Talk:Fascism/Archive 15

Deleting This Word or That Word

Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary reasons for deleting the word "reactionary" from the Nazism article and putting the word "Revolutionary" back into this article.

---

The statement: "Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups." This is a recent addition to this entry. The language here is ad hominem to the current political climate. It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ? (talk • contribs) about 30 Nov 2005. if someone can work out exactly who wrote this, great, but it was amidst a flurry of activity, and I'm not digging it out of the log -- Jmabel | Talk

I suspect that the above comment is based on a misunderstanding of the term ad hominem, but I honestly cannot work out how that word was interpreted and what this person meant to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. Communism generally attracted political support from radical antisocialists, working class, and progressive, atheistic or agnostic, libral, far-left, antibourgeois and extremist individuals and groups. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.147.75 (talk • contribs) .

Now that is a bit of a mess. I assume, for example, that "libral" is intended to be "liberal", a group that have consistently opposed Communism. I have no idea what "radical antisocialists" is supposed to mean; perhaps you intended "radical socialists"? Or perhaps you were just being snide. Other than that, a more or less reasonable statement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If Hitler is the archetype of fascism, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer acted as both a traditionalist(in his political thinking, not theological) and a conservative(both politics and theology), then it can be said that these groups consistently opposed fascism during the time of fascism's zenith.

Again, the above statement in contest is using language that is politically charged from today's current political climate. Why does the statement begin its listing with "big business"? That is blatantly contemporary, political verbiage with zero historical, contextual meaning. (unsigned)

Ummm. George Seldes wrote about the connection between fascism and "big business" in the 1930s. There is also a book by that name: Daniel Guérin, Fascism and Big Business, published in 1939. I think they both overstate the case, but it is a well-known concept that hardly originated recently. Also, please sign you entries. It is common courtesy.--Cberlet 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The only connection between fascism and "big business" is the same one fascism has with everything else in a society: it controls them all. Unlike their brethren socialists, fascists no longer take the step of claiming outright ownership over businesses. But they have total power over business people, but not responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Direct taxation and regulation are the means of fascist control. In Germany they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party for a reason, and it wasn't just to trick people. Hitler did have a hatred of Jews, and thus couldn't accept Marx as the source of his socialism (as he admitted), but socialist ideas are millenia old, and have been promoted by some in the West since at least the late 10th century (yes, even while in the middle of the socialistic system of serfdom - though that mostly started as a means of security after Roman rule and taxation was rejected). The problem for the Germans was that those sources often had religious overtones, and they were atheists and Naturalists. The defining characteristic, as with their fellow collectivists the communists and like socialists of all stripes, see the individual as a tool for accomplishing their "greater" goals. Whether they claim all moral authority resides in the state as communists do, or claim it's in the people as fascists do, the only entity able to run it all is indeed the state. The main source of votes in Germany for the NSDAP were government employees, including postal workers, teachers, train system employees, and what would now be called progressives. In the 1933 election, which has never been shown to be fraudulent though that is a popularized notion, the NSDAP gained most of the votes of the Communists. Iconoclasts when out of power, when in power there is no opposition allowed, as we've seen everywhere.--[RL, 20051224].

You write this as if you think that most of us who edit this page are unaware of the fringe minority views of von Hayek, von Mises, and other right-wing scholars. Alas, we are not. Please do not lecture us on this matter, as it has been thoroughly discussed for many months. If you have a cited piece of text that you wish to add, please give it a try. Constructive editing is always welcome. --Cberlet 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some reactionaries find fascism attractive; some consider it appalling. If by a reactionary one means counter-revolutionary traditionalist, then Sir Winston Churchill, arguably the most consistent nemesis of nazism, fits the word well due to his opposition to revolution -- nazi or Bolshevist. As for Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises being right-wing scholars, they are clearly anti-fascist and could be used (with Churchill) as illustrations of how everything right-wing or conservative is not fascist. It is best that the word fascist and its derivatives be a catch-all for right-wing politics. I cannot be certain that Churchill was ideologically much different from Engelbert Dollfuß or even Francisco Franco; as a practical matter Churchill respected electoral, competitive politics as a norm, which distinguishes him from conservative dictators like Dollfuß, Franco, Salazar, Metaxas, Horthy, and the like.

To claim that such professed libertarians as Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises are in league with fascists is to ignore the stated differences between libertarians and fascists. To be sure, there is not and never has been a libertarian government, so nobody can be certain that a libertarian government would not itself spin off into some sort of dictatorship -- or just as much that it would not.

Libertarians differ in rhetoric from fascists by rejecting racism, religious bigotry, nationalism, cronyism, and militarism on principle. They don't promote any corporate state that ostensibly merges the interests of workers and property owners. Their ideal (achievable or not) of minimizing the power of government to do ill (or good) is contrary to fascist preachings of the purported need to do so. --66.231.41.57 01:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You've clearly missed the point by a remarkably wide margin. No one here (nor is asserted anywhere in the article) asserts thst all of conservatism (even including libertarianism) is equal to fascism. As you point out, many conservatives (eg. Chruchill) and even reactionaries (e.g. monarhcists in Italy) strongly opposed fascism. But the exceptions prove the rule. It is clear that fascism was infinitely more likely to appeal to conservative nationalists rather than to left-wing internationalists, to monarchist reactionaries (who were habitatued to one man rule and would support anything to keep a Marxist or even a democratic revolution from taking place) than to left-wing anti-conformists and social liberals. It was more likely to appeal to Catholic conservatives (again terrified of Marxism or any kind of social democracy which allowed women's rights to abortion, contraception, gay right, etc, etc) than to feminists and Marxists. The point here is that some people are trying to associate fascism with "socialism" of every stripe and that is quite logically absurb, apart form being anti-historical. The libertartian view of three or four radical scholars (economists and not historians or philosophers to boot) is of marginal relevance. These are just the facts.--Lacatosias 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is, of course, a smear word used against every cause that almost anyone seeks to vilify. J. Edgar Hoover, for example, slurred communists as "red fascists". It is hardly surprising that Arabs often smear Israel as "fascist". Some rightists, knowing the strong contempt for fascism try to assciate fascism with 'socialism' as a strawman argument against whatever they seek to calumnize. Although rightists can oppose fascism on principle, much right-wing opposition to fascism is directed at the fascist ideology of a rival; thus Adolf Hitler could attack the fascistic regime of Josef Beck in Poland on September 1, 1939 and Mussolini could attack the fascistic regime of Ioannis Metaxas of Greece.

It is true, of course, that fascism of any kind is contrary to egalitarianism, humanism, and liberalism, and is incompatible with fraternity among nations. To be sure, no right-wing ideology, even of the mildest sort (such as Churchill's Conservatism) is ever egalitarian, but fascism invariably opposes not only egalitarianism but also humanism, liberalism, and international fraternity. The only brotherhood among fascist powers is the weak bond of partners in international aggression or in shared repression of similar enemies. --66.231.41.57 07:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Side issue: "The exception proves the rule" comes from an older meaning of "proves" and means "the exception tests the rule." - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

side-side issue: LOL!!! I must be careful to avoid using almost meaningless cliché's when writing on the Wikiepedia from now on. Very impressive. And I better than most people should have relaized that the phrase, as currently interpreted, is not only bizzare but directly contradicts the principle of falsificationism in science!! Anway, I found this interesting, alternative explanation for the roots of the phrase. --Lacatosias 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent developments in article

It seems to me that a lot of the recent developments in this article are either POV (e.g. calling things "ridiculous" in the narrative voice of the article) or not very relevant (are Hayek's views of fascism really so notable as to deserve a long paragraph of exposition here, rather than in the article on Hayek? I think not). And most of the material claiming to be on fascism in the United States does not strike me as encyclopedic; if it belongs in Wikipedia at all (which I doubt), it would seem to belong in Neo-fascism, not Fascism. I'm too busy to work on this right now, but I urge people to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article here, not a blog. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except that von Hayek is notable, required reading on the right. The influence of his "The Road to Serfdom" is probably one of the reasons the U.S. was able to mount an intellectual as well as armed challenge to communism. He did not see much distinction between communism and fascism.--Silverback 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We should mention von Hayek on the Neo-fascism page, and we already cite John T. Flynn. But I agree with JMabel that we need to move much of this material onto that page and simply note here that there are arguments from the left and right about the U.S.--Cberlet 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's my leftist background, but I tend to see Hayek as less of a player in the Cold War critique of Communism as similar to fascism than Hannah Arendt or Karl Popper. (Remarkably, our article on Totalitarianism doesn't even mention Popper.) Sometimes on topics where I am knowlegable but not expert it's hard for me to evaluate my own perspective, and the Cold War is one area where I know that my reading is uneven. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article should not discuss totalitarianism theory very much. It distracts from what the principal job of this article should be, which is to explain the concept of fascism. Totalitarianism is a separate idea, and I think a brief discussion and a link to the totalitarianism article ought to be sufficient. john k 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, but then should it be discussing Hayek? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to move most of this material we are discussing to other pages. There are two distinct critiques. There is the Arendt/Popper/Hoffer critique of totalitarianism; and there is the Hayek/Flynn/von Mises libertarian critique that saw corporatist socialsim in the FDR policies. Both should be mentioned here very briefly, and then the details moved to the other pages on totalitarianism and Neofascism in the United States.--Cberlet 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, fine by me. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to edit most of this article, but I'm going to take the liberty of continuing to point out problems, in hopes that someone can fix them. Recently added:

The issue is not one solely of the past. The League of Polish Families is defined, by Wikipedia itself, as both being on the Christian Left and the patriotic Right. The synthesis of collectivist systems of government and a fascination with ultra-reactionary ideas has not gone away and is still hard to classify.

Seems very POV, and why the self-reference.

However, this view, taken to its logical conclusion, would also make Stalin right-wing as he he executed and imprisoned thousands of Marxists, for example Bukharin and others, such as Trotsky, were forced to flee.

As far as I can tell, this is a comment on a comment, both unsourced. This is beginning to resemble the Talmud, not an encyclopedia article.

(Wrote this about an hour ago, forgot to sign; the last-mentioned has now been removed from the article.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And now the lead seems to claim that fascism can be defined in strictly economic terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just directed to this article through a conversation at Greek fascism. I'm tempted to add some kind of cleanup tag to it, either for verifiability (lots of weasel terms) or the systemic bias one. What is all this busines about the New Deal doing in this article?!? It's mentioned three times. The KKK is mentioned once, as a "see also". If we need all of this discussion about Fascism in the U.S.A., and I would say that we don't, can we at least make some attempt to discuss the subject in a way that doesn't leave a non-American reader completely baffled? Is there some version of the article in its history that is significantly better? Jkelly 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to reflect the body of the text. Much more work needs to be done.--Cberlet 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just created the page Fascism and Ideology and I think we should move chunks to that page, with pointers to that and other pages. This is not the place for POV political advocates to amplify what are minority views on the subject.--Cberlet 14:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and ideology, I believe... john k 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. Correct. Just finished the overhaul. There remains an internal contradiction. The text states that Neo-Fascism refers to the new appearance of the Italian model, while neo-fascism refers to the broader spectrum, yet the page we use is Neo-Fascism, which then would be the wrong spelling. Merge Neo-Fascism back into the (now redirected) "Neofascism" or move to "Neo-fascism?"--Cberlet 17:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A general remark about the article, which reflects on the Wikipedia project as well : It reads very patchy! I guess this is the result of "writing by committee", as the saying goes. If, for example, 10 persons in all were involved in the write-up of the article, it would have been perhaps more informative for the reader to look at 10 separate articles, big and small, which would have been, naturally, written from different points of view. Contested/controversial issues, such as political ideology, are where this seems to be the case the most. But perhaps this is true (i.e. an inherent weakness) of all encyclopaedeias, and not just the online, interactive version.

OK, I'll shut up now.

The Gnome 16:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Burden of proof vrs. op-editing

I understand the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but c'mon... there is no justification for the following (emphasis placed on the portion that needed to be deleted):

There were several strains of tradition influencing Mussolini. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of fascism in the 1920s, had a syndicalist background, but his influence waned as the movement shed all connection to the working-class consciousness of syndicalism.

corporatism, anyone? Sam Spade 15:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, Sam, it read "…but his influence waned as the movement shed its old left wing elements." Judging by your recent comments elsewhere and your telgraphic edit summary ("-POV, +wl") I presumed you were objecting to the statement that "the movement shed its old left wing elements", so, instead of having what I thought would be an unnecessary fight, I edited to be more specific about what was shed. Syndicalism and corporatism have more than a little in common, but the starkest difference is that syndicalism came out of a background in labor organizing and was loosely allied to other "workerist" movements, while corporatism rejected that class consciousness and called for class collaboration (a fact that we allude to in the next sentence).

What exactly are you disagreeing with here, Sam? Are you saying that Panunzio's influence remained strong? That syndicalism was not a class-conscious working-class ideology? That corporatism was class-conscious? That this transition was not part of the evolution of Italian fascism? I honestly don't see what here is even slightly in doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Was Sam calling you a lunatic, or just a metaphorical lunatic? john k 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new to this, but it seems to me that Sam is a royal pain in the ass. Grow up Sam.

And if the latter, what does the metaphor mean? I would think it would mean "the article on fascism is being written by fascists." But that is clearly not what he means. He means "the article on fascism is being written by wacky leftists." Which doesn't seem to me to be an instance of the "lunatics running the asylum." Sam is advised to use more accurate insulting metaphors. john k 06:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was alluding to the wikipedia in general, and its saddening state of affairs. I had just gotten done reading User:Xiong when I made that comment, and it didn't pretain only to this page and its editers, but rather to wiki-wide dynamics which I feel are being mirrored here.

In any case, to Jmabel, I am objecting to the highlighted portion below:

"There were several strains of tradition influencing Mussolini. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of fascism in the 1920s, had a syndicalist background, but his influence waned as the movement shed all connection to the working-class consciousness of syndicalism.

rather than to the various statements you made here on the talk page. The pertinent detail, as I am sure you know, is that syndicalism and corporatism have ALOT in common, and that fascism in Italy was corporatist. Your opinions regarding shreds of "working-class consciousness" have little bearing on the article. Sam Spade 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentence by Jmabel makes perfect sense, if you actually read about fascism in the writings of someone other than the uber-libertarian Friedrich August von Hayek.--Cberlet 22:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First Hayek was certainly not an uber-libertarian, in fact, the Badnarikites would probably purge him.

Anyway I think that something should be added to the article about how Fascism resurrected many of the ideas of Saint-Simon c.f.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy%2C_Comte_de_Saint-Simon

and http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/846/marx.html (although this fellow does not seem to realise it) Warm Beer

Please see Fascism and ideology which is where most of these sorts of arguments belong.--Cberlet 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Including New Deal

Is there any editor other than User:Hogeye who believes that this article would be significantly improved by using the New Deal as an example of what fascism is, and that doing so would not confuse every non-U.S. Wikipedia reader?

My impression, from the above, and from edit summaries, is that I, User:Cberlet, User:GunnarRene, User:Tothebarricades, User:Nat Krause, User:Jmabel and User:Goethean agree, with varied levels of intensity, that it does not belong in the article. I'd appreciate correction if I have misunderstood the situation. Jkelly 20:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, you have described the situation accurately. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is a request for page protection in order? Is there some other way to resolve this? Jkelly 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think virtually every informed contributor to this article will say that Hogeye is wrong. Nevertheless, the correct response is: "Hogeye, do not violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you can provide a Verifiability\verifiable Cite sources|source for a reputable scholar who has made this claim, then you may add it to the article."

On the same vein, however, I'd like to remind people that a long time ago — I mean, in the pre WHEELER days — the article included this paragraph:

Fascism in practice embodied both political and economic practices, and invites differnt comparisons. Writers who focus on the politically repressive policies of fascism feel that this definition also aptly describes communist countries, although the Soviet Union opposed sthe self-described fascist states of Italy and Germany during World War II (during that war both fascists and communists identified each other as ideological enemies) (see totalitarianism). Writers who focus on economic policies of state intervention in the market and the use of state apparatuses to briker conflicts between different classes make even groader comparisons, identifying fascism as one form of corporatism (an political response to the social crises brought on by the global depression in the 1930s and 1940s), of which not only Stalinist Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany, but Roosevelt's New Deal United States and Juan Peron's populism in Argentina, are examples.

I was largely responsible for the last sentence, although what I have pasted in reflects the edits of others. The point is this: among other things, fascism was an example of "corporatism" and there are examples of non-fascist corporatist regimes, including the New Deal. The value of point this out is, it moves us away from a normative description of fascist ideology, and a very specific history of Italian fascism, to a braoder understanding of the Great Depression context. Corporatism was the dominant response among industrial states. In some cases, corporatism took totalitarian form (Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin) and in others it took the form of populism (Velasco-Ibarra, Peron, and arguably Roosevelt) in a democratic context. I continue to believe the article should include this point and elaborate on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Slrubensetein's paragraph is sensible, particularly as corporatism is but one feature of fascism and claiming that, say, the New Deal or Swedish Social Democracy are examples of fascism is misleading to the point of absurdity. Homey 00:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I largely agree with you (although I would point out that the FDR administration supported the development of independent labor unions, hardly a corporatist position). But I don't doubt for a moment that some of the economic policies of fascism were simply products of the era, rather than the ideology: how could it not be so, all of these countries were reacting to the Great Depression. And even beyond economics, while I would not put this in the article, because it is simply my own view, I don't think it is a coincidence that the US and UK had two of their most charismatic leaders (Roosevelt and Churchill) in precisely the same era: I just figure we got off easy, in that we got non-fanatics. In an only slightly different world, we could have had Huey Long and Oswald Mosely. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see there is some support for "my" paragraph. Since I introduced it on the talk page, I would rather leave it to someone else (perhaps someone who has been more active more recently on this article) incorporate it into the article itself. Moreover, I have no doubt that the wording of the paragraph can be improved and hope Homey and Jmabel will try to improve it (e.g. make it clear that typologies cover a range of types and should not be taken to mean that different regimes were identical in every way). I know Wiarda and Malloy have edited volumes on this, but I do not have them. I used to have a book on corporatism, back from grad. school days, but am embarassed to say I cannot find it, so I hope others have reasonable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I added Slrubenstein's paragraph (shortened and edited), and finessed around the New Deal question by addressing it in the definition section (i.e. whether you take the New Deal to be fascism depends on whether you are looking at the economic or the political meaning.) Hogeye 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support SL's paragraph, particularly the last sentance. Sam Spade 23:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Jmabel, that the New Deal is corporatist simply follows from the definition. "Crisis and Leviation" by Robert Higgs is one of many who write about this.

Corporatism "is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups." That's the definition according to Wikipedia and other sources. Did the New Deal have industrial boards? Obviously. I don't understand why you have trouble applying a simple definition. I can only guess that nationalistic parochialism (US patriotism) is clouding your judgement. You're USAmerican, probably "liberal," aren't you, with the New Deal your sacred cow? Hogeye 17:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few of the "civic assemblies" aka corporations aka cartels aka govt/industry/labor boards from the New Deal:

AAA Agricultural Adjustment Administration - fixed prices, decreed production quotas, etc. in this "program designed to make food and fiber more expensive." (Higgs, "Crisis and Leviathan.)

NRA National Recovery Administration - pattered after the WWI-era WIB (War Industrial Board) and enabled by the NIRA, which "empowered the president to approve privately drafted 'codes of fair competition' or, lacking an acceptable privately tendered code, to impose one of his own design for every industry. The anti-trust laws were explicitly set aside.

FEAP, PWA, etc.

Can anyone read the definition and seriously argue that the NRA is not a perfect example of corporatism? Hogeye 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, I don't think you are getting Jmabel's point, which is not argumentative. As for your own points, the issue is not whether your argument is obvious or not, right or wrong. The issue is, we must comply with our policies, like Wikipedia:No original research. In your personal life you can look at a definition and deduce that the New Deal was corporatist and that may be a very logical deduction. But it cannot go into a Wikipedia article. Our (us editors) deductions do not go into articles. If on the other hand Higgs has explicitly made this argument, then you can add it (something like "According to economist Robert Higgs, blah blah blah FDR blah blah blah New Deal blah blah blah corporatism"), and provide the proper (verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my version of this, I am not saying there is no resemblance between the New Deal and corporatism, but that there are important differences. I haven't read your particular source, but I've read plenty on the topic, and if you've quoted him accurately, it sounds like Higgs has an oversimplified definition of corporatism. Corporatism is not mere cartelism. It generally harked back to medieval guilds for a model, and emphasized labor-management cooperation in a way that the New Deal simply did not. The New Deal encouraged workers to organize for themselves independently of management, even if in some cases it then tried to harmonize the interests of those worker and management organizations. Corporatism in fascist countries never, and I mean never, encouraged and only rarely even tolerated, independent labor organizing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, most of the political right at the time denounced the New Deal National Labor Relations Act as favoring unions over management. But I still think that discussions of FDR and corporatism do not belong on this page, but over at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the New Deal was a good example of corporatism, and perhaps social democracy, but not an especially good example of fascism due to the lack of political terror, extreme militarism, paramilitary parades and such. Of course if we can cite an "expert" who disagrees, everybodys concerns can be addressed. Sam Spade 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are no experts who would really say that the New Deal was fascism. There are right wing nuts and propagandists who make this claim, but it is deeply fringe. As to the question of whether or not the New Deal was *corporatist*, I do not know enough to say whether this was true (but, as Jmabel notes, it seems to me that it was a particularly pro-labor form of corporatism. Proper corporatism is basically supposed to involve crushing unions by advocating that labor and management, in fact, have common interests, and thus that unions aren't needed. The New Deal, by contrast, was the period of the greatest growth of the labor movement in American history. But I digress). What I do know is that there is no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist in an article about fascism. The place to discuss that would, I think, be the article on corporatism. john [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 16:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

John: "It seems to me that there are no experts who would really say that the New Deal was fascism. There are right wing nuts and propagandists who make this claim, but it is deeply fringe."

Hmmm. The people that agree with you (who?) are all experts, but the people who agree with me (Robert Higgs, Gabriel Kolko, Barton Bernstein, John Flynn, Kevin Carson, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo) are all right-wing nuts! Duh.

John: "As to the question of whether or not the New Deal was *corporatist*, I do not know enough to say whether this was true..."

Read the definition of "corporatism" and it's obvious.

John: "Proper corporatism is basically supposed to involve crushing unions by advocating that labor and management, in fact, have common interests."

The first part ("corporatism ... involves crushing unions) is false. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of corporatism regarding crushing unions.

John: "What I do know is that there is no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist in an article about fascism.."

There's no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist since it follows directly from the definition of corporatism. There is good reason to state the fact that the New Deal was corporatist, since corporatism is one of the five defining characteristics of fascism cited in the article. Note that the New Deal satisfies all five criteria in the definition of fascism. Since it's such a no-brainer, I'm thinking that nationalistic parochialism must be the reason for your resistence to the obvious. Hogeye 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, did you read my last comment? Because what you write immediately above, in response to John, seems to disregard what I wrote. I urge you to follow the links to the policy pages that are relevant here.

As for my own position — just to make clear, I believe that mentioning corporatism is important in order to place Fascism (narrowly defined, Mussolini) in a larger context; and I believe that mentioning the New Deal is important to make clear that not all corporatist states (and I acknowledge that there are different definitions of corporatism; my point is not to define corporatism so narrowly that the New Deal is or is not "clearly" corporatist, my point is to acknowledge that there are different forms of corporatism) were fascist. I think both of these points are important, and however they are expressed, I think they should be included in the article. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Note that a simple deduction from a definition (given in Wiki's own article) does not constitute original research. I don't need an expert citation to say a dog is a mammal, since it follows from the definition of mammal.

Slrubenstein: I believe that mentioning corporatism is important in order to place Fascism in a larger context...

More importantly, corporatism should be mentioned since it is one of the five defining characteristics of fascism (small f) given in the article.

Slrubenstein: Not all corporate states were fascist.

Right - we agree on that. But all fascist states are corporatist, by the definition given in the article. Hogeye 18:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I again find myself agreeing w Slrubenstein. Sam Spade 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just went over the text and replaced "some say", "it has been argued..." and other weasel terms with some specific names. I also removed all but one mention of the New Deal (there were three), and took out one of the many times Naziism was wikilinked. This should not be understood as my expressing the opinion that any discussion of U.S. economic policy belongs in this article, or that the sources I found are either reliable or the most notable proponents of their points-of-view. They are, at least, verifiable and and least somewhat referenced. I would like to encourage other editors to also remove any more original research, unreferenced material and over-wikifying. If it happens that this article stabilizes, I'll put in the time to turn these inline links into footnotes. Jkelly 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly, if I read what you wrote correctly, you seem to be saying that Watkins called the New Deal corporatist, and strongly suggesting that he said so without qualification. Do I understand you correctly? If so, could you provide a clear citation for that, because I'd like to verify it. I fully understand your reluctance to provide a full set of citations for your content while the article is about as stable as a tornado. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The inline external link to his website happens at the first mention of his name. Quote from his website-posted essay "...But definitely the New Deal was corporatist". It was the first site on Google that was from an edu domain. Jkelly 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy now. The current article makes clear that, using the economic definition of fascism, the New Deal definitely qualifies. Hogeye 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep the Table of Contents Near the Top

Please don't bury the main article's Table of Contents underneath several paragraphs of verbiage. New readers coming to this article should not have to dig through several paragraphs to get to the latest series of definitions. New readers coming to Wikipedia for the first time will be served better by seeing the Table of Contents come up at the top of the webpage the first time they get here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.12 (talk • contribs) .

The lead (as with the entire article) is too long. Jkelly 19:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More work to be done

The article should lose another 20k. I'd suggest cutting the quotes section entirely (we have a pointer to Wikiquote), and to trim the Catholicism and Protestantism sections down to bare bones as a start (what the heck is "Clerical fascism"? I have to wonder if some agenda is being expressed here). A lot of the article remains unreferenced. The sections on Italian Fascism and Naziism could use a good cleaning and copyediting for flow. The international section is too much like an overgrown "See also", but I think it is vital and am somewhat at a loss as to how to improve it. If enough editors believe that what I have done is an improvement, we might want to consider archiving this Talk page and going over the article section by section. Jkelly 04:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clerical fascism is the term used by scholars of fascism to talk about the religiously-based fascist movements in countries such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, etc. Perhaps a little less agressive trimming and a little more research on the topic would help your editing. I applaud your energy, but some of what you are simply tossing out is important material.--Cberlet 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch either section about Christianity (or any of the international material either). I maintain the Christianity sections should be agressively trimmed. We have an entire other article on Clerical fascism. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Can you point to something I actually cut that you feel is important? If, after examining the article, you feel that it represents less research than it previously did, there's no need to applaud my energy; this was an attempt to improve the article's referencing and to insert citations from scholars on the subject, not simply to make it fit the 32k limit. Jkelly 04:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the intent, and it reads better, but a lot of nuance and complexity has been lost, and the work of Thayer Watkins is now highlighted although his work is not very influential in the field. The section on American support for fascism is gone, and Henry Wallace is now a footnote. But you did improve the article in many ways, so please don't take my comments as overly negative. And if folks (including myself) want to add stuff, we do need to provide cites.--Cberlet 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree about Watkins. If we can identify someone other than Watkins (and User:Hogeye) who argues that the New Deal was closely related to fascism, we should replace the reference to him with a more credible source. Here's the paragraph that you think shouldn't have been cut:

Prominent proponents of fascism in pre-WWII America included the publisher Seward Collins, whose periodical The American Review (1933-1937) featured essays by Collins and others that praised Mussolini and Hitler. The America First anti-war movement fought to keep the US neutral after Britain entered the war in 1939, but was not supportive of fascism. Father Charles E. Coughlin's Depression-era radio broadcasts extolled the virtues of fascism. Henry Wallace, wrote in 1944 during his term as vice president of the United States, "American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery." [Wallace, 1944]. A discussion on the [sic]

It's a good paragraph, and I was perhaps overly hasty in cutting it, although it has never been obvious to me why so much of this article was devoted to discussing American politics. Nevertheless, there aren't any WP:CITE problems with it. Where do you think that this paragraph belongs? In the "Fascism as an international phonomenen" section, perhaps? Is there anything else that you would like to see changed back? Jkelly 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think the New Deal has any serious role in the discussion of Fascism. We could equally look at post-war British and New Zealand corporatist-compromise politics through the lens of being possibly fascist! Indeed, Robert Paxton in his authoritative and simply excellent work on Fascism (The Anatomy of Fascism) draws the New Deal as being fundamentally different to Mussolini's corporatism. Either way, I agree that his article seriously needs to be focused inwards, though god-knows how this will ever be achieved without starting an edit war Hauser 03:09, 21 November 2005 (NZEST)

<----------There is a controversy over the issue of whether fascism is a right or left form, but the overwhelming majority of scholars place it on the political right. To keep rewriting this page to amplify a handful of right-wing and libertarian voices that are not considered influential in the field of fascist studies is to make this page POV. The minority view needs to be mentioned, but it should not be distorted to satisfy the relentless rewriting of reality by POV warriors.--Cberlet 19:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, your re-write of the lead has improved it a great deal. I'd like to ask you if you could provide the particular works associated with each author that the lead now mentions. I'd like to further suggest that the cleanup tag be removed. The statement by 198.177.27.11 that the "first paragraph is too verbose" does not seem to me to be accurate. Even if it was, I am unsure that would warrant the tag. I would say that the article, with my longish discussion of Watkins, over-represents a fringe view and is still in need of NPOV cleanup. Thoughts? Jkelly 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can do that, I think, when I get to work in the morning. We have a library with 100's of books on fascism and the far right. I consulted the library to write the section that was moved to Fascism and ideology. I just want to double check. I can add the proper dates to make the references proper cites. We should also highlight the recent work by Paxton. Does anyone else find the complicated notes format an impediment to editing? Do folks care if we edit using standard plain text citation and biblio entires at the bottom of the page, and when the text matures, convert to WikiCites?--Cberlet 20:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism: fascism as 'right-wing'

Ever since WW II fascism has been almost exclusively been labelled 'right-wing'. Despite a majority of socalled historians supporting this vision this does not necessarily make it so. Left wingers have a very good reason to distance themselves from fascism as left wing ideology has much in common with fascism. Communism, socialism and fascism all advocate a degree of control by the state (fascism and communism are quite similar in this regard).

Hitler did not oppose Stalin because Stalin was a communist. Hitler frequently praised the revolutionary zeal of communists and ordered any communist be admitted to the Nazi party immediately). Hitler opposed Stalin and communism because he saw behind communism the 'demonic' figure of the Jew. Hitler opposing Stalin does not mean that Hitler is right wing because Stalin is left wing (false dichotomy).

Despite a majority of socalled historians supporting this vision this does not necessarily make it so. I have an absolutly brilliant idea, folks: let's just compltely disregard the the views of the majority of historians and allow the radically extremist minority one to dominate the article. Better yet, let's just copy the above opinion word for word inot thre article and settle the matter once and for all. Magnificent logic, singore!!--Lacatosias 11:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the communists were chucked in concentration camps as soon as Hitler came to power. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

*On the contrary, Hitler consolidated his power by demonizing the communists, beginning with blaming them for the Reichstag fire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.214.214.3 (talk • contribs) 20 Dec 2005.

Mussolini and Hitler both enacted massive public works projects not unlike Roosevelts 'New Deal'. One can hardly call Roosevelt right wing.

Both communism and fascism were violently expansionist, fascism saw war as an opportunity to cleanse the nation of it's weaker elements and communism advocated expansion so the workers of other nations could be freed from oppression. See for example communist aggression in Korea.

Both communism and Nazism used internal enemies to drum up support. The Nazis targeted Jews and Gypsies. The communists usually target those they see as 'upper class' or others who did not 'fit in', see for example Lenin's anti-kulak policies (Lenin advocated wiping them out).

• Where and when did Lenin adocate "wiping out" the kulaks? Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler both enacted massive public works projects not unlike Roosevelts 'New Deal'. One can hardly call Roosevelt right wing. Silvio Berlusconi has continually claimed credit for enacting massive public works projects ("le grande opere publiche") and had promised to do even more if relected in April (the bridge acroos the Strait of Messina, the Moses project to reconstruct the foundations of Venice, the high-velocity trains (TAV) and extraordinary investment in nuclear development and installation. Is Berlu a left-winger?? 0:......--Lacatosias 11:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a mischaracterization of Lenin by any means. For political reasons, the Soviet Government was extremely reluctant to release Lenin's writings and personal papers in their entirety. As a consequence, for decades, advocates of Marxist-Leninism have kept up the ruse that the real terror didn't begin until the Stalinist regime; despite the fact that Lenin's Cheka and its ruthless leader, Felix Dzerzhinsky, struck as much fear into the hearts of Russian "social deviants" as Hitler's SS and its chief director Heinrich Himmler did to "non-Aryan" Germans under the Third Reich.

For those who continue to labor under the illusion that Lenin was a "wise and idealistic fellow," consider The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive, a volume of Lenin's writings edited by Harvard's Richard Pipes and released by the Yale University Press in 1996. Note the names of the two universities involved in this publication. While Pipes is undoubtably very conservative, neither organization (Harvard and Yale) could exactly be characterized as a bastion of "neo-Con" agendas.

At around the same time of the release of this volume, the columnist George F. Will wrote a short piece on The Unknown Lenin that outlines his conservative viewpoint of this publication, and on Lenin in general. Mr. Will possesses a much greater talent for writing and historical analysis than I do, so I'll let him take it from here...

Lenin's patience, never plentiful, was exhausted. "Why," he demanded, "should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to that. It will be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything." So in the name of a favored category of people, the working class, let's have an end to argument, and to Kautsky (a German socialist guilty of deviationism), and, while we are at it, to whole categories of tiresome people.

...the Yale University Press is publishing a slender volume of documents that let Lenin's words trace to him the pedigree of two of the twentieth century's defining ideas, totalitatianism founded on terror, and genocide as state policy.

The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive contains documents that the Soviet government never saw fit to publish in the various editions of Lenin's collected works. The regime's reticence was understandable, given the investment it had in the idea that Lenin was a wise and idealistic fellow. It is hard to square the myth of Lenin's wisdom with his long report of September 20, 1920, in which he insists that Western Europe, including Britain, was ripe for a revolution that would sweep away bourgeois institutions. As for Lenin's idealism, his directive of August 11, 1918, will further complicate for his apologists the already daunting task of absolving him of culpability for Soviet crimes by arguing that viciousness began with Stalin. Lenin wrote: "Hang (hang without fail, so the people will see) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers....Do it in such a way that for hundreds of [kilometers] around, the people will see, tremble, know, shout: they are strangling wnd will strangle to death the bloodsucker kulaks."

[Richard] Pipes, the editor of the Yale volume of Lenin documents, notes that whereas Hitler at least had genealogicial criteria for determining who was a Jew, Lenin "had no standards to define a kulak." The term had been in use since the 1860's, denoting less an economic category than the personality type that Americans call a "go-getter." Be that as it may, in 1918 Lenin exhorted workers to "merciless war" against the kulak "vampires." "Death to them."

One of Lenin's colleagues recalled arguing with Lenin about a particularly indiscriminate police measure authorizing executions without trials of catergories of people defined no more precisely than "hooligans" or "speculators" or "counterrevolutionary agitators." The colleague wrote: "So I called out in exasperation, 'Then why do we bother with a Commissariat for Justice? Let's call it frankly the Commissariat for Social Extermination and be done with it!' Lenin's face suddenly brightened and he replied, 'Well put...that's exactly what it should be...but we can't say that.'"''

Lenin: Man of the Century. George F. Will. reprinted in The Woven Figure. Scribner Books: New York, NY. Copyright 1997 George F. Will. pp. 316-318.

The obssessive zeal with which members of the far left defend Lenin and downplay the violence and oppression that accompanied his regime is representative of the same false conciousness that the far left uses in defending Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg, and Mumia Abu-Jamal: "They're not guilty," despite strong evidence to the contrary, "and even if they are, it doesn't matter anyway because they're martyrs for the cause!" This is the rationale that allows extreme leftists to condemn Hitler, Pinochet, Suharto, and the like to eternal shame and infamy, while burying their heads in the sand and denying, ignoring, or minimalising the atrocities committed by equally wicked men such as Lenin, Pol Pot, Mengistu, and so forth.

-George Cox 03.20.06 superuman_is@yahoo.com (Sorry for the long interuption, but Lenin was a piece of sh*t.)

I am repulsed by all of the people you have mentioned but I still consdier myself to be on the left. I don't care what some others who may claim to speak for ALL people on the left have to say about it. This is obviously a straw man though.--Lacatosias 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But, some people argue, fascists and Nazis collaborated with the ruling conservative class. That is true. Hitler never made a secret of how he was going to acquire power after 1925. He was going to get into good standing with those who had the power (conservatives, monarchists, land owners). And once he had the power he removed the other groups from power. Factory owners who didn't play ball saw their property seized by the state. Hitler did not collaborate with the conservatives because of him liking their policies, he collaborated with them because they had the power he wanted.

Take this quote for example: True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?

It is not Hitler, but instead Karl Marx' comrade Friedrich Engels.

• This quote emanates from an Dr. John Jay Ray [1]. No source is given. It's repeated ad-nauseum across tons of right-wing blogs, but never is the source given. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Or this quote: There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.

(Hitler Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

• Bull-f***ing shite! You can find any number of quotations to the opposite effect. And what's this false dichotomy between Bolshevism and Marxism - they're one and the same thing! Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How about eugenics then, surely that is to be considered right-wing? During the Nazi era in Germany, eugenics prompted the sterilisation of several hundred thousand people then helped lead to antisemitic programmes of euthanasia and ultimately, of course, to the death camps. The association of eugenics with the Nazis is so strong that many people were surprised at the news several years ago that Sweden had sterilised around 60000 people (mostly women) between the 1930s and 1970s. Sweden, one of those well praised socialist welfare states of all countries continued their eugenics programme well into the 20th century, and only stopped it a generation ago. Again, eugenics does not seem to be exclusively right wing.

Liberal icon Oliver Wendell Holmes once opined this: "In order to prevent our being swamped with incompetents... society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." ...

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., (Buck v. Bell, 1927)

• Some evidence please that this eejit is a "liberal icon"? Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That "eejit", as you put it, is one of the most distinguished Supreme Court justices in American history (his name is linked incorrectly above, it is Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and, yes, I think it would be fair to call him a "liberal icon" in the U.S. And, yes, his opinion in Buck v. Bell is, looked at from the present time, an embarrassment. Some would also question his voting with the majority in Schenk v. United States to uphold Schenk's conviction, possibly just in order to get to write the opinion. But, in that case he used the opinion to make a pretty strong statement for free speech, that it can be abridged only in the case of a "clear and present danger", then copped out by saying that such a danger existed in Abrams' case, which was a bit of a stretch. But, as a rule, he was the "Great Dissenter" in an era of a generally conservative Supreme Court, and in the next generation, his dissents were often cited by the increasingly liberal (in the American sense of the word) justices of the Court.
  • Also, FWIW, I would agree that it is true that prior to the Nazi's twisted abuse of the already questionable concept of eugenics, eugenics was not particularly associated with the Right. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, excuse my ignorance on this personage. I take back the "eejit", and accept that some prominent "liberals", have come out with some utterly reprehensible comments. And we should take into account that he wrote this more than a hundred years ago. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 10:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Shocking ignorance of, and refusal to do a trivial web search on the esteemed Justice Holmes indicates to me, a passing and uninvolved reader, that Mr. McElhinney may be out of his league on this topic. 7 Jan 2006.

Hitler certainly would not have supported small government conservatism or even libertarianis. There are no small government left wing ideologies, and not without good reason. Leftists are control freaks who do not like people standing out.

• Hitler was all for the small business man, who he used against the communists. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: I did not edit the main article as that would be uncalled for at the moment. But I shall not let the leftist historian POV be accepted as the final truth.

Marcel de Vries, anti-idiotarian---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs) .

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Jkelly 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Rodrigues

The following was—probably appropriately, it seems off topic—removed from the article:

Other economists, such as Lucia Rodrigues, use the word corporatism to mean specifically those states that use professional groups "as an instrument in the pursuit and legitimation of its policies"^[2].

but the (somewhat incomplete) citation was left, messing up the numbering of notes. I've removed it. In case anyone wants to put it in a different, more appropriate article, I figured they should be together.

1. ^ "Corporatism, liberalism and the accounting profession in Portugal since 1755". Find articles.com. Retrieved November 17, 2005.

Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone modified the previous comment by changing the referencing mechanism. The comment is partly about referencing. I have now restored the older mechanism. Please do not edit my comments. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"Our enemies are fascists!"

All groups try to smear their enemies by association with fascism. This behavior is extremely widespread and has in fact been observed right here on wikipedia numerous times. As such, I believe it should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this article. I also see it as absolutely necessary that the intro should carry a strong disclaimer explaining the fact that there is no universal agreement on the nature of fascism. The majority view - if it is to be mentioned at all - is that fascism represents the far-right. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea> "Cite works if you wish to support your argument; name-dropping" [Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Fritzsche, Laqueur, Laclau, & Reich] "is of little use."

But Mihnea, the relevant works of those guys are already cited in the notes, refs, and further reading sections. Hogeye 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. The fact remains, however, that they do not represent a "majority view"; indeed, part of my point is that we should shy away from declaring any "majority view", even the widely held opinion among historians and the general population that fascism is far-right. Looking for sources to support this view seems to me a little similar to looking for sources to support the view that, say, socialism is left-wing, or conservatism is right-wing. But I will look if you insist. I am also very suspicious of the possibility of misrepresenting the views held by the authors cited, particularly on such a contentious issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about claiming a majority view. Perhaps it needs to be rephrased. Something like "the prevailing academic view." Would that be more satisfactory? To the article's credit, it does say up front that "the exact definition of fascism is unclear and controversial." Hogeye 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We would need a comprehensive survey of the views held by a great number of academics before we could decide which particular view is prevailing. I have not done any such survey, but my own personal experience has been that (a) fascism is most often seen as right-wing by the general population, and (b) academics generally stay away from politically loaded terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing". The definitions of right and left are themselves unclear and controversial, after all, so deciding whether fascism is right-wing is a bit like deciding whether a widget is a thingy. On that note, the debate around the right or left nature of fascism has been going on for years on the wiki and there is no possible way to end it other than saying "well, some scholars think this, other scholars think that; we really don't know". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whose definition?

I propose the following rule of thumb in defining controversial ideologies:

The definition given by the creators and supporters of an ideology takes precedence.

It seems only logical to allow an ideological movement to define its own values and goals. Let the fascists define fascism, the liberals define liberalism, the communists define communism and so on. Other definitions should be presented, of course - and in great detail if necessary - but the "default" should be the self-definition used by the actual supporters of the ideology in question. As such, I believe we should rely most heavily on the works of undisputed fascists - most notably Mussolini - in defining fascism. What are your opinions on this? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case, absolutely not. Nearly all of the overt statements of fascist doctrine come from the early years. Many of them are rather idealistic and in no way represent what the fascists did in practice. To put it simply, fascism in power proved to be a largely different and considerably nastier beast than fascism in theory. Fascism in power was not an intellectually honest philosophy, and letting them "define" themselves means a whitewash. Yes, it is important to cite the early definitions from Italy, and we do, but in practice the word came to mean something else entirely. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that in practice the word means everything and nothing. I do see your point - my rule of thumb is rather inadequate when dealing with blatantly hypocritical movements. The only rational alternative I see to it, however, is my earlier proposal of giving no precedence to any definition and simply discussing them all while stressing the fact that the issue is controversial. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you disagree that the adherents of most political ideologies try to associate fascism with their enemies? There are a considerable number of essays on the internet alone by libertarians explaining why fascists were evil collectivists, socialists showing how fascism was tied to big business, atheists drawing attention to Catholic fascists, Catholics calling fascists godless, minorities accusing fascism of being majoritarian and majorities pointing out its disdain for democracy... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a large group of academics who study fascism and neofascism. While they disagree on many things, over the past decade there has been an increasing consensus over some key issues. Fascism needs to be discussed as a set of related theories, a series of movements, and several nations ruled by fascism in state power. In an encyclopedia, it is the majority view of scholarship that is highlighted, The idea that the "definition given by the creators and supporters of an ideology takes precedence" defeates the entire idea of an encyclopedia.--Cberlet 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on principle with the idea that the majority of academics can say to a group of people "we know what you believe better than you know yourselves". If I designed a political ideology, I would certainly insist that I - and not academics or anyone else - get to decide what my own views are. I am the highest academic authority when it comes to the contents of my own mind.

But, again, I see how this rule of thumb can be problematic when facing a movement whose ideas are too vague or contradictory, so I won't insist on it any longer here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As for Kolko, a leftist, he was not a libertarian and he analyzed corporatism from a left critique of the New Deal as reformist. He is cited in small doses--and often out of context--by libertarians who like a few of his comments on corporatism. We already give far too much attention to the minority libertaraian view of fascism on this page. It is anecdotal at best.--Cberlet 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Kolko was not a libertarian, yet came to basically the same conclusions about the New Deal, makes it all that much more important to include. It demolishes ad-hom claims that the New Deal qua corporatism/fascism is only a libertarian thing.

In The Triumph of Conservatism, Kolko traces the origins of political capitalism in the “reforms” of the Progressive Era. Orthodox historians have always treated the Progressive period (roughly 1900–1916) as a time when free-market capitalism was becoming increasingly “monopolistic”; in reaction to this reign of monopoly and big business, so the story runs, altruistic intellectuals and far-seeing politicians turned to intervention by the government to reform and to regulate these evils. Kolko’s great work demonstrates that the reality was almost precisely the opposite of this myth. Despite the wave of mergers and trusts formed around the turn of the century, Kolko reveals, the forces of competition on the free market rapidly vitiated and dissolved these attempts at stabilizing and perpetuating the economic power of big business interests. It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market that big business turned, increasingly after the 1900s, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations of smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the right. Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko, almost uniquely in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the State and not as a result of free-market operations.

Thus, Kolko shows that, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism and culminating in Wilson’s New Freedom, in industry after industry, for example, insurance, banking, meat, exports and business generally, regulations that present-day rightists think of as “socialistic” were not only uniformly hailed, but conceived and brought about by big businessmen. This was a conscious effort to fasten upon the economy a cement of subsidy, stabilization, and monopoly privilege. A typical view was that of Andrew Carnegie; deeply concerned about competition in the steel industry, which neither the formation of U.S. Steel nor the famous “Gary Dinners” sponsored by that Morgan company could dampen, Carnegie declared in 1908 that “it always comes back to me that government control, and that alone, will properly solve the problem.” There is nothing alarming about government regulation per se, announced Carnegie, “capital is perfectly safe in the gas company, although it is under court control. So will all capital be, although under government control.”

The Progressive Party, Kolko shows, was basically a Morgan-created party to reelect Roosevelt and punish President Taft, who had been overzealous in prosecuting Morgan enterprises; the leftish social workers often unwittingly provided a demagogic veneer for a conservative-statist movement. Wilson’s New Freedom, culminating in the creation of the Federal Trade Commission, far from being considered dangerously socialistic by big business, was welcomed enthusiastically as putting their long-cherished program of support, privilege, and regulation of competition into effect (and Wilson’s war collectivism was welcomed even more exuberantly). Edward N. Hurley, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and formerly president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, happily announced in late 1915, that the Federal Trade Commission was designed “to do for general business” what the ICC had been eagerly doing for the railroads and shippers, what the Federal Reserve was doing for the nation’s bankers, and what the Department of Agriculture was accomplishing for the farmers.[3]

Hogeye 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the libertarian view seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention; it needs to be de-emphasized. On a related note, I am currently doing library research, sifting through the works of the authors cited to see exactly what their theses were. I am having a bit of trouble finding relevant passages - indeed, there is hardly any mention of right and left (academics tend to prefer working with concrete ideologies rather than such fluid categories). Could the editor who made the citation ("Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Fritzsche, Laqueur, Laclau, & Reich") help me out? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actual text cited on Fascism and ideology, which is the page that justifies the summaries on this page in this regard. I do hope that folks take the time to plow back through previous discussions to see that this very same discussion has been hashed out repeatedly--over and over--to the point of absurdity. A tiny selective portion of the work of Kolko on corporatism is cited on a libertarian website, and that is evidence of what? It merely proves my point.--Cberlet 19:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look over the text and perhaps try to write a summary that is a little more specific without being much longer. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that I did NOT include in this list a large number of liberal, progressive, and Marxist scholars of fascism who would scoff at the notion that fascism was not right wing.--Cberlet 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, some right-wing opinion-formers in the US nowdays are primarily concerned with the conflict between state power and individual economic freedom. They therefore wish to say that all countries/political systems which advocate a strong state role in the running of the economy are essentially similar whether they are traditionally defined as left-wing or right-wing. But in many countries the conflict between state power and individual freedom is not the main point of political division and never has been. The division may be based on rich v poor, religious differences, town v country, or whatever. There is relative agreement between left and right on the general extent to which the state should intervene in the economy, although of course many differences on the details.

I dont know enough about the New Deal to comment usefully on Roosevelt but centre-left governments in Western Europe both before and after WW2 took the inspiration for their experiments from socialism rather than from fascism. I still dont really understand why you dont believe this was the case with Roosevelt. Jameswilson 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism is not defined in terms of where the inspiration came from; it is defined in terms 1) glorification of state above the individual, 2) strong central government, 3) a strong executive, and 4) strong control over industry, labor, and the economy in general. The New Deal satisfies all four. Incidentally, Naziism was also inspired by socialism (National Socialist Workers' Party), but 'no one' claims that they weren't fascist. Hogeye 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that there have been some very large number of edits to the lead of this article in the last week, all of which are attempting to define what Fascism is, it really is a shame that we aren't allowed to reference any actual authorities on the subject, and must keep editing to what we, as editors, think fascism is. Seriously, there is a lot of work to be done on this article, and as long as editors continue to see themselves as the experts who should be defining this ideology, the article's lead is going to remain a POV mess. I would like to again encourage editors to avoid inserting their own ideas into the article, whether that be that fascism is mysteriously hard to define, or whether it is that any government with commerce laws is fascist. Any unsourced addition is an open invitation for everyone else's amateur opinion to get thrown into the article as well. Jkelly 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I added a few points, but it is a pretty good summary of the views of Payne, Eatwell, and Griffin.--Chip 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeyes 4-point defintion of fascist economics QUOTE - 1) glorification of state above the individual, 2) strong central government, 3) a strong executive, and 4) strong control over industry, labor, and the economy in general.UNQUOTE ....demonstrates the problem we have here exactly. He regards that as sufficient to make Roosevelt's policy fascist. I would argue that virtually all political/economic ideologies except for laissez-faire and anarchism agree on points 2/, 3/, and 4/.

Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Stakeholder Capitalists, Socialists, Monarchists, Fascists, Communists, would all agree that 2/, 3/ and 4/ were both necessary and preferable to "pure" laissez-faire capitalism. And they have constructed their economic management policies accordingly - ("business is too important to be left to businessmen")

If one says that governments practising 2/, 3/ and 4/ are by definition fascist you end up with a definition of fascism which is so broad as to be useless. Only Republican/Conservative governments in English-speaking countries (and not even all of those) would escape the net.

Hogeye, having read up a bit on the New Deal, I am not denying for a moment that there was an important element of state interventionism, etc, in the New Deal. Just that if you want to prove to us the minority interpretation of "New Deal=fascism" you have to go beyond that, beyond merely demonstrating that it wasnt laissez-faire.

For example, what happened in America as regards the role of trade unions, government reprentatives sitting on the board of companies, economic planning, who benefited from the public works projects, how far was corporatism actually implemented within private companies, etc, etc, and show a parallel, if not with Germany, at least with Italy.

Most importantly, if Roosevelt and Hitler/Mussolini both did X was that just something that all non-laissez-faire governments of the time tended to do, or was X really something that can genuinely be considered uniquely fascist? Jameswilson 23:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, all good points, but I added some stuff and did some rewrites:

A general definition of fascism is a political philosophy that 1) glorifies the nation above the individual by 2) emphasizing the need for a strong central government 3) led by a strong leader not bound by a democratic process; and which 4) exerts absolute state control over industry, labor, and the economy, while 5) calling for the heroic rebirth of the nation, which is 6) narrowly defined in exclusionary ethnic, racial, or cultural terms.

Better?--Cberlet 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, that was a total bogus edit. Please discuss any further changes you want to make. Reverting back to emphasize a minority POV that has been criticized here and which other editors have tried to balance is not fair nor appropriate.--Cberlet 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

5 and 6 fall under #1. In 3, "not bound by a democratic process" seems both too restrictive and practically indeterminable. Are you saying, e.g. that Mussolini wasn't fascist since there was still a parliament, or Hitler wasn't until he called off an election in 1934? Could not a government be fascist yet keep the outward forms of "democratic process?" James' objection is that the 4-pt definition is too broad, and could apply to most states. I agree that it is broad, but that may be a good thing. Fascism does not have a clear threshold - it is a relative term. This may be a better way to look at it than defining it so strictly that only Mussolini can possibly be deemed fascist. That seems a cop-out to me - it strikes me as POV to define it so as to guarantee that <name your favorite state> cannot possibly be fascist. Is it really so bad to define it such that one could say that e.g. Roosevelt was somewhat fascist and Mussolini was very fascist? Is is so terrible to admit that most states are, to some degree, fascist? So I would answer 'yes - if Roosevelt and Hitler/Mussolini both did X, where 3 or all 4 of the criteria on the 4-point list can be substituted for X, then Roosevelt/Hitler/Mussolini are fascist (to at least some degree.) You make some good points, fellow editors. I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, but hopefully I've given you something to think about. Hogeye 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I recall, Payne's list is close to twenty items long, sorted into categories. While I don't suggest that we put that into the lead, it seems reasonable to me to pick a simple one line definition from a leading scholar (perhaps Griffin, but I have no strong opinion) for the lead, and leave the expansion upon it to the "Definition" section. That section still needs help, as it is still over-representing a minority view. Jkelly 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Paxton and Eatwell have definitions, but they are also long. Griffin has a really short one, but it is a bit idiosyncratic (although I use it often). Finding a short quote that is also accurate and accepted widely as scholarly is a real problem.  :-) And Hogeye, we have been discussing the idea that fascism is leftist or that the New Deal is fascist for a very long time on this page -- it is a minority viewpoint given its due on Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about the general defintion of "fascism" here. The New Deal question is a done deal - I'm happy with the Thayer Watkins reference pointing out that, using the economic interpretation of "fascism," the New Deal was fascist. Hogeye 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just found out that Ronald Reagan that the New Deal was fascist: ""Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'" RJII 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reagan said this in a Time interview in 1976 — long after he had emerged as the leader of the new right, and around the time he was campaigning against Carter. Of course, Reagan was a New Dealer in his youth. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, with all due resepect, I urge you to read our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research policies closely. I think that many of the criticisms of your edits stem from other contributors feeling you are not complying with one of these two policies. If you read the policies closely, and comply with them, you will be much more successful in your edits. As to the general discussion here, I agree in principle with Mihnea Tudoreanu with a qualification: how self-identified Fascists who succeded in establishing fascist regimes defined fascism should lead the article. However, I also agree with Jmabel and Jkelly's comments. In order both to comply with our own NPOV policy, and simply to be a good encyclopedia, we must place those definitions in their historical context (drawing, as Jkelly says, from verifiable sources. We should include how social scientists and historians have interpreted those self-identified definitions, and how social scientists and historians define Fascism as well. The crucial issue here is not whose definition we use, but that all definitions are ascribed to someone, and contextualized (i.e. make it clear to readers that x is a definition that y provided when he was trying to win an election against the socialists; a is a definition that be proposed when comparing five different political regimes at that same time in history). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone!!! With all due respect, no one person is going to have a perfectly neutral viewpoint, and therefor, no one is going to have a truly neutral definition of Fascism. Let's face it, liberals see CNN as neutral and conservatives call it the Communist News Network. Likewise, no liberal will ever see Fox News as balanced. It can hardly be said that University instructors can ever be accused of being conservative, so, instead of using such terms as Liberalist Economy, they will use the Marxist term Capitalist Economy. That said, if one were to eliminate all libertarian reference, it would be merely a left wing article written by left wing editors referencing left wing sources. With all of the problems and disputes between the liberal and conservative editors, it is probably wiser to leave both in, as that would probably be the closest to reality. Is the term broad? Of course it is! Can anyone please all of the people all of the time? One can try to accomodate as many as possible, as this is the way to grow a political movement. My father grew up a fascist in Italy, and understood it to be a corrected form of socialism--as it was origionally taught to him in the government run schools. When he grew up, and became a courier for the Ministry of the Navy, he had the opportunity to meet Ol' Benito on several occasions, whom he referred as a genial, but not very intelligent man. With what my father taught me of Fascist Italy, Fascism itself was iin constant flux from when he first encountered it at 10 years of age, to when he got fed up and left Italy in 1939. If Fascism was a source of confusion for those under its influence as well as those who created it, why should it not be a source of confusion and debate today? All we can do is not repeat the lessons of the past and avoid misusing a political concept as a cheap shot insult.--Marcpiery

Recreation of Economic fascism

OK, Hogeye and RJII, you are now pushing a POV and recreating the page Economic fascism which was already deleted once, so is this constructive and collaborative editing? I do not think so. Your POV is a minority POV that is already over-represented on this page. The general definition of fascism being offered by you folks has been objected to. You simply ignore this? The theory of economic fascism you are proposing is a tiny minority view. Italian fascism was economic fascism, German Nazism was racial fascism coupled to economic fascism. Being bullies may feel good, but it is not an appropriate part of Wiki culture.--Cberlet 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Only point #4 has to do with economic fascism. Why don't you stop name-calling and discuss it rationally? Hogeye 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye did not have anything to do with creating the Economic fascism article. It was my own doing. I deserve all the credit. And, why are you calling me a bully? What have I done to you? Who have I bullied? RJII 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A mixed economy is not economic fascism. Economic fascism is just part of a mixed economy ..the centrally-planned part. The article defines it as an "economic system," anyway. There is nothing POV about the article. So what if the definition is from libertarian sources? That doesn't make the article POV. RJII 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is POV. Only (some) libertarians believe in this definition. Thus, it is part of the libertarian point of view on the world. And your suggestion that all mixed economies carry an element of fascism is absurd at worst and part of a fringe belief at best. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV. Whoever uses this term defines this term. If libertarians use it then that's where we find the definition. There is nothing POV about that. RJII 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the article, if it is to exist at all, should begin with the statement: "Economic fascism is a concept devised by some libertarians to refer to..." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, who cares? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII I am unsure if that was a serious statement, or sarcasm. If the first, I suggest that you review WP:NPOV, specifically the section on minority views. If it was the latter, why don't you expand your article such that it is more than a personal essay? Jkelly 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it can never grow beyond a personal essay or a description of the views held by some libertarians (not all agree) on fascism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. RJII 05:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to moving this section to Talk:Economic fascism? Jkelly 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. In addition, I would like to note that I have nominated Economic fascism for deletion. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk about fascism. RJII 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So now fascism means disagreeing with RJII (or is this another example of your abovie cited sarcasm)? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm using the term loosely in the context of censorship. RJII 15:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, then, RJII, you are seriously misunderstanding Wikipedia. You are not being censored for three reasons (1) no one has stopped you from expressing your views on this talk page; as far as I can tell, no one has deleted anything you wrote on this talk page; (2) we are not supposed to express our own views in the article itself (see our NPOV and NOR policies); (3) it is the essence of Wikipedia that this is a work in progress. This means that people are constantly working on articles, and this inevitably involves deleting or rewriting what other people say. If you cannot accept this situation, you do not belong at Wikipedia. If you do accept this situation, you must understand that no one owns an article, and that the articles we include, and their contents, are always subject to a process of negotiation and change. That is not called "censorship," that is called "a collaborative effort." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's called "irony" and it was meant semi tounge-in-cheek. And, it has nothing to do with you. Don't ever preach to me rubenstein. Now, if I want to talk about "fascism" seriously, you're the first person that comes to mind. You launched a bogus arbitration case against me awhile back to harrass me and prevent progress in the capitalism article. You wanted the article kept as it was because it was your way, regardless of what a fumbling incoherent mess you made it. But fortunately, your case against me fell on its face because it was based on lies from you. As a result, I was able to be an instrumental and crucial force in transforming that article to a drastically higher level of quality beyond all former recognition. It's no longer recognizeable from the disaster you were trying to protect. From my experiences and observations of you, I'm convinced that you do not have the capacity to be a responsible Wikipedia editor or scholar of any kind. So, blow it out your ***.

Your tone and language speaks for itself. I filed an arbitration case because you were deleting every edit I made — don't accuse me of the same, because I was seeking compromises and certainly was not deleting every edit you made. I don't think you really understand what the word "irony" means. I repeat what I wrote above, but this time it is clear to me that I am not misunderstanding you: you believe "censorship" describes anyone who disagrees with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk to the hand. RJII 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

General Definition of Fascism

This goal has eluded scholars of fascism for over 70 years. I do not think that the uncited opinions of a handful of Wiki editors can solve this problem. I have removed the text pending a more extensive discussion here.--Cberlet 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this problem in Wikipedia articles before. The editors can't seem to figure out what the term means, so they say something in the article like "there is no clear definition of X." Well, there is. It's just that some or all of the editors don't know what it is. In this kind of situation, the editors should consult the most broadly available popular reference works (dictionaries, encyclopedias) and come up with a definition (or two). Then, state the most popular definition(s) and label it as just that --the "common definition." RJII 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we have already iplemented User:RJII's suggestion in the "Defining" section, and that an entire article on this subject, Fascism and ideology also exists. The point at hand is how to summarize this in the lead of the article, which is the specific thing that is inspiring endless revisions. People who want more detail than we provide in the lead will find it in this article's subsection, or at Fascism and ideology. If briefly quoting a single authority for the lead is too problematic, perhaps we can consult some high school political science textbook. Jkelly 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's the OneLook list of definitions. Encarta and Merriam-Webster's (#1 and #3) look pretty good. Both defs look a lot like our current 4-point def. The Compact definition (#2) is a little too compact. Hogeye 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Hogeye, that should be very helpful! I'll take a closer look when I have a chance. Jkelly 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My bad. This dropped off my radar. I will go look now. Jkelly 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have the Merriam-Webster one in the article! The Encarta one [4] is pretty reasonable. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary one is both short and somewhat lacking in nuance [5]. If the article wasn't already twice the size it should be I would have liked to include the real OED one. It seems reasonable to me to include the Encarta one, clearly stating that a further discussion of definition happens later (and has an entire other article as well). I would like User:Cberlet's input, however. After this issue is settled, I would like to propose some more drastic changes, and am therefore looking forward to having the definition matter concluded. Jkelly 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Scholarship on fascism is complicated, and all attempts to reduce this minefiled of conflicting opinions result in short definitions that are lacking in one way or another. I was under the impression that Wikipedia frowned on using definitions from outside encyclopedias and dictionaries. I would remove all such definitions from this page, and write a short paragraph that summarized the majority view of scholars, with careful language leaving some items a bit vague. Then the text explains the differing views with preference to the majority views. Of course we have done that about ten times, and each time libertarian and right-wing editors arrive and start an edit war about fascism being left wing, or the New Deal being fascist. Sometimes editors on the left arrive and insert oversimplified claims that George Bush is a fascist. I think we should read this page, read Fascism and ideology and write our own short definition or make a list of core aspects. But, then, the entire page Fascism and ideology is the result of attempts to document the majority view, the libertarian view, and the oversimplified left view.--Cberlet 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree, but spell out my position more fully in the preceeding section, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Robert Paxton's working definition of fascism ("A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion) not cited in the article? I disagree with the view that definitions should not be part of the article; keep in mind that the text should also serve the interest of the curious general reader who seeks a basic grasp of the concept(s) - albeit perhaps one that is necessarily understood from various angles. While the "definitive" definiton may yet be elusive, Paxton's seems at least as worthy of being cited as Mirriam-Webster or the American Heritage. To leave this one (Paxton's) out seems a significant disservice to the casual but interested reader. Arjuna 08:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Becasue editors fight over the definitions. At various times Paxton's has been included. Feel free to edit in Paxton and edit out dated and simplistic definitions. Then be prepared to defned your edits. I rather like the Paxton definition as well. Cheers. --Cberlet 11:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Corporatism v. centralized control of private enterprise

I dispute the claim that a core definition of "Fascism" can be described as "centralized control of private enterprise." This phrase--beloved by the libertarians--is a gross oversimpification of the idea of corporatism. Just visit the page and read the article. I know that someone will cite the Austrian School pundits, but in fascist studies, this phrase would be scoffed at.--Cberlet 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your objection. Are you denying that "centralized control of private enterprise" is one (of several) defining characteristics of fascism? Or are you simply saying that "centralized control of private enterprise" is broader than "corporatism." If the latter is your concern, we can simply append "by government controlled committees" to specify which method of centralized control, i.e. "centralized control of private enterprise by government controlled committees (aka corporatism)." Hogeye 20:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of the fact that fascism is in contrast to individualism

It is common knowledge that fascism is opposed to individualism. Just look at the origin of the term. Look at the picture of the bundle of sticks in the article. The individual stick becomes irrelevant and invisible in the collective of sticks. The individual is no longer recognizable or seen as an end in himself, but merely as a means to comprise the collective bundle. In fascism, the interests of the individual take a back seat to the interests of the nation. Anyone who would delete from the article that fascism is in contrast to individualism has no clue what either fascism or individualim is. RJII 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. No matter. If you can find a verifiable source, you can put the claim in without fear of deletion. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini
  • "The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual." -Musollini
  • "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." -Mussolini

Dude, I didn't mean here, I meant in the article. The second quote is a classic. Just put it in in the appropriate place, and provide the proper citation and corresponding reference at the end of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that fascism is opposed to individualism, but to mention this in the intro along with a full Mussolini quote is giving it undue weight. Perhaps a better idea would be to give a short list of all the important things fascism opposes. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there are other things that fascists oppose, but the contrast to individualism is central. As Mussolini points out, it's essentially how fascism is defined --as the opposition to individualism. The individual lives to serves the state rather than to serve himself. That can't be overemphasized. RJII 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini never said that opposition to individualism was central in defining fascism. And there is a consensus here that we are not defining fascism as Mussolini wanted (look up - I tried to propose that we go by Mussolini's definition, but my proposal was strongly rejected). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini did in fact state his opposition to socialism, liberalism and democracy just a few lines above the excerpt you cited. I gave the full quote. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Even the dictionary finds it important to note first that it's in opposition to individualism: " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual..." (Merriam Webster). Fascism is, at it's core, the forced negation of individualism. By the way, Mussolini equates liberalism with individualism. RJII 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with RJII here. And, as some of you know, I rarely am. The opposition of fascism to individualism seems pretty central to me: it doesn't allow people the right of individual conscientious dissent. That puts it in contrast with most other ideologies of the last 100 years, and is central to the "totalitarianism" thesis, which I don't buy totally (so to speak) but think is worthy of serious consideration. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote above, as long as RJII can cite sources in the article (and it seems to me that he can), this view should go in. Mihnea Tudoreanu, the same goes for you: if you have a source that takes an alternate or opposing view of this matter, put that in the article with the appropriate citation. NPOV allows for multiple points of view. Let's just make sure they are accurately represented and sourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Phrase "Came From Nowhere"

I encounter that phrase very often, and find it puzzling, Usually in contexts like this one. "Many historians claim that the March 23, 1919 meeting at the Piazza San Sepolcro was the historic 'birthplace' of the fascist movement. However, this would imply that the Italian Fascists 'came from nowhere' which is simply not true."

Huh? Why does the specification of a birth date and place imply ex nihilo creationism? I was born on a certain date and at a certain place. From my mother's womb, not "from nowhere". In terms of historic movements, there's analogous sense to be made of speaking of a birth even, or especially, if we admit that there was a pre-natal existence, too. --Christofurio 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, Christofurio. Of course, the proper way to edit it would be something like this: "Many historians claim that the March 23, 1919 meeting at the Piazza San Sepolcro marked the 'birth' of the fascist movement. Nevertheless, fascism has important antecedents from the nineteenth century ... The events, political, economic, and intellectual, that led up to the 1919 meeting were ..." or something like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However I think Fascism truly was something of a fixed, not gradual, creation, in that the movement did not naturally develop in the same manner that Socialism, for example, did throughout Europe over a couple of centuries. I think we are entirely missing the point, too, and something that Christofurio referred to. The importance here is whether the date is regarded by the Fascist movement itself in Italy as it's own birthdate, and it is, so that is the most important element of consideration here in terms of enhancing the understanding of Fascism within the wikipedia by actually pronouncing the ideology's understanding of itself. Hauser 10:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Socialism & "Left" Corporatism

By combining two ideas, there is now a very misleading sentence.

• Many argue that fascism is a warped outgrowth of socialism or left corporatism.

These ideas need to be split. The previous sentence in the text notes that fascism grew out of socialism, so that part is redundant. Almost nobody disuptes this. If folks want to fold the idea of "warped" into the previous sentence, it could go there. The claim that "many" see fascism as an outgrowth of "left corporatism" is simply false. A tiny handful of libertarian and conservative authors have suggested this. A tiny handful of Wiki editors continue to try to inflate this idea into a major theme in the scholarship on fascism. This is false. This is POV. This--and an tendency to highlight other obscure minority views--detracts from this article reflecting the main views of fascism among scholars, contentious as they may be. the sentence should read: "A few scholars see fascism as an outgrowth of liberal corporatism." Perhaps someone could provide a cite to the phrase "left corporatism." Otherwise, it is an oxymoron.--Cberlet 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The term MANY has recently been changed, apppropiately in my opinion, to SOME. But I agree with your basic point that socialism and "left corporatism" (whatever exactly that might be) should be distinguished and, hopefully, someone more knowledgable than I in ECONOMICS can write up an entry containing a specific explanation, with clear examples and sources, of the meaning of "left corporatism" versus, say, "right corporatism". Lacatosias 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

change in definition section

I found the following sentences in the definition section:

"Watkins considers Mussolini's Fascist regime to be one example of the corporatist states that emerged during the Great Depression, including such diverse political systems as that of Spain, Argentina and the United States. But this seems to be a rather idiosyncratic position and is not to be considered as representative of the interpretations of the majority of modern political philosophers and academicians."

Reading this gave me that same awkward, embarrassed feeling one gets at a dinner party where the host couple constantly bickers with each other. Clearly the last sentence quoted above was written by someone who stronger disagrees with the person who wrote the first sentence, making it disjointed and decidedly not encyclopedic. I deleted the last sentence and qualified Watkins as someone that "some accuse of being out of step with the academic mainstream." I think that should satisfy everyone involved. --Skinny fists 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Parenti

Recently added: "The Functions of Fascism a radio lecture by Michael Parenti". I haven't had a chance to listen to this, but is it really on fascism, or is it on neo-fascism, which seems a more likely topic for Parenti? - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Cite Please

What reputable published source adds the word "collective" to "state" and "nation" in defining fascism? A few libertarians and conservatives, do this, but it is a marginal view. "Collective" is not the same as "Volk" or "the people." Libertarians use the term "collective" to set up an argument that collectivism is leftist and destroys democracy. "Collective" is a POV term in this context.--Cberlet 04:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The same source you have been marginalising and reverting @ Fascism and Ideology, of course. Why do you bother to ask? Here it is, for those unaware of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Sam Spade 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, you posted a link to libertarian advocacy site. If you are interested in an online encyclopedia of social science terms, try A Glossary of Political Economy Terms by Dr. Paul M. Johnson of Auburn University 172 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of your POV regarding The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. It is one we do not share. Perhaps you could cite a verifiable source possessing your POV so that it could be noted as well. Sam Spade 05:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You are aware of my POV regarding The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics? How could you be? I'd never commented on it on Wikipedia until now. Perhaps you're confusing me with other users who've called you out on trying to use material from libertarian advocacy sources as if they were neutral ones? 172 05:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Or perhaps you just sounded so much like Cberlet I couldn't tell the difference? Sam Spade 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Chip Berlet is a person with whom I do not mind being confused. Nevertheless, try out the Paul M. Johnson Auburn University dictionary. You may find it helpful. 172 05:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did, and I don't, but thank you for the suggestion. Try out the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, it provides an alternate expert POV. Sam Spade 17:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Collectivism

"Collectivism...destroys democracy?" Democracy *is* collectivism. The individual submits to the will of the group. Note that Mussolini himself defines fascism as the opposition to individualism and embrace of collectivism: "this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."RJII 05:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Sam Spade 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A libertarian advocacy website is not a source that should govern the writing of the lead. The trick here is that the "collective" of the organic nation exalted by fascists is NOT the same thing as is being called "collectivism" by libertarians making an economic critique. "Collectivism" and "corporatism" are not synonyms in fascist ideology. I have cited the major scholars of fascism. Sam Spades cites an advocacy website. This is not a serious discussion. I challenge Sam Spade to cite a major reputable published scholarly source to back up his views. --Cberlet 05:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Collective" and "collectivism" are the same thing, in this context. In fact, the most common translation is: "For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this [the 20th century] will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State." -Mussolini Here is the definition of "collectivism" from Encyclopedia Britannica: "any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized. ..sure sounds like fascism to me. RJII 05:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

<----Mussolini quote in context

Mussolini, Doctrine of Fascism (1932)

• ...After Socialism, Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or practical manifestations. fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, van rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be leveled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage. . . . Democracy is a regime without a king, but with very many kings, perhaps more exclusive, tyrannical and violent than one king even though a tyrant. . . .

• ...The theory of Fascist authority has nothing to do with the police State. A party that governs a nation in a totalitarian way is a new fact in history. References and comparisons are not possible. Fascism takes over from the ruins of Liberal Socialistic democratic doctrines those elements which still have a living value. It preserves those that can be called the established facts of history, it rejects all the rest, that is to say the idea of a doctrine which holds good for all times and all peoples. If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State. . . . The doctrine itself, therefore, must be, not words, but an act of life. hence, the pragmatic veins in Fascism, its will to power, its will to be, its attitude in the face of the fact of "violence" and of its own courage.

• ...In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State. [6]

Libertarians frequently take a snippet of this section and quote it out of context.--Cberlet 05:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no denying that fascism is a collectivist ideology. Of course you're going to see a lot of articles by libertarians in opposition to fascism --fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism (political and economic individualism). RJII 05:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire section above where "collectivism" is mentioned by Mussolini is part of a larger section where it is made clear that the "collective" is represented by the State without the need for any democratic input; fascism "denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation." So the "Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals....It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State." Thus fascism exalts the State and the Nation. It does not exalt the "collective;" it claims that the State and Nation organically represents the will of the collective. This is one of the central core themes of fascism: the idea of organicism. Libertarian analysts of fascism reframe this to make political attacks on liberalism and the left as paving the way to the "Road to Serfdom" as Hayek put it. --Cberlet 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Though democracy is collectivist, collectivism doesn't require democracy. Democracy is just one expression of collectivism. Fascism is another --as you said "it claims that the State and Nation organically represents the will of the collective." Fascism is a form of collectivism. RJII 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In this use of the term, all government is a form of collectivism. That's the idea of the Social Contract. But to argue that the fascist idea of collectivism is one of its most salient points requires us to explain, as the text now states thanks to Jmabel, that fascism "viewed the state as an organic entity rather than as an institution to protect collective and individual rights." That has the relationships in their proper order of importance. Organic collectivism expressed by the totalitarian State.--Cberlet 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The social contract (I supposed you're talking about Rouseau's), is definitely collectivist. But, you don't have to embrace "the" social contract to support the existence of government --only collectivist governments. You can support the existence of government out of individualism --you would establish govermennt to protect individual rights, and you would oppose democractic rule over the individual (for example, favoring a bill of rights that protects the individual from the majority). RJII 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If the government gets its income via taxation, then it's still a kind of collectivism. After all, I might say, "I don't want the government to defend my individual rights, I want to do it myself, so stop taxing me if you're going to claim not to be a collectivist government." (I wouldn't personally say that, but it would be a legitimate argument.) If you believe that any violation of individual rights, or any prioritisation of the interests of a group over the interests of individuals, is a form of collectivism, then you must believe that all governments are forms of collectivism, almost by definition. Any organisation which protects individual rights wihout coercing people into supporting it in some way (hence imposing on their individual rights) is not a government. For example, the ACLU is not a government. I don't see how it would be possible to have a government worthy of the name that didn't subordinate some individual rights to the rights of the general population.

Mussolini, to be fair, also thought that ""Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." If we're going to go with Mussolini's word, we have to see corporatism as at least as important an element of Fascism as collectivism. And Cberlet has explained already that Mussolini had a rather special idea of "collectivism" in mind. Cadr 02:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Alas, Mussolini apparently never uttered the phrase often attributed to him. See: [7]. But this only makes our arguments about what Mussolini meant by the terms corporatism and collectivism even stronger.--Cberlet 21:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Third New International Dictionary: collectivism: "1b : extreme control of the economic, political, and social life of its subjects by an authoritarian state (as under communism or fascism)" RJII 05:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

From article collectivism:

"Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property. For instance, anarcho-communists, who argue for the immediate abolition of government, wish to place all goods under collective property. "

From this and Mussolini's declaration that "the State" is the collective of interest to fascism, it obviously follows that collectivism and organicist fascism are not synonymous. Fascim subordinates everything, collectives, communes, churches, individuals, to the interests of the State (even in theory). This is not true of all forms of collectivism such as anarcho-communism or communitarianism. What's the problem? --Lacatosias 09:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree you Cberlet that fascist theorists who existed, including Mussolini--or whoever wrote the Doctrine of Fascism--(and even Hitler, who talked about the natural ordering of society) thought of the State as having an organic relation to society. However the fact still remains that as a practical matter more state control was imposed. Its also clear from the Doctrine of Fascism that though Mussolini believed in the individual, he believed that the individual should live for the State, the culture, the civilization, in which he could make his life worthy. In all, it may be pointless to label fascism collectivist or individualist, in the same way that I think its pointless to label it reactionary or revolutionary (something Mussolini debated). What you can do in the article is just discuss its concepts, how the government was organized in practice, etc. (and later give space to important interpretations of fascism as a historical phenomenon.) I mention in an post above this one why fascism is seen by some as left-wing, and right-wing by others. The facts I mentioned (under the topic of "Historical revisionism: fascism as 'right-wing'), for both sides, could hopefully non-controversially be in the article. In some way they're already hinted at, but I think the article can be more clearly organized. Brianshapiro

Socialism, Socialism, Collectivism,.Lumpenproles, etc....

There really seems to me to be a subtle, systematic attempt here to discredit all of the almost infinitely many forms of socialism (e.g. Italian socialism ala Massimo D'Alema is not the same as German social democracy ala Gerhard Shroder is not the same as Scandinavian socialism ala Gunner Myrdal is not the same as pure theoretical Marxism/socialism is not the same as British Fabianism, etc., etc., etc..)) by insinuating that fascism is basically socialism which appeals to socialists, collectivists and the working-class lumpenproletariate.

An encyclopedia entry is no place for such an ideology-based exercise. What the devil is wrong, e.g., with simply identifying Gabriele D'Annunzio in a list of intellectuals/poets who supported fascism without also adding that he was, previously, a socialist and/or anarcho-syndicalist?? Why does this need to be explicitly pointed out with fifty-thousand adjectives?? The only reason I can think of is that someone (or more than one) insists on inserting the words "socialism", "anarcho-syndalism", "lumpenproles", etc., etc., at every single possible opportunity in order to make their ideological point. But this is silliness!! --Lacatosias 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Cberlet 21:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following recent addition, because it was poorly written and sufficiently vague that I couldn't fix it; there may be something to this that, properly written and cited, belongs in the article; I have reproduced it verbatim:

• Racism is a false definition used by the left to degrade the system, Musolini in 'Enclopedia Italiana' in his artical on what is Fascism writes "Racism distroys Nations".

Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian theories about fascism

A libertarian advocacy website does not trump dozens of academic scholars. The primacy of the Nation and the State are the primary hallmarks of fascism. Collectivism is one of many other secondary aspects. The libertarian concept of fascism as ultra-collectivism is hardly given any credence in serious scholarship on fascism. The fascist idea of collectivism, as posted above, was that the State organically represented both the individual and the collective. The failure to provide any serious cites other than Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn should settle this question. This same debate is now taking place on three Wiki pages: Fascism and ideology, Fascism Right-wing politics. Can we at least seek to have the discussion only on the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Cut from article

I cut the following

Fascism is the name given to 'ULTRA-NATIONALISM' by an Italian poet for jingoism and then Musulini (copied from Napolian Bonipart). It is wrongly defined by most english sorces which use mostly false left-wing colloqualisms. Omit racism, "racism distroys nations" wrote mussulini (Encleplapedia Italiana), but of course english translations edit this out. The Italian fascist party (lead by Finni) is presently the most anti racist party in Italy. Claimed to have 27 philosophical ideals found in Francos Manifesto of Forty principles. Its philosophy includes: massive millitry buildup, massive increase in police, autarchic (protectionist) ecconomics with merchantilism & issolationism, pyramid-elitism (eg. youth groups of which the smartest are promoted up leadership ranks eventially into a position with the public servic, the smartest are taken in government when one dies or retiers then to leader), being alert and prepared incase opportunities or dangers arise (vigilance), vitalism (strenght, courage, determination, drive, regeneration through energy and strugle), strong united small goverment / minnimum number of polititions (oligarchy), blind patiotism, no immigration, pentions, incentives, a collective dictatorship which rejects most centre and socialist views, corporatism, indupendent nation with more production, organisation and efficiency, national intrest are more important than international considerartions, consolidation of power (combining and unifying goverment bodies), against pascifist groups, hired militia groups, appointed municiple officers, strenght in unity, authority of the state and oppression of nearly all oposition (some of these are also used by Marxists). NB. Before & during WWII the hardline dictatorial racist Baltic states (40% socialist ideals) as well as the extreme-right NAZI's were not regarded as fascist by other fascist nations because they had to many socialist ideals. Definition of Pr. K. M. Smogorzewski is of intrest.

Poorly written ("Musulini"? "Napolian Bonipart"? "pyramid-elitism"??), POV ("It is wrongly defined by most english sorces", which might as well say "I don't care what you can cite, my opinions will carry the day"), incredibly non-mainstream ("The Italian fascist party (lead by Finni) is presently the most anti racist party in Italy" or associating fascism with "small goverment" [sic]), etc. And ending with "Definition of Pr. K. M. Smogorzewski is of intrest": perhaps it would be, but how is anyone supposed to find it? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me take a wild guess: I think you are obviously dealing here with an Italian with very bad English skills who is a devoted member of the more extreme right wing faction of Alleanza Nazionale (that which has not really recounced fascism at all).

Isn't that correct??? (;

Anyway, these views are WAYYYY out of the maintstream in Italy.

--Lacatosias 09:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt that there are many members of Alleanza Nazionale who don't know how to spell Mussolini. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... weird!! He even got Fini wrong. And Alleanza nazionale has, at least officially, dissociated itself from fascism. "Fascism is the absolute evil", according to Fini himself. Whereas our mysterious friend calls it a "fascist party which rejects racism." Just vandalism, I guess??

--Lacatosias 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Futurism

I've added the following to the section on inluences in Mussolini:

• under the influence of the artistic and literary movement called futurism. Futurism was an early twentieth century intellectual movement in Italy which forcefully emphasized three main ideas: technology, speed, and violence. Similarly, Mussolini's corporate state was a distinctly 20th-century creation.

I am very much open to discussion abbout the placement and wording, and even relevance, of this addition. They entry was already quite lengthy and a but unwieldy as it was. But I do stringly beleive that the movement of futurism requires mention in any article which discusses Italian fascism. It is heavily emphasized over here (Italy) to the point where there is hardly ever a serious academic discussion of (Italian) fascism which does not mention it.--Lacatosias 09:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming that futurists influenced Mussolini. They certainly admired him, but I've never heard much about them actually influencing him. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot offer any direct evidence that Mussolini himself ever even attributed much importance to the futurist movement. However, it is extremely difficult to believe that a movement which practically dominated the Italian artistic and intellectual scene in the 1910's and 1920's (precisely during the rise of fascism), whose manifesto repeatly refers to the the idea that war was an essential means for the progress of modern man and which had a decidedly nationalistic orientation (if I knew how to add links, I would refer you to the Italian wikipedia article on futurism and the futurist manifesto), could have failed to exercise an influence on the general atmosphere in which fascism arose and, therefore, on members of the fascist party, etc..

The Italian wiki article, in fact, describes futurism as one of the main precursors of fascism.And this is the general view, as far as I am able to make out. The poet Marinetti eventually wrote an article, in 1923 or '24, in which he associated the two movements. It was called "Futurism and Fascism." --Lacatosias 12:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. They futurists were certainyl not JUST detached admirers of Mussolini, in the sense of say G.B. Shaw, but many, if not most, of them became active particpants in the movement and, eventually, the Fascist Party. --Lacatosias 12:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The author of "Futurism and Fascsim" was Prezzolini. Sorry about that!! But I have found two very intersting quotes from VERY significant sources to support the idea that futurism exercised a profound influence on fascsim (if not Mussolini himself).One is from the founder of the movement Marinetti and the other from Benedetto Croce:

• Marinetti wrote that "fascism born from interventionsim and from futurism sustains itself on futurist principles". Benedetto Croce ribadì che "per chi abbia il senso delle connessioni storiche, l'origine ideale del fascismo si ritrova nel futurismo". (Croce wrote that " for anyone who has any sense of historical connections, the ideal origins of fascism are to be found in futurism." --Lacatosias 12:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Several of the English language scholarly books on Italian Fascism mention futurism as a major influence (along with syndicalism), but I won't be back at the library until next week, so no cites until then.--Cberlet 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Great! Someone should edit this with something more concrete, because unspecified "influence" is not very informative. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I will, also, try to get hold of some of the specific nameable sources (probably in Italian though) if I can manage to find the time. Otherwise, I appreciate CBerlet's help in that regard. --Lacatosias 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Early fascism

I've restored that statement "Early fascism was a mixture of extreme socialist or syndicalist notions with a Hegelian or idealistic theory of the state; the latter was linked to an extreme nationalism", which Nikodemos cut. I suggest he read the article fascio, where this is discussed in more detail; it is also well-discussed in this article in Fascism:#Mussolini's Fascism. If he looks through past discussions on this talk page, he will see many people from libertarian or right-wing views who question whether fascism ever ceased to have a strong left-wing component. While that is clearly a small minority view among scholars of fascism, I cannot remember ever reading and scholarly work on the origin of fascism that did not acknowledge an initial contribution of ideas (and tactics) from the left: somewhat from socialism, but especially from syndicalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and Feminism

Is this section at all relevant? Plenty of people make crude political statements-feminists are actually labeled "feminazis", the fact that opponents of conservative Christians compare them to fascists is not unique in coarse political discourse... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jme9601 (talk • contribs) .

I suspect that you may have misread the section. I also suspect it belongs in Cult of masculinity as opposed to here. Jkelly 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Cult of Masculinity, however, was very much a fundamental, definingpart of Italian fascist doctrine, as any good historian of the period should be able to tell you. The Section should, perhaps, be renamed "Fasicism and the Cult of Masculinity" or "Fascism and Women". I would prefer the latter. It should include the fact that contraception was banned, abortion was stricly prohibited on pain of death (or something close to it) and that women were to be treated as servants of their husbands and as unemployed, housebound incubators for the good of the State. The parralels with the modern Christian Right of modern times are self-evident. Perhaps the term "Christian Right" can be removed, as it is implicit in all of the above charactersitics.--Lacatosias 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and Women is an excellent link (in Italian) on the matter of fascism and women which confirms what I have stated above and much more. The whole site is very useful and well-documented. If you nedd help reading it, I will be glad to translate the relevent parts. --Lacatosias 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See Aristasia, causa-nostra.de/, Margaret Sanger, Alessandra Mussolini and etc... What is there now is terrifically uninsightful, completely one sided and lacking in perspective. Fascism rode the wave of progressivism and socialism, and was far more liberating for women than prior era's. Sam Spade 10:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's hugely debatable, Sam Spade, about whether Fascism was ultimiately progressive and liberating for women (I am not just talking about the initial programme of the Italian Fascist party here). Indeed, I think it's very valid to point out that Fascism's form of oppression of women was largely formed due to existing conservative and religious inter-mixing with Fascism's practical ideology. Talking about 'Feminazis' (a term that is highly politicised and totally unfit for serious encyclopedia articles as something outside of a quote or an article about perspectives of modern chauvinists) is utterly ridiculous in this particular article, either way. Hauser 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I think the original point was simply that the direct comparison between "Fascism" and the "Christian Right" is not particualrly relevant to an Encyclopedia entry on Fascism. It might be better placed in Fascsim and ideology, now that I think of it. As I am the one who introcuded that particular phrasing, I will now remove it because I find it increasingly inappropiate (unless others insist on reverting it back in or something). However, I still think that a general section on "Fascism and Feminism" or "Fascism and Women" IS appropriate. I didn't think there were any problems with any of this. I do think we should take different views into account. --Lacatosias 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I acknowledge that fascism being liberating (for anybody other than the dictator ;) is hugely debatable. My point was more the fact that it was less than directly contrary to the womans movement, esp. regarding things like abortion, mother goddess worship, sexuality, and so forth. Including all signifigant and citable POV's is the way to go, and I ask that you give a glance @ the links I provided when writing up the new section. You may also want to consider keeping a summary here, and moving the bulk to Fascism and ideology if it ends up getting too long. Cheers, Sam Spade 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim of similarity between Fascism and the Christian Right is pretty thin, even if it gets moved to the Fascism and ideology page, although moving the bulk of the remaining section on Feminism there and leaving a summary here makes a lot of sense as Sam points out.--Cberlet 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The section says nothing about "feminism" but seems rather to discuss fascist control or depiction of sexuality, particularly MASCULINE phalic images. So I changed the title of the section, accordingly. --NYCJosh 00:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and fascism and majority view

"Defining fascism is complicated and contentious. Many experts define the term quite differently and many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist. There is little agreement among historians, political scientists, and other scholars concerning the exact nature of fascism, although since the 1990's there has been a growing move toward consensus reflected in the work of Payne, Eatwell, Griffin, and Paxton. See Fascism and ideology."

This paragraph is totally defensible and has been amply cited on the linked page and thoroughly discussed. Those who promote the minority libertarian/conservative analysis of fascism have space on that page for these claims. Attempts to bias this page towards a particular minority view in the face of the overwhelming scholarly view is not appropriate, and has become tedious in the extreme.--Cberlet 13:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's preposterous to assert that there is "little agreement." There is a lot of agreement AND a lot of disagreement. Nikodemos put in his edit summary for that that "there is in fact little agreement, as evidenced by the disputes on this page" That's not evidence of anything other than that the editors of this article can't agree (probably due to insufficient exposure to a large quantity of work from the "experts.") RJII 17:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What provides the evidence are the numerous books and journal articles about fascism and neo-fascism that start out by asserting that there is much contention and little agreement. I have cited the scholars who make such assertions. There is much disagreement but there is also the start of a "new consensus;" but even this is disputed. Outside of superficial dictionary definitions, there is still much disagreement, especially if you toss in the libertarians and the fans of Z. Sternhell. See this discussion: [8] and this essay by Eatwell: The Nature of Fascism: or Essentialism by Another Name?[9]. What scholars can you cite that claim there is much agreement?--Cberlet 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!! That was a heavy blow indeed, C. I'll be waiting patiently for a response to that one some time this century. (0:--Lacatosias 12:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

1919/1921

Is there a basis for the recent change of the date associated with the early fascist program from 1921 to 1919? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you consider the fasci di combattimentoled by Mussolini in 1919 to be a manifestation of early fascism (they were also known as "Black Shirts" and are listed as a "fascist organization" by several Italian web sites which deal with the subject), then their program would be properly identified as a fascist program. The intersting thing about this program, though, is that it is still steeped in rhetoric about the rivendication of the rights of the proletariate, demands for minimum wages and other syndalistic/socialist claims. There is not yet any explicit nationalism, corportism, organicism, and other elements of what would evenetually become Italian fascism, except for the declaration that war and combat are ultimate goods. In this formal sense, the organiztion resembles something more along the lines of a violent Communist movement such as The Red Brigades in modern times. On a practical level, though, they had already begun engaging in mob-violence primarily against Communists, socialists and syndacalists.

So, as is usually the case with fascist movements, they were saying one thing and doing another. Also, the process of evolution (or devolution) toward the full-blown fascism of later on was still in its early stages. Theory and programs took some time to catch up with practice fundamnatally, IMHO. I think this is clear to every one. But, in any case, here is the link to the program (in Italian) of the fasci di combattimento. The "doctrine" of Fascism, it seems to me, was contantly changing over time in order serve the ends of Mussolini and his loal henchman. This is why it is so difficult to agree on definitions and essential concepts.--Lacatosias 13:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an important point. The meaning and use of the "doctrine" changed over time. For more translations in Englishe, see the list of links at Doctrine of Fascism.--Cberlet 15:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

We seem to have an over-representation of conservative/libertarian links and an under-representation of mainstream lnks.--Cberlet 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, more "mainstream" links need to be added. Go for it! Hogeye 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservative/libertarian IS mainstream. RJII 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

CBerlet is an anti-fascist, former contributor to HIGH TIMES magazine, and a controversial person. Wikipedians should take his advice on this subject with a grain of salt.Icemountain 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Of course he's an anti-fascist. As am I. As, I presume, are RJII and Hogeye. And, frankly, the few "contributions" we've had on this page from avowed fascists or from fascist sympathizers have not been very useful: mostly, they have been efforts at a whitewash, not at elucidation on points that might have been missed by people not sharing their POV. As for High Times: I've never written for it, but two close friends, one of them an ex-housemate, have. High Times pays pretty well. If I were back to being a freelance writer and I had material appropriate for their format, I'd probably submit it to them. I don't go for their glorification and romanticization of drug culture, but somehow I doubt that is what Chip's article there would have been doing. As for "controversial person", who the hell isn't? The only way to be completely uncontroversial is to say nothing. I have my disagreements with him: we disagree about the ADL, with whom I had a falling out about 20 years ago (over matters quite unrelated to fascism), but he is certainly a respected scholar in his field and (quite unlike some people here) knows the difference between citing mainstream research and giving what is essentially one's own opinion after finding one vaguely citable source to support it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Under "Anti-fascist websites" in External links, does the "Antifašistická Akcia Bratislava-Antifascism Action Brataslava. Slovak anti-facism website" link contain the misspelling "facism" intentionally?--209.102.172.207 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism

Please discuss and vote on this dispute at this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote has ended. Thnaks. Keep for now at Fascism and ideology--Cberlet 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphan comment

The qualitiy of the writing is not good. Not very poor, but not good. The sentences are too long, and there are introductory and conclusionary sentences which shows that the writer came from American public schools where students were told to write counted word essays.

Unfinished discussion

(moved from above)--Cberlet 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just breezing through, and couldn't help but respond to this post. While it is true that fascism in both Italy and Germany (also in Spain) had a leftwing faction, this faction was crushed in Germany. In Italy, Mussolini arguably enacted many "socialist" reforms (of course, it is infinitely difficult to come to any agreement over the definition of socialism) -- he had been, of course, a socialist before the syndicalist split. But in Germany Hitler and the other high-ranking leaders of Nazism orchestrated the political assassination of the leaders of the brownshirts, the popular leftist tendency in National Socialism. In addition, while it is true that both fascism and Stalinism are totalitarian ideologies, many Marxists -- including both revolutionary communists and democratic socialists -- would contend that Stalin was neither a socialist nor a communist nor even a Marxist. He was, in the final analysis, a megalomaniacal dictator; many would call him a Russian nationalist before a "communist" or Marxist of any sort. Finally, a fundamental difference which you fail to miss between fascism and Marxism is the corporate nature of fascism. Hitler sought to form a corporate structure in which labor and industry would work hand in hand with government, the final arbiter of any disputes that might arise between those other two. Marxism, on the other hand, declares the arrival of a class-less society, with neither industrialists nor laborers and, eventually, not even government (the final stage of communism). Inherent in the corporatist model -- which, by the way, was also adopted by Juan Peron in Argentina and Getulio Vargas in Brazil, heroes among some leftist circles -- is accomodation of industry and capitalist interests, often (certainly in the case of Hitler) leading to the destruction of working-class aspirations. Thus, fascism, at least as practiced by Hitler (keeping in mind its blatant racism as well), was inherently reactionary (a return to Germany's teutonic past...). It's also important to remember that Hitler, unlike the contemporaneous Marxist movements, drew his support not from the proletariat but the petit bourgeois.

~Micah Landau, student

I can see both why fascism has been called right-wing and why conservatives today try to assert its a mislabeling and why its closer to left-wing ideologies. Overall, personally, I don't find these useful labels. But to discuss this, first of all, it needs to be seen that it doesn't matter whether the fascists in power were against communists. It wouldn't dissociate them from being left-wing, just against any other varieties of leftism other than their own. The reason certain people want to assert fascism as left-wing is because it arose from left-wing movements. Mussolini was originally part of a socialist party, and left because he disagreed with certain focuses of the socialists, particularly he felt socialism should be 'national' and not 'international'. This is also why the Nazi movement was called 'National Socialism', ie as a divergent form of socialism. Libertarians today try to re-enforce this connection with the idea that both socialism and fascism support larger government involvement. However, I don't think this is enough to really peg fascism as left-wing. First of all, just because they are divergent from socialism doesn't mean they are the same thing, they put a different spin on the meaning of the word. Although both supported some government involvement, fascism was partly organized around the principle of corporatism, whereby in theory through a corporate council composed of both corporations and unions, power would be delegated to corporations or unions for managing day to day business (though ultimately with party control and control of the dictator). And although in practice many regimes inspired by left-wing ideologies like Soviet Russia, acted nationalist, in theory the ideologies were against nationalism, which has been seen as right-wing. Mussolini also identified fascism as the 'Right' and against 'liberalism'. Liberalism referring to liberal democracy, and socialism as an outgrowth. Some today could say what was meant by 'liberalism' is different than what is meant by 'liberalism' today in American discourse. All of this controversy, though, had already been seen very early and addressed in Mussolini's own writing, in his Doctrine of Fascism. There is in fact a section of his book which discusses whether fascism is reactionary or revolutionary, in which he denies its reactionary. This is arguable.. but more importantly, Mussolini positions fascism as being both against communism and liberal democracy, which he felt didn't represent the whole society. Communism, he argued, supported only the proletariat, and liberal democracy, only the majority. The idea of a corporate council was his notion to represent the whole society. Is this right-wing or left-wing? This is similar to syndicalism, which is largely seen as a left-wing variant of socialism. But it is also obviously in many ways not left-wing as it does not match up with many left-wing ideas. And the whole argument about what makes a movement reactionary or revolutionary, as was hinted, is often subjective and partisan. I feel the debate about whether fascism is reactionary or revolutionary, right wing or left wing, could be mentioned in the article. Otherwise, a spectrum label might as well just be dropped. Brianshapiro

Innacurate portrayal of Hayek's views

'In contrast, some scholars, especially conservative economists, argue that fascism is a form of socialism or left-wing corporatism (von Mises, Flynn, von Hayek)'

This is wrong, Hayek goes out of his way to point out that the terms 'right wing' and 'left wing' are of little importance. Indded if anyhting he said that Fascism was a form of 'right wing corporatism' though he doesn't use that specific term.. The key point is that he identified it as a variant of Socialism. 81.110.202.57 17:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all true, but I object to your wording of 'right wing corporatism' rather than something like 'corporatism' 'national socialism', or 'right wing socialism'. Sam Spade 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it should read just plain "corporatism." I suspect all use of "left" and "right" as political terms. Hogeye 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Since Hayek viewed all forms of state intervention in the economy - in other words, anything short of laissez-faire - as socialism, it is quite logical that he would classify fascism as socialist. The problem with this view is that it uses a highly ideological (specifically, libertarian) and anti-socialist definition of socialism. Hayek's ideas belong in libertarianism-related articles, not here. Fascism only gets classified as a form of socialism if we use a definition of socialism that the socialists themselves do not use. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that what Hayek referred to in his work as "socialism" is actually "statist socialism." This is hardly a libertarian-only usage - most people use "socialism" when they mean "statist socialism." Anarcho-socialism is off most people's radar. Hayek makes perfect sense, given that substitution. And that isn't the only reason fascism gets classified with statist socialism. Mussolini had socialist ties, nazi stands for national socialist workers party, etc. Hogeye 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The term we should use to avoid all confusion is collectivist, I think only a madman would deny fascsism is that. Returning to Hayek's views, whether Fascism is nominally right or left is of no real import. (he himself regarded himself as left and progressive, despite his opinions being viewed by most of the left as those of a 'reactionary loser' [Amazon review]) What matters in politics is whether you believe in freedom or not. A left winger who believes in freedom is commonly known as a liberal, a right-winger who does so as a Conservative (since Disreali); a left-winger who believes in tyranny is a Socialist and a right-winger who does so is a Fascist. 81.110.202.57 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I see it (a picture is worth 1000 words):

Political ideology diagram, showing anarcho-socialism at the upper left and anarcho-capitalism at the upper right. The up-down dimension represents the extent of government; the left-right dimension represents the outward appearance (legal fiction) of property ownership. Hogeye 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism ?!? Jkelly 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a term used to describe a certain form of libertarianism. The problem here is that libertarians designed the Political ideology diagram so that Anarcho-capitalism was the only truly "free" political system. This char is interesting, but in fact only a tiny minrity of scholars accept the chart, or the libertarian analysis of fascism. The issue here is an attempt to portray a tiny minority viewpoint as having more weight than it deserves in the text.--Cberlet 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

CBerlet: "The problem here is that libertarians designed the Political ideology diagram so that Anarcho-capitalism was the only truly "free" political system."

Look again. If, by "free," you mean no state authority, then the whole top side is free. Anarcho-socialism, mutualism, and anarcho-capitalism. - all are free from state authority, but prefer different property systems. Hogeye 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't exactly the same as the libertarian diagram which has economic and social axes. My problem with the libertarian diagram was that it was designed to imply that being in the middle was 'half-authoritarian'. Even though it could technically mean half-authoritarian/half-libertarian, which isn't a useful way of measuring things by any means. Theres a similar problem with this diagram, even though it accepts different means of social organization as equally anarchic. I personally don't even think measuring this way even makes sense, as I think that some governing structure will always exist, the only matter is how its organized. Brianshapiro

Free from state authoritarianism and free to pursue individual wealth through unrestricted capitalism. Socialist "collectivism" is seen as restricting individual freedom. --Cberlet 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again that picture; Fascism isn't a far authoritarian capitalism; it is a mixture of syndicalism & other market-limiting (for social engineering purposes) kind of government; it goes in the middle directly below Tucker & Proudhon. See; Radical middle... Certainly military dictatorships under individuals like Pinochet have been much more capitalist and to the right, Falangism maybe, would go further to the right than Fascism. Nagelfar 02:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's because it does. Anyway, interesting graph, but anrcho-Socailism is an idea that could only ever work in someone's head. In Civil War Spain Aragon and a large amount of the Catalan region were run by Left-Anarchists. They found out that it was impossible to impose Socialism and collectivisation without a co-ercive state. The just didn't call it a state. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm

Properly speaking, anyway, right-left is not a matter of your approach to property, but one of mood, looking back versus looking forward. It's high time the left-wing freedom lovers (liberals) and right-wing freedom lovers (conservatives) united against their enemies, Socialists from all their parties. 81.110.202.57 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The experience of the Spanish Anarchists does not reveal any "third way"; to the contrary, their experience eloquently affirms that state-socialism and free-market anarchism are the two theoretical poles between which all actual societies lie. He appears to have fallen into his own trap. - FrancisTyers 17:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the on-topic part of the above, yes, using the word collectivism would be a good way to make the honest point that is to be made here, without using this as a stick to beat socialism. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

fascism really had no ideology

just lies to deceive people . This is taken from the italian wikipedia : http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascismo

L’ideologia del fascismo fu elaborata negli anni '20 da Sergio Panunzio e successivamente stilata in un articolo scritto da Giovanni Gentile durante il suo incarico di ministro dell’Istruzione e poi siglato da Mussolini, ma non venne mai veramente applicata, restando un documento privo di seguito

The ideology of fascism was written in the '20s by Sergio Panunzio [....] but it was never applied in practice, it remained just a document . and , by the way , the neutrality of the italian page is not disputed.

Indeed, the neutrality of the Italian wiki version is not contested. It is also completely unsourced. This is true of an enormous number of Italian wikepedia entries, I am discovering. the artcile on Fascio, for example, is not disputed either. It has been compeltely untouched since it was fisrt written in May of last year.!! It (used to) contain the following assertion: Garibalid was the inspiration of the term Fascio after he left the Freemasons becasue they had become too liberalconservative according to the Grand Rites of Scotland...or somehting along those lines. Noone contested it. I just deleted it myself after asking for a source. No one has noticed the change!! I suspect that the problem is that there really are not all that many Italian wikipedians out there. In fact there aren't all that many Italians ON-LINE. Conclusion: It is not a reliable source. Be careful!!--Lacatosias 09:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO fascism must be studied from an historical point of view , and not from an ideological one, as it' ideology was just a means for mussolini to maintain his power.

That may be true for capital "F" Fascism - Mussolini's regime - but not for small "f" fascism, which does refer to an ideology. Hogeye 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree completely. Read works like those from Emilio Gentile, he gave a great insight to the statist ideology that Fascism (capital "F") had; as how there were arguments in the Fascist Party due to how its ideology saw the state as supreme over all facets of life (which was the Fascist belief) which made strain in the party as to what of the state they could contest to make it more truly statist while not defying the essence of the state. Unlike Nazism & the Nazi party, which according to their ideology was clearly above the state (the party over all). It should be noted that the 'state', to Fascism, wasn't the sum of the positive laws or sum of the peoples running the government; it was seen more in a context of an essence which was what culture necessitated as a conditional arrangement of working in a social community of laws; though they never used the term & in fact pre-dated its use, it was very much like a "natural law" vision of what a "state" was. Nagelfar 02:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that Mussolini outlined a clear ideology in his Doctrine of Fascism, and he also spoke of clear divergences from the socialist party he was a part of earlier, it seems strange to say this. I hope the editors of the article have read at length from his book before making comments like that. Of course the state, in practice, didn't necessarily always adhere, but this is always the case, with any regime with an ideology. Brianshapiro

The problem is that there is still a debate over many of these issues by scholars. We need to find a way to explain the deabte, while keeping the focus on the agreements and majority views. Do some foks still think there is too much libertarian analysis in this entry--or is it just fair balance?--Cberlet 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost in translation?? Disputed Mussolini quotation.

I have observed an inconsistency within the main article on the topic of fascism. It is undoubtedly a rather small item of interest but I don't believe that anyone else has caught it yet. Please forgive me if this subject has already been discussed.

Beneath the "Definition" section for this article, there appears a direct quotation from a particular translation of Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. I have reproduced the quotation as it appears in the main article along with the sentence that precedes it:

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." [3] (boldface added)

---

Note the phrase: a century tending to the "right." This is exceedingly interesting because I own a copy of the Doctrine of Fascism myself. I opened it to the very same section and this is the referenced quotation in its entirety as it appears in my textbook:

"Fascism uses in its construction whatever elements in the liberal, social, or democratic doctrines still have a living value; it maintains what may be called the certainties which we owe to history, but it rejects all the rest—that is to say, the conception that there can be any doctrine of unquestioned efficacy for all times and all peoples."

(The paragraph continues and this next part should appear similar to what is quoted in the fascism article, but with one notable exception...)

"Given that the nineteenth century was the century of socialism, of liberalism, and of democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of socialism, liberalism, and democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains; and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State. It is a perfectly logical deduction that a new doctrine can utilize all the still-vital elements of previous doctrines." (boldface added)

Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) (unabridged)

(Reprinted in Social and Political Philosophy: Readings from Plato to Gandhi. Edited by John Somerville and Ronald E. Santoni. Anchor Books, Doubleday: New York, NY. Copyright 1963 by J. Somerville and R. Santoni. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 63-18039. ISBN 0-385-01238-1. Quotation appears on Page 436, halfway down the page.)

---

Note the phrase: a century of the "Left." It is only a difference of one word but that one word can have quite a effect on the meaning of whatever it is that Mussolini actually wrote and believed. Especially when used in or out of context.

Personally I don't believe that this inconsistency is an accident. This is not an instance when vague or abstract concepts and ideas are difficult to translate accurately into other languages. "Left" and "Right" are very concrete terms that everyone on earth is accustomed to dealing with. Even politically speaking the words "Left" and "Right" date back at least to the time of the French Revolution, when the Jacobins sat on the left side of the aisle in the French Parliament and their opponents, the defenders of the ancien regime, sat on the right.

This is not to say that the positions or beliefs behind "Left" and "Right" are not subject to the philosophical dynamism of history. Obviously they are. For example, within the former Soviet Union, hard line supporters of the Socialist system were referred to as "conservative" and they in turn referred to their political opponents as "radical." But the terms, that is to say, the very words themselves have remained. Left and Right. Collectivist and Individualist. All of these political words and phrases have been in existence for too long to be confused in what should be a routine 20th Century Italian-to-English translation. Someone (I don't know who) is (potentially) misrepresenting what Mussolini actually wrote in order to subtly advance some other agenda.

If anyone else has any alternate versions of Mussolini's text, it would be good to consult them (preferably many different versions) in order to obtain the proper translation. If the existing Wikipedia article's translation is inaccurate then obviously the preceding sentence should be struck out as well.

Best wishes to everyone.

Note: Somerville and Santoni (the editors in question for the translation that I personally quoted) are both accomplished scholars. John Somerville received his Ph.D. from Columbia University, has been published by UNESCO, and is also the author of The Philosophy of Peace and Methodology in Social Science. Ronald Santoni has been a Visiting Scholar and Lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge (1990), a Visiting and Research Fellow at Yale University, is considered an expert on the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, and is also known as a long time activist in civil rights, anti-war, and peace movements. (I have paraphrased the list of credentials for both men that appears in the publisher's "blurb," as the list is rather lengthy). Please observe that neither one of these men appears to be a "hard core right-winger" attempting "historical revisionism" by any means. This causes me to doubt the existing article's translation but we will see... --Superuman 22:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous translations. The office published Italian goverenment translation from the period says "a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century."

• The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, should not, however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards. The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State.

• A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people. Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century. If the XIXth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State. It is quite logical for a new doctrine to make use of the still vital elements of other doctrines. No doctrine was ever born quite new and bright and unheard of. No doctrine can boast absolute originality. It is always connected, it only historically, with those which preceded it and those which will follow it. Thus the scientific socialism of Marx links up to the utopian socialism of the Fouriers, the Owens, the Saint-Simons ; thus the liberalism of the XIXth century traces its origin back to the illuministic movement of the XVIIIth, and the doctrines of democracy to those of the Encyclopaedists. All doctrines aim at directing the activities of men towards a given objective; but these activities in their turn react on the doctrine, modifying and adjusting it to new needs, or outstripping it. A doctrine must therefore be a vital act and not a verbal display. Hence the pragmatic strain in Fascism, it’s will to power, its will to live, its attitude toward violence, and its value.

See: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

Hope this helps. --Cberlet 04:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

HAHAAA!! Nice try, but you ought to consider that there are people from all over the planet that work on these 'pedias (including Italian-speaking and reading Italians!! Oh MY!!!!) Here's the original text:

Le dottrine politiche passano, i popoli restano. Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell'autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista; se il XIX fu il secolo dell'individuo (liberalismo significa individualismo), si può pensare che questo sia il secolo «collettivo» e quindi il secolo dello Stato.

Here's what it means in English:

Political doctrines pass, nations remain. It might be thought that this is the century of authority, a century of.............the right, a fascist century; ... Come on now: un secolo di DESTRA (left or right, folks??) Any Italians want to dispute my translation of the word Destra??

here's the text itself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacatosias (talk • contribs) 24 March 2006

"Destra" means "right" (same root as our "dexterous"). "Left" in Italian is "Sinestra". You didn't actually give your translation of "destra", so I can't exactly dispute it, but your "HAHAAA!!" suggests that you think it means something other than "right" and, yes, I will dispute that. (I'm not Italian, but I read pretty much all of the Romance languages pretty well.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did give it: in the sentence immediately preceding I gave my translation of the whole paragraph into English. I wrote "a century of the....right" for "secolo della destra". I don't know why I threw the ellipsis in there, but this may have caused the confusion. Well, I thought it was clear, but as Umberto Eco says "the reader is always right."

In any case, I'll be as clear as possible this time: of course "destra" means "right". Period. And in the text it cleary says "destra" not "sinistra". Therefore, Mussolini was saying "the 20th centruy would be a century of the right." I don't know how it's possible to mistranlate that. The original poster, I was suggesting by my "hahaha", was almost certainly trying to sow confusion by deliberately distorting someone's text or else the text that he refers to is a piece of right-wing propaganda which distorts Mussolini's words to the same effect.--Lacatosias 08:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography about fascism

There are thousands of books about fascim. But if you want to study this movement you should read that books written by historians who have studied archives and documents. Many of them are italian off course. One of the most important author is the italian professor Renzo De Felice. He was a liberal historian who wrote a book about Jewish persecution in Italy. After that book (a bestseller) Jewish italian community of Rome and other people gave him the opportunity of reading rare diaries and personal documents about Mussolini and other important members of Fascist party. De Felice don't like fascism but in his books show a different image of fascism who was criticized in '60-'70 and '80. Left-side journalist and politicians affirmed that De Felice was a "fascist" author because he affirmed that the fascist party was appreciated by people (He studied policem reports, confidential documents realized by Italian intelligence agencies and personal papers of fascist and ant-fascist popular people). Most of the italian historians have now accepted his ideas.

He is considered the big historian of Fascism.

• Renzo De Felice, Mussolini rivoluzionario, Torino 1965
• Renzo De Felice, Mussolini il fascista, Torino 1965
• Renzo De Felice, Le interpretazioni del fascimo, Roma-bari 1996
• Renzo De Felice, Intervista sul fascismo, Milano 1992 (One of his best books: short but rich of ideas)
• Renzo De Felice, Mussolini il rivoluzionario, Torino 1965
• Renzo De Felice, Mussolini il fascista I, Torino 1965
• Renzo De Felice, Mussolini il fascista II, Torino 1965
• Renzo De Felice, Il fascismo e l'Oriente, Bologna 1988
• Renzo De Felice, Autobiografia del fascismo, Roma 1978
• Renzo De Felice, Storia degli ebrei italiani sotto il fascismo, Torino 1988 (also in english: The Jevs in fascist Italy)

I am italian, so I hope you will forgive me for my mistakes. I will be gratefull if you correct them. Thanks. --Quintiliano 18:55, 25 March 2006 (GMT)

Page length

This page is *much* too long. I propose that a few sections be moved to their own article; for example Italian fascism (even though it is seen as "the true Fascism") and Fascism as an international phenomenon (maybe shorter title required). Both articles could be expanded and improved as separate articles. Piet 09:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jkelly 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No further reactions, I've gone ahead with it. New articles are at Italian fascism and Fascism as an international phenomenon. See talk pages for remarks. Sorry it creates a bunch of work but the page had become unmanageably large. The sections that only have a "main" template now need a short summary, please go ahead and make one if I haven't done so. Make them not only short but also neutral so that possible disputes can be limited to the respective main pages. I've added cleanup tags to the two articles, but left the NPOV tag here. I'm sure soon enough the tags will arrive where they belong... I've also taken along most references and links, probably some redundancy can be eliminated there. I'm surely going to miss a lot of these fixes so please fix what you see. The Fascism page will probably be a bit inconsistent now after these bold cuts, again sorry but we'll have to bite the bullet. Anyway, we now have three pages of a reasonable size instead of one big monster. Piet 20:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Facism in India

I just cut the following from the article, as completely unreferenced and not well-integrated into the article text.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian patriot and revolutionary was a fierce patriot and freedom fighter who, although started of as a communist (like Mussolini) later took to fascism. Although it is never openly and directly stated that he was a fascist, there is much evidence that he was one.

He escaped from India where he was under house arrest and then travelled to Nazi Germany via Afghanistan. There after he met with the Fuehrer whom he asked for military support to drive the British out of India. He also asked Hitler for advice on how to get freedom for India as he considered Hitler to be 'an older, more experienced and a successful revolutionary'. He was an extremist patriot and nationalist, He believed in use of force and military means to do good for the Motherland. His call was 'give me blood and I will gice you freedom'. This statement shows that he indeed considered the Motherland to be superior to the individual. Hitler's ideology too was similar. The 'Fatherland' in this case was superior to the individual's interest and he too believed in the use of force(see Beer Hall Putsch). Hitler was known as the Fuehrer or leader by his fellow patriots and supporters. Mussolini was called Il Duce. Analogous to these titles was the Hindi word 'Netaji' which was what Bose was called by his supporters. In his writings, speeches and meetings Bose strongly hinted at having a military dictatorship in India, at least for a few years to patch up the damage that the Englsh had done. It was ovious who the dictator would be. Hitler pointed out that it would be at least a year before direct help could be given by Germany. In the meantime he would use the Indian prisoners of war from Africa (see Rommel) to fight the British forces in France. The Indian soldiers were absorbed into the SS and were of 'diabolical efficiency'. Bose was taken to the Cape of Good Hope by German U-boats and then received by the Japanese. He then Reached Japan and Singapore and took over all command of the Indian National Army. He declared India a free country and formed a Provisional Government of Free India with him at the Head. This was recognised as a Government in exile by the Axis and their satellites. This was the furthest any man would go towards independence on their own. The Indian National Army under him managed to put up an extremely intense fight in North Eastern India and achieved considerable success there. Finally, the British sent their special forces to fight the Indians in the Assam Hills. For some time, both the armies came to a standstill because of heavy rainfall. The INA later was disbanded after Japan's surrender. However, the constant was with Hitler had the British soldiers weary. Five years of constant fighting with the deadliest war machine ever built, the British were out of resources. All rebellion of the people was put down by the British using the British Indian Army but now, with Bose's and Hitler's efforts even this was not possible. Thus the British were forced to vacate India.

No one knows for sure if Bose or Hitler lived to see this day.

Anyone know what to make of this? Jkelly 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea I think we have an article on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. He was mainly regarded as someone who wanted Indian independence whatever the cost and did make attempts to ally India with the axis. However, he wasn't necessarily fascist by many people's standards and did crit. many authoratarion regimes (although he supported some, particularly USSR's regime). Ghandi had a more firm influence on the Indian people than Bose though. Zachorious 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)