![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
What the heck is he doing in there? The reference to his "Liberal Fascism" book is plainly misleading. The guy is a hack and has no role in an *encyclopedia* examination of fascism. Claims that fascism came from left wing and/or liberal thought is plain bizare and contradictory to the historical record. Can that reference be deleted? Its pure tinfoil hat nonsense. Ridiculous right wing propaganda from America in the 2000s has nothing to offer an examination of fascism, a european phenomena, in the 30s 121.44.243.227 ( talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can insert anything and all of us included yourself should remove inappropriate text. I have removed it, which you also could have done. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"[A definition of fascism]... No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."
BRILLIANT! -- 66.188.120.127 ( talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How's this? "Fascism" is a nationalist ideology that overtly indoctrinates people into believing the superiority of the state over the individual. This is different from Bolshevism where the people subconsciously submit to the state, because the state claims to provide for them. One could see Fascism as the extension of traditional God-based monarchies into the industrial age: Facism is an overt national cult, whereas Bolshevism is a national cult that pretends not to exist. -- 173.68.190.122 ( talk) 09:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This subject has been hotly debated for some time.
Personally, I think that what Four Deuces has added, which is a relatively minor (but not inconsequential) modification of FormerIP's compromise proposal, is fair and even-handed. However, I think it would be best to spur some commentary on the revision as it now stands, before proceeding further.. especially because some active editors appear to be on hiatus, although I do get the impression that numerous other editors may have walked away from the debate over the course of many weeks or even months.
What are people's thoughts on whether the current revision satisfies NPOV? Are we past the point where the neutrality tag is needed? Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) One would only use the expression "According to Roger Eatwell..." if he were expressing an opinion. When a fact is sourced there is no reason to say "according to". It would be like saying "According to Roger Eatwell, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933". Is it your suggestion that we go through this article and mention names in the text of the source for every fact? The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) I reverted the edit that placed the qualifier before the fact. It made it appear that there was any doubt that fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What should propelty mean "be of right"? Be of right means, firstly, to recognize the subverting character of the movements resulting from the french revolution, whether liberalism or democracy or socialism. Be of right means, secondly, to see the decadent nature of rationalistic, progressistic, materialistic myth preparing the advent of plebeian civilization, the kingdom of the quantity, the tyranny of the anonymous and monstrous masses. Be of right, moreover, means to conceive the State as an organic totality where the political values predominate over economic structures and where the saying "to each his own", does not means equality, but fair qualitative inequality. Finally, be of right means to accept as your own that aristocratic, religious and warrior spirituality who has marked by itself the european civilization, and - in the name of this spirituality and its values - accepting the fight against the decadence of Europe.
Adriano Romualdi - italian historian, essayist, politician, journalist, influenced by the thought of Julius Evola -- 151.23.12.218 ( talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I see plenty of talk of fascism being right wing, and plenty that says it's a radical centrist approach, but there is almost no mention of the FACT that many scholars believe that fascism is left wing. I've always thought that what wing you belong to depends on where you believe power should be placed. The left always believes in centralizing power (more regulation, more programs, more spending, less state power, more federal power .... etc), and the right always goes for more individual power (less regulation, fewer programs, less spending, more state sovereignty, less federal power ... etc) It just seems common sense to me that fascism can't be radical right wing since radical right wing would be radical individualism, which is anarchy not fascism. I just don't see how a group that is always trying for less government could arrive at fascism(an authoritarian dictatorship) I can understand if someone wanted to say "but the politicians on the right aren't going for less government." That's understandable, and I definitely agree when it comes to the right wing politicians we have had lately, but that still doesn't make fascism right wing, it just makes right wing politicians liars, which all politicians are guilty of. Although the right wing voters DO believe in less government and more individual power. Just because a politician claims to want less government to get into power doesn't mean everything he does from that point on is right wing. I'm not saying that all government is bad, or that all leftists are fascists. I'm just addressing the absurdity that I see in calling people who want less government fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
But aren't those countries parties "less" right than the parties in the US. They are usually self described as "center-right". That means closer to the left, which would support my interpritation even with the expanding government. It's the same with "Moderate Republicans" in the US like John McCain, who is usually attacked by the farther right political figures. He was talked badly about at many conservative/libertarian rallies this year. Another example is the large amount of libertarians that spoke out against George Bush's push for the Patriot Act. It seems to me that there is no difference between us in other countries, just maybe the labels. I'm willing to look at examples though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh, ok, now I think I understand your point. So would that mean that policy is actually quite interchangeable throughout the world when it comes to left-right placement? and would that also mean that fascism can never be right or left as Americans see right or left? I mean, I still like my view on power placement, but I see how this can be so difficult now. Maybe there should be a separate section on WP:Fascism that separates the distinction of European view as opposed to American view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your graciousness and understanding. I still think it's odd that only two of the major three views on this issue are being adequately presented, but thanks to you, I now fully understand how this is such a controversial topic and why it's so hard to come to a consensus.( InquistiorV ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
(out)Specifically Otto von Bismarck introduced State Socialism to Germany in the 19th Century. The British Liberal Party introduced the Liberal reforms in 1906-1912. The British Labour Party opposed this and the Socialist Party of America opposed the New Deal. Socialists supported the delivery of social services through workers' co-operatives. Here's an example of this thinking from the New International (1938).
The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, but from what I've been hearing from you, and based on what I've researched about the different points you've brought up, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no left or right wing. All of you have outstandng points and great examples that I've looked up, but they all seem to contradict each other. I very much appreciate the enlightenment I've gained from you, but if all these examples are true, and most of the ones that I've looked up have been true, then it seem to me that left wing policy can be on the right, and right wing policy can be on the left. I mean I still know what I believe in; competition improves quality, the individual should not be sacrificed for the "collective", freedom to speak out against the government, Cicero's natural law, proper seperation of power based on the idea's of Baron de Montesque ........etc, but knowing this, how can I ever find the group that supports my beliefs? I mean, based on what you've told me, I certainly can't just classify things as left or right wing anymore. I don't mind addmitting that it's a little frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's only off topic because I forgot to tie it in with the topic. I first got interested in political philosophy when I started learning about fascism. I grabbed up any books I could find and then I wondered around not knowing what I believed, until I came across Cicero and his theory of Natural Law. I loved it and then came across Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirt of Laws", and it became my foundation stone, and from it I branched out into so many books I've lost count. I now believe that ALL major proplems in government result in the improper disproportionate placement of power, and that fascism is the ultimate consequence of that improper placement. More than anything else I fear fascism, and yet I'm fascinated by it, and I'm just trying to find the group that can be the stronghold against that improper placement.( InquistiorV ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
This does effect how the article is written. You asked me why and I told you. The point that I'm trying to make is that, how can you decide if fascism is left or right wing when none of you can even come to the conclusion of what left and right wing is. The placement of fascism on left or right wing greatly effects some people. Like myself, I absolutely want to distance myself from fascism, and the easiest way to do that is to alli with the opposition, but based on all of your examples, thats impossible to determine. I'm just making the point that the task of labeling fascism as left or right wing can't be done, and therefore I guess I'm trying to get across that, if you can't figure out how to input ALL position in an equal proportion, you shouldn't cover any. In relation to the political spectrum anyway.( InquistiorV ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
Should not Russian Black Hundreeds and Union of Russian People be included? In fact Nazi party much more borrowed from this movement than from Italian fascists.-- MathFacts ( talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Fascism is mostly used about countries with a large share of Catholics. It is however also used about Saddams Iraq, which has a large share of Muslims. Both these religions requires a high degree of submission from the average population. I propose to add the following sentence in the introduction, by appending to the second paragraph:
"Fascism prefers countries with a large share of religious submitters among the population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hide discussion with blocked editor. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Neo-Fascism (Belgium / Netherlands / United States of America)My part of the article got deleted fast... wonder why ;) In Belgium the fascist movement and political parties rose from early 20th century and are still operative at this moment. In the city of Antwerp there is a statue, inaugurated in 1950 by Mayor Lode Craeybeckx, with a plaque saying "Labour makes Free", as in the Nazi concentration camps 5 years earlier with neighbour Nazi Germany. He is also the one Belgium named the Crayebecks tunnle after. There is not much neutral information on Lode Craeybeckx for the days between 1937 and 1946. The Mayor of Antwerp in 2009, Patrick Janssens is from the same Political Party as Lode Craybecks, the Socialist Party. One of his colleagues in the French speaking part of the country, Laurette Onkelinkcx, was voted as the most powerfull woman in Belgium by Trends Magazine in november 2009. The same party also ruled over integration and scholing for the last years. Wearing of hijab is now forbidden in schools. Another big Political Party is the extreem-right, racist and nationalist party Vlaams Belang with main characters Filip Dewinter, Gerolf Annemans, Bart De Bie, Karel Dillen and Frank Vanhecke. Vlaams Belang was derived from Vlaams Blok, wich was convicted for racism on april 21, 2004. The link between Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States of America is clear through the Gladio Network, where CIA operatives connected and teamed up with terrorist brigades and guerilla commando's to spread fear in Europe and beat communism. Last case is assumed since Gladio never came into action against any communist rise in Europe, because there was no direct threat. The death of Julien Lahaut is just one of the unsolved murders connected through these networks. IBM is also just one of the US companies who delivered software, knowledge or back-up to Nazi Germany. What is wrong about these statements?? Most references are allready on Wikipedia... -- Franklinbe ( talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es auch nicht gewusst. Hope I don't get Shot for this stub... -- Franklinbe ( talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Fascism has subcategories wich are stated in the article. I was just adding another subcategorie, just as nazism is one. Second, 'fascist' is a term used as the color 'yellow'. Other people say you are that 'in that specific state' while you cannot tell whether you are or are not. I do not know I have cancer, the doctor tells me.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) PS:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia ;)-- Franklinbe ( talk) 05:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Franklinbe (
talk •
contribs)
03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) The defenition of fascism is not obsolete. Wikipedia Dutch leaves things out. Japan might put extra criteria in it. Sorry Peops, they deleted it again after i reposted around 5AM. Sources will follow later today. Need a bloody cigaret. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Rfc Is the material related to to the article?Is the material related to to the article? Should it be deleted? When yes, Why? It is indeed a stub. It's also an open workplace so you can bring in some more info and structure in if you want. 'Not related' to the article is your opinion. Please explain yourself. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@4Deuces: "Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[25] Since the 1990s, scholars like Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions as too wide or too narrow.[26][27]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: " Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) symbolize summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"." Nazis used the same kind of slogan as the US: "One Nation under God" And "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement"
"A bundle of rods bound together around an ax with the blade projecting, carried before ancient Roman magistrates as an emblem of authority. [Latin fascēs, pl. of fascis, bundle.]" the symbol is mainly one of authority (AuthoritEIT as Cartman would say). Using Fables doesn't make you expert on knowledge either... and 'not a good idea' is your opinion.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) WP seeks verifiable sources? Most of them got Murdred!!! Wikipedia:Civility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. (like deleting after 1 sentence) Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. (look at the history of this page....) -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: About the 'not a good idea'... If you have a big calculation, and the first thing to do is solve 1+1=... and you fill in 6.... the rest will 99% of the time also be wrong. That is fascism and the world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Daniel:
"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." @Daniel: It does when we're talking about neo fascism....-- Franklinbe ( talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "During the Holocaust, IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory)."Wikipedia IBM got money from the US and the US from IBM. The US is responcible for what happens with it's money, thus is the US a fascist regime. When you killed your wife and the cops can't prove it, you are still a murderer. Doesn't mather what the Law says in your country.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) It is not because it can be found in the mainstream history books that it's correct info and that it did happen. History is created by men and men make mistakes. Most men are biased, especially when they get money from the one writing about.... my article was as dry as a good Sherry
Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] — Diderot Who decides what knowledge is verifiable when fascist regimes have been killing their opponents for years? "You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally." Who's working for National Security?-- Franklinbe ( talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) MedCabal CaseHello Editors! A mediation cabal case has been opened regarding this article and its subsequent talk page. If you wish to join the mediation process, please indicate so on the case discussion page and on my talk page. My job is to guide a reasonable discussion to find an equitable solution to the dispute. This can only take place if 1) everyone enters the process with a good-faith effort in mind to reach an end AND 2) their agreement to participate throughout the whole process, while it is voluntary to partake. I am reviewing the talk page and the dispute as it has taken place to gain an understanding of the matter. Once all parties have indicated their acceptance of the case proceeding, I will follow a process similar to the process that some MedCom cases have progressed, to find a consensus conclusion to this problem. Cheers! - Reubzz ( talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Collect, you could be right. Killing people abroad, just because they believe communism is a better way to go, is a bit premature too, I believe. Especially if it happens by the same ones who defended those that thought killing Jews would be OK . But it happened anyway. That's why I'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Discussing!! TTYS -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Could you read up on Christianity, fascism, Free Masons, the US and Gladio? Thanx buddy. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Conspiracy theory Collect ( talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) It should'nt been deleted to start of with since it is a sensitive subject. Welcome to all, no?
Since everything I write vannishes before I can finnish my cigarette... 1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? Nope, that's why you and the other Wiki People are here for. 3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced? Check History!! About Wikipedia.org, nope, my subcategorie stub was removed immediatly. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Free at last! Free at last! Thanks, we are free at last.... ( http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I'm going back to the article while you guys comment on the stuff written below. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)-- Franklinbe ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Cheerz! ( User:Reubzz) on your Question @ (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "does this mean you want to continue mediation? " Since, the requested mediation was 'unofficial', yes. t.i.a. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) @4Deuces: Me too, sometimes ;) These paragraphs all come from Wikipedia.org Belgian stay-behind network The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies. The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post. * 1964 Operation Solo In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in Operation Solo forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.[28] * 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency" Licio Gelli has often said he was a friend of Argentine President Juan Perón. In any case, some members of Jorge Videla’s junta were discovered to be piduista, such as José López Rega, founder of the infamous anticommunist organization Triple A, Raúl Alberto Lastiri or Emilio Massera. The Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert US funds for the Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland and the Contras in Nicaragua. Propaganda Due (aka P2), a quasi- freemasonic organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was said closely linked to Gladio. NATO's " stay-behind" organizations were never called upon to resist a Soviet invasion, but their structures continued to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Internal subversion and " false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] " André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment." Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d'état Switzerland was suspected of again creating a clandestine paramilitary structure, allegedly to replace the former P26 and P27 (the Swiss branches of Gladio). Furthermore, in 2005, the Italian press revealed the existence of the Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies (DSSA), accused of being "another Gladio". Internal subversion and " false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] " André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."[12] Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. What the F*ck does that invented basterd have to do with Politics?!? Exept for keeping people affraid and obedient? If they're not, they get SHOT, GASSED, JAILED OR STONED TO DEATH!! -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC) All of this belongs in the Gladio article. Whether this specific view of Gladio is correct is something to be addressed in that article. But it does not belong in the Fascism article, which is primarily about fascist ideology and government, not what fascists did after the war. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that is what they call
neo-fascism and I also think they deserve some Credit. "User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article." Well... check the IP adress and you'll know more. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) generate a populist mass movement Extreme RightI have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Wikipedia is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
|
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
What the heck is he doing in there? The reference to his "Liberal Fascism" book is plainly misleading. The guy is a hack and has no role in an *encyclopedia* examination of fascism. Claims that fascism came from left wing and/or liberal thought is plain bizare and contradictory to the historical record. Can that reference be deleted? Its pure tinfoil hat nonsense. Ridiculous right wing propaganda from America in the 2000s has nothing to offer an examination of fascism, a european phenomena, in the 30s 121.44.243.227 ( talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can insert anything and all of us included yourself should remove inappropriate text. I have removed it, which you also could have done. The Four Deuces ( talk) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
"[A definition of fascism]... No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."
BRILLIANT! -- 66.188.120.127 ( talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How's this? "Fascism" is a nationalist ideology that overtly indoctrinates people into believing the superiority of the state over the individual. This is different from Bolshevism where the people subconsciously submit to the state, because the state claims to provide for them. One could see Fascism as the extension of traditional God-based monarchies into the industrial age: Facism is an overt national cult, whereas Bolshevism is a national cult that pretends not to exist. -- 173.68.190.122 ( talk) 09:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This subject has been hotly debated for some time.
Personally, I think that what Four Deuces has added, which is a relatively minor (but not inconsequential) modification of FormerIP's compromise proposal, is fair and even-handed. However, I think it would be best to spur some commentary on the revision as it now stands, before proceeding further.. especially because some active editors appear to be on hiatus, although I do get the impression that numerous other editors may have walked away from the debate over the course of many weeks or even months.
What are people's thoughts on whether the current revision satisfies NPOV? Are we past the point where the neutrality tag is needed? Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
(out) One would only use the expression "According to Roger Eatwell..." if he were expressing an opinion. When a fact is sourced there is no reason to say "according to". It would be like saying "According to Roger Eatwell, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933". Is it your suggestion that we go through this article and mention names in the text of the source for every fact? The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) I reverted the edit that placed the qualifier before the fact. It made it appear that there was any doubt that fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
What should propelty mean "be of right"? Be of right means, firstly, to recognize the subverting character of the movements resulting from the french revolution, whether liberalism or democracy or socialism. Be of right means, secondly, to see the decadent nature of rationalistic, progressistic, materialistic myth preparing the advent of plebeian civilization, the kingdom of the quantity, the tyranny of the anonymous and monstrous masses. Be of right, moreover, means to conceive the State as an organic totality where the political values predominate over economic structures and where the saying "to each his own", does not means equality, but fair qualitative inequality. Finally, be of right means to accept as your own that aristocratic, religious and warrior spirituality who has marked by itself the european civilization, and - in the name of this spirituality and its values - accepting the fight against the decadence of Europe.
Adriano Romualdi - italian historian, essayist, politician, journalist, influenced by the thought of Julius Evola -- 151.23.12.218 ( talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I see plenty of talk of fascism being right wing, and plenty that says it's a radical centrist approach, but there is almost no mention of the FACT that many scholars believe that fascism is left wing. I've always thought that what wing you belong to depends on where you believe power should be placed. The left always believes in centralizing power (more regulation, more programs, more spending, less state power, more federal power .... etc), and the right always goes for more individual power (less regulation, fewer programs, less spending, more state sovereignty, less federal power ... etc) It just seems common sense to me that fascism can't be radical right wing since radical right wing would be radical individualism, which is anarchy not fascism. I just don't see how a group that is always trying for less government could arrive at fascism(an authoritarian dictatorship) I can understand if someone wanted to say "but the politicians on the right aren't going for less government." That's understandable, and I definitely agree when it comes to the right wing politicians we have had lately, but that still doesn't make fascism right wing, it just makes right wing politicians liars, which all politicians are guilty of. Although the right wing voters DO believe in less government and more individual power. Just because a politician claims to want less government to get into power doesn't mean everything he does from that point on is right wing. I'm not saying that all government is bad, or that all leftists are fascists. I'm just addressing the absurdity that I see in calling people who want less government fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
But aren't those countries parties "less" right than the parties in the US. They are usually self described as "center-right". That means closer to the left, which would support my interpritation even with the expanding government. It's the same with "Moderate Republicans" in the US like John McCain, who is usually attacked by the farther right political figures. He was talked badly about at many conservative/libertarian rallies this year. Another example is the large amount of libertarians that spoke out against George Bush's push for the Patriot Act. It seems to me that there is no difference between us in other countries, just maybe the labels. I'm willing to look at examples though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh, ok, now I think I understand your point. So would that mean that policy is actually quite interchangeable throughout the world when it comes to left-right placement? and would that also mean that fascism can never be right or left as Americans see right or left? I mean, I still like my view on power placement, but I see how this can be so difficult now. Maybe there should be a separate section on WP:Fascism that separates the distinction of European view as opposed to American view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your graciousness and understanding. I still think it's odd that only two of the major three views on this issue are being adequately presented, but thanks to you, I now fully understand how this is such a controversial topic and why it's so hard to come to a consensus.( InquistiorV ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
(out)Specifically Otto von Bismarck introduced State Socialism to Germany in the 19th Century. The British Liberal Party introduced the Liberal reforms in 1906-1912. The British Labour Party opposed this and the Socialist Party of America opposed the New Deal. Socialists supported the delivery of social services through workers' co-operatives. Here's an example of this thinking from the New International (1938).
The Four Deuces ( talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, but from what I've been hearing from you, and based on what I've researched about the different points you've brought up, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no left or right wing. All of you have outstandng points and great examples that I've looked up, but they all seem to contradict each other. I very much appreciate the enlightenment I've gained from you, but if all these examples are true, and most of the ones that I've looked up have been true, then it seem to me that left wing policy can be on the right, and right wing policy can be on the left. I mean I still know what I believe in; competition improves quality, the individual should not be sacrificed for the "collective", freedom to speak out against the government, Cicero's natural law, proper seperation of power based on the idea's of Baron de Montesque ........etc, but knowing this, how can I ever find the group that supports my beliefs? I mean, based on what you've told me, I certainly can't just classify things as left or right wing anymore. I don't mind addmitting that it's a little frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's only off topic because I forgot to tie it in with the topic. I first got interested in political philosophy when I started learning about fascism. I grabbed up any books I could find and then I wondered around not knowing what I believed, until I came across Cicero and his theory of Natural Law. I loved it and then came across Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirt of Laws", and it became my foundation stone, and from it I branched out into so many books I've lost count. I now believe that ALL major proplems in government result in the improper disproportionate placement of power, and that fascism is the ultimate consequence of that improper placement. More than anything else I fear fascism, and yet I'm fascinated by it, and I'm just trying to find the group that can be the stronghold against that improper placement.( InquistiorV ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
This does effect how the article is written. You asked me why and I told you. The point that I'm trying to make is that, how can you decide if fascism is left or right wing when none of you can even come to the conclusion of what left and right wing is. The placement of fascism on left or right wing greatly effects some people. Like myself, I absolutely want to distance myself from fascism, and the easiest way to do that is to alli with the opposition, but based on all of your examples, thats impossible to determine. I'm just making the point that the task of labeling fascism as left or right wing can't be done, and therefore I guess I'm trying to get across that, if you can't figure out how to input ALL position in an equal proportion, you shouldn't cover any. In relation to the political spectrum anyway.( InquistiorV ( talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
Should not Russian Black Hundreeds and Union of Russian People be included? In fact Nazi party much more borrowed from this movement than from Italian fascists.-- MathFacts ( talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Fascism is mostly used about countries with a large share of Catholics. It is however also used about Saddams Iraq, which has a large share of Muslims. Both these religions requires a high degree of submission from the average population. I propose to add the following sentence in the introduction, by appending to the second paragraph:
"Fascism prefers countries with a large share of religious submitters among the population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hide discussion with blocked editor. | |||
---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Neo-Fascism (Belgium / Netherlands / United States of America)My part of the article got deleted fast... wonder why ;) In Belgium the fascist movement and political parties rose from early 20th century and are still operative at this moment. In the city of Antwerp there is a statue, inaugurated in 1950 by Mayor Lode Craeybeckx, with a plaque saying "Labour makes Free", as in the Nazi concentration camps 5 years earlier with neighbour Nazi Germany. He is also the one Belgium named the Crayebecks tunnle after. There is not much neutral information on Lode Craeybeckx for the days between 1937 and 1946. The Mayor of Antwerp in 2009, Patrick Janssens is from the same Political Party as Lode Craybecks, the Socialist Party. One of his colleagues in the French speaking part of the country, Laurette Onkelinkcx, was voted as the most powerfull woman in Belgium by Trends Magazine in november 2009. The same party also ruled over integration and scholing for the last years. Wearing of hijab is now forbidden in schools. Another big Political Party is the extreem-right, racist and nationalist party Vlaams Belang with main characters Filip Dewinter, Gerolf Annemans, Bart De Bie, Karel Dillen and Frank Vanhecke. Vlaams Belang was derived from Vlaams Blok, wich was convicted for racism on april 21, 2004. The link between Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States of America is clear through the Gladio Network, where CIA operatives connected and teamed up with terrorist brigades and guerilla commando's to spread fear in Europe and beat communism. Last case is assumed since Gladio never came into action against any communist rise in Europe, because there was no direct threat. The death of Julien Lahaut is just one of the unsolved murders connected through these networks. IBM is also just one of the US companies who delivered software, knowledge or back-up to Nazi Germany. What is wrong about these statements?? Most references are allready on Wikipedia... -- Franklinbe ( talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es auch nicht gewusst. Hope I don't get Shot for this stub... -- Franklinbe ( talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Fascism has subcategories wich are stated in the article. I was just adding another subcategorie, just as nazism is one. Second, 'fascist' is a term used as the color 'yellow'. Other people say you are that 'in that specific state' while you cannot tell whether you are or are not. I do not know I have cancer, the doctor tells me.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) PS:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia ;)-- Franklinbe ( talk) 05:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Franklinbe (
talk •
contribs)
03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) The defenition of fascism is not obsolete. Wikipedia Dutch leaves things out. Japan might put extra criteria in it. Sorry Peops, they deleted it again after i reposted around 5AM. Sources will follow later today. Need a bloody cigaret. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Rfc Is the material related to to the article?Is the material related to to the article? Should it be deleted? When yes, Why? It is indeed a stub. It's also an open workplace so you can bring in some more info and structure in if you want. 'Not related' to the article is your opinion. Please explain yourself. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@4Deuces: "Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[25] Since the 1990s, scholars like Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions as too wide or too narrow.[26][27]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: " Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) symbolize summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"." Nazis used the same kind of slogan as the US: "One Nation under God" And "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement"
"A bundle of rods bound together around an ax with the blade projecting, carried before ancient Roman magistrates as an emblem of authority. [Latin fascēs, pl. of fascis, bundle.]" the symbol is mainly one of authority (AuthoritEIT as Cartman would say). Using Fables doesn't make you expert on knowledge either... and 'not a good idea' is your opinion.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) WP seeks verifiable sources? Most of them got Murdred!!! Wikipedia:Civility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. (like deleting after 1 sentence) Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. (look at the history of this page....) -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: About the 'not a good idea'... If you have a big calculation, and the first thing to do is solve 1+1=... and you fill in 6.... the rest will 99% of the time also be wrong. That is fascism and the world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Daniel:
"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." @Daniel: It does when we're talking about neo fascism....-- Franklinbe ( talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "During the Holocaust, IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory)."Wikipedia IBM got money from the US and the US from IBM. The US is responcible for what happens with it's money, thus is the US a fascist regime. When you killed your wife and the cops can't prove it, you are still a murderer. Doesn't mather what the Law says in your country.-- Franklinbe ( talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) It is not because it can be found in the mainstream history books that it's correct info and that it did happen. History is created by men and men make mistakes. Most men are biased, especially when they get money from the one writing about.... my article was as dry as a good Sherry
Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] — Diderot Who decides what knowledge is verifiable when fascist regimes have been killing their opponents for years? "You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally." Who's working for National Security?-- Franklinbe ( talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) MedCabal CaseHello Editors! A mediation cabal case has been opened regarding this article and its subsequent talk page. If you wish to join the mediation process, please indicate so on the case discussion page and on my talk page. My job is to guide a reasonable discussion to find an equitable solution to the dispute. This can only take place if 1) everyone enters the process with a good-faith effort in mind to reach an end AND 2) their agreement to participate throughout the whole process, while it is voluntary to partake. I am reviewing the talk page and the dispute as it has taken place to gain an understanding of the matter. Once all parties have indicated their acceptance of the case proceeding, I will follow a process similar to the process that some MedCom cases have progressed, to find a consensus conclusion to this problem. Cheers! - Reubzz ( talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Collect, you could be right. Killing people abroad, just because they believe communism is a better way to go, is a bit premature too, I believe. Especially if it happens by the same ones who defended those that thought killing Jews would be OK . But it happened anyway. That's why I'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Discussing!! TTYS -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Could you read up on Christianity, fascism, Free Masons, the US and Gladio? Thanx buddy. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Conspiracy theory Collect ( talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) It should'nt been deleted to start of with since it is a sensitive subject. Welcome to all, no?
Since everything I write vannishes before I can finnish my cigarette... 1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? Nope, that's why you and the other Wiki People are here for. 3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced? Check History!! About Wikipedia.org, nope, my subcategorie stub was removed immediatly. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Free at last! Free at last! Thanks, we are free at last.... ( http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I'm going back to the article while you guys comment on the stuff written below. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)-- Franklinbe ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Cheerz! ( User:Reubzz) on your Question @ (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "does this mean you want to continue mediation? " Since, the requested mediation was 'unofficial', yes. t.i.a. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) @4Deuces: Me too, sometimes ;) These paragraphs all come from Wikipedia.org Belgian stay-behind network The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies. The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post. * 1964 Operation Solo In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in Operation Solo forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.[28] * 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency" Licio Gelli has often said he was a friend of Argentine President Juan Perón. In any case, some members of Jorge Videla’s junta were discovered to be piduista, such as José López Rega, founder of the infamous anticommunist organization Triple A, Raúl Alberto Lastiri or Emilio Massera. The Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert US funds for the Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland and the Contras in Nicaragua. Propaganda Due (aka P2), a quasi- freemasonic organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was said closely linked to Gladio. NATO's " stay-behind" organizations were never called upon to resist a Soviet invasion, but their structures continued to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Internal subversion and " false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] " André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment." Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d'état Switzerland was suspected of again creating a clandestine paramilitary structure, allegedly to replace the former P26 and P27 (the Swiss branches of Gladio). Furthermore, in 2005, the Italian press revealed the existence of the Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies (DSSA), accused of being "another Gladio". Internal subversion and " false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] " André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."[12] Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. What the F*ck does that invented basterd have to do with Politics?!? Exept for keeping people affraid and obedient? If they're not, they get SHOT, GASSED, JAILED OR STONED TO DEATH!! -- Franklinbe ( talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC) All of this belongs in the Gladio article. Whether this specific view of Gladio is correct is something to be addressed in that article. But it does not belong in the Fascism article, which is primarily about fascist ideology and government, not what fascists did after the war. The Four Deuces ( talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that is what they call
neo-fascism and I also think they deserve some Credit. "User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article." Well... check the IP adress and you'll know more. -- Franklinbe ( talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) generate a populist mass movement Extreme RightI have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces ( talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces ( talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Wikipedia is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
|