Talk:Fascism/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Jonah Goldberg
What the heck is he doing in there? The reference to his "Liberal Fascism" book is plainly misleading. The guy is a hack and has no role in an *encyclopedia* examination of fascism. Claims that fascism came from left wing and/or liberal thought is plain bizare and contradictory to the historical record. Can that reference be deleted? Its pure tinfoil hat nonsense. Ridiculous right wing propaganda from America in the 2000s has nothing to offer an examination of fascism, a european phenomena, in the 30s 121.44.243.227 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Careful, your athoritarianism is showing. It's not propaganda when all he does in the book is reference speeches that have been PROVED to be historically acurate. It's not like its a book of Jonah Goldberg just preeching. Therefore your premise is wrong. I could understand if your argument was that he wasn't taking into account other factors, like many logical people on here have done, but to call it "tinfoil hat nonsense" clearly shows that you either haven't read it, or that you call anything that you disagree with "propaganda". Which was a fascist tactic if I'm not mistaken.(InquistiorV (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC))
- Regardless, it's not a scholarly work and Goldberg is not a scholar. Again, you may find it worthwhile to review the policies under WP:FRINGE. Meanwhile, you should avoid focusing discussion on the perceived shortcomings of other editors. Such comments tend to look like insults or personal attacks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm simply responding logically to what I percieved to look like an attempt at an insult. I'm not trying to make any point other than the one your making. The above comments made by the user is unessecary, and I have reviewed the policies under WP:FRINGE and it seems common sense that goldbergs work should be included, but I don't feel like wasting my time on those that are hostile to opposing view points. It's not like they are stopping anyone from reading it. It's a top seller. I also want to point out again that it's not propaganda when all he does in the book is reference speeches that have been PROVED to be historically acurate. There is a deffinate hostility on this site toward anyone who takes this stance. I'm trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt by saying that most peoples position is that Goldberg didn't take certain things into account, but the more everone tries to attack him personally or people that take his stance personally, ie. "tin foil hat nonsense", the more I believe there is hostility and even fear of Goldberg being allowed on WP. If I'm wrong, prove it by sticking to debate that only has to do with things Goldberg didn't take into account and stop trying to personally discredit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.174.89 (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing more needs be said than the fact that Goldberg is not a scholar, just a guy who wrote a popular book, who has no particular knowledge or expertise on the subject. The result is a non-scholarly work. "Bestsellers" do not per se carry any credibility on the topics they discuss. At most, if at all, it would be appropriate to simply and briefly mention that Goldberg has argued (whatever it is that he is arguing)... and I somewhat doubt that even that would be appropriate. I'm sorry if you feel that this is an attack or slight against Goldberg or those who admire his work. There are relatively objective measures of a work's credibility, and an author's credibility. One is the author's academic credentials (this usually involves teaching in some capacity in a higher education setting, not just having gone to college). Another is "peer review"... you may find that Liberal Fascism was not subjected to any. As far as I know, it's not even presented as an academic work.
- I think you might find a more productive outlet working on the article about Liberal Fascism rather than trying to argue that Goldberg's views should be given any WP:Weight whatsoever on the article about Fascism, although even at that specific article, there's no specific expectation that Goldberg's views will be treated sympathetically. I'm afraid I don't have much more to say on the subject so I am sorry if you find my conclusions upsetting. And, in case you feel I am trying to order you around, please note that I am not an administrator or anyone with any special authority. I am just an ordinary user, stating my opinion with respect to the topic and WP policies, although I think you will probably find that the majority of experienced WP editors would agree with what I am saying regardless of their personal views on Goldberg or his book. Again, I think that your frustration is primarily derived from being new to Wikipedia and not quite understanding its core policies and what it is meant to accomplish. This is not intended as an insult; I think the goals of Wikipedia probably seem counterintuitive and even just plain wrong to most people – at first. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think you and I have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying that you specifically are insulting anyone. I'm trying to point out the type of language in the very first post on this section. It isn't even debatable whether or not someone is trying to insult someone when they say "tin foil hat nonsense". I think you are being logical and decent in YOUR objections, but I think, in general, the "tin foil hat nonsense" language is being used to much in this descusion. I'm fine with your personal stance on Goldberg, I'm just trying to point out a general stance that seems hostile.(InquistiorV (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC))
- I can't say I've seen any examples of a similar vein, so I'd have to respectfully disagree. At the same time, subjects of WP articles are not explicitly shielded from the invective of WP editors posted on article talk pages, although I admit that language is fairly confrontational and the comment could be worded more constructively. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Factchecker, what do you think of the proposed opening paragraph for "Fascism in the political spectrum"? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're talking about the one FormerIP posted under "A Fuller Proposal", right? I think it's basically OK, although I still find it curious that the first sentence makes the statement footnoted as "1" before making the statement footnoted as "2". I'd strike that, and reverse it, so to speak. However, it would be great to put this debate to rest, especially as the discussion on it seems to have ceased. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm no fan of arguments rooted primarily in WP:CCC, or the idea of closing a debate just because editors on the other side seem to have moved on, but it seems silly to leave the article in a state of semi-permanent stalemate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I put in opening sentences. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm no fan of arguments rooted primarily in WP:CCC, or the idea of closing a debate just because editors on the other side seem to have moved on, but it seems silly to leave the article in a state of semi-permanent stalemate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're talking about the one FormerIP posted under "A Fuller Proposal", right? I think it's basically OK, although I still find it curious that the first sentence makes the statement footnoted as "1" before making the statement footnoted as "2". I'd strike that, and reverse it, so to speak. However, it would be great to put this debate to rest, especially as the discussion on it seems to have ceased. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Factchecker, what do you think of the proposed opening paragraph for "Fascism in the political spectrum"? The Four Deuces (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can insert anything and all of us included yourself should remove inappropriate text. I have removed it, which you also could have done. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Genius
"[A definition of fascism]... No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition."
BRILLIANT! --66.188.120.127 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- If that statement is going to stay in this article, its source should be referenced properly and attributed in the text rather than presented as some well-known or widely accepted fact. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
How's this? "Fascism" is a nationalist ideology that overtly indoctrinates people into believing the superiority of the state over the individual. This is different from Bolshevism where the people subconsciously submit to the state, because the state claims to provide for them. One could see Fascism as the extension of traditional God-based monarchies into the industrial age: Facism is an overt national cult, whereas Bolshevism is a national cult that pretends not to exist. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Position in the political spectrum – Neutrality tag
This subject has been hotly debated for some time.
Personally, I think that what Four Deuces has added, which is a relatively minor (but not inconsequential) modification of FormerIP's compromise proposal, is fair and even-handed. However, I think it would be best to spur some commentary on the revision as it now stands, before proceeding further.. especially because some active editors appear to be on hiatus, although I do get the impression that numerous other editors may have walked away from the debate over the course of many weeks or even months.
What are people's thoughts on whether the current revision satisfies NPOV? Are we past the point where the neutrality tag is needed? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi FAYS. I think it doesn't pose serious enoguh NPOV issues anymore to merit the neutrality tag, but think it should stay for a short while in any case so as to encourage editors to talk rather than revert if they disagree. Reckon it can go after a few days or a week if no controversies over it arise.
- Also think the section as a whole could still do with some tidying. --FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are probably right, although I'm finding myself quite busy of late and don't have as much time for WP. At the same time, I don't have as much background knowledge on the subject as some other editors here, so it's probably no great loss. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, it is not fair and even-handed. What I find particularly troubling is even though he is well aware of all the trouble we went trough he didn't felt the need to post it on the talk first. -- Vision Thing -- 19:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good thing I encouraged you to rejoin the discussion, then, since the total silence at this talk page might have been misconstrued as a lack of significant opposition.
- I guess we are back to square one, though. I'd be interested to hear a succinct summary of your objections, since you reverted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Vision Thing has now edited the "Position in the political spectrum" so that it now begins:
- Benito Mussolini promoted ambiguity about fascism's positions in order to rally as many people to it as possible, saying fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists". Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation." Mussolini described fascism in any language he found useful.
- Vision Thing has now edited the "Position in the political spectrum" so that it now begins:
- I guess we are back to square one, though. I'd be interested to hear a succinct summary of your objections, since you reverted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although I believe that the article should point out what Mussolini believed, I would point out that he was a fascist and had no academic credentials. Therefore this makes the opening extremely biased, and I am therefore reversing it. If Vision Thing believes that the section should begin with Mussolini's views or if he believes that Mussolini should be seen as authoritative and NPOV, then I would appreciate his opinion. (Sorry, I misstated your handle on my edit summary.)
- The Four Deuces (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- I reverted to a previous version that was relatively stable for months. It is you who is introducing changes, not me. I especial find it duplicitous that you are asking me to discuss changes when you are trying to bully through your changes without any discussion or proposal here at talk. -- Vision Thing -- 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that's very fair, VT. The content TFD inserted had been proposed, discussions seem to have come down to a few minor points and no-one had said anything for a few days. Suck-it-and-see seems to me to be a reasonable way forward. You previously appeared to support most of what is in TFD's edit - in fact, some of it was originally your wording. So, I'm guessing that any objections you might have are quite specific. Why not just say what they are?
- Also, you might want to call the previous version "stable", but you're well aware that no-one has been happy with it, we've all just been observing an editing cease-fire. --FormerIP (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Suck-it-and-see" might have been a reasonable step forward but The Four Deuces didn't stop on that. He decided to edit war over it while calling me out for not discussing. That is not acceptable behavior. As for objections: 1) The Four Deuces changed all important first sentence. 2) There is no mention of Gregor's observation how view of scholars about place of fascism in the political spectrum have changed over the years. 3) Not only are Stackelberg's views present as representative for view that fascism is the right wing, they are also distorted. -- Vision Thing -- 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but I don't see why your three objections need to take us immediately back to the drawing-board. Why not: (1) propose ways in which the Gregor citation might be incorportated and (2) explain what you think is wrong with the way in which Stackleberg is presented and/or propose an alternative? On the ordering in the first sentence, I think it's deadlock at the moment, but let's not just give into it. Perhaps there's a third way, or maybe we should sort the other issues then take a straw poll. --FormerIP (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- 1) Stackelberg's views properly presented: "Rod Stackelberg argues that fascism opposes egalitarianism (particularly racial) and democracy, which according to him are characteristics that make it an extreme right-wing movement." 2) Gregor citation and first sentence are one problem. My proposal: "Writers on the subject have often found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum complex, and while it was normally described as "extreme right" over the years scholars increasingly began to view fascism as a movement that is neither the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, VT, I have re-inserted the Four Deuces version, using your wording for Stackleberg, which I see no problem with. However, I haven't used your wording regarding Gregor, since I'm not confident that it is a fair use of the source. Your wording gives the impression that the view has continually shifted away from fascism being seen as right-wing over time, which Gregor does not appear to say. He does talk about the emergence of a number of historians taking a different view, but this appears to happen as an event, not as a continual process. I'm not necessarily averse to including soemthing about gregor if more appropriate wording can be found.
- I really think it would be good to work on what is now there. I don't think it is right to revert the whole section just because you have a problem with one detail. The contents are still open for discussion and amendment, and there is a neutrality tag on the section. If we allow the idea that there should be no progress until everyone agrees about every detail, then we will quite simply never make progress. It seems to me that it would be much better to simply continue to argue over the diminishing proportion about which there is reason to argue. What I am noting is that this proportion is reducing, so we must be on the right track, however slow it might be. If you feel the need to obliterate text, please don't do so wholesale - preserve the parts you don't disagree with.
- Incidentally, I have also edited to reflect John K's objection that the views of fascists were not consistent with regard to where they sat on the pol spec. This seems fair enough to me. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- What would be your proposed wording regarding Gregor? -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I personally think that there is already enough information in the section now, and I don't think I can identify any useful additional information from the Gregor quote. That deosn't mean that nothing can be included, I'm just saying that I personally don't support anything being included.
- I'd also note that there is a recent discussion of this source in the archive, which ended in bickering and no consensus to include the cite. So, before it gets included, it would only be fair for editors involved in that discussion to have a chance to comment again if they want to. There was also a description of Gregor as a "scientific racist". I don't know if this is an accurate decription but, if it is, then I would say that the issue of whether this compromises him as a source will also need airing.
- All that aside, there seems to have been a difference of opinion as to how to interpet the opening sentences of the preface. The question boils down to whether "the judgments of scholars" refers to some, all or most scholars. I don't think your view, VT (that he means "most" or "all") stands up. Firstly, because we surely know from all the other sources we have looked at that there is no point where there has ceased to be controversy over the question. Secondly, because Gregor spends much of the rest of his book bemoaning the dominance of the idea that fascism is on the right. This would make little sense if your interpretation were correct.
- So, I think there are a number of hurdles to cross before Gregor can be used as a source. At the moment, I don't think he is a source for anything more than something like: "According to James Gregor, a number of scholars viewing fascism as "neither left nore right" emerged between the mid 1960s and the 2000s". However, I don't think this adds much by way of useful information to what we already have.
- There could be a potential compromise, because the Gregor quote could be used as part-support for a statement about support for this view varying over time and being in the ascendency at some points (with Gregor and one or two others being cited).
- Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't want to include something like "fascism is normally described as extreme right or neither the left or the right", only solution is to attribute claims like you suggested that we do with Gregor. That would give us: "According to Roger Eatwell fascism is normally described as extreme right. According to James Gregor scholars abandoned that view and now see fascism as neither the left nor the right." -- Vision Thing -- 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- What would be your proposed wording regarding Gregor? -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) One would only use the expression "According to Roger Eatwell..." if he were expressing an opinion. When a fact is sourced there is no reason to say "according to". It would be like saying "According to Roger Eatwell, Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933". Is it your suggestion that we go through this article and mention names in the text of the source for every fact? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Facts are not disputed by renowned scholars. WP:NPOV describes fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." And while at the time Eatwell wrote his piece (in the early 1990s) that view probably wasn't under dispute, now it is. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow, VT. If you got the impression I'm saying we should add names of sources to the current opening statement then, well, I wasn't.
- My issue with Gregor isn't primarily whether to attribute inline or not, but exactly what claim the source can be used to support and whether there are reasons to treat Gregor with caution as a source (there may not be, but it has been raised). There was already a long discussion about Gregor, which I wan't part of, but it looks to me like "no consensus". Re-opening that discussion is fine by me, but it looks like it contains a few issues.
- If you want to claim that the Eatwell quote is out of date then that's a claim that needs support. Even giving Gregor the loosest scrutiny, he doesn't support that, simply because he is talking about a period beginning in the 60s, whereas Eatwell is writing in the 90s. --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with VT in most discussions, I feel I wouldn't be living up to my name if I didn't point out that he's correct in asserting that the above statement doesn't qualify as a "fact"; few statements do, even ones which can be determined to be accurate in a relatively objective way. This particular statement doesn't even seem to count as a "fact about an opinion" since it is more of a value judgment (a correct one, I believe) about opinions in general on this particular subject.
- That said, the troublesome question is: will we attribute every statement to its source just because it is disputed? NPOV policy is not silent on this subject, but neither does it seem to address the logical conclusion that every significant dispute will potentially add some cumbersome verbiage to the article to which it relates. Meanwhile, saying "According to Roger Eatwell Fascism is normally described as extreme right" seems to dramatically understate the claim, suggesting it would be appropriate to add various "me too" claims from other authors, which would inevitably lead to the counting up of competing sources, which is exactly what we try to avoid by citing synthesizing sources. Ugh – this sucks. More and more, I think we should cut the knot by citing the OED to establish, once and for all, the general usage of the term. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Although, on second thought, are there any sources that say Fascism is normally described as anything other than right or extreme right? I sort of doubt it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with quoting the OED. In terms of the logic of what you are sating, FAYS, I'd say there are opinions (which always should be attributed) and claims (which should be attributed if there is a staright conflict between sources). In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources, IMO. We have sources which point out further layers of complexity, but they don't undermine the basic point. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that this issue could be partially settled by adding "historically". -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, VT. This would seem to imply "not any more". I think the whole point is that that is not the case. It isn't warranted to put it in the past tense.--FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- You argue that "In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources" but Gregor is competing source. He says: "Over those years, students of "fascism," as a subject of inquiry, have seen its "essence" change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the "right" nor the "left."" So according to him, Eatwell's claim should be in put in a past tense, and fascism should be described as a " neither of the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reasons I think this is not the case have been gone over. But, to recap, (1) who the "scholars" in Gregor's quote are is not clear (I tend to think they are a minority, and, in context, anything else would be contradictory to what Gregor himself is saying), (2) Gregor specifies the timescale that he is talking about as beginning in the 1960s - since Eatwell is writing in the 1990s, I don't see how Gregor can be used as evidence that Eatwell is out-of-date, (3) you had a discussion with a number of other users where the result was no consensus, for a number of reasons including doubts over Gregor's sincerity - I'm not saying these are founded, but I think you should seek to re-open that discussion rather than taking advantage of the fact that it has gone cold. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- 1) I think it is irrelevant who scholars in Gregor's quote are, but there is more than enough prominent scholars who belong in that camp (Laquer, Sternhell, Griffin, Lipset, Gregor and Eatwell himself). 2) Gregor talks about period during which change in views happened, not a specific year. -- Vision Thing -- 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- The reasons I think this is not the case have been gone over. But, to recap, (1) who the "scholars" in Gregor's quote are is not clear (I tend to think they are a minority, and, in context, anything else would be contradictory to what Gregor himself is saying), (2) Gregor specifies the timescale that he is talking about as beginning in the 1960s - since Eatwell is writing in the 1990s, I don't see how Gregor can be used as evidence that Eatwell is out-of-date, (3) you had a discussion with a number of other users where the result was no consensus, for a number of reasons including doubts over Gregor's sincerity - I'm not saying these are founded, but I think you should seek to re-open that discussion rather than taking advantage of the fact that it has gone cold. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- You argue that "In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources" but Gregor is competing source. He says: "Over those years, students of "fascism," as a subject of inquiry, have seen its "essence" change, in the judgments of scholars, from a movement of the "extreme right" into one that was neither of the "right" nor the "left."" So according to him, Eatwell's claim should be in put in a past tense, and fascism should be described as a " neither of the "right" nor the "left."" -- Vision Thing -- 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, VT. This would seem to imply "not any more". I think the whole point is that that is not the case. It isn't warranted to put it in the past tense.--FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I guess that this issue could be partially settled by adding "historically". -- Vision Thing -- 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with quoting the OED. In terms of the logic of what you are sating, FAYS, I'd say there are opinions (which always should be attributed) and claims (which should be attributed if there is a staright conflict between sources). In the case of Eatwell, we have a claim, but we do not have any conflicting sources, IMO. We have sources which point out further layers of complexity, but they don't undermine the basic point. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
(out) I reverted the edit that placed the qualifier before the fact. It made it appear that there was any doubt that fascism is normally considered right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is little doubt that fascism is conventionally viewed as right-wing, but this discussion gets to the idea that left and right have little modern scholarly meaning. It's wishful thinking to assume that political parties self-organize along a convenient spectrum, as if waiting to be catalogued by us; rather, political parties are inherently self-interested. In particular, fascism promotes the cult of leadership, with promise that the rank-and-file can advance through superior obedience. Now, if "left" and "right" have any relationship to "obedience," then fascism can be placed on the spectrum. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think there was any confusion about the political spectrum before 1921, when the Fascist Party formed. Conservatives sat on the right, liberals and centrists sat in the center, and social democrats and communists sat on the left, and were associated with the upper, middle and working classes respectively. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- There is little doubt that fascism is conventionally viewed as right-wing, but this discussion gets to the idea that left and right have little modern scholarly meaning. It's wishful thinking to assume that political parties self-organize along a convenient spectrum, as if waiting to be catalogued by us; rather, political parties are inherently self-interested. In particular, fascism promotes the cult of leadership, with promise that the rank-and-file can advance through superior obedience. Now, if "left" and "right" have any relationship to "obedience," then fascism can be placed on the spectrum. --173.68.190.122 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
What should propelty mean "be of right"? Be of right means, firstly, to recognize the subverting character of the movements resulting from the french revolution, whether liberalism or democracy or socialism. Be of right means, secondly, to see the decadent nature of rationalistic, progressistic, materialistic myth preparing the advent of plebeian civilization, the kingdom of the quantity, the tyranny of the anonymous and monstrous masses. Be of right, moreover, means to conceive the State as an organic totality where the political values predominate over economic structures and where the saying "to each his own", does not means equality, but fair qualitative inequality. Finally, be of right means to accept as your own that aristocratic, religious and warrior spirituality who has marked by itself the european civilization, and - in the name of this spirituality and its values - accepting the fight against the decadence of Europe.
Adriano Romualdi - italian historian, essayist, politician, journalist, influenced by the thought of Julius Evola --151.23.12.218 (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The view not being allowed
I see plenty of talk of fascism being right wing, and plenty that says it's a radical centrist approach, but there is almost no mention of the FACT that many scholars believe that fascism is left wing. I've always thought that what wing you belong to depends on where you believe power should be placed. The left always believes in centralizing power (more regulation, more programs, more spending, less state power, more federal power .... etc), and the right always goes for more individual power (less regulation, fewer programs, less spending, more state sovereignty, less federal power ... etc) It just seems common sense to me that fascism can't be radical right wing since radical right wing would be radical individualism, which is anarchy not fascism. I just don't see how a group that is always trying for less government could arrive at fascism(an authoritarian dictatorship) I can understand if someone wanted to say "but the politicians on the right aren't going for less government." That's understandable, and I definitely agree when it comes to the right wing politicians we have had lately, but that still doesn't make fascism right wing, it just makes right wing politicians liars, which all politicians are guilty of. Although the right wing voters DO believe in less government and more individual power. Just because a politician claims to want less government to get into power doesn't mean everything he does from that point on is right wing. I'm not saying that all government is bad, or that all leftists are fascists. I'm just addressing the absurdity that I see in calling people who want less government fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is only in the US that more government = left. In other political traditions huge governments and their proponents can very well be right wing. Anyway this is an issue that is being discussed very thoroughly above and in order to contribute to that discussion it would be best if you could back up your claims with references to reliable sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Left" vs. "Right" originally came from the French Revolution and referred to a person's alignment with the Church. Because the church was allied with the government, the "Right Wing" became aligned with the monarchy. However this spectrum is reasonably disputed by the fact that, while the church advocates respect for the existing authorities it also indicated in Samuel that the choice of the Jewish people to choose a monarchy rather than a system of semi-democratic small government theocracy was due to their abandonment of God. In other words, monarchy is not the most 'right wing' form of government. To phrase things differently, Hitler admitted that his views ripped off Marx (who I hope we can agree was 'left wing?') and that he was only opposed to Communism because it was internationalist and "Jewish." Just because Hitler fought with Communists doesn't mean he was ideologically opposed to much of what they did. He emulated them in many ways. In any case, presenting fascism as "Far Right Wing" as a statement of fact is extremely NPOV. It is, at the very least, a taxonomy that's heavily disputed and cannot be fairly presented as fact. Wikipedia seems to lean rather severely to the left on matters of politics, and radically different standards are applied based on the figure in question's political outlook. This violates Wikipedia's own expressed standards. Ryan W. --70.190.167.1 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that current political comparisons dont relate to the original use of left vs right. Congratulations, but that doesnt relate to the point above, where someone is confused regarding what right-wig politics is, which is not about individualism. You're also noting that what Hitler said and what he did were different. Only 60 years behind everyone else. Presenting fascism as right wing is not POV - check right-wing politics. Right wingers priortise social hierarchy, social order, nationalism, religion and anti-communism. Moderate right wingers promote individual freedoms when moderate left wing governments impose laws and policies they disagree with, just as left wingers do when right wing governments impose their policies. You cant extend the gripes and glories of modern moderate left-right advocates with genuine radicals like communists and fascists. Radical right-wing means virulent social hierarchy, order imposed by terror, death to communists or anyone who disagrees with the imposition of the fascist state and justified by twisted religion and or nationalism. Fascism is desribed as radical right wing because those aspects are aspects of fascism. Just because some parts of far right-wing politics are the same as far left-wing politics doesnt mean fascism isnt right wing. It just means that right wing and left wing radicals have more in common with each other than say right wing radicals compared to left wing moderates and left wing radicals to right wing moderates. The taxonomy is only disputed by people of right-wing persuasions who dont like to be reminded that their viewpoint has an extremist faction which is just as vicious and destructive as the left-wing does. The viewpoint that fascism isnt far right wing deserves its place but the idea of fascism being right-wing in general cant be removed from the article since this viewpoint is pervasive. Wikipedia is quite representative, and if the tendency is to be left or right of where you are says more about you than your fellow editors. Funny how left-wingers say they are left, wheras right-wingers say everybody else is too left-wing. NPOV cannot be maintained in every sentence, every edit, especially in matters about politics. Overall NPOV is maintained by ensuring both the prevailing viewpoint and also appropriate description of minority or opposing viewpoints are included in articles. Mdw0 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
But aren't those countries parties "less" right than the parties in the US. They are usually self described as "center-right". That means closer to the left, which would support my interpritation even with the expanding government. It's the same with "Moderate Republicans" in the US like John McCain, who is usually attacked by the farther right political figures. He was talked badly about at many conservative/libertarian rallies this year. Another example is the large amount of libertarians that spoke out against George Bush's push for the Patriot Act. It seems to me that there is no difference between us in other countries, just maybe the labels. I'm willing to look at examples though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot define European right parties as "less right" than american ones since it is the very definition of "right" that is in question. If "right" means pro-small-government and pro-personal freedom as in the US, then European right parties are less right than AMerican ones. But in Europe right means more something like pro-tradition, pro-religion, pro-centralised government, pro-law and order, pro-nationalism. In fact in Europe personal freedom is more often thought of as a tenet of the left, and often left parties are in favour of decentralisation of power.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh, ok, now I think I understand your point. So would that mean that policy is actually quite interchangeable throughout the world when it comes to left-right placement? and would that also mean that fascism can never be right or left as Americans see right or left? I mean, I still like my view on power placement, but I see how this can be so difficult now. Maybe there should be a separate section on WP:Fascism that separates the distinction of European view as opposed to American view. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- It means that one cannot simply say "right" and expect everyone to understand what one means. It is necessary to define what one means by the word when using it to define someone's political standpoint. This is why modern political scientists have developed different types of spectra with more axes for describing political views with a greater degree of detail. As can be seen from the discussion above, most scientists see certain likenesses between Fascism and the left (focusing on the group rather than the individual, focus on progress through popular revolution) and others with fascism and the right (focus on tradition, religion and authority). Others have suggested that both the most extreme right and left views are characterised by the use of force and authority to bend others to their will. I think that all of the editors working here are extremely knowledgeable and i am sure they will eventually agree on a good way to present the fact that there are many complex views on the description of the Fascist ideology. feel free to chip in to the discussion. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your graciousness and understanding. I still think it's odd that only two of the major three views on this issue are being adequately presented, but thanks to you, I now fully understand how this is such a controversial topic and why it's so hard to come to a consensus.(InquistiorV (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
- "Conservative" parties in Europe, like the Christian Democrats are called center-right because they derived from liberal and Catholic Centrist parties and not from the traditional European Right, such as the German Conservative Party. (If you follow the link you will find a representative description of a right-wing party.) Both "left" and "right" in the United States would have been considered centrist in Italy and Germany between the wars. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi V. Here's another way of presenting the issue. I don't think the essential definitions of "left" and "right" differ at all depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on, although there is a difference of emphasis in terms of the associations that are made when we use those words.
- Always, and in every case, both where I am and where you are, the basic rule is that the more egalistarian someone is, the more left wing they are. So, a left wing person tends to emphasise the importance of reducing inequality in society above all else. A right wing person may either not care about reducing inequality, they may be actively hostile to the idea, they may believe that it is less important than other things or they may believe that it is not a directly achievable aim.
- There is a strong perception that left wing people tend to also believe in statism. This is true on both sides of the pond, although I think the association is strongest in the US (perhaps because "left" and "socialist" tend to make Americans think of the Cold War and the USSR). But the important thing to note is that it is an association and not a defining characteristic.
- For example, Noam Chomsky is an American and is normally considered left-wing. However, he is also markedly anti-statist. Equally, anti-capitalist demonstrators in the US are normally considered left-wing, but, at least in the way they are stereotyped, they are mostly interested in sticking it to the man, rather than in creating social institutions for him to manage.
- European fascism is, at bottom, both statist and anti-egalitarian. This is a particular combination that Americans may have trouble understanding, because it falls outside the normal rhetoric of mainstream politics in the US. However, its anti-egalitarianism makes it right wing, wihtout room for doubt. Its statism, though often associated with the left in the US, is neither here nor there, because that is not the defining thing. --FormerIP (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The welfare state was actually invented by conservatives in the 19th century, developed by liberals in the early twentieth century and opposed by socialists until after the Second World War. One of the main driving forces for the welfare state was that governments were finding it hard to find people healthy enough to fight their wars. Socialists opposed the welfare state because it gave too much power to the government. Of course there has always been a hardcore group of classical liberals who totally opposed welfare. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- This statement is inaccurate at least concerning the development of the welfare state in Denmark. In Denmark the welfare state was developed by the socialist Social-Democratic party, rooted in the strong workers movement from ca. 1920 to 1940. From the beginning they were opposed by conservatives who were anti-egalitarian and espoused traditional values such as nationalism and royalism and a free labour market. I agree with FortmerIp who basically restates my argument that Fascism is called right wing because of its authoritarianism and anti-egalitarianism and sometimes associated with the left because of its focus on the community and a strong centralised state.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The welfare state was actually invented by conservatives in the 19th century, developed by liberals in the early twentieth century and opposed by socialists until after the Second World War. One of the main driving forces for the welfare state was that governments were finding it hard to find people healthy enough to fight their wars. Socialists opposed the welfare state because it gave too much power to the government. Of course there has always been a hardcore group of classical liberals who totally opposed welfare. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(out)Specifically Otto von Bismarck introduced State Socialism to Germany in the 19th Century. The British Liberal Party introduced the Liberal reforms in 1906-1912. The British Labour Party opposed this and the Socialist Party of America opposed the New Deal. Socialists supported the delivery of social services through workers' co-operatives. Here's an example of this thinking from the New International (1938).
- Complete State Medicine.... From a working-class point of view, this would be dangerous because it would remove all possibility of workers’ control of their own doctors and leave their health needs at the mercy of the capitalist state....a state-controlled medical service might prove a powerful weapon against militant workers....compulsory insurance method might well become as dangerous a weapon of the state as complete State Medicine itself.[1]
The Four Deuces (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- One could also take note of measures effected under the premiership of Disraeli. Further, the intellectual and philosophical roots of such measures can be traced back to the programmes of the illiberal mercantilists. For the 19th-Century right-wing to return to such programmes was a playing-out of its long-standing and continued rejection of laissez faire. —SlamDiego←T 11:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Disraeli's measures were called Tory Socialism. However, Herbert Spencer in the "New Toryism" wrote that the Liberal Party was not only copying the Tory trend but moving faster and urger classical liberals to abandon them for the Conservatives. While he did not agree with Conservative ideology, he thought that their resistance to change would slow the move toward a welfare state. It is also worth noting that the post-WW2 welfare state in Europe was part of ordoliberalism, a theory developed by liberals (originally including Hayek and Mises who left because they had different views of liberalism) and implimented by Christian Democrats. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input, but from what I've been hearing from you, and based on what I've researched about the different points you've brought up, I can only come to the conclusion that there is no left or right wing. All of you have outstandng points and great examples that I've looked up, but they all seem to contradict each other. I very much appreciate the enlightenment I've gained from you, but if all these examples are true, and most of the ones that I've looked up have been true, then it seem to me that left wing policy can be on the right, and right wing policy can be on the left. I mean I still know what I believe in; competition improves quality, the individual should not be sacrificed for the "collective", freedom to speak out against the government, Cicero's natural law, proper seperation of power based on the idea's of Baron de Montesque ........etc, but knowing this, how can I ever find the group that supports my beliefs? I mean, based on what you've told me, I certainly can't just classify things as left or right wing anymore. I don't mind addmitting that it's a little frustrating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by InquistiorV (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's a bit off-topic for this talk page. But why in the world do you feel the need to choose for yourself a philosophy that can be unequivocally labelled “right-wing” or “left-wing” or “center”? —SlamDiego←T 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It's only off topic because I forgot to tie it in with the topic. I first got interested in political philosophy when I started learning about fascism. I grabbed up any books I could find and then I wondered around not knowing what I believed, until I came across Cicero and his theory of Natural Law. I loved it and then came across Baron de Montesquieu's "Spirt of Laws", and it became my foundation stone, and from it I branched out into so many books I've lost count. I now believe that ALL major proplems in government result in the improper disproportionate placement of power, and that fascism is the ultimate consequence of that improper placement. More than anything else I fear fascism, and yet I'm fascinated by it, and I'm just trying to find the group that can be the stronghold against that improper placement.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
- The meaning of left, right and center was explained by Lipset[2] and Hayek.[3] Bobbio tried to update the concept of left and right in modern politics.[4] What defines the political spectrum is not specific policies but underlying beliefs and attitudes. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this talk page isn't here for general discussion of fascism. The purpose of the talk page is to discuss how the article is and ought to be written. You really need to find a different forum. —SlamDiego←T 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
This does effect how the article is written. You asked me why and I told you. The point that I'm trying to make is that, how can you decide if fascism is left or right wing when none of you can even come to the conclusion of what left and right wing is. The placement of fascism on left or right wing greatly effects some people. Like myself, I absolutely want to distance myself from fascism, and the easiest way to do that is to alli with the opposition, but based on all of your examples, thats impossible to determine. I'm just making the point that the task of labeling fascism as left or right wing can't be done, and therefore I guess I'm trying to get across that, if you can't figure out how to input ALL position in an equal proportion, you shouldn't cover any. In relation to the political spectrum anyway.(InquistiorV (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC))
- The substance of your objections is already dealt with by multiple points of the WP policy apparatus, but the most succinct answer is offered by WP:NPOV which states, in part, that the "Neutral point of view" does not mean "NO point of view". More broadly, our goal is to neutrally represent significant published viewpoints, and do so in proportion to the prominence of each... WP:Fringe actually is a policy, or rather, a major sub-component of a core policy, and you can't really challenge it directly. The appropriate avenue for you, I believe, is simply to argue that the "Fascism = left-wing" view is not a fringe view, though of course there is no guarantee that your position is well-held or that your arguments will be persuasive. So, in a nutshell, I think you are just looking at this debate in the wrong way due to not having enough familiarity with WP policy, although I also happen to think that the position you are taking on fascism is wrong. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UT)
- Thank you for your advice. I think that "the belief that fascism = left-wing is not a fringe view" is really my main point, and I do get sidetracked easily. I also admit to not having a good knowledge of WP policy. So I guess I'll do what I love to do ....... read, and I'll come back with a better way of showing my argument.(InquistiorV (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
Movements with similar ideology but dating earlier
Should not Russian Black Hundreeds and Union of Russian People be included? In fact Nazi party much more borrowed from this movement than from Italian fascists.--MathFacts (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, but what about, Charles Maurras, fascism took alot from him and his movement. We may mention lots of movements with similar characteristics, than the ones we got with fascism. In fact, fascism is said to be inspired in lots of Plato ideals specially those we see in "The Republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- According to the French consensus theory there were no French fascists, they only thought they were fascists. And the Anglo-Saxon consensus theory excludes them also. We need a source to mention them. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, but what about, Charles Maurras, fascism took alot from him and his movement. We may mention lots of movements with similar characteristics, than the ones we got with fascism. In fact, fascism is said to be inspired in lots of Plato ideals specially those we see in "The Republic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erick91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You need a source that connects them with fascism, preferably a book about fascism. The Black Hundreds and the Union of the Russian People already have articles, but could be mentioned here also. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- They could be mentioned under Para-fascism, as they seem to have a counter-revolutionary character, though this may only be apparent in their attitude towards the rise of Leninism. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"Fascism" and "submission"
Fascism is mostly used about countries with a large share of Catholics. It is however also used about Saddams Iraq, which has a large share of Muslims. Both these religions requires a high degree of submission from the average population. I propose to add the following sentence in the introduction, by appending to the second paragraph:
"Fascism prefers countries with a large share of religious submitters among the population." —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi St. Trond. I think that's a claim that many would take issue with, for a number of reasons. The main thing would be for you to provide a WP:RS that agrees with you. If it is just your opinion, then it can't really go in the article. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- While there may be parallels, RS do not support the Ba'athists as fascists. BTW 2/3 of Germany was Protestant and there is no indication that the Nazis were stronger among Catholics. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- In the elections when the National Socialists came to power, the Protestant-Prussian parts voted for them in much higher percentage than Catholic-Bavarian parts. Here is a map showing the results. I'm not sure how much religion was a motivating factor for them, maybe people in East Prussia were just more directly annoyed by the Treaty of Versailles, because it cut their land corridor off from the rest of Germany. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- To Yorkshirian: NSDAP: National Socialist German Labour Party, this sounds more left than right to me. The higher vote shares applies to areas near Soviet. Hitler made a treaty with the Vatican Reichskonkordat. Lutherans outside state controlled "Deutsche Christen" were persecuted. It was Hitler's Catholic faith that motivated the Holocaust. [1] What about sticking to fascism? St.Trond (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The evidence shows that Protestants abandoned the Communist, Socialist, Liberal and Conservative parties, while Catholics remained loyal to Catholic parties. Your point that Germans living closer to the Soviet Union were more anti-Communist is however correct. In fact the strongest support for Nazis in North America came from the Volkdeutsch who resented Communism more than the Reichsdeutsch since they had first hand experience. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
| Hide discussion with blocked editor. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Neo-Fascism (Belgium / Netherlands / United States of America)My part of the article got deleted fast... wonder why ;) In Belgium the fascist movement and political parties rose from early 20th century and are still operative at this moment. In the city of Antwerp there is a statue, inaugurated in 1950 by Mayor Lode Craeybeckx, with a plaque saying "Labour makes Free", as in the Nazi concentration camps 5 years earlier with neighbour Nazi Germany. He is also the one Belgium named the Crayebecks tunnle after. There is not much neutral information on Lode Craeybeckx for the days between 1937 and 1946. The Mayor of Antwerp in 2009, Patrick Janssens is from the same Political Party as Lode Craybecks, the Socialist Party. One of his colleagues in the French speaking part of the country, Laurette Onkelinkcx, was voted as the most powerfull woman in Belgium by Trends Magazine in november 2009. The same party also ruled over integration and scholing for the last years. Wearing of hijab is now forbidden in schools. Another big Political Party is the extreem-right, racist and nationalist party Vlaams Belang with main characters Filip Dewinter, Gerolf Annemans, Bart De Bie, Karel Dillen and Frank Vanhecke. Vlaams Belang was derived from Vlaams Blok, wich was convicted for racism on april 21, 2004. The link between Belgium, the Netherlands and the United States of America is clear through the Gladio Network, where CIA operatives connected and teamed up with terrorist brigades and guerilla commando's to spread fear in Europe and beat communism. Last case is assumed since Gladio never came into action against any communist rise in Europe, because there was no direct threat. The death of Julien Lahaut is just one of the unsolved murders connected through these networks. IBM is also just one of the US companies who delivered software, knowledge or back-up to Nazi Germany. What is wrong about these statements?? Most references are allready on Wikipedia... --Franklinbe (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Ich habe es auch nicht gewusst. Hope I don't get Shot for this stub... --Franklinbe (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Fascism has subcategories wich are stated in the article. I was just adding another subcategorie, just as nazism is one. Second, 'fascist' is a term used as the color 'yellow'. Other people say you are that 'in that specific state' while you cannot tell whether you are or are not. I do not know I have cancer, the doctor tells me.--Franklinbe (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) PS:"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia ;)--Franklinbe (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) The defenition of fascism is not obsolete. Wikipedia Dutch leaves things out. Japan might put extra criteria in it. Sorry Peops, they deleted it again after i reposted around 5AM. Sources will follow later today. Need a bloody cigaret. --Franklinbe (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the material related to to the article? Should it be deleted? When yes, Why? It is indeed a stub. It's also an open workplace so you can bring in some more info and structure in if you want. 'Not related' to the article is your opinion. Please explain yourself. --Franklinbe (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@4Deuces: "Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism.[25] Since the 1990s, scholars like Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have begun to gather a rough consensus on the system's core tenets. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions as too wide or too narrow.[26][27]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 12:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: "Fasces (pronounced /ˈfæsiːz/, a plurale tantum, from the Latin word fascis, meaning "bundle"[1]) symbolize summary power and jurisdiction, and/or "strength through unity"." Nazis used the same kind of slogan as the US: "One Nation under God" And "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement"
"A bundle of rods bound together around an ax with the blade projecting, carried before ancient Roman magistrates as an emblem of authority. [Latin fascēs, pl. of fascis, bundle.]" the symbol is mainly one of authority (AuthoritEIT as Cartman would say). Using Fables doesn't make you expert on knowledge either... and 'not a good idea' is your opinion.--Franklinbe (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) WP seeks verifiable sources? Most of them got Murdred!!! Wikipedia:Civility Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. (like deleting after 1 sentence) Be especially welcoming and patient towards new users. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. (look at the history of this page....) --Franklinbe (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC) @Collect: About the 'not a good idea'... If you have a big calculation, and the first thing to do is solve 1+1=... and you fill in 6.... the rest will 99% of the time also be wrong. That is fascism and the world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinbe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Daniel:
"Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." @Daniel: It does when we're talking about neo fascism....--Franklinbe (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "During the Holocaust, IBM's New York headquarters and CEO Thomas J. Watson acted through its overseas subsidiaries to provide the Third Reich with punch card machines that could help the Nazis track down the European Jewry (especially in newly conquered territory)."Wikipedia IBM got money from the US and the US from IBM. The US is responcible for what happens with it's money, thus is the US a fascist regime. When you killed your wife and the cops can't prove it, you are still a murderer. Doesn't mather what the Law says in your country.--Franklinbe (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
1) It is not because it can be found in the mainstream history books that it's correct info and that it did happen. History is created by men and men make mistakes. Most men are biased, especially when they get money from the one writing about.... my article was as dry as a good Sherry
Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] — Diderot Who decides what knowledge is verifiable when fascist regimes have been killing their opponents for years? "You are clearly not able to step away from your viewpoint and write neutrally." Who's working for National Security?--Franklinbe (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) MedCabal CaseHello Editors! A mediation cabal case has been opened regarding this article and its subsequent talk page. If you wish to join the mediation process, please indicate so on the case discussion page and on my talk page. My job is to guide a reasonable discussion to find an equitable solution to the dispute. This can only take place if 1) everyone enters the process with a good-faith effort in mind to reach an end AND 2) their agreement to participate throughout the whole process, while it is voluntary to partake. I am reviewing the talk page and the dispute as it has taken place to gain an understanding of the matter. Once all parties have indicated their acceptance of the case proceeding, I will follow a process similar to the process that some MedCom cases have progressed, to find a consensus conclusion to this problem. Cheers! -Reubzz (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
@Collect, you could be right. Killing people abroad, just because they believe communism is a better way to go, is a bit premature too, I believe. Especially if it happens by the same ones who defended those that thought killing Jews would be OK . But it happened anyway. That's why I'll first go read some more wiki rules, before I piss you of again. Happy Discussing!! TTYS --Franklinbe (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Could you read up on Christianity, fascism, Free Masons, the US and Gladio? Thanx buddy. --Franklinbe (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
See Conspiracy theory Collect (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) It should'nt been deleted to start of with since it is a sensitive subject. Welcome to all, no?
Since everything I write vannishes before I can finnish my cigarette... 1) Does the discussion indicate consensus? Nope, that's why you and the other Wiki People are here for. 3) Has the atmosphere of the discussion been civil and balanced? Check History!! About Wikipedia.org, nope, my subcategorie stub was removed immediatly. --Franklinbe (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have a dream that my future children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Free at last! Free at last! Thanks, we are free at last.... (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm) I'm going back to the article while you guys comment on the stuff written below. --Franklinbe (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)--Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Cheerz! (User:Reubzz) on your Question @ (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC) "does this mean you want to continue mediation? " Since, the requested mediation was 'unofficial', yes. t.i.a. --Franklinbe (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) @4Deuces: Me too, sometimes ;) These paragraphs all come from Wikipedia.org Belgian stay-behind network The same year, the European Parliament sharply condemned NATO and the United States in a resolution for having manipulated European politics with the stay-behind armies. The Commission was created following events in the 1980s, which included the Brabant massacres and the activities of far right group Westland New Post. * 1964 Operation Solo In 1964, Gladio was involved in a silent coup d'état when General Giovanni de Lorenzo in Operation Solo forced the Italian Socialists Ministers to leave the government.[28] * 1969 Piazza Fontana bombing According to Avanguardia Nazionale member Vincenzo Vinciguerra: "The December 1969 explosion was supposed to be the detonator which would have convinced the politic and military authorities to declare a state of emergency" Licio Gelli has often said he was a friend of Argentine President Juan Perón. In any case, some members of Jorge Videla’s junta were discovered to be piduista, such as José López Rega, founder of the infamous anticommunist organization Triple A, Raúl Alberto Lastiri or Emilio Massera. The Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert US funds for the Solidarnosc trade union movement in Poland and the Contras in Nicaragua. Propaganda Due (aka P2), a quasi-freemasonic organization, whose existence was discovered in 1981, was said closely linked to Gladio. NATO's "stay-behind" organizations were never called upon to resist a Soviet invasion, but their structures continued to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment." Ganser alleges that on various occasions, stay-behind movements became linked to right-wing terrorism, crime and attempted coups d'état Switzerland was suspected of again creating a clandestine paramilitary structure, allegedly to replace the former P26 and P27 (the Swiss branches of Gladio). Furthermore, in 2005, the Italian press revealed the existence of the Department of Anti-terrorism Strategic Studies (DSSA), accused of being "another Gladio". Internal subversion and "false flag" operations were explicitly considered by the CIA and stay-behind paramilitaries. According to a November 13, 1990 Reuters cable,[11] "André Moyen – a former member of the Belgian military security service and of the [stay-behind] network – said Gladio was not just anti-Communist but was for fighting subversion in general. He added that his predecessor had given Gladio 142 million francs ($4.6 millions) to buy new radio equipment."[12] Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,[5] and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. What the F*ck does that invented basterd have to do with Politics?!? Exept for keeping people affraid and obedient? If they're not, they get SHOT, GASSED, JAILED OR STONED TO DEATH!! --Franklinbe (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC) All of this belongs in the Gladio article. Whether this specific view of Gladio is correct is something to be addressed in that article. But it does not belong in the Fascism article, which is primarily about fascist ideology and government, not what fascists did after the war. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I believe that is what they call neo-fascism and I also think they deserve some Credit. "User:Franklinbe, who started this case, is a new user and seems to be a SPA exclusively focused on the Fascism article." Well... check the IP adress and you'll know more. --Franklinbe (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC) generate a populist mass movement Extreme RightI have reverted the lead to describe fascism as "extreme right", which is sourced. Note that fascist and related groups are invariably described as "far right" in other articles. I do not however consider it POV to label fascism "extreme right" rather than "far right". The Four Deuces (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The majority view is that it is "extreme right" and there is no reason why fascist topics are called far right but an exception is made for fascism itself. My edit to the "Political spectrum" section was to correct stilted language, but the meaning has not been changed. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Vision Thing entirely. As do just about all of the reliable scholars in this field, try reading Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell, Robert Paxton, Stanley G. Payne and Renzo De Felice instead of comedians like Jonah Goldberg. Wikipedia is verifiability and academia is not a democracy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
|
- ^ John Toland, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography,' page 703.
- ^ a b Gregor, A. James. Phoenix: Fascism in Our Time. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765808552.
- ^ Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.
- ^ a b Macdonald, Hamish. Mussolini and Italian Fascism. Nelson Thornes. ISBN 0748733868.
- ^ Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
- ^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.
- ^ Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.
- ^ Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.
- ^ Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.
- ^ Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.
- ^ Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.
- ^ Bastow, Steve. Third Way Discourse: European Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 074861561X.
- ^ Woolley, Donald Patrick. The Third Way: Fascism as a Method of Maintaining Power in Italy and Spain. University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
- ^ Heywood, Andrew. Key Concepts in Politics. Palgrave. ISBN 0312233817.
- ^ Renton, Dave. Fascism: Theory and Practice. Pluto Press. ISBN 0745314708.
- ^ Kallis, Aristotle A. The Fascism Reader. Routledge. ISBN 0415243599.
- ^ Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312071329.
- ^ Parla, Taha. The Social and Political Thought of Ziya Gökalp, 1876-1924. Brill. ISBN 9004072292.
- ^ Durham, Martin. Women and Fascism. Routledge. ISBN 0415122805.