-Arab groups against Israel and Zionists (which doesn't necessarily mean they have leftist sympathies, just that they work with so-called non-white people to fight their perceived common enemy); and others use the term to describe Third Position-type neo-fascists because they have some leftist views. There don't seem to be any reliable references showing that left-wing fascism is an actual movement or ideology, or that anyone calls themselves a left-wing fascist. Spylab ( talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
At least there's agreement that fascism is an actual ideology and movement, and that there are some widely recognized basic characteristics. The same cannot be said about the term "left-wing fascism", which seems to be not much more than a sloppy, poorly defined label and pejorative epithet. Spylab ( talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
SUBSCRIBE TO PEWDIEPIE
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why isn't there a section about the superpower US and it's current embracement of Facism? If these bail-outs, and Obama's 100% Wall Street political cabinet arn't proof enough of Facism, what more would it take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.101.190 ( talk) 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Weird that Stalin isn't or Soviet Union until the death of Stalin isn't mentioned at all. Though this is often discussed and called either red fascism or similiar. So it would be a good thing to cover the other side of fascism as well, Googe books&scholar gets some nice references for the beginning [1] [2], though I am not able to do that now, so I started a section here at the talk page. -- Pudeo ⺮ 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Chris holte ( talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to work on this page, and give it a crack. I have several books that take a historical approach and use the words of the original Fascists, and I'm going to see if I can't make this page make sense without either speaking for modern day Fascists and their apologists, or for those who want to use the Concepts of Fascism to advance present day political views. I'm going to start mercilously deleting some real garbage in this text. But first I'm going to add some real content. All this talk about left or right is anachronistic or even propagandistic garbage. Better to let these people speak for themselves. They told the world they were a "third way." They were, like the Communists, among the first to use modern advertizing techniques to brand themselves (and rebrand themselves when necessary) and they were defined more by who and what they opposed than any particular defining characteristic except Corporo-Syndicalism, authoritarian discipline (Fascii), and the influences of both romantic philosophy, and highly cynical notions from Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Machievelli.
At some point, the article will have to use a definition of "fascism" which is not just "I don't like it" in nature about any perceived "bad political group." The current melange makes no objective sense. Should it be used to cover all examples of "oppressive, dictatorial control" as one dictionary definition has it? Or should it be restricted to authoritarian governments using strict central economic authority" Or to all governments having a strong nationalistic aim? Or to any government or movement which may be racist in nature? Right now, the answer is unclear -- with a lot of groups labelled "fascist" which have no relationship to any single definition of the word. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The purpose, as I understand it, of a "reference" or "citation" is to provide a source for a claim made in an article. There is no need to add editorial matter to the reference, not to have googlebooks links for the references. There is no need to have more than a few references made for any single claim. Piling Ossa on Pelion is not how WP works. See WP:CITE This article has far too many references, has too many with edito=orial comments (the WP guideline is for a "short quote" only used if the cite is likely to be challenged) and has googlebooks links, which are not suggested nor recommended by any WP guideline. Thus, I made a small first step in bringing this article in conformity with WP practices. Right now, the entire article is bloated with absurd lists of references, absurd lists of "maybe fascist-like, or maybe not organizations" and the like. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My imagination, or is the article finally showing some sensible order? Collect ( talk) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The ability of Nazism and Facism to develop were in part the result of the moral decay that ocurred in Europe especially Germany after WWI and the fall of the Monarchs and the class structure ?
In reference to Marlene Dietrich, documentaries have alluded to this, who was apart of the cultural decay scene of the times....
This is not currently part of this listing and should be included to improve the article.
Google books shows some information on the 'moral decay' post WWI
Seems this is not included.
-- Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is much better than it has been, but it still is dragging out too long. For instance, the section explaining examples of fascist movements is taking up large amounts of space, I think that the section has to be condensed down to describe only essential matter such as why the particular political movement is deemed fascist and which scholars agree or disagree, the main articles on those political movements are where viewers should access in-depth information. Secondly the "fascist minimum" section is becoming too long and there are too many subsections. It should be split up into three parts: 1) social policy which includes only confirmed generic fascist elements such as nationalism, fascists' social interventionism, and mixed economy; common social views; 2) economic policy such as class collaboration, economic nationalism, and economic planning; 3)foreign policy such as nationalism (in the form of irredentism and expansionism), militarism and common foreign policy agendas such as anti-communism and anti-internationalism (i.e. opposing the legitimacy of the League of Nations). The section on religion is the worst section of the article, it contains various patches of information from a variety of sources about multiple individual fascist movements while not definatively explaining what or if there is any coherent generic fascist stances on religion. The section on religion talks about the Iranian Revolution twice, one reference to compare the current Iranian theocracy to a fascist movement that existed in Romania forty years earlier and other reference on the Iranian Revolution to claim that fascism moved to endorse religion. Whatever one's personal views are on the autocratic nature of the theocratic government of Iran it does not identify with the common trends of fascism - i.e. it is not a single-party state, the leader of the Iranian Revolution from 1979-80, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, from what I have read did not endorse nationalism as fascism does and said that nationalism was causing the Muslim world to be divided.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Is not RS as it traces back to "freepedia" which traces back to ... WP. (see WP:RS) Collect ( talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point, Francoism which is described in the article as being not fascist likely does not belong in the article. Also sections from "Social Darwinism" down to "economic policies" are odd as they all pretty much state that fascists do not agree on them <g> making them orthogonal as issues. Ditto the Racism and Religion sections -- if the topic is not generally associated with Fascism as a topic, it does not really belong here. Collect ( talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The reference, which is from a book called "Fascism in Spain", says that Franco was not a '"core" fascist', but that he was "pro-fascist", lead a fascist party and ran a fascist government. In any case the section is is called "Early Falangism (Spain)" which was a fascist movement. As for the other sections, it is not important that all fascists agree. So I would keep. By the way I hope I was not impolite toward you. The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well spotted! I have combined falangism and francoism. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Other than the reference in the article to francoism, is there any reason why you do not consider it to be fascist? The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you mentioned what tenets he did not adopt that meant he was no longer considered fascist. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The Four Deuces ( talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference between building and "maintaining" an empire, which is the actual word I used. Franco gave support to the Axis powers without actually declaring war or as people said then "neutral on the side of Germany". After the war Spain was refused membership in NATO because it was a fascist dictatorship. Juan Carlos was only named Franco's heir after he swore allegiance to fascism, and the legitimate pretender to the throne was by-passed.
Anyway the section on Falangists makes no mention of the Spanish Falange after 1937, although it continued to govern for another 38 years. It would be helpful if the section explained, with proper sources, what happened during that time, whether fascism ended in Spain or if not how fascism developed in Spain during those years.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The assertion that Spain 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. Do not confuse Spain with Portugal, another dictatorship that was allowed membership because it had been trully neutral during WWII and was not considered fascist. Juan Carlos was only able to become king after swearing allegiance to the Movimiento Nacional, and was expected to uphold his oath. (Like Mussolini, Franco had been unable to abolish the monarchy.) The Falange did not cease to exist in 1949, but continued until 1975, although after 1949 it formed part of the Movimiento Nacional. But is the assertion now that fascism ceased to exist in Spain in 1949? The term Pretender does have a precise meaning, but it should not be confused with the more common use as some who makes false assertions, e.g., someone pretends to be someone he is not.
The article does not properly explain when Spain ceased to be a fascist state. I am not asserting any opinion on the matter, merely pointing out that this is an omission from the section, and it would be helpful to have a properly sourced explanation.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Spain was legally neutral..." Yes, but the statement it 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. "Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain" is incorrect. It was the official party, and no other parties were allowed. There was no "break with the old line Falangists". If the word "pretender" is used properly, then the sentence "The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne" is a non-sequiter. What year did the official party get "swallowed up"? (It still exists.)
I would be interested to know where all this misinformation comes from. Could you tell me in what source this all appears? The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not calling the section on Spanish Falangism misleading, merely pointing out that it does not state when (i.e., the year) Spain ceased to be fascist and what specific changes meant that it was no longer fascist. The statement that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" is misleading. If he did not want "continued authoritarianism" he would have allowed the rightful pretender (i.e., the rightful king) to become king rather than chosing someone of whom he required an oath of allegience to the Movimiento Nacional. I don't know why you are asking for "reliable sources" because I am not editing the section, merely pointing out that it is incomplete. If you have any sources, it would be helpful. Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing The Crown with the physical Crown (headgear). I'm sure lots of people claim to be the king of England. Lots of people claim to be Napoleon. You may be one of them. It proves nothing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Fascism is a part of Third Position. Fascism is a multi-racial ideology. Your idea of what Fascism is is totally wrong. Fascism is an actual Ideology, and not simply a tyrannical state! Mussolini allowed for more freedom than you americans have today with your so-called "liberal democracy"!! Especially since your president is trying to ban guns, ban free speech, and tax the poor and middle class...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- "[When the] city dies, the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers[...] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race." Benito Mussolini, 1928. [1]
" Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. [...] National pride has no need of the delirium of race. Benito Mussolini, 1933." [2]
"Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict." Alfredo Rocco [3]
Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Whereas Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the term the "new left wing fascism" is used in the section defining fascism yet appears no where else in the article. Although alternative and non-mainstream theories should be presented they should always be described as such. Moreover, whoever wrote this section appears to have absolutely no understanding of fascism or political theory for that matter. The summary of the sources shows a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the original sources and therefore it has been removed.
By the way, a search for the "new left-wing fascism" only returns this site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22new+left+wing+fascism%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Although Wikipedia should present non-mainstream views, it should not be their origin. People who have non-mainstream views should develop some support for them (e.g., peer-reviewed papers) before including them in WP articles. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
People actually read read these articles for information and it is a disservice to them to provide misinformation.
By the way Mosely should not be mentioned using his honorific title. In the New York Times, which you mention, people are initially referred to by their full names, and their titles are used in subsequent references. E.g., "Oswald Mosley", then "Sir Oswald" for future references. Notice that they would apply this rule consistently, e.g., "John Smith", then "Mr. Smith". I notice that the NYT times recently does not use British titles. Look up Paul McCartney, Anthony Hopkins, Conrad Black. Also http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DB143CF931A2575BC0A9679C8B63 In fact although you are referring to the NYT MOS, you are misapplying it and it is irrelevant anyway because the article does not follow the NYT MOS. However, errors in style are just irritating, and are trivial compared with providing fundamentally flawed, misleading and incoherent misinformation.
Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
You have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. But notice that they also use Mr., Ms., etc. and this WP article does not. Why are you even bringing up the NYT MOS? It's not even recommended for academic writing. Why not use the MLS style book? And why look at examples of what NYT does instead of referring at their style book? But you should be consistent. Roger Griffin is not called "Mr. Roger Griffin" in the section although he is also from the UK and is probably entitled to that title. The Four Deuces ( talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Again you are totally ignoring what was said, which was that (1) you have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. (2) However do not try to figure out what is in their stylebook by reading the paper, look at the stylebook itself. (3) Also, the article Fascism does not follow the NYT style book so it does not matter what the style book says anyway. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the incoherent comments on the new left wing fascism as there is no commonality specific to fascism in the topic, I wonder just what relevance it has. Adding material which is not really related directly to Fascism seems to be quite misleading and one might reasonably deduce the section has nothing at all to do with fascism. We ought to focus on what is in common, and this side stuff really does not belong. Does this make sense? As for "left-wing" being in any way peculiar to fascism -- not only were many fascists not left-wing, many totally non-fascist nations are or were left-wing (I would suggest parts of the US were "left-wing" at exactly the same time as Groupuscles were, and there is evidence that leftism may well persist in China, and definitely does in large parts of Africa. The more clearly we can define "Fascism", the better this article can become. Thanks! The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I reversed a recent edit to the abortion eugenics etc. section. There should be consensus on major changes. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking the sections on social Darwinism and eugenics, abortion etc. ought to be more closely attached to the Race and racialism section which is now separate from the 'Core Tenets' section. With the examples shown from Brazil etc, its difficult to use race policy as a sweeping tenet for all fascist groups. Also that new section thrown in at the beginning about the origins of Italian Fascism simply doubles up on the section below it. Its out of place and overly long. Mdw0 ( talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I think what it says in Italian Fascism is correct: "there is no agreement about which aspects of structure, tactics, culture, and ideology represent the 'fascist minimum' core". It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph for "Core Tenets" which notes the problem and identifies usual tenets of fascism, properly sourced. Different writers may disagree, so it might help to have several sources. I've always thought of fascism as relating to parties that claimed to follow fascism, and all these parties have either died out or (in a few cases) transformed. And fascist ideology is not on the same intellectual level as conservative, liberal or left-wing ideology, so you wouldn't expect the same level of coherence or consistency in fascist tenets. The Four Deuces ( talk) 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What is your point? The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The individual parties had tenets. Many WP articles are about groups where individual members do not necessarilty share all attributes but those attributes are discussed nonetheless. I refer to the Cat article as an example. Some cats are domestic, some are feral, but the article does not omit this because neither attribute is common to all cats. The Four Deuces ( talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be pedantic, your definition of "tenet" is inaccurate, it need not be either "core" or "of a group". And domestic means being in a household. Their ancestors were domesticated, which is why they are called feral and not wild.
Some of the sections are about attributes that are not common to all cats, e.g., " Fondness for heights: Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching". Apparently it is not true for all cats, but is there nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
You are right, it is not a core tenet of fascism, but it is a core tenet of some fascist groups. Do you think that the heading "Core tenets" should be changed or how do you think racism should be classified in this article? The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Race policy is strongly associated with fascism in general, so it should be dealt with on that basis, but it should be separateed out from the core tenets simply because there are a number of groups who believe it is irrelevant. Isn't that a fair compromise?
I dont think the Nazis ever claimed to be following the Italians. Just because we use the Italian name to describe this particular political type doesn't mean they follow the Italian model. Mdw0 ( talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A distinction was drawn between "core tenets" of fascism and "common traits". I think the problem is the title - it assumes that there are common tenets when in fact there are only common traits. I suggested (above) that the section explains this. So change the title or qualify the subject and then everything is clear. The Four Deuces ( talk) 04:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Racism was never part of Communist theory and never "formalised". Racism practised in individual Communist states was indigenous and was not the result of the countries becoming communist, and the countries did not co-ordinate racial policies. So there was no connection between racism in the USSR and in the DPRK, while there was a connection between racism in various fascist countries. The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The Manifesto of Race and the Nuremburg Laws show that racism was central to fascist thought. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope. The mainfesto of race article says "Until the actual publication of the official Manifesto of Fascist Racism, biological racism, as it was understood by National Socialist theorists, had literally no place in Fascist doctrine. Thereafter, the Fascist position on this subject became increasingly confused. Fascists, and most Actualists, were opposed to any racism that shared significant properties with the racism of Hitler's Germany. In that context, persons who had long been dismissed as lacking any significance, made their reappearance among Fascist intellectuals." and the Nuremberg laws were strictly Hitler's fantasy. Nothing about a "core tenet" of anything at all. Collect ( talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Manifesto was alluded to but I edited the article to include it with a hyperlink. I notice that Ian Adams devotes a whole chapter of "Political Ideology to "Racism and Fascism" so having a section on racism in a fascism article isn't totally off the wall. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ony7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=Racism+and+Fascism+ian+adams&lr= The Four Deuces ( talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The whole article's looking a lot better, people. Its not perfect and the debate will go on, as it should, but the article's been been reorganised and improved, its clearer and reads better and seems more neutral and balanced, but that just could be my biased opinion. Anyone disagree to removal of the top banner? Mdw0 ( talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I just added this point about fascism opposing non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements to show that fascists were not only opposed to communists but other labour-minded movements and ideologies that they deemed a threat to national unity, as fascists persecuted social democrats and other non-Marxist labour organizations based on these points.-- R-41 ( talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I have changed the lead sentence by removing the synthesis and instead have added multiple references which speak of fascism's radicalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. I have also removed other material that was a synthesis of multiple sources. Are these changes acceptable so far?-- R-41 ( talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the tags off, but I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What fascism opposes is necessary to be identified in the article because a number of its negations are important parts of its ideology, especially its opposition to communism, democracy, individualism, and pacifism.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The list comprises a rather full spectrum of just about everything else. One can describe a "tomato" in a grocery store without saying it is not a banana, an orange, an artichoke, an avocado etc. <g>. I would further state that since we already establish it is "one party" that people will figure out that it is not democratic. And since we say it prepares a nation for war, people can figure out that it is not pacifist. Collect ( talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Fascism word is used as a general insult (good sense9 in many countries-Meaning is distorted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 ( talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It's important to specify that fascism is against "classical liberalism," rather than just "liberalism." It's classical liberalism that the fascists rallied against. That's what they were referring to when they spoke of "liberalism." If you look at the economic program of modern liberalism, with it's rejection of laissez-faire in support of regulation of the means of production and a welfare state it's very similar to fascism, so it's misleading to say that it's simply against "liberalism." Many Heads ( talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Here are the relevant references (bolding mine):
Notice that none of those quotes specify that fascists only oppose classical liberalism, so please stop using spin to push your opinions. Spylab ( talk) 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The three references say liberalism, period, not classical liberalism, modern liberalism or any other specific type of liberalism. Stop trying to spin the references to fit your political agenda. Spylab ( talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The sources just say liberalism, you can interpet that to mean classical liberalism all you want but it's just OR. All forms of liberalism endorse individual liberty and that's what fascism opposes most about liberalism. Bobisbob2 ( talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The references say fascists oppose liberalism, period. End of argument. Stop trying to spin them to fit your blatant libertarian laissez-faire capitalist agenda. Spylab ( talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was nation or race, as the article previously said. Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not question that Mussolini wanted an empire. I am asking where specifically he says that in Fascism the "collective" that the individual must submit to is the "empire" (rather than "nation"). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You still have not answered my question: Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Collect, they do need to use the word "collective," or you are violating NOR. No one is disputing the Fascist's imperialist aims. But empire was only one facet of their project. Another was the construction of a collective identity. The point is not to use another word for "collective." The point is that you shouldn't change a sentence the subject of which is the "collective" and the object of which is which kind of collective. There are all sorts of ways different people imagine or construe collective identities - "collective" is not an aggregate, it is not just some group of individuals taken together; in this context it has a particular meaning. If you want to add a sentence about their imperialist aims, fine, but let's keep the sentence on the collective and the sentence on the empire separate. In Fascist thought the collective is not identified with "the empire" it is identified with the nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the sentence to the original and accurate form. Collect, I think the point you wish to make is already made in the second sentence. If you feel it needs elaboration, I certainly do not object but your point was related to the second, not third, sentence. That said, I think the second sentence is sufficient and think elaboration belongs in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you just ignoring what I wrote, or do you really not understand? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is disputing that fascists are interested in empire. The point is that fascists were also interested in subordinating the individual to the collective, and that for Italian fascists that collective was the nation. Whatever the Italian fascists may have thought about empire, it does not pertain to this issue. john k ( talk) 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You are contradicting yourself. You already said that the sources you are talking about do not use the word "collective." They are talking about something else. You are either violating WP:NOR by making your own synthesis between two distinct issues, or you do not understand the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't be disingenuous. The deleted sentence did not have the word "collective" in it because you deleted the word "collective as you said you would when you wrote, "Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal". Please see WP:OWN You do not own this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. You thin when you change someone else's work that is always an improvement, and when someone improves your work it is "censorship?" Please calm down, hysterics are not going to help. As I have made clear, no one doubts that the Fascists and nazis had imperialist aims, this is covered by the second sentence, The third sentence is about the relationship between the individual and collective. Your edit claimed that the "collective" in this point is empire, and as you admitted, your own sources do not say that. That violates WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a claim that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism. Please provide sources. An author that something is related to fascism is very controversial, so the author's intentions and views on social democracy will have to be taken into perspective, i.e. an author with a personal distaste towards social democracy is very likely to be an unreliable source.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. "What is Fascism? (and not trying to use definitions -- they do not sere to make this very comprehensible at all? a. etymology (history of fasces here) 'in unity there is strength" "dictator" as ancient concept b. Mussolini's view of fascism (he was the one who coined the term after all) stress on unity of the community (in Italy's case, the empire and nation) the recreation of a nation's greatness through such unity c. how people have extended the meaning (including use as epithet for anyone one does not like)
2. "Fascism" during WWII - the Axis powers (possibly including how each matched Mussolini's view) a. Italy, Empire and Italian Social Republic (il Duce's last stand) b. Germany and Hitler (racism in Germany not found in Mussolini's views), German Reich 1. Austrian National Front c. Japan and its "Imperial Rule" with stress on empire and unity of purpose
3. Fascism and Corporatism a. definition of corporatism b. Ireland c. Spain d. Portugal 1. Brazil e. other "corporatism" movements
4. Fascism as it relates to other issues a. Religious unity (hence include anti-semitism in some cases) b. Governmant control of the economy (central planning)
eliminating all sorts of side issues, I hope ... such as "political spectrum" which basically has no conclusions, "core tenets" which is currently a catchall (gosh -- "eugenics" is specifically related to fascism as an issue? "gender roles"? Most of these issues appear, frankly, to be totally unrelated to whether a nation is "fascist" or not -- this is just a convenient place to stick them in?)
5. List of fascists (trimmed -- folks have been on this list because of "I don't like him"-itis.
first draft -- think it would work? Collect ( talk) 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sir Oswald Mosely is customarily referred to with the "Sir" vide the WP article on him. The NYT used the "Sir" as a rule, and WP generally follows its lead. That specific title is rarely elided, and has been in this article for a very long time. You may well not like him, but he had the title. Collect ( talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I cannot see any distinction between hereditary and life peerages or knighthoods in that section. My reading is that in some cases, e.g., Father Couglin and Mother Theresa where their titles are commonly applied to their names that it should be used but that does not apply here. Of course it is appropriate to use these titles in lead sections of articles about titled people. Also, I do not think that adding the title provides any useful information to the article, particularly when it is not clear that the title was hereditary. The Four Deuces ( talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The section you are quoting is guidance for articles created about people, not for articles that mention them. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) ( talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect has stated that because Oswald Mosley was an hereditary baronet that out of respect to him we should refer to him in the article as "Sir Oswald Mosley". My opinion was that Wikipedia should not give special status to British or any other titles. If we call some people "Sir" then me must call other people "Mr.", "Ms.", "Dr.", "Professor", etc. This conversation can be read above. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? The Four Deuces ( talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect, what makes you think it is not an honorific? According to MoS "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles". -- 84.13.68.135 ( talk) 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It's all perfectly interesting, but the MoS does not seem to make exceptions based on how a title was acquired or how highly the title-holder ranks. -- 89.240.156.98 ( talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, but why are you telling me this? The MoS has a guideline against using honorific titles inline. It doesn't appear to matter that the title is inherited or that it is aristocratic or that it is non-honorary. Are you confusing "honorary" and "honorific"? The two are not the same. OM's title is honorific, although not honorary. -- 89.240.156.98 ( talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some articles refer to individuals' memberships which would have to be updated, e.g., an article about a newspaper would have to be updated to show that the managing director had been elevated to the peerage. I do not think that that Wikipedia requires that articles use persons' titles provided they are British and rank as baronets or higher. Very few people actually understand the British honors system. I remember watching CNN interview "Lord Jeffrey Archer" about the death of "Princess Diana", the daughter-in-law of the "Queen of England". There are several ways that contemporary newspapers handle titles. In some people are referred to by their full names less title but are then referred to by their titles and either Christian or surname (with titles including Mr.), or by their surnames alone. Some newspapers apply titles on first mention to people of a certain rank on first mention then continue using the title, while other newspapers only use the title on first mention. (Examples: the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Independent, the New York Times. I realize that some historical figures are invariably referred to by their titles, e.g., the the Duke of Wellington. Today, the Duke of Westminster, the late Marquess of Bristol and Lord Longford and members of the British Royal family are generally referred to using their titles, not their family names. (Note that the their titles are different from their surnames, they are better known by their titles, although the Duke and the Marquess were both referred to by the names on their birth certificates when they appeared in court.) But I see no reason why WP should give special status to people who have British titles. I note that European and other foreign titles are rarely used, e.g., Count Ignatieff, Edler von Mises. The Four Deuces ( talk) 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone has removed my question about Fascism's point of view towards disabled people (why?).
( 86.148.145.120 ( talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC))
I don't see why Mobutism is included in the article. There were numerous similar post-colonial regimes. Peronism and the Lebanese Phalange have more obvious connections with fascism, but they are not included. The Four Deuces ( talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not dismissing your opinion, you may be absolutely right. However, The Congo from Leopold to Kabila does not state that Mobutism was fascism. "African party states were authoritarian rather than totalitarian" (p. 165). But this is not the place to determine what fascism is. The article is supposed to present the reader with academic opinion about fascism, indicating what theories are most accepted. I refer to Wikipedia's policy:
The best source for Mobutism = fascism would be a book about fascism. Using Nzongola-Ntalaja's book as source would be selective. If Mobutism is fascism, then it is likely it is not the only example of post war fascism. The book says the regime "acquired all the characteristics of personal rule then found elsewhere in Africa: a one party dictatorship under the authoritarian control of a single individual" (p. 141).
I will answer your question, although I giving my own opinion (which may be wrong) and hope it does not generate endless debate. Fascism is a middle class reaction against their perceived loss of status, which demonizes ruling elites, the poor, minorities and foreigners. It is a mass movement that organizes as a political party in order to compete in parliamentary elections. The party however continues after power is attained and operates as a parallel government, because existing institutions like the army, the courts and the church remain as rivals. Mobutu was a military dictator imposed on The Congo by Belgian and American intelligence without local backing. The party was organized later in order to assist the regime. Fascists attempted to advance the nationalistic interests of the countries that they ruled, while Mobutu ruled to advance foreign interests.
BTW my comment to Collect was phrased in the same manner as numerous comments he has made to me and you have never commented on them or suggested you would report him to the authorities.
The Four Deuces ( talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd add something uncontroversial about the cosy Catholic relationship with Franco and the Nazis but it was promptly removed. I wonder why? PS I also removed some rubbish that was there about "3 million Polish Catholics and 3 million Polish Jews were sent to concentration camps" (the reference given was a Catholic website!) Zombie president ( talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PPS It was my first ever contributtion so it would be great to get an answer. Cheers Zombie president ( talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks Zombie president ( talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Gee, look at Wikipedia's article on left-wing fascism. It doesn't say anything about fascism being a left-wing ideology, and it also contradicts Collect's supposed argument that that the Frankfurt School promotes left-wing fascism and that Horowitz claims that fascism is left-wing. I won't bother pasting sections here; just click on the link and read it there. Spylab ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, WP articles are NOT RS for WP zarticles. And GUESS WHO has just edited there? WOW! Sorry, pointing to an article you just edited as proof of anything fails miserably. As does insertion of claims that the "left wing fascists" named by Horowitz and Bale were "right wing" as an example of WP:SYN and WP:OR -- and even WP:UNTRUTH when the cite does not even have "fanchin" mentioned in it at all! [28] cited as a source on Fanchin does not even has his name in it once. Now can we just let it be that some people call something "leftwing fascism" without trying to falsify that fact? Thanks! (Example of edit just made there: The term has also been adopted by conservative American political commentators to describe extreme or intolerant forms of leftist ideology. The term is also in increasing use in contemporary thought to explore unusual hybrid alliances characterizing late 20th and early 21st century political movements. [1] Collect ( talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Some readers might find it confusing that the political spectrum section now has a large discussion about the new left-wing fascism, but there is no reference to it anywhere else in the article. Nor is there any mention of neo-fascism. Even more confusing that most of the discussion of the new left-wing fascism is about their influences not their members. The Four Deuces ( talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting a merger. However, one cannot fail to notice that the article describes various fascist groups, e.g., Nazis, Italian fascists, phalangists, all of which have their own articles, but totally omits any discussion of the new left-wing fascism, except under the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces ( talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem with merging content from the left-wing fascism article here is that — as the referenced content in that article shows — there is disagreement/contradictions about what the term actually means. Some use the term to describe socialists who have characteristics similar to fascists (such as authoritarianism, violent methods and/or anti-semitism (or at least alleged anti-semitism) and/or team up with neo-fascists for certain goals; others use the term to describe far right nationalists who team up with pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamist and/or pro-Arab groups against Israel and Zionists (which doesn't necessarily mean they have leftist sympathies, just that they work with so-called non-white people to fight their perceived common enemy); and others use the term to describe Third Position-type neo-fascists because they have some leftist views. There don't seem to be any reliable references showing that left-wing fascism is an actual movement or ideology, or that anyone calls themselves a left-wing fascist. Spylab ( talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
At least there's agreement that fascism is an actual ideology and movement, and that there are some widely recognized basic characteristics. The same cannot be said about the term "left-wing fascism", which seems to be not much more than a sloppy, poorly defined label and pejorative epithet. Spylab ( talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
SUBSCRIBE TO PEWDIEPIE