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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
The discussion board has been going almost out of control in the last day since I added the information from the Doctrine of Fascism that included a quote stating that fascism is right-wing. Some have claimed that because the fascists made policy changes this may be invalidated. But remember that this was a published policy book by the Fascist regime in Italy at that point definately did declare fascism to be right-wing. This was a major policy book of the Fascists that can't just be overlooked as if it were a political pamphlet. On the issue of fascism's position on the political spectrum, this declaration by the Doctrine of Fascism needs to be acknowledged in this article as a stance that was officially adopted by fascists. The Doctrine of Fascism is often used by historians as a source for studying fascist policies, so let's keep in mind that scholars have used it as a source. To exclude this important statement from it, after users have rightfully demanded sources for the left-wing vs. right-wing debate on fascism, would be highly suspect of manipulative intent. I say this because I share the concern that another user raised that certain users may be unjustifiably intending to remove that reference for their personal political interests. In the past few days, I have seen some fairly offensive derogatory statements being made on this talk page with users denouncing left-wing or right-wing politics, this is unacceptable. If other users share this concern, I suggest this article will have to receive arbitration. To users who want to constructively engage on this topic, I warn them to be on the lookout for partisan users who want to push agendas (either left-wing or right-wing) on this page.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The political spectrum section and issue within this article had been much more stable prior to 2009. My personal opinion is that POV pushing began and that some attempted to create more of a "consensus" among scholars than really exists. The truth of the matter is that, although fascim was commonly called right-wing or some variation of that, some also said it was radical center or left or eshewed such categories. The reality is, most scholars of the subject don't spend a lot of time on the subject (so neither should this article) and most also now recognize that there is a taxonomic problem with placing it in the political spectrum. I would suggest the subject be omitted from the lede, because 1) there is dispute on the subject, 2) because it is not that important, and 3) the article was more stable and not subject to edit wars when it was omitted and 4) because it is a POV magnet. I'd also suggest that the section "Political Spectrum" return to an earlier, more stable and less POV version such as this or similar version. The section was relatively stable in this form, with slight variations, and not the subject of edit wars. Mamalujo ( talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
MY GOD, why do some people have a problem with it saying "Fascism is usually considered right-wing, although a significant number of historians consider it in the center or neither left nor right." Why the desire to hide the truth, in the lead, that it's a significant view that it's in the center???? I know it can't be a space problem. It only a few words. Why???
Immoral moralist (
talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I like your idea, but can we just modify it a little bit....to:
Fascism is generally considered right-wing, although some [or many] historians consider it in the center, or neither left nor right.
That "significant number" bit is bothering me because I fear it could create more support for the supposition than actually exists. "Some" is linguistically dangerous, but not if it's backed by citations, as we're going to do. UberCryxic ( talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Fascism is "right" of center. If one views the political/economic structure as Total Government control on the Left and No Government Control on the Right, clearly Fascism should be on the Left. The problem is that many people confuse the "militant" aspects as being "right", but that is a belief that was created from the anti-military Left common in today's society then with political history.
Consider these sections of the Nazi party platform:
"13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."
or this quote from Hitler himself in 1927:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jstiene (
talk •
contribs) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, I would remove the sentence stating that is a "far right" concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2010
This talk page is about improving the article - not to diss anyone for their beliefs. The fact is, there is significant debate about how to apply the "left-right" system, and this debate goes back to 1948 and Arthur Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" if I recall correctly.
Collect (
talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would not reply to an Ad Hom, but this for the person that said "I made this up in my head." That is completely false. It is a well known belief, and here is a youTube example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfYaNKKM8
It is silly to put the Communists on the Left and the Fascists on the Right. They are not polar opposites. Both are systems where government has lots of control over individuals. Please do not that personal or idealogical, as that is not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This is all easily resolved with sources. If it can be sourced that fascism is on the left is a significant view then NPOV requires that that view be mentioned, as long as it's not said that it's the usual view if the sources don't say it's the usual view. Likewise for fascism being a mix of left and right or neither left and right.
Immoral moralist (
talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with only saying "usually considered to be on the far right," is that it leaves the impression that the view that it is neither left or nor right, or centrist, is too insignificant to point out. The view that Fascism is far LEFT may be fringe, I'm not sure, but the view that it is centrist or neither left nor right, is not fringe as the source says a "good number" hold that view. Many sources are available for this. So saying only that it's "usually considered to be on the far right" is POV pushing. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Now you my claim that the article is NPOV since the view is mentioned later in the article, but the lead by itself needs to be NPOV as well. The lead is not exempt from the NPOV rule. Immoral moralist ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) IM, why do you wish to give prominence to one of the minority views and ignore the others? The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So it would seem that there's no agreement either here or in the main stream as to what Fascism is. It would appear that because reasonable people will disagree on this, the attribution of Fascism as being an attribute of the 'right' (far right, near right, whatever) should be removed.
RPuzo (
talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal, it seems the first issue that should be addressed is if the these pages - Fascism_and_ideology , Definitions_of_fascism , Economics_of_fascism - should be integrated into the main Fascism page or should they be removed. To discuss those same very topics for edits on the main doesn't seem very efficient without first deciding on the proposal. For myself, it seems fruitless to press forward on some of the open threads here until that is resolved. Theosis4u ( talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hide soapbox discussion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left.Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding jStiene 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left.Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC) |
Following discussions UberCryxic removed the POV-Intro tag. Immoral moralist had supported the tag because inter alia the intro did not say that a "good number" of historians saw fascism as centrist. However, IM has been asked and has not provided a single example of an historian who considered fascism to be centrist. IM has re-inserted the tag which I will now remove and ask IM to provide evidence that the current phrasing is POV. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Most editors, now and in the past, regard this issue as settled. We cannot let a vocal minority hold hostage an article of such importance. UberCryxic ( talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The intro has a good summary of fascism's economic stances to allow a basic understanding of its positions. However fascism's key nationalist basis needs a short summary in the intro as well. I found a source a while ago that was put as a reference to a statement in the intro that was a good summary both fascism's competitive and social darwinistic nationalist views, but this was removed later. It is later down in the article. Here is statement was by Alfredo Rocco that gives an excellent summary of fascism's nationalist views:
"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.
I think that a short summary of this with a reference attached to it should be in the intro. This would make the intro very effective.-- R-41 ( talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is crucial that we replace the the expression “radical and authoritarian nationalism” with the far more precise and informative the term “ palingenetic ultranationalism”. -- Loremaster ( talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine palingenetic ultranationalism with a corporatist economic system.
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical, revolutionary and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.
This section has undergone various changes since it was last discussed and no longer provides the same weight on various views. I will therefore revert these recent changes and ask that editors wishing to re-insert the removed text to provide reasons for reinsertion. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the proposal by Deuces. Go ahead and change it Deuces. UberCryxic (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Intro is very clear now and I don't see any objections to it. The traits section seems to be a little long and dragged out. I think it should be condensed down to core areas. Also, the info on the different types of fascisms like Nazism and Integralism in different continents should be condensed down to the bare bones that answer (1) Why is it associated with fascism, (2) is it an important example of fascism and why? and (3) what legacy did the ideology have on fascism. So for instance, Nazism was associated with fascism due to its endorsement of Italian Fascism and it's use of the core fascist themes, second: it is important because the arrival of Nazism to Europe altered the political balance of power in Europe; and three it is important to fascism because it brought racism to be a fundamental attribute to many fascist movements since. But indepth discussions of the ideologies should be left to the articles on those ideologies.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all with this new section has many flaws. First, it is poorly written and utilizes sparse sources, even from TV shows to make claims, focusing entirely upon Arab fascism, while ignoring the fact that fascism existed amongst multiple nations. Second, it places the Middle East as a separate section, when it is part of Asia. Third, there is the notability issue of a number of the movements. Fourth, on the issue of Arab fascism it attempts to present it as a heterogeneous movement - I have looked into Arab fascist movements they were not heterogeneous - they were divided upon which state should be the head of a pan-Arab state, this was connected to the factional divides amongst Arabs.
As mentioned above, I think this section on fascism in the Middle East is very badly written. It is very true however that there were strong fascist groups in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, where anti-British tendencies had combined with both Iraqi and Pan-Arab nationalism that influenced members of the Iraqi government, including Iraq's education minister named Shawkat, who created the Al-Futuwa youth paramilitary movement in Iraq, that was based upon fascist lines. Claims that Ba'athism is based on fascism are possible, under Saddam Hussein it advocated a Greater Iraq to be the leading constituent republic of a pan-Arab state but unlike fascism, Ba'athists cooperated with communists and held no entrenched principles of anti-communism as fascism does. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is widely believed to be a fascist party in Syria (though it denies it) which advocates a Greater Syria. At the same time, there were other non-Arab fascist movements in the Middle East, one was the Revisionist Maximalism, a Jewish fascist ideology associated with the fascist Brit HaBirionim political faction created by Abba Ahimeir that was briefly on the rise in Jewish nationalist politics until the rise of Hitler, after which Revisionist Maximalism and other Jewish fascist ideologies collapsed when fascism grew supportive of anti-Semitism. This faction was small, but it was believed to have been influenced by the nationalist politics of Zeev Jabotinsky, who formed the more popular nationalist Betar movement that some believe is fascist or para-fascist in nature.
I am gravely suspicious however that adding information on fascism in the Middle East, including the fact that fascism influenced both Jewish and Arab political movements could likely result in a fierce edit war between Jewish and Arab nationalist editors over this, just as Croat and Serb nationalist editors on Wikipedia have edit wars that try to show how each side collaborated with fascists.-- R-41 ( talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I added the "unholy alliance" is because someone (R-41) above complained why it's all about "arabs" (though it doesn't really make much sense, Middle east IS mostly arab anyhow), which is why I added the "unholy-alliance" link, on top of this previous [3] one.
- I am adding this:
Since the beginning of the Second World War in September, 1939 it has become common to lump Fascism and Nazism together as agents of "world revolutions." [1]
-An this on Turkey:
Mussolini's fascism impressed many in Turkey, there were many similarities between the Italian fascist regime and the Kemalists, including racist rhetoric and authoritarianism [2]
As to al-Futuwwa being a Hitler Youth model and Shawkat's praising Hitler ( [3] [4] [5], there added more ref.) and inciting against the Jews there are many references.
As to the groups including green shirts, young Egypt, SSNP (with its: "Syria Uber Alles" and the swastika flag), etc. of course they have to be mentioned.
-And omitting the PDF file on Iran "unholy-alliance". Leaving this about Iran.
Reza Shah Pahlavi, interwar ruler of Iran, sometimes referred to as 'the Mussolini of Islam'. resident Germans worked actively for National Socialist propaganda, and by May 1940 there were about 4000 Nazi agents across the country. [6]
What do you think so far? (maybe the Fred Holliday should be omitted?) Sallese ( talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I see, you mean this source mentioned twice, these two pages (342 [4] - 343 [5])? they don't appear essays. Sallese ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with putting historic facts as it were. Facsism's champion - Mussolini's foot in Libya and Hitler's "friend" Mufti's control in the M.E. & over Arab movements, were too great to be ignored when talking about fascism.
True that Baathism was influenced by both: Socialism AND fascism, as those sources linked - say so.
Yes, we can add the Iranian fascists too, starting with the cooperation with the nazi regime, (which I will be adding) after all, the middle east is primarily Arab, no Arab should be "offended" it's not about Arabs as a whole, it's about Arab movements and leaders.
I don't believe that today in age, real fascism exist, but when it was in fashion, yes, Arab movements were IN, in fact, omitting this is exactly a POV. Maybe it should be included into Asia, we'll try this Sallese ( talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have more info on the phalangists?, I start off (current version) "There was an unholy alliance-nazi links with totalitarianism in Middle East including Iran", I can't understand why there was so much talk about Asia and not about the M.E. Mussolini's Libya, the pan-Arab movements, the Mufti parts, they're all so huge (especially as comparing (Hitler's pal) the Mufti's powerful leadership with the small Phalangists... Sallese ( talk)
Thanks, actually this section, originally was not started by me, but I have researched that era, so it does interest me. Sallese ( talk)
I am not sure it's not a transparent POV, when objecting to (posting) the real Goliath fascist groups in the Arab world (the "elephant in the room," AKA: Hitler's Mufti, Futuwwa, Green shirts, Young Egypt, proto-fascist organizations in the Levant, Syrian-SSNP, Lybia-at-Mussolini, et al) in the 1930s... yet, highlighting a scrachted out thing, forcing doudtful "fascist" face on the very victim of the real fascism of that time... (I am not here to defend any Zionism, or any Zionist movement, but truth shouldn't be switched around either) it's more than just rewriting history, it might be a trend of twisting it all around. Why does everything have to be in "arab vs jew" light and attempts of supposedly "balancing" it out? why can't history just be told as it is-was? Sallese ( talk)
Judging from anti-Jewish rant in: [7], [8], [9]? aka by damning "zionists" you mean all Jews? Please leave your campaign out of this page I am not posting about zionism here, nor do I defend them. We are trying to avoid any Arab vs Zionists here, it's about the past history not about the M.E. conflict, thank you very much.
Sallese ( talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear TFD, I didn't see the article about Christianity. Sallese ( talk) 10:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Elephant: - At least seven different Arab nationalist groups had developed... [10] - The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitler, wrote Kamil Muruwwa, the young editor of the Beirut paper An-Nida', to the German Foreign Minister in Berlin. The year after Hitler came to power, Muruwwa translated Mein Kampf from English into Arabic and published it in daily installments in An-Nida'. [11]
This is about the past, not about current conflicts, so what's the argument of throwing in there a weak link to fascism by non-Arab zionist group? Besides the weak link, the salad between ahimeir and Jabotinski, how you tried to "connect" it and make it appear as somehow linked to Fascism, if they were not fascistic in it's far fetched, which is why originally I wasn't for posting the Phalangists, as they were not really fascistic in behaviour. What does this phrase mean "highly potent in the British Mandate of Palestine", threw it in there? it can be very deceiving, giving the wrong picture as if that group fought the British on some illusionary "fascist" motives and not on Zionist (return to their historic land/Zion) roots. Although, if to mention that obscure case, the Arab-Palestine zone is much larger and much more damning, see a peek here about the fascism and nazism in establishing Palestine party / movement. [12]. But (I do have the information on my talk page but not intend to post it) I purposely didn't want to touch that arena. only the Mufti part, as he was so major in connecting the Arab world to nazism and fascism.
I tried to avoid the term Islamo-fascism here, or the sensationalists throwing around the term "fascist" today in the M.E. conflict, including on Hezbollah with their Nazi salute, and others (even though some are genuinely trying to connect the roots of PLO to Nazism), or politically motivated exaggerations by opposite parties in the political arena. This is about the real thing. The historical fact is that the father of fascism in Europe, Mussolini was anti-Jewish and agreed with the Mufti al-Husayni that the Jews have no "right" in Palestine [13].
I don't think there's a dispute over futuwwa the Hitler youth model of it being part of the Iraqi' government, as Shawkat was the official head of the education minister. (pan-Arabist Futuwwa Youth was a model of the Hitler Youth [14], Officially modeled after the Hitler Youth [15]. The pan-Arab government also sponsored the Futuwwa Youth movement [16], [17] [18], More: Arab boys in Baghdad were often sent to Germany to attend Hitler Youth events... join the Futuwwa, paramilitary programs based on the Hitler Youth groups [19]). It has also a historic significance due to their hand in the Farhud pogrom.
I can agree that when mentioning Baathism also socialism has to be mentioned, that it was influenced also by fascism (as I corrected it on my talk page), which is true, as the sources mention both, that Aflaq took both: European fascism & socialism.
While at that, since you are on the subject, there's a lot of information out there about German "racial" ideology ( Fichte) upon Michel Aflaq's colleague (Arsuzi) that influnced Michel.
IMHO, The Futuwwa (al-Muthanna's wing), Mussolini's Libya, SSNP were the most fascistic.
The purpose of me inserting Iran & Turkey the more minor faces of fascism at that time, was only per your request.
What, out of the larger picture can you agree to be included? Sallese ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear The Four Deuces! Do you object to all those sections: Fascism#Europe, Fascism#Americas, Fascism#Asia, please explain the differences between: Europe/Asia/Americas and the Middle-East (or, why the M.E. is special to be excluded), if you want a trimmmer M.E. section it can be arranged, only highlighting a few major ones - those most resembling fascism. Sallese ( talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, so far we can agree on SSNP, Futuwwa, YoungEgypt (as that book describes them on being most resembling fascistic Italy) and not on facsist-Mussolini's Libya?
I think the line that The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitle [20] is probably the most important of its shear size in the middle east.
The problem with that isolated case you mention is, that it's just that, a rare case (that still needs research), the abnormal can't be prioritized before the other dozen of pan-Arab fascist groups that are NOT included, besides, it defeats the purose of historical accuracy that fascism was anti-Jewish, which is why Marcus Garvey - I don't think has to be included, though he proclaimed himself a "fascist before the fascists Hitler/Mussolini." [21] - since European Fascism (the subject of that page) was different than that of Garvey, in its totalitarianism against all "others" that are "not in line" with the fascistic top, smashing everyone in their way. Hence, just because someone declared himself a "fascist" it's not always the case. And again, then, it was a very small group anyhow, not to mention it's relatively minor against the Palestinian-Arab part massive movement by the Mufti (quoted above). So, I didn't want to touch the Zionist-Palestine arena... I left it out.
POWER = IMPORTANCE! My point is that the biggest shakers in the middle east were: Mufti (due to massive Arab-Muslim support and the Nazi regime backing), Mussolini (in the Africa & Arab world), the fact of a goverment like Iraq having the Hitler-Youth (Futuwwa) is way too major than some fringe groups.
Mussolini in Arabia Newsweek excerpts: October 7, 1940... made a trip to Libya and there proclaimed himself the "Defender of Islam" Leaflets which reminded Arabs that Mussolini was there "defender" [22]. In Egypt the Italians have adopted much of the same line, and last week they also continued efforts to woo King Farouk with promises that if he threw in his lot with the totalitarian powers he might become the head of a greater Arab state. [23]. In 1937 Mussolini had himself ceremonially proclaimed the 'Protector of Islam' (More here: [24] and here [25])
I did not include "ALL" Arab fascist groups, especially the minor ones or those that weren't so fascistic in nature like the three: Futuwwa/SSNP/YoungEgypt.
Do you want Iran, Turkey to be included? I hope TFD won't object that because of that, it's (M.E. section) is "too large." I am trying to shrink and trim.
Sallese ( talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course there were non-fascist anti-Jewish forces, but fascism was the outstanding - most anti-Jewish (alonmg Nazism - as they copperated) in rhetoric and in action and it's anti-Jewishness was a FEATURE in its FASCISM. I'm not sure I follow the "legitimization" of such a Hitleristic anti Jewish nazi youth group, al-Futuwwa, Was it not a HITLERJUGEND group? and it is/was not called FASCIST? I am not sure what you mean by "political", all Nazis, Fascists groups claimed to be "political."
Wait, do you mean the futuwwa group in Palestine? that's not the same as the Iraqi al-Futuwwa (FYI)!
Futuwwa factsheet
Described fascist: al-Muthanna / it's youth wing al-Futuwwa
[26] (Gibb, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen and Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, Joseph Schacht, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 4, Brill, 1954, p. 125)
[27]
Officially modeled after the
Hitler Jugend
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32].
[33] (Mattar, Philip, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East & North Africa, p. 860)
[34]
[35]
Besides espousing a fanatic Pan-Arabism, the Futuwwa adopted a frankly totalitarian ideology [36]
I hope you are not disputing all, the facts, and so many resources!
Now, a question, Do you have any information of Arabs resisting fascism/nazism in that era? It can help me in my research, thanks. Sallese ( talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Fascism & al-Muthanna
"the al-Muthanna Club, whose members, heavily influenced by European fascism, formed the core of new radicals for the civilian-military Pan-Arab coalition..." [37]
"from the Fascist- oriented al-Muthanna Club, later renamed the National Democratic Party; the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon; and others"
[38]
I appreciate very much this line: "Egyptian Arab nationalists initially had a flirtation of admiration of fascism in the 1920s, but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted." intending to insert it (I hope you have a link/source to this), as I am inserted the fact that Mussolini's party imposed racial rules against Arabs as well (alongside Jews & Africans), to show that some Arabs were VICTIMS of fascism as well!.
Thanks to you, I found more on Omar al-Mukhtar
Umar al-Mukhtar VS Amir Shakib Arslan
After hanging Umar Al-Mukhtar, a book came out "the new land of Islam," the book praised Shakib Arslan for envisioning Italian victory and for prescribing, in time, for the correct Arab attitude, and also lauds General Graziani the henchman of 'Umar al-Mukhtar in 1931 for being the true friend of Arabism. [7]
Amir Shakib Arslan was by far the most important figure in the context of Mussolini's influence in the whole Middle Eastern arena, He undertook to spread the world of the Duce, and to exploit the Abyssinian crisis in order to inspire the younger generation in the Middle east to revolt against the French and the British. He hoped that such an uprising would enhance pan-Arabism, especially his brand, namely Arabism with a strong element of Islamic identity and solidarity. In the dozens of articles published in 1935, he combined the negative messages of radical Islam with the modern message of fascist propaganda. Most of Arslan's work was published primarily in Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian papers, in some Egyptian press and was widely read in Egypt. [8]
Sallese ( talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am adding more on the fascist character of Iran's Pahlavi
Iran's Pahlavi's regime was described (among other things) as fascist in style, and it was this characteristic that led the allies to be worried it might fall into Nazi Germany control [9] The Pahlavi regime, like those in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, propounds a vigorous nationalist ideology based on chauvinism, imperial nostalgia and the cult of a leader. [10] On 17 September 1941 the shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammaed Reza Pahlavi and go into exile. In March 1943, German SD agents parachuted into Iran ( Operation Franz) and a "Nationalist Organization of Iran" in exile in Germany worked with radio propaganda on behalf of fascism. [11] Sallese ( talk) 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just reorganized it, there's no question about what you said that the SSNP was the most fascistic, I think that for historical accuracy the general activities has to be noted (because of proprtion of the entire epopulation in the ME, the influence it had, etc.), What do you think of the Young Egypot Assoc. it was defined as fascist, or should we move it to para-fascism?
---
Not sure what TheFourDeuces means by "bias", biased towards anti fascism? what are the 2 sides that he refers to? aren't all those mentioned historic fact? I have omitted all the MASSIVE fascist parties and activity in Arab-Palestine for the very reason NOT to get into a ME two-sides story. though, because of TheFourDeuces comment I have put NOW more guilt on the fascist influx than on local, it starts off like this:
1) Before Italian fascism & Hitler's propaganda, there wasn't a known fascism trend in Arabia.
More on what I have added recently to make the locals look better:
2) Mussolini's PNF passed racial legislations against Arabs (as well as against Jews and Africans). [362] It has been argued (by author Robert Gerwarth) that the Italian Fascist regime committed its most numerous crimes against Arabs, blacks and Slavs.[363]
3) ...but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted. Initially the fascist regime took a hard line against Libyan Arab nationalists, who had been fighting a civil war for independence for many years under the leadership of Omar Mukhtar.
All the three sections above weren't needed so much from a historical point were it not for claims of "biased", so its in there anyhow.
What clearly is not "para-fascism"
Also quoted here [46], and here: [47]The following discussion on the "shirts" and their fascist characteristics borrows from a brief but excellent article by Elsa Marston, "Fascist Tendencies in Pre-War Arab Policies: A study of Three Arab Political Movements, [PPS SSNP, Misr al-Fatat (Young Egypt), and Futuwa]," Middle East Forum, 35 (May, 1959), pp. 19-22 [45]
As agreed to avoid the (deeper into) Palestine real fascism, though there was much of Mufti's parties, youth & other groups, and plans clearly defined as fascist.
What's propably along the lines of "para-fascism"
(American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials, Barbara A. Bardes, Mack C. Shelley, Steffen W. Schmidt, published by Cengage Learning, page 18)the ideological similarity between Baathism and fascism is quite striking.
You cannot use a brief observation from an introductory US politics textbook to argue that Ba'athism was parafascist. You have to use books about fascism written by leading experts. TFD ( talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You have a point here, I didn't use this particular source in the fascism page, I only quoted it here. Sallese ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In question
When the writer mentioned at least seven groups as proto-fascists in the Arab world.
Sallese ( talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In your point of view, does it not have to be mentioned at all, Do you agree on such a statement, "public opinion in support of fascism in the Arab street"? One might say, in reference to what you refer to as "the discussed fascism here as in other sections," A tiny group without any support in the public can't be equated --when writing history-- as a massive backed up group/s. In any case, the inner content deals with Mussolini's propagandist in the ME & the three groups, most of all. regards.
What dio you guys think of this source:
Gary A. Donaldson is the Keller Foundation Chair in American History at Xavier University in New Orleans. He is also his university's director of undergraduate research [49]
"The Baath party had its origins in European fascism and Arab nationalism"
(America at war since 1945: politics and diplomacy in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War Gary Donaldson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996, p. 144) [50] Sallese ( talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Will try in the next few days, you should know that I appreciate yout hat tips, it seems you have researched quite a lot. That Umar al-Muktar, the more I read about him, the more fascinated he 'looks'.
I couldn't find so far in Roger Griffin's book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, about Baathism nor about Aflaq.;; Though, since you mentioned famous Walter Laqueur, here's by him:
Since then (post WW2), conditions have changed, and fascism outside Europe has become a possibility and, in some cases, a reality. The Iraqi and the Syrian regimes have pronounced fascist features... Both the Iraqi and the Syrian leadership belongs to the Ba'th party, and elitist, pan-Arabist group that arose in the 1930s partly as a result of the rise of fascism in Europe.
Fascism: Past, Present, Future by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press US, 1997, p. 162 [51]
And something attributed to him.
Fascism in the twenty-first century? by W Laqueur - 2007... Colonel. Nasser's pan-Arab dictatorship in Egypt had common features with fascism--the monopoly of a state party, the role of the leader, of propaganda..
[52] Sallese ( talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (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 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
The discussion board has been going almost out of control in the last day since I added the information from the Doctrine of Fascism that included a quote stating that fascism is right-wing. Some have claimed that because the fascists made policy changes this may be invalidated. But remember that this was a published policy book by the Fascist regime in Italy at that point definately did declare fascism to be right-wing. This was a major policy book of the Fascists that can't just be overlooked as if it were a political pamphlet. On the issue of fascism's position on the political spectrum, this declaration by the Doctrine of Fascism needs to be acknowledged in this article as a stance that was officially adopted by fascists. The Doctrine of Fascism is often used by historians as a source for studying fascist policies, so let's keep in mind that scholars have used it as a source. To exclude this important statement from it, after users have rightfully demanded sources for the left-wing vs. right-wing debate on fascism, would be highly suspect of manipulative intent. I say this because I share the concern that another user raised that certain users may be unjustifiably intending to remove that reference for their personal political interests. In the past few days, I have seen some fairly offensive derogatory statements being made on this talk page with users denouncing left-wing or right-wing politics, this is unacceptable. If other users share this concern, I suggest this article will have to receive arbitration. To users who want to constructively engage on this topic, I warn them to be on the lookout for partisan users who want to push agendas (either left-wing or right-wing) on this page.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The political spectrum section and issue within this article had been much more stable prior to 2009. My personal opinion is that POV pushing began and that some attempted to create more of a "consensus" among scholars than really exists. The truth of the matter is that, although fascim was commonly called right-wing or some variation of that, some also said it was radical center or left or eshewed such categories. The reality is, most scholars of the subject don't spend a lot of time on the subject (so neither should this article) and most also now recognize that there is a taxonomic problem with placing it in the political spectrum. I would suggest the subject be omitted from the lede, because 1) there is dispute on the subject, 2) because it is not that important, and 3) the article was more stable and not subject to edit wars when it was omitted and 4) because it is a POV magnet. I'd also suggest that the section "Political Spectrum" return to an earlier, more stable and less POV version such as this or similar version. The section was relatively stable in this form, with slight variations, and not the subject of edit wars. Mamalujo ( talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
MY GOD, why do some people have a problem with it saying "Fascism is usually considered right-wing, although a significant number of historians consider it in the center or neither left nor right." Why the desire to hide the truth, in the lead, that it's a significant view that it's in the center???? I know it can't be a space problem. It only a few words. Why???
Immoral moralist (
talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
In the spirit of compromise, I like your idea, but can we just modify it a little bit....to:
Fascism is generally considered right-wing, although some [or many] historians consider it in the center, or neither left nor right.
That "significant number" bit is bothering me because I fear it could create more support for the supposition than actually exists. "Some" is linguistically dangerous, but not if it's backed by citations, as we're going to do. UberCryxic ( talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It is a common misconception that Fascism is "right" of center. If one views the political/economic structure as Total Government control on the Left and No Government Control on the Right, clearly Fascism should be on the Left. The problem is that many people confuse the "militant" aspects as being "right", but that is a belief that was created from the anti-military Left common in today's society then with political history.
Consider these sections of the Nazi party platform:
"13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."
or this quote from Hitler himself in 1927:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jstiene (
talk •
contribs) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Therefore, I would remove the sentence stating that is a "far right" concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2010
This talk page is about improving the article - not to diss anyone for their beliefs. The fact is, there is significant debate about how to apply the "left-right" system, and this debate goes back to 1948 and Arthur Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" if I recall correctly.
Collect (
talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Normally I would not reply to an Ad Hom, but this for the person that said "I made this up in my head." That is completely false. It is a well known belief, and here is a youTube example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfYaNKKM8
It is silly to put the Communists on the Left and the Fascists on the Right. They are not polar opposites. Both are systems where government has lots of control over individuals. Please do not that personal or idealogical, as that is not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 ( talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This is all easily resolved with sources. If it can be sourced that fascism is on the left is a significant view then NPOV requires that that view be mentioned, as long as it's not said that it's the usual view if the sources don't say it's the usual view. Likewise for fascism being a mix of left and right or neither left and right.
Immoral moralist (
talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with only saying "usually considered to be on the far right," is that it leaves the impression that the view that it is neither left or nor right, or centrist, is too insignificant to point out. The view that Fascism is far LEFT may be fringe, I'm not sure, but the view that it is centrist or neither left nor right, is not fringe as the source says a "good number" hold that view. Many sources are available for this. So saying only that it's "usually considered to be on the far right" is POV pushing. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Now you my claim that the article is NPOV since the view is mentioned later in the article, but the lead by itself needs to be NPOV as well. The lead is not exempt from the NPOV rule. Immoral moralist ( talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
(out) IM, why do you wish to give prominence to one of the minority views and ignore the others? The Four Deuces ( talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So it would seem that there's no agreement either here or in the main stream as to what Fascism is. It would appear that because reasonable people will disagree on this, the attribution of Fascism as being an attribute of the 'right' (far right, near right, whatever) should be removed.
RPuzo (
talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposal, it seems the first issue that should be addressed is if the these pages - Fascism_and_ideology , Definitions_of_fascism , Economics_of_fascism - should be integrated into the main Fascism page or should they be removed. To discuss those same very topics for edits on the main doesn't seem very efficient without first deciding on the proposal. For myself, it seems fruitless to press forward on some of the open threads here until that is resolved. Theosis4u ( talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hide soapbox discussion. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left.Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding jStiene 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left.Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC) |
Following discussions UberCryxic removed the POV-Intro tag. Immoral moralist had supported the tag because inter alia the intro did not say that a "good number" of historians saw fascism as centrist. However, IM has been asked and has not provided a single example of an historian who considered fascism to be centrist. IM has re-inserted the tag which I will now remove and ask IM to provide evidence that the current phrasing is POV. The Four Deuces ( talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Most editors, now and in the past, regard this issue as settled. We cannot let a vocal minority hold hostage an article of such importance. UberCryxic ( talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The intro has a good summary of fascism's economic stances to allow a basic understanding of its positions. However fascism's key nationalist basis needs a short summary in the intro as well. I found a source a while ago that was put as a reference to a statement in the intro that was a good summary both fascism's competitive and social darwinistic nationalist views, but this was removed later. It is later down in the article. Here is statement was by Alfredo Rocco that gives an excellent summary of fascism's nationalist views:
"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.
I think that a short summary of this with a reference attached to it should be in the intro. This would make the intro very effective.-- R-41 ( talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it is crucial that we replace the the expression “radical and authoritarian nationalism” with the far more precise and informative the term “ palingenetic ultranationalism”. -- Loremaster ( talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine palingenetic ultranationalism with a corporatist economic system.
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical, revolutionary and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.
This section has undergone various changes since it was last discussed and no longer provides the same weight on various views. I will therefore revert these recent changes and ask that editors wishing to re-insert the removed text to provide reasons for reinsertion. The Four Deuces ( talk) 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the proposal by Deuces. Go ahead and change it Deuces. UberCryxic (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Intro is very clear now and I don't see any objections to it. The traits section seems to be a little long and dragged out. I think it should be condensed down to core areas. Also, the info on the different types of fascisms like Nazism and Integralism in different continents should be condensed down to the bare bones that answer (1) Why is it associated with fascism, (2) is it an important example of fascism and why? and (3) what legacy did the ideology have on fascism. So for instance, Nazism was associated with fascism due to its endorsement of Italian Fascism and it's use of the core fascist themes, second: it is important because the arrival of Nazism to Europe altered the political balance of power in Europe; and three it is important to fascism because it brought racism to be a fundamental attribute to many fascist movements since. But indepth discussions of the ideologies should be left to the articles on those ideologies.-- R-41 ( talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all with this new section has many flaws. First, it is poorly written and utilizes sparse sources, even from TV shows to make claims, focusing entirely upon Arab fascism, while ignoring the fact that fascism existed amongst multiple nations. Second, it places the Middle East as a separate section, when it is part of Asia. Third, there is the notability issue of a number of the movements. Fourth, on the issue of Arab fascism it attempts to present it as a heterogeneous movement - I have looked into Arab fascist movements they were not heterogeneous - they were divided upon which state should be the head of a pan-Arab state, this was connected to the factional divides amongst Arabs.
As mentioned above, I think this section on fascism in the Middle East is very badly written. It is very true however that there were strong fascist groups in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, where anti-British tendencies had combined with both Iraqi and Pan-Arab nationalism that influenced members of the Iraqi government, including Iraq's education minister named Shawkat, who created the Al-Futuwa youth paramilitary movement in Iraq, that was based upon fascist lines. Claims that Ba'athism is based on fascism are possible, under Saddam Hussein it advocated a Greater Iraq to be the leading constituent republic of a pan-Arab state but unlike fascism, Ba'athists cooperated with communists and held no entrenched principles of anti-communism as fascism does. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is widely believed to be a fascist party in Syria (though it denies it) which advocates a Greater Syria. At the same time, there were other non-Arab fascist movements in the Middle East, one was the Revisionist Maximalism, a Jewish fascist ideology associated with the fascist Brit HaBirionim political faction created by Abba Ahimeir that was briefly on the rise in Jewish nationalist politics until the rise of Hitler, after which Revisionist Maximalism and other Jewish fascist ideologies collapsed when fascism grew supportive of anti-Semitism. This faction was small, but it was believed to have been influenced by the nationalist politics of Zeev Jabotinsky, who formed the more popular nationalist Betar movement that some believe is fascist or para-fascist in nature.
I am gravely suspicious however that adding information on fascism in the Middle East, including the fact that fascism influenced both Jewish and Arab political movements could likely result in a fierce edit war between Jewish and Arab nationalist editors over this, just as Croat and Serb nationalist editors on Wikipedia have edit wars that try to show how each side collaborated with fascists.-- R-41 ( talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I added the "unholy alliance" is because someone (R-41) above complained why it's all about "arabs" (though it doesn't really make much sense, Middle east IS mostly arab anyhow), which is why I added the "unholy-alliance" link, on top of this previous [3] one.
- I am adding this:
Since the beginning of the Second World War in September, 1939 it has become common to lump Fascism and Nazism together as agents of "world revolutions." [1]
-An this on Turkey:
Mussolini's fascism impressed many in Turkey, there were many similarities between the Italian fascist regime and the Kemalists, including racist rhetoric and authoritarianism [2]
As to al-Futuwwa being a Hitler Youth model and Shawkat's praising Hitler ( [3] [4] [5], there added more ref.) and inciting against the Jews there are many references.
As to the groups including green shirts, young Egypt, SSNP (with its: "Syria Uber Alles" and the swastika flag), etc. of course they have to be mentioned.
-And omitting the PDF file on Iran "unholy-alliance". Leaving this about Iran.
Reza Shah Pahlavi, interwar ruler of Iran, sometimes referred to as 'the Mussolini of Islam'. resident Germans worked actively for National Socialist propaganda, and by May 1940 there were about 4000 Nazi agents across the country. [6]
What do you think so far? (maybe the Fred Holliday should be omitted?) Sallese ( talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I see, you mean this source mentioned twice, these two pages (342 [4] - 343 [5])? they don't appear essays. Sallese ( talk) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with putting historic facts as it were. Facsism's champion - Mussolini's foot in Libya and Hitler's "friend" Mufti's control in the M.E. & over Arab movements, were too great to be ignored when talking about fascism.
True that Baathism was influenced by both: Socialism AND fascism, as those sources linked - say so.
Yes, we can add the Iranian fascists too, starting with the cooperation with the nazi regime, (which I will be adding) after all, the middle east is primarily Arab, no Arab should be "offended" it's not about Arabs as a whole, it's about Arab movements and leaders.
I don't believe that today in age, real fascism exist, but when it was in fashion, yes, Arab movements were IN, in fact, omitting this is exactly a POV. Maybe it should be included into Asia, we'll try this Sallese ( talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have more info on the phalangists?, I start off (current version) "There was an unholy alliance-nazi links with totalitarianism in Middle East including Iran", I can't understand why there was so much talk about Asia and not about the M.E. Mussolini's Libya, the pan-Arab movements, the Mufti parts, they're all so huge (especially as comparing (Hitler's pal) the Mufti's powerful leadership with the small Phalangists... Sallese ( talk)
Thanks, actually this section, originally was not started by me, but I have researched that era, so it does interest me. Sallese ( talk)
I am not sure it's not a transparent POV, when objecting to (posting) the real Goliath fascist groups in the Arab world (the "elephant in the room," AKA: Hitler's Mufti, Futuwwa, Green shirts, Young Egypt, proto-fascist organizations in the Levant, Syrian-SSNP, Lybia-at-Mussolini, et al) in the 1930s... yet, highlighting a scrachted out thing, forcing doudtful "fascist" face on the very victim of the real fascism of that time... (I am not here to defend any Zionism, or any Zionist movement, but truth shouldn't be switched around either) it's more than just rewriting history, it might be a trend of twisting it all around. Why does everything have to be in "arab vs jew" light and attempts of supposedly "balancing" it out? why can't history just be told as it is-was? Sallese ( talk)
Judging from anti-Jewish rant in: [7], [8], [9]? aka by damning "zionists" you mean all Jews? Please leave your campaign out of this page I am not posting about zionism here, nor do I defend them. We are trying to avoid any Arab vs Zionists here, it's about the past history not about the M.E. conflict, thank you very much.
Sallese ( talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear TFD, I didn't see the article about Christianity. Sallese ( talk) 10:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The Elephant: - At least seven different Arab nationalist groups had developed... [10] - The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitler, wrote Kamil Muruwwa, the young editor of the Beirut paper An-Nida', to the German Foreign Minister in Berlin. The year after Hitler came to power, Muruwwa translated Mein Kampf from English into Arabic and published it in daily installments in An-Nida'. [11]
This is about the past, not about current conflicts, so what's the argument of throwing in there a weak link to fascism by non-Arab zionist group? Besides the weak link, the salad between ahimeir and Jabotinski, how you tried to "connect" it and make it appear as somehow linked to Fascism, if they were not fascistic in it's far fetched, which is why originally I wasn't for posting the Phalangists, as they were not really fascistic in behaviour. What does this phrase mean "highly potent in the British Mandate of Palestine", threw it in there? it can be very deceiving, giving the wrong picture as if that group fought the British on some illusionary "fascist" motives and not on Zionist (return to their historic land/Zion) roots. Although, if to mention that obscure case, the Arab-Palestine zone is much larger and much more damning, see a peek here about the fascism and nazism in establishing Palestine party / movement. [12]. But (I do have the information on my talk page but not intend to post it) I purposely didn't want to touch that arena. only the Mufti part, as he was so major in connecting the Arab world to nazism and fascism.
I tried to avoid the term Islamo-fascism here, or the sensationalists throwing around the term "fascist" today in the M.E. conflict, including on Hezbollah with their Nazi salute, and others (even though some are genuinely trying to connect the roots of PLO to Nazism), or politically motivated exaggerations by opposite parties in the political arena. This is about the real thing. The historical fact is that the father of fascism in Europe, Mussolini was anti-Jewish and agreed with the Mufti al-Husayni that the Jews have no "right" in Palestine [13].
I don't think there's a dispute over futuwwa the Hitler youth model of it being part of the Iraqi' government, as Shawkat was the official head of the education minister. (pan-Arabist Futuwwa Youth was a model of the Hitler Youth [14], Officially modeled after the Hitler Youth [15]. The pan-Arab government also sponsored the Futuwwa Youth movement [16], [17] [18], More: Arab boys in Baghdad were often sent to Germany to attend Hitler Youth events... join the Futuwwa, paramilitary programs based on the Hitler Youth groups [19]). It has also a historic significance due to their hand in the Farhud pogrom.
I can agree that when mentioning Baathism also socialism has to be mentioned, that it was influenced also by fascism (as I corrected it on my talk page), which is true, as the sources mention both, that Aflaq took both: European fascism & socialism.
While at that, since you are on the subject, there's a lot of information out there about German "racial" ideology ( Fichte) upon Michel Aflaq's colleague (Arsuzi) that influnced Michel.
IMHO, The Futuwwa (al-Muthanna's wing), Mussolini's Libya, SSNP were the most fascistic.
The purpose of me inserting Iran & Turkey the more minor faces of fascism at that time, was only per your request.
What, out of the larger picture can you agree to be included? Sallese ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear The Four Deuces! Do you object to all those sections: Fascism#Europe, Fascism#Americas, Fascism#Asia, please explain the differences between: Europe/Asia/Americas and the Middle-East (or, why the M.E. is special to be excluded), if you want a trimmmer M.E. section it can be arranged, only highlighting a few major ones - those most resembling fascism. Sallese ( talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, so far we can agree on SSNP, Futuwwa, YoungEgypt (as that book describes them on being most resembling fascistic Italy) and not on facsist-Mussolini's Libya?
I think the line that The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitle [20] is probably the most important of its shear size in the middle east.
The problem with that isolated case you mention is, that it's just that, a rare case (that still needs research), the abnormal can't be prioritized before the other dozen of pan-Arab fascist groups that are NOT included, besides, it defeats the purose of historical accuracy that fascism was anti-Jewish, which is why Marcus Garvey - I don't think has to be included, though he proclaimed himself a "fascist before the fascists Hitler/Mussolini." [21] - since European Fascism (the subject of that page) was different than that of Garvey, in its totalitarianism against all "others" that are "not in line" with the fascistic top, smashing everyone in their way. Hence, just because someone declared himself a "fascist" it's not always the case. And again, then, it was a very small group anyhow, not to mention it's relatively minor against the Palestinian-Arab part massive movement by the Mufti (quoted above). So, I didn't want to touch the Zionist-Palestine arena... I left it out.
POWER = IMPORTANCE! My point is that the biggest shakers in the middle east were: Mufti (due to massive Arab-Muslim support and the Nazi regime backing), Mussolini (in the Africa & Arab world), the fact of a goverment like Iraq having the Hitler-Youth (Futuwwa) is way too major than some fringe groups.
Mussolini in Arabia Newsweek excerpts: October 7, 1940... made a trip to Libya and there proclaimed himself the "Defender of Islam" Leaflets which reminded Arabs that Mussolini was there "defender" [22]. In Egypt the Italians have adopted much of the same line, and last week they also continued efforts to woo King Farouk with promises that if he threw in his lot with the totalitarian powers he might become the head of a greater Arab state. [23]. In 1937 Mussolini had himself ceremonially proclaimed the 'Protector of Islam' (More here: [24] and here [25])
I did not include "ALL" Arab fascist groups, especially the minor ones or those that weren't so fascistic in nature like the three: Futuwwa/SSNP/YoungEgypt.
Do you want Iran, Turkey to be included? I hope TFD won't object that because of that, it's (M.E. section) is "too large." I am trying to shrink and trim.
Sallese ( talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course there were non-fascist anti-Jewish forces, but fascism was the outstanding - most anti-Jewish (alonmg Nazism - as they copperated) in rhetoric and in action and it's anti-Jewishness was a FEATURE in its FASCISM. I'm not sure I follow the "legitimization" of such a Hitleristic anti Jewish nazi youth group, al-Futuwwa, Was it not a HITLERJUGEND group? and it is/was not called FASCIST? I am not sure what you mean by "political", all Nazis, Fascists groups claimed to be "political."
Wait, do you mean the futuwwa group in Palestine? that's not the same as the Iraqi al-Futuwwa (FYI)!
Futuwwa factsheet
Described fascist: al-Muthanna / it's youth wing al-Futuwwa
[26] (Gibb, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen and Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, Joseph Schacht, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 4, Brill, 1954, p. 125)
[27]
Officially modeled after the
Hitler Jugend
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32].
[33] (Mattar, Philip, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East & North Africa, p. 860)
[34]
[35]
Besides espousing a fanatic Pan-Arabism, the Futuwwa adopted a frankly totalitarian ideology [36]
I hope you are not disputing all, the facts, and so many resources!
Now, a question, Do you have any information of Arabs resisting fascism/nazism in that era? It can help me in my research, thanks. Sallese ( talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Fascism & al-Muthanna
"the al-Muthanna Club, whose members, heavily influenced by European fascism, formed the core of new radicals for the civilian-military Pan-Arab coalition..." [37]
"from the Fascist- oriented al-Muthanna Club, later renamed the National Democratic Party; the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon; and others"
[38]
I appreciate very much this line: "Egyptian Arab nationalists initially had a flirtation of admiration of fascism in the 1920s, but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted." intending to insert it (I hope you have a link/source to this), as I am inserted the fact that Mussolini's party imposed racial rules against Arabs as well (alongside Jews & Africans), to show that some Arabs were VICTIMS of fascism as well!.
Thanks to you, I found more on Omar al-Mukhtar
Umar al-Mukhtar VS Amir Shakib Arslan
After hanging Umar Al-Mukhtar, a book came out "the new land of Islam," the book praised Shakib Arslan for envisioning Italian victory and for prescribing, in time, for the correct Arab attitude, and also lauds General Graziani the henchman of 'Umar al-Mukhtar in 1931 for being the true friend of Arabism. [7]
Amir Shakib Arslan was by far the most important figure in the context of Mussolini's influence in the whole Middle Eastern arena, He undertook to spread the world of the Duce, and to exploit the Abyssinian crisis in order to inspire the younger generation in the Middle east to revolt against the French and the British. He hoped that such an uprising would enhance pan-Arabism, especially his brand, namely Arabism with a strong element of Islamic identity and solidarity. In the dozens of articles published in 1935, he combined the negative messages of radical Islam with the modern message of fascist propaganda. Most of Arslan's work was published primarily in Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian papers, in some Egyptian press and was widely read in Egypt. [8]
Sallese ( talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am adding more on the fascist character of Iran's Pahlavi
Iran's Pahlavi's regime was described (among other things) as fascist in style, and it was this characteristic that led the allies to be worried it might fall into Nazi Germany control [9] The Pahlavi regime, like those in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, propounds a vigorous nationalist ideology based on chauvinism, imperial nostalgia and the cult of a leader. [10] On 17 September 1941 the shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammaed Reza Pahlavi and go into exile. In March 1943, German SD agents parachuted into Iran ( Operation Franz) and a "Nationalist Organization of Iran" in exile in Germany worked with radio propaganda on behalf of fascism. [11] Sallese ( talk) 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have just reorganized it, there's no question about what you said that the SSNP was the most fascistic, I think that for historical accuracy the general activities has to be noted (because of proprtion of the entire epopulation in the ME, the influence it had, etc.), What do you think of the Young Egypot Assoc. it was defined as fascist, or should we move it to para-fascism?
---
Not sure what TheFourDeuces means by "bias", biased towards anti fascism? what are the 2 sides that he refers to? aren't all those mentioned historic fact? I have omitted all the MASSIVE fascist parties and activity in Arab-Palestine for the very reason NOT to get into a ME two-sides story. though, because of TheFourDeuces comment I have put NOW more guilt on the fascist influx than on local, it starts off like this:
1) Before Italian fascism & Hitler's propaganda, there wasn't a known fascism trend in Arabia.
More on what I have added recently to make the locals look better:
2) Mussolini's PNF passed racial legislations against Arabs (as well as against Jews and Africans). [362] It has been argued (by author Robert Gerwarth) that the Italian Fascist regime committed its most numerous crimes against Arabs, blacks and Slavs.[363]
3) ...but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted. Initially the fascist regime took a hard line against Libyan Arab nationalists, who had been fighting a civil war for independence for many years under the leadership of Omar Mukhtar.
All the three sections above weren't needed so much from a historical point were it not for claims of "biased", so its in there anyhow.
What clearly is not "para-fascism"
Also quoted here [46], and here: [47]The following discussion on the "shirts" and their fascist characteristics borrows from a brief but excellent article by Elsa Marston, "Fascist Tendencies in Pre-War Arab Policies: A study of Three Arab Political Movements, [PPS SSNP, Misr al-Fatat (Young Egypt), and Futuwa]," Middle East Forum, 35 (May, 1959), pp. 19-22 [45]
As agreed to avoid the (deeper into) Palestine real fascism, though there was much of Mufti's parties, youth & other groups, and plans clearly defined as fascist.
What's propably along the lines of "para-fascism"
(American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials, Barbara A. Bardes, Mack C. Shelley, Steffen W. Schmidt, published by Cengage Learning, page 18)the ideological similarity between Baathism and fascism is quite striking.
You cannot use a brief observation from an introductory US politics textbook to argue that Ba'athism was parafascist. You have to use books about fascism written by leading experts. TFD ( talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You have a point here, I didn't use this particular source in the fascism page, I only quoted it here. Sallese ( talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In question
When the writer mentioned at least seven groups as proto-fascists in the Arab world.
Sallese ( talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In your point of view, does it not have to be mentioned at all, Do you agree on such a statement, "public opinion in support of fascism in the Arab street"? One might say, in reference to what you refer to as "the discussed fascism here as in other sections," A tiny group without any support in the public can't be equated --when writing history-- as a massive backed up group/s. In any case, the inner content deals with Mussolini's propagandist in the ME & the three groups, most of all. regards.
What dio you guys think of this source:
Gary A. Donaldson is the Keller Foundation Chair in American History at Xavier University in New Orleans. He is also his university's director of undergraduate research [49]
"The Baath party had its origins in European fascism and Arab nationalism"
(America at war since 1945: politics and diplomacy in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War Gary Donaldson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996, p. 144) [50] Sallese ( talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Will try in the next few days, you should know that I appreciate yout hat tips, it seems you have researched quite a lot. That Umar al-Muktar, the more I read about him, the more fascinated he 'looks'.
I couldn't find so far in Roger Griffin's book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, about Baathism nor about Aflaq.;; Though, since you mentioned famous Walter Laqueur, here's by him:
Since then (post WW2), conditions have changed, and fascism outside Europe has become a possibility and, in some cases, a reality. The Iraqi and the Syrian regimes have pronounced fascist features... Both the Iraqi and the Syrian leadership belongs to the Ba'th party, and elitist, pan-Arabist group that arose in the 1930s partly as a result of the rise of fascism in Europe.
Fascism: Past, Present, Future by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press US, 1997, p. 162 [51]
And something attributed to him.
Fascism in the twenty-first century? by W Laqueur - 2007... Colonel. Nasser's pan-Arab dictatorship in Egypt had common features with fascism--the monopoly of a state party, the role of the leader, of propaganda..
[52] Sallese ( talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)