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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
What does "radical" mean here? Radicalism (historical)? Political radicalism? Both of these almost universally refer to left-wing politics in the world at large (and even in the Anglosphere); I would avoid using the word "radical" here--it has very specific historical connotations. How about using another term? Even fascists themselves might contend with the label "extremist." Although two sources are cited here that use the term "radical," I'm dubious mainly for the following reason (aside from the fact that they are both published in the USA, one of the few cultures that uses the word "radical" so loosely). In the definitions of "fascism" in the following major online dictionaries (which are about as unbiased as we can get), the word "radical" is utterly absent: Merriam-Webster ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism), Oxford Dictionaries ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism), Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism; which is based on a variety of other sources, including the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries), and the Cambridge Dictionaries ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/fascism). Wolfdog ( talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict):I haven't looked at the sources, but radical would generally be more neutral than extremist, and is more commonly used with respect to political movements--whereas extremism is applied to more fringe-ish groups. That's just my impression.
The term "radical right" is used only once in the article, and in a very specific context, i.e., "By 1909 after the failure of a syndicalist general strike in France, Sorel and his supporters left the radical left and went to the radical right".,/br>
I basically agree with the IP that the use of radical in a general sense is more appropriate.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Both terms have different meanings in different countries/eras. They are relative terms only. What was right wing by 1934 German standards (e.g. socialism) would be considered left wing on the political spectrum in early 21th century US politics (or 1934 for that matter). Therefore, they serve to obscure rather than elucidate. The subject can be addressed using clear language that explains what fascism/fascists did and said. ProfJustice ( talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Before we discuss the lead--which is a summary of the article--where are the sources to support the POV you are trying to push? I have already pointed to a coupe of pertinent issues related to the assertions being made. And the cryptic responses of TFD don't justify your proposed edits. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the abovementioned term is used by post WWII neofascists. For future reference, I found the text for the related edits in a publication by the following scholar, who has published several books on the topic Philip Morgan.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the word "famously" from the following sentence because that adjective is opinion, not a neutral fact.
The word "famously" is not part of a quote, nor is it presented as one person's opinion, thus it is misleading and does not belong in this article. Spylab ( talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Fascism Is Government by Corporations." -Benito Mussolini
When Corporations control a government and overrule the will of the people, that system is Fascism (also Corporate Fascism).
Italy in World War 2 (European War 2) is the primary example given; but few consider that the United States in WW2 was also a corporate state - fascist state. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually ruled in favor of "Corporate Personhood" and subsequent constitutional personhood even before Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and continually up to today. Today, the courts continue to recognize corporations as "persons" to be tried and protected as such. In 2011, Republican (GOP) candidate, Mitt Romney defended the corporate government(fascist) establishment saying, "Corporations are People, My Friend!" When Environmental Responsibility Advocates appeal to the Legislative and Executive Branches of federal government, Oil Corporations simply outspend them, to maintain the ecological chop-shop the corporations want. Limited Liability Corporations (LLC), are a primary example of how corporations take no responsibility for their ecological effects, and keep all their profits. The Citizens take full responsibility under the Constitution and local laws, so if a corporation is a "person," they should be liable for their impacts, the same, but are not. Monsanto, the top Agricultural Gene Modification corporation in United States is a great example of what corporations can get away with in a Fascist system. Monsanto enjoyed favor in the administration of George W. Bush (2000-2008). And, even Barack Obama in 2012 signed legislation that was called the "Monsanto Protection Act" to protect the influence of the corporation amid public outrage. Fascism is not a relic of a past time. It is with us today in United States, perhaps as much or more than in Mussolini's rulership of Italy.
When Money is ruled by the Supreme Court as Speech, and Corporations are ruled as People, this is characteristic of government ruled by Corporations. Corporate government is Fascism. U.S. "Globalization" is an attempt to spread "Industrialism, Corporatism/Fascism, and Debt" to other nations as a means to control them. The current Corporate globalization attempt from U.S. is what George H.W. Bush famously called the "New World Order." If Democracy is called "For the People, by the People," Fascism is "For the Corporations, by the Corporations."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.224.56 ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2014
The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. [1] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists). [2] Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). [3]
Early fascist economic policy in Italy pushed the country towards the "corporative state", with the idea of integrating the interests of all parts of the economy into a class-transcending national unity. The trade unions, which were a significant component of Italian fascism from its radical syndicalist roots, were eliminated, and “Syndical Laws” promulgated mandating that each industrial sector could have only one trade union and on employers organization to negotiate agreements, with the government acting as ‘umpire’. [4]
In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments. [5]
In short, fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. [6] Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. [7] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit. [7]
In discussing the spread of fascism beyond Italy, historian Philip Morgan statesSince the Depression was a crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third-way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'. As Mussolini typically put it in early 1934, "from 1929...fascism has become a universal phenomenon... The dominant forces of the 19th century, democracy, socialism, liberalism have been exhausted...the new political and economic forms of the twentieth-century are fascist'(Mussolini 1935: 32). [8]
While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit. [9] In particular, fascists denounced capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property which fascists supported; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. [10] Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity. [11]
Fascists governments advocated resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation in order to secure national solidarity. [12] While fascism was opposed domestic class conflict, it was held that bourgeois-proletarian conflict existed primarily in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations. [13]
Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part. [14] The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone. [14] Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. [15]
The Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or "National After-work Program" was one major social welfare initiative in Fascist Italy. Created in 1925, it was the state's largest recreational organization for adults. [16] The Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras. [16] Membership of the Dopolavoro was voluntary, but it had high participation because of its nonpolitical nature. [16] It is estimated that, by 1936, the OND had organized 80% of salaried workers [17] and, by 1939, 40% of the industrial workforce. The sports activities proved popular with large numbers of workers. The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organizations in Italy. [18]
The enormous success of the Dopolavoro in Fascist Italy was the key factor in Nazi Germany's creation of its own version of the Dopolavoro, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or "Strength through Joy" program of the Nazi government's German Labour Front, which became even more successful than the Dopolavoro. [19] KdF provided government-subsidized holidays for German workers. [20] KdF also lent its name to the original Volkswagen ("People's Car"), a state-manufactured automobile that was purportedly meant to be cheap enough to allow all German citizens to be able to own one.
While fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons. Fascists criticized egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They instead promoted social Darwinist views. [21] [22]
Adolf Hitler was opposed to egalitarian and universal social welfare because, in his view, it encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and feeble. [23] While in power, the Nazis created social welfare programs to deal with the large numbers of unemployed. However, those programs were neither egalitarian nor universal, excluding many minority groups and other people whom they felt posed a threat to the future health of the German people. [24]-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, clearly the passage is a beard for the editor's(Ubikwit) POV(ie, fascism isn't a right wing ideology, it's left wing blah blah blah...). One just has to look at his/her other edits and comments to see a total lack of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.26 ( talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The blah blah blah argument doesn't count right? I think you should have to make arguments like "Hitler gave full tenure to all workers, nationalized industry, mandated a living wage, mandated wages, gave assigned work, confiscated property, expanded nationalized medicine, enacted luxury and industry specific taxes" etc.. to make the argument. That would be more useful I think. Everyone is bias if you are being honest.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) "[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men"
Griffin, Roger 1991 pp. 222
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).minneapolis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).kp72
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).experience
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pauley3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).organizations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle99
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pauley100
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).community
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).egalitarianism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).university101
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hitler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).evans102
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My addition by Berend was removed with a request to break up the quote. I didn't break it up specifically because it seemed to provide a concise but rather complete overview. I'm not sure either how WP:Weight plays in. In any case, I'll simply paste it below in case other editors want to weigh in regarding reinstating where it was, or in the history section, or adding specific parts back into the article. Best, Airborne84 ( talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Ivan Berend provides an overview of Fascism as follows in its emergence in France, Germany, and Italy at the end of the 19th century:
Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged. This ideology relied on extreme national fundamentalism and subordinated both citizens and their individual human rights to the "eternal interests" of the nation. It was hostile to other nations, aggressively demanded the rights of the nation, and rejected the existing, Western-dominated world order and values. It advocated and attempted to create a strong, authoritarian state that was intensely antiliberal and antiparliamentary. It developed a cult of charismatic leadership that drew on irrational sources for its strength and power. Rejecting class differences in the national community, it sought to establish a homogeneous, communal, collective society, which would realize a "national socialism" in its struggle against the West, against international finance, and against the society's alien elements (such as minorities and other races). [1]
Just because Cyprian P. Blamires says so? How is Cyprian P. Blamires' word is the gospel of what fascism is? He doesnt even have a Wiki entry. Basically you are just cherrypicking quotes about what you want fascism to be. Thats very subjective. KevinFrom ( talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest this section is misleading as written: although the ultimate origin is Latin fasces, it suggests that the National Fascist Party named itself in order to be associated with the authority of the ancient Roman office of the Lictor when the immediate origin of the name was Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The association with Roman imperial power came later. Paul S ( talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism, however, Led's view on this matter is 100% correct.[24]" That last part is rather odd, particularly because none of the cited sources are written by Led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.31 ( talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Bulgaria in the past to the present, the Bulgarian non-Turks and novel peoples have made printing exploitation assimilation and exile, Religious cultural political bans everything Bulgaria large population reduction migration as a result of application b of the Attack party recently gained continuity and rising fascist movements, increasing the pressure on the Turks and novels.. 1989 exile Turks, Attack party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 ( talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This edit uses a fringe source which does not meet reliable sources. I reverted it an so has another editor. Please discuss before restoring.
TFD ( talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ooops. My apologies. I am sure this is a tough page to moderate. It was written by an academic sociologist with good credentials so I thought it might be of use to readers here, especially since it's easily accessible to the public. It does me no harm, though, if you guys don't like it. Again, my apologies. Tcrackcrack ( talk) 05:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to take you attention but in the article Fascism no description Fascism is a ... Sorry form my English , You must correct right way this description: Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a Nation state of nationalism that took its name from radical authoritarian nationalism [1][2] in early 20th-century in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Belankins ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Italian fascism directly originated from Benito Mussolini's Socialist party. He was anti-Catholic, opposed to the free market and was for state control of the means of production dictated to existing oligarchies. There was nothing remotely conservative or, to use the original term, liberal about his party. He was left wing by any definition of the term as was his eager disciple Adolf Hitler and American admirer Franklin Roosevelt. 204.195.42.156 ( talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the line in the first paragraph of the article:
"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."
This statement is factually incorrect- Fascism in a political analysis is usually Left Wing: pretty straightforward Considering the article itself refers to the Socialism of the Fascist states, most Nazi propaganda condemned capitalism and the banking system (as well as being the National Socialist Workers Party) etc.
It has become a bias political theme to associate authoritarianism with the right wing (clearly I dispute the sources cited, but Socialism in all its forms are left wing- so unless someone can explain the impossibility of right wing socialism (especially far right) this line should be either corrected to either identified with the left wing, or removed all together.
Postgradpolitics (
talk)
04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has already been discussed
many many many times. If you want to bring it up again go right ahead but past consensus shows it isn't going to happen, especially if you provide absolutely no
reliable sources to back up your claims. --
Stabila711 (
talk)
04:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)I posted a welcome message that will you guide you to policies and guidelines for editing articles. Mainstream sources do not support your position and you would need a reliable source to back up the change. TFD ( talk) 11:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Britannica :
Quote "Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."
This is a helpful and accurate definition of Fascism and clearly states the policies that fascist parties have in common. The use of left and right is ambiguous in the lead at the moment. I propose that we add this into the lead and remove the reference to left and right until better evidence can be found. Thank you.
People1750 ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" "Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[39]" Can we make up our mind please? There is no reason that the former should even be in the opening paragraph. There is already a section dedicated to where fascism falls in the political spectrum, and to have that sentence in the opening paragraph is redundant, if not misleading. The opening paragraph should be as objective as possible and should not contain topics which are still under debate (eg. where fascism should be placed on the left-right spectrum). Bweazel ( talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
allthefoxes (
Talk)
00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Did the Italian press of the period refer to Hitler or Franko as fellow Fascists? Did the German and Spanish press of the time call their own governments Fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.184.236 ( talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy - link
122.105.148.96 ( talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about the political situation of fascism before the 20th Century? For instance could Henry VIII or the Borgias be regarded as fascists in retrospect? Slightnostalgia ( talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Didn't most of the Borgias kill Jews for instance? And they were all tyrants. I know fascism is stronger than anti-Semetism, but it's a rather daft to say that the Borgias and Henry VIII were not fascists. All political views need to start somewhere. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
How can not asking anyone's opinion be a form of liberalism? Doesn't make sense, 4D. Could Absolute Monarchy be regarded as fascism? We need a political philosopher round here to write a new section really. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: [3], it appears that @ 2.39.188.155: is removing the line "This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs – especially Slovenes and Croats" without a source. I'm not involved in this topic area so a more experienced editor should probably weigh in, but from a look through sources it appears there are numerous examples ( other) of sources primary and secondary suggesting D'Annunzio "declared war" on South Slavs. Intelligent sium 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism [2] [3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism and conservatism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right, far left within the traditional left–right spectrum. [4] [5]
Fascists believe that liberal conservative democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [6] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [6] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [7] [8] [9] [10] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [11]
My explanation, we all due respect conservatives alone are not the sole source of fascism in the EU or USA but I feel that someone edited the upper portion of this page to make it look as though only far right types could be fascist yet proof exists on the far left and is not just limited to the FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration policy at times. Therefore I added the words far left in several locations, that is the only change requested. There has been a continuing internet argument that fascism is only on one side and plenty of proof exists to the fact it exists on both sides of the aisle, I feel the edit was a smear on conservatives in general and I've seen both sides engage in such tomfoolery and it's not an accurate reflection of the facts. Also, I'm not asking for this paragraph to be included, I simply want editors to understand my thinking and I'll be glad to cite more sources. Thank you.
My source:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determine.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Juggernautz (
talk)
01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
References
university
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).gj120
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).routledge
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Blamires, Cyprian 2006 p. 188-189
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
22:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)There was an older version that explained Race was something the Fascist used for political power by playing the races off one another thus more power for the state, and by disenfranchising a segment(s) of the population of a nation. I thought that was more accurate (of the past or present) I guess it got memory holed. 207.119.215.206 ( talk) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. [1] [2]
to
Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional European left–right spectrum. [1] [2]
because European political structures are significantly different than American. IE Right wing Europeans are still significantly to the left of the American right wing.
Alephbell (
talk)
18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
References
With all due respect to all those affected by the Holocaust, I think it's a tad melodramatic to put "Auschwitz" in the "See also" section. The racial policies of Nazi Germany are mentioned in only a few sentences in this article, and there are no mentions of Facism in the article on Auschwitz. They're related, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:1008:0:C46B:F7C5:3EBA:586F ( talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Jeebus! This page is getting messy. I'd just like to remind everybody that this is not a forum for chewing the fat or giving opinions about the subject. It is for discussing improvements to the article and giving opinions, supported by evidence as well as argument, about that. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 09:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please read the archives, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism vs Communism/Socialism.
The definition of Fascism is contentious. Ayn Ryan lexicon contents that since WWII leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy between communism and fascism. "Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism." [1] CaptRJB ( talk) 00:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
References
From my talk:
I agree with Ivano that the question of relations between fascism and Marxism ideologies is a very interesting topic. But just one random citation from Mussolini sourced to a Russian website is not something that must be in the article. We might need a good secondary sources that refer to this citation when narrating Fascism topic. As a native Russian speaker I can confirm that hrono.ru has good reputation and in the articles related to Russian history we consider it as a reliable source. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that a secondary source is required to explain the meaning of the quote. Dottori said that he believed Marx's theory of historical materialism and Mussolini said it had a great influence on him. It sounds like he was trying to get the artist on his side. It would be interesting to see whether he said the same thing to his big business backers. TFD ( talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In the "Definition", instead of: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism" shouldn't it be: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the negations of liberalism, communism and conservatism" ? (The omission of "fascist" is deliberate - a self-reference in a definition is not very helpful.) HarDan ( talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This recent article titled Nobody Knows Anything About Fascism may have a few things to add as the subject is not clear for quite a few people. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vietnam and Cuba don't have anything equal to Fascist so that comparrison is wrong 58.187.161.159 ( talk) 02:27, 25 December 2016 (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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
What does "radical" mean here? Radicalism (historical)? Political radicalism? Both of these almost universally refer to left-wing politics in the world at large (and even in the Anglosphere); I would avoid using the word "radical" here--it has very specific historical connotations. How about using another term? Even fascists themselves might contend with the label "extremist." Although two sources are cited here that use the term "radical," I'm dubious mainly for the following reason (aside from the fact that they are both published in the USA, one of the few cultures that uses the word "radical" so loosely). In the definitions of "fascism" in the following major online dictionaries (which are about as unbiased as we can get), the word "radical" is utterly absent: Merriam-Webster ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism), Oxford Dictionaries ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism), Dictionary.com ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism; which is based on a variety of other sources, including the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries), and the Cambridge Dictionaries ( http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/fascism). Wolfdog ( talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict):I haven't looked at the sources, but radical would generally be more neutral than extremist, and is more commonly used with respect to political movements--whereas extremism is applied to more fringe-ish groups. That's just my impression.
The term "radical right" is used only once in the article, and in a very specific context, i.e., "By 1909 after the failure of a syndicalist general strike in France, Sorel and his supporters left the radical left and went to the radical right".,/br>
I basically agree with the IP that the use of radical in a general sense is more appropriate.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Both terms have different meanings in different countries/eras. They are relative terms only. What was right wing by 1934 German standards (e.g. socialism) would be considered left wing on the political spectrum in early 21th century US politics (or 1934 for that matter). Therefore, they serve to obscure rather than elucidate. The subject can be addressed using clear language that explains what fascism/fascists did and said. ProfJustice ( talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Before we discuss the lead--which is a summary of the article--where are the sources to support the POV you are trying to push? I have already pointed to a coupe of pertinent issues related to the assertions being made. And the cryptic responses of TFD don't justify your proposed edits. -- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Apparently the abovementioned term is used by post WWII neofascists. For future reference, I found the text for the related edits in a publication by the following scholar, who has published several books on the topic Philip Morgan.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the word "famously" from the following sentence because that adjective is opinion, not a neutral fact.
The word "famously" is not part of a quote, nor is it presented as one person's opinion, thus it is misleading and does not belong in this article. Spylab ( talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
"Fascism Is Government by Corporations." -Benito Mussolini
When Corporations control a government and overrule the will of the people, that system is Fascism (also Corporate Fascism).
Italy in World War 2 (European War 2) is the primary example given; but few consider that the United States in WW2 was also a corporate state - fascist state. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually ruled in favor of "Corporate Personhood" and subsequent constitutional personhood even before Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and continually up to today. Today, the courts continue to recognize corporations as "persons" to be tried and protected as such. In 2011, Republican (GOP) candidate, Mitt Romney defended the corporate government(fascist) establishment saying, "Corporations are People, My Friend!" When Environmental Responsibility Advocates appeal to the Legislative and Executive Branches of federal government, Oil Corporations simply outspend them, to maintain the ecological chop-shop the corporations want. Limited Liability Corporations (LLC), are a primary example of how corporations take no responsibility for their ecological effects, and keep all their profits. The Citizens take full responsibility under the Constitution and local laws, so if a corporation is a "person," they should be liable for their impacts, the same, but are not. Monsanto, the top Agricultural Gene Modification corporation in United States is a great example of what corporations can get away with in a Fascist system. Monsanto enjoyed favor in the administration of George W. Bush (2000-2008). And, even Barack Obama in 2012 signed legislation that was called the "Monsanto Protection Act" to protect the influence of the corporation amid public outrage. Fascism is not a relic of a past time. It is with us today in United States, perhaps as much or more than in Mussolini's rulership of Italy.
When Money is ruled by the Supreme Court as Speech, and Corporations are ruled as People, this is characteristic of government ruled by Corporations. Corporate government is Fascism. U.S. "Globalization" is an attempt to spread "Industrialism, Corporatism/Fascism, and Debt" to other nations as a means to control them. The current Corporate globalization attempt from U.S. is what George H.W. Bush famously called the "New World Order." If Democracy is called "For the People, by the People," Fascism is "For the Corporations, by the Corporations."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.224.56 ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2014
The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. [1] They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists). [2] Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). [3]
Early fascist economic policy in Italy pushed the country towards the "corporative state", with the idea of integrating the interests of all parts of the economy into a class-transcending national unity. The trade unions, which were a significant component of Italian fascism from its radical syndicalist roots, were eliminated, and “Syndical Laws” promulgated mandating that each industrial sector could have only one trade union and on employers organization to negotiate agreements, with the government acting as ‘umpire’. [4]
In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments. [5]
In short, fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. [6] Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. [7] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit. [7]
In discussing the spread of fascism beyond Italy, historian Philip Morgan statesSince the Depression was a crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third-way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'. As Mussolini typically put it in early 1934, "from 1929...fascism has become a universal phenomenon... The dominant forces of the 19th century, democracy, socialism, liberalism have been exhausted...the new political and economic forms of the twentieth-century are fascist'(Mussolini 1935: 32). [8]
While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit. [9] In particular, fascists denounced capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property which fascists supported; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. [10] Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity. [11]
Fascists governments advocated resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation in order to secure national solidarity. [12] While fascism was opposed domestic class conflict, it was held that bourgeois-proletarian conflict existed primarily in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations. [13]
Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part. [14] The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone. [14] Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. [15]
The Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or "National After-work Program" was one major social welfare initiative in Fascist Italy. Created in 1925, it was the state's largest recreational organization for adults. [16] The Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras. [16] Membership of the Dopolavoro was voluntary, but it had high participation because of its nonpolitical nature. [16] It is estimated that, by 1936, the OND had organized 80% of salaried workers [17] and, by 1939, 40% of the industrial workforce. The sports activities proved popular with large numbers of workers. The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organizations in Italy. [18]
The enormous success of the Dopolavoro in Fascist Italy was the key factor in Nazi Germany's creation of its own version of the Dopolavoro, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or "Strength through Joy" program of the Nazi government's German Labour Front, which became even more successful than the Dopolavoro. [19] KdF provided government-subsidized holidays for German workers. [20] KdF also lent its name to the original Volkswagen ("People's Car"), a state-manufactured automobile that was purportedly meant to be cheap enough to allow all German citizens to be able to own one.
While fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons. Fascists criticized egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They instead promoted social Darwinist views. [21] [22]
Adolf Hitler was opposed to egalitarian and universal social welfare because, in his view, it encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and feeble. [23] While in power, the Nazis created social welfare programs to deal with the large numbers of unemployed. However, those programs were neither egalitarian nor universal, excluding many minority groups and other people whom they felt posed a threat to the future health of the German people. [24]-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, clearly the passage is a beard for the editor's(Ubikwit) POV(ie, fascism isn't a right wing ideology, it's left wing blah blah blah...). One just has to look at his/her other edits and comments to see a total lack of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.26 ( talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- The blah blah blah argument doesn't count right? I think you should have to make arguments like "Hitler gave full tenure to all workers, nationalized industry, mandated a living wage, mandated wages, gave assigned work, confiscated property, expanded nationalized medicine, enacted luxury and industry specific taxes" etc.. to make the argument. That would be more useful I think. Everyone is bias if you are being honest.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help) "[Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men"
Griffin, Roger 1991 pp. 222
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).minneapolis
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).kp72
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).experience
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pauley3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).organizations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle99
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pauley100
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).community
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).egalitarianism
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).university101
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hitler
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).evans102
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My addition by Berend was removed with a request to break up the quote. I didn't break it up specifically because it seemed to provide a concise but rather complete overview. I'm not sure either how WP:Weight plays in. In any case, I'll simply paste it below in case other editors want to weigh in regarding reinstating where it was, or in the history section, or adding specific parts back into the article. Best, Airborne84 ( talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Ivan Berend provides an overview of Fascism as follows in its emergence in France, Germany, and Italy at the end of the 19th century:
Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged. This ideology relied on extreme national fundamentalism and subordinated both citizens and their individual human rights to the "eternal interests" of the nation. It was hostile to other nations, aggressively demanded the rights of the nation, and rejected the existing, Western-dominated world order and values. It advocated and attempted to create a strong, authoritarian state that was intensely antiliberal and antiparliamentary. It developed a cult of charismatic leadership that drew on irrational sources for its strength and power. Rejecting class differences in the national community, it sought to establish a homogeneous, communal, collective society, which would realize a "national socialism" in its struggle against the West, against international finance, and against the society's alien elements (such as minorities and other races). [1]
Just because Cyprian P. Blamires says so? How is Cyprian P. Blamires' word is the gospel of what fascism is? He doesnt even have a Wiki entry. Basically you are just cherrypicking quotes about what you want fascism to be. Thats very subjective. KevinFrom ( talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest this section is misleading as written: although the ultimate origin is Latin fasces, it suggests that the National Fascist Party named itself in order to be associated with the authority of the ancient Roman office of the Lictor when the immediate origin of the name was Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The association with Roman imperial power came later. Paul S ( talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism, however, Led's view on this matter is 100% correct.[24]" That last part is rather odd, particularly because none of the cited sources are written by Led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.31 ( talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Bulgaria in the past to the present, the Bulgarian non-Turks and novel peoples have made printing exploitation assimilation and exile, Religious cultural political bans everything Bulgaria large population reduction migration as a result of application b of the Attack party recently gained continuity and rising fascist movements, increasing the pressure on the Turks and novels.. 1989 exile Turks, Attack party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 ( talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This edit uses a fringe source which does not meet reliable sources. I reverted it an so has another editor. Please discuss before restoring.
TFD ( talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ooops. My apologies. I am sure this is a tough page to moderate. It was written by an academic sociologist with good credentials so I thought it might be of use to readers here, especially since it's easily accessible to the public. It does me no harm, though, if you guys don't like it. Again, my apologies. Tcrackcrack ( talk) 05:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to take you attention but in the article Fascism no description Fascism is a ... Sorry form my English , You must correct right way this description: Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a Nation state of nationalism that took its name from radical authoritarian nationalism [1][2] in early 20th-century in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Belankins ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Italian fascism directly originated from Benito Mussolini's Socialist party. He was anti-Catholic, opposed to the free market and was for state control of the means of production dictated to existing oligarchies. There was nothing remotely conservative or, to use the original term, liberal about his party. He was left wing by any definition of the term as was his eager disciple Adolf Hitler and American admirer Franklin Roosevelt. 204.195.42.156 ( talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the line in the first paragraph of the article:
"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."
This statement is factually incorrect- Fascism in a political analysis is usually Left Wing: pretty straightforward Considering the article itself refers to the Socialism of the Fascist states, most Nazi propaganda condemned capitalism and the banking system (as well as being the National Socialist Workers Party) etc.
It has become a bias political theme to associate authoritarianism with the right wing (clearly I dispute the sources cited, but Socialism in all its forms are left wing- so unless someone can explain the impossibility of right wing socialism (especially far right) this line should be either corrected to either identified with the left wing, or removed all together.
Postgradpolitics (
talk)
04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This has already been discussed
many many many times. If you want to bring it up again go right ahead but past consensus shows it isn't going to happen, especially if you provide absolutely no
reliable sources to back up your claims. --
Stabila711 (
talk)
04:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)I posted a welcome message that will you guide you to policies and guidelines for editing articles. Mainstream sources do not support your position and you would need a reliable source to back up the change. TFD ( talk) 11:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Britannica :
Quote "Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."
This is a helpful and accurate definition of Fascism and clearly states the policies that fascist parties have in common. The use of left and right is ambiguous in the lead at the moment. I propose that we add this into the lead and remove the reference to left and right until better evidence can be found. Thank you.
People1750 ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" "Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[39]" Can we make up our mind please? There is no reason that the former should even be in the opening paragraph. There is already a section dedicated to where fascism falls in the political spectrum, and to have that sentence in the opening paragraph is redundant, if not misleading. The opening paragraph should be as objective as possible and should not contain topics which are still under debate (eg. where fascism should be placed on the left-right spectrum). Bweazel ( talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. --
allthefoxes (
Talk)
00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Did the Italian press of the period refer to Hitler or Franko as fellow Fascists? Did the German and Spanish press of the time call their own governments Fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.184.236 ( talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
/info/en/?search=Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy - link
122.105.148.96 ( talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about the political situation of fascism before the 20th Century? For instance could Henry VIII or the Borgias be regarded as fascists in retrospect? Slightnostalgia ( talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Didn't most of the Borgias kill Jews for instance? And they were all tyrants. I know fascism is stronger than anti-Semetism, but it's a rather daft to say that the Borgias and Henry VIII were not fascists. All political views need to start somewhere. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
How can not asking anyone's opinion be a form of liberalism? Doesn't make sense, 4D. Could Absolute Monarchy be regarded as fascism? We need a political philosopher round here to write a new section really. Slightnostalgia ( talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Re: [3], it appears that @ 2.39.188.155: is removing the line "This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs – especially Slovenes and Croats" without a source. I'm not involved in this topic area so a more experienced editor should probably weigh in, but from a look through sources it appears there are numerous examples ( other) of sources primary and secondary suggesting D'Annunzio "declared war" on South Slavs. Intelligent sium 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism [2] [3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism and conservatism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right, far left within the traditional left–right spectrum. [4] [5]
Fascists believe that liberal conservative democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [6] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [6] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [7] [8] [9] [10] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [11]
My explanation, we all due respect conservatives alone are not the sole source of fascism in the EU or USA but I feel that someone edited the upper portion of this page to make it look as though only far right types could be fascist yet proof exists on the far left and is not just limited to the FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration policy at times. Therefore I added the words far left in several locations, that is the only change requested. There has been a continuing internet argument that fascism is only on one side and plenty of proof exists to the fact it exists on both sides of the aisle, I feel the edit was a smear on conservatives in general and I've seen both sides engage in such tomfoolery and it's not an accurate reflection of the facts. Also, I'm not asking for this paragraph to be included, I simply want editors to understand my thinking and I'll be glad to cite more sources. Thank you.
My source:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determine.
As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.
It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.
Juggernautz (
talk)
01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
References
university
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).aristotle
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).gj120
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).routledge
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Blamires, Cyprian 2006 p. 188-189
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
22:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)There was an older version that explained Race was something the Fascist used for political power by playing the races off one another thus more power for the state, and by disenfranchising a segment(s) of the population of a nation. I thought that was more accurate (of the past or present) I guess it got memory holed. 207.119.215.206 ( talk) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum. [1] [2]
to
Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional European left–right spectrum. [1] [2]
because European political structures are significantly different than American. IE Right wing Europeans are still significantly to the left of the American right wing.
Alephbell (
talk)
18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
References
With all due respect to all those affected by the Holocaust, I think it's a tad melodramatic to put "Auschwitz" in the "See also" section. The racial policies of Nazi Germany are mentioned in only a few sentences in this article, and there are no mentions of Facism in the article on Auschwitz. They're related, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:1008:0:C46B:F7C5:3EBA:586F ( talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Jeebus! This page is getting messy. I'd just like to remind everybody that this is not a forum for chewing the fat or giving opinions about the subject. It is for discussing improvements to the article and giving opinions, supported by evidence as well as argument, about that. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 09:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please read the archives, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fascism vs Communism/Socialism.
The definition of Fascism is contentious. Ayn Ryan lexicon contents that since WWII leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy between communism and fascism. "Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism." [1] CaptRJB ( talk) 00:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
References
From my talk:
I agree with Ivano that the question of relations between fascism and Marxism ideologies is a very interesting topic. But just one random citation from Mussolini sourced to a Russian website is not something that must be in the article. We might need a good secondary sources that refer to this citation when narrating Fascism topic. As a native Russian speaker I can confirm that hrono.ru has good reputation and in the articles related to Russian history we consider it as a reliable source. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Agree that a secondary source is required to explain the meaning of the quote. Dottori said that he believed Marx's theory of historical materialism and Mussolini said it had a great influence on him. It sounds like he was trying to get the artist on his side. It would be interesting to see whether he said the same thing to his big business backers. TFD ( talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
In the "Definition", instead of: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism" shouldn't it be: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the negations of liberalism, communism and conservatism" ? (The omission of "fascist" is deliberate - a self-reference in a definition is not very helpful.) HarDan ( talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This recent article titled Nobody Knows Anything About Fascism may have a few things to add as the subject is not clear for quite a few people. -- JamesPoulson ( talk) 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Fascism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Vietnam and Cuba don't have anything equal to Fascist so that comparrison is wrong 58.187.161.159 ( talk) 02:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)