Talk:Fascism/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Unnecessary Paragraph?

WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I believe the lone paragraph that states, "During World War II, the Axis Powers in Europe, led by Nazi Germany participated in the extermination of millions of Jews and others in the genocide known as the Holocaust" is unnecessary goes against the neutrality of this article and disrupts the fluency within the section. There is already a mention of the Holocaust in the succeeding paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtHubertFranz (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Nazi Germany's extermination of millions of Jews was an essential part of Nazism's Final Solution. Why does acknowledgement of this "unnecessarily go against the neutrality of this article"?--R-41 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC) I just looked up the name of the user above, "Kurt Hubert Franz" - it is the name of Kurt Franz - a notorious SS commander at the Treblinka extermination camp who is known to have tortured Jews. I have a strong suspicion that this is some kind of offensive sick joke by some smart-ass - and the joke is not funny, it is demented and just plain sad - there is next to little chance that the choice of a name of an SS officer known to have commanded in an extermination camp and who tortured Jews would be chosen by a user whose only edit was to question the neutrality of mentioning the Holocaust, was chosen out of honesty. This is just plain sick and disgusting that someone would chose a user name of an SS commander of an extermination camp who is known to have tortured Jews, and then post a question about neutrality on the Holocaust - it is uncivil because of the offensiveness of someone to choose such an offensive name and post a comment saying that mentioning the Holocaust is violation of NPOV. And even if the user name is real - and the user names himself after an SS commander who tortured people, the user is trying to use this as a soapbox to remove information on the Holocaust based on a fallacious claim to NPOV on the issue of the Holocaust - the Holocaust did happen and it is a major part of the history of Nazism and fascism in general.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution for the NPOV issue about fascism's position on democracy

The current intro that says that fascism simply rejects "democracy" as a whole is disputable and not verifiable, given what has been investigated by scholars, multiple fascists claimed to officially support an authoritarian form of democracy that advocates rule of the qualified while rejecting democracy based on majority rule - because fascism does not view an unqualified majority of an electorate as equal in quality to those deemed qualified. It seems to be based on the theories of Gaetano Mosca who supported a merit-based aristocracy of a dynamic "organized minority" elite. It is certainly not conventional democracy as practiced in the Western world - and that is exactly the answer to what needs to be addressed. What is accurate and verifiable from both scholars and fascist policy positions is that fascism clearly opposes conventional democracy (majority rule representative democracy).--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following material originally on TFD's talk page. The solution to is to present both the view claimed by fascists and to mention scholars' skepticism with that claim - the author Arblaster does this - he mentions both fascist claims to represent an "authoritarian democracy" and then says that he is highly skeptical of the claim, thus I propose the following sentence in the intro: "fascism rejects conventional democracy based on rule of a numerical majority, though it claims to represent an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the qualified, but this claim to represent democracy by fascists has been viewed with strong skepticism by many scholars".--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted this dispute to WP:NPOVN#Fascism. TFD (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapse soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lead too confusing The lead gives us a very specific example of fascism, and leaves out the very general meaning of fascism. Most official definitions seem to do this as well, so I can't find a source to back my point. Instead of making reference right away to political "this and that", I think it would be better to simply call for it's more essential properties in the lead before bringing up that mess. Something like, "Fascism is the belief that a society, or group of persons, has a unified objective, goal, or purpose." The extrapolation, then, from this meaning gives rise to the more garbled notions of "dictators", and "national identity". Sorry but the lead is just a turn-off, and the first sentence is so pretentious, it's retarded: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology." Remember: while true, this is not the best way to explain what people are saying when they call someone a fascist. I'm going to write what I feel deserves to be the first sentence, in a simple attempt to move in the right direction, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.81.81 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC) I wanted to add, under this section, the suggestion that the last sentence in your lead may be a bit confusing. "Major elements of fascism have been deemed as clearly far right, such as its goals of the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior." This sentence appears to suggest that Nazism was a form of fascism instead of a form more closely related to socialism and could use some revising. It could also be said that your lead is a bit one sided in that you include the major elements that suggest fascism to be on the right side of the political spectrum but leave out the major elements that also associate it with being on the left side of the political spectrum such as a government controlled economy and the strong emphasis on a very large centralized government along with a dictatorial style similar to that of communism. So perhaps your lead could be a bit better balanced which would help to illustrate the trouble that today's political scientists have with placing fascism directly on one side of the political spectrum or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invidiaderceto (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC) We go by sources. The sentence is fine, and 'so pretentious it's retarded' is not an argument. Naziism is a variety of fascism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Nonetheless the first few paragraphs (especially) are poorly-written and tendentious (fascism is radical? according to whom? the "majority"? in a majoritarian democratic system that just means it's radical by dominant standards [which means nothing]) Historian932 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC) NPOV violation: fascism's position towards democracy A user keeps removing a sentence, even after I informed them that the sentence is sourced. First of all it is true that all fascists rejected the mainstream conventional form of democracy as practiced in the Western world- that is majoritarian democracy. But fascists claim in their ideology that they advocate an authoritarian democracy. Note that I say "claim", I leave it open to review of their actions as to whether they fulfilled this authoritarian democracy. Authoritarian democracy involves an authoritarian elite that seeks to represent the interests of society. I personally don't see fascism as having much association to democracy, still the fascists claimed that "authoritarian democracy" was distinct from conventional democracy. Here is what I added that was removed by another user: "Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy—majoritarian democracy that assumes human equality, and instead claim that fascism represents an organized and centralized authoritarian democracy." As you can see, it clearly indicates that fascism opposes conventional democracy and says that fascists "claim" to represent an authoritarian democracy. I added this sentence, it is a paraphrasing of this scholarly source: (Arblaster, Anthony, "Democracy" in Concepts in social thought (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994) pp. 48.). The source is not POV because even the author is strongly skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic, but all the same the author states their position anyway. Multiple fascists promoted "authoritarian democracy" or its equivelent "organic democracy", including the Italian Fascists, the Nazis, and the Falange.--R-41 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I have changed the section on fascism's position on democracy to include more sources. Here is what it is now: "Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy—majoritarian democracy that assumes human equality and governments based on the "rule of numbers". Instead fascists claim to advocate a form of democracy that advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by a majority of numbers. A number of fascists have called this authoritarian democracy." --R-41 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Arblaster wrote, "Yet Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'". It is a leap to say that they claim fascism is a form of democracy, not supported by the source, and the passage is too insignificant to be mentioned in this short article. You might however mention the New Right view that fascism developed out of the democracy of the French Revolution. TFD (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC) If you noticed what I said, I acknowledged this view by the author himself when I said "the source is not POV because even the author is strongly skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic, but all the same the author states their view anyway". The intro clearly indicates that fascism rejects the conventional form of democracy, and that they claim to represent an authoritarian democracy - such as Alexander Rudhart. Plus I have added other sources that state that fascism officially claimed to support authoritarian democracy. I don't know why you are bringing up the completely unrelated topic of academically-unsupported views of some on the "New Right" - fascists - including the Italian Fascists and the Nazis - explicitly denounced the French Revolution. This has nothing to do with what you state is the "New Right"'s claim, and besides the original conception of democracy did not emerge in France amidst the French Revolution, it emerged in ancient Greece.--R-41 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) If an author is extremely sceptical of an isolated comment in a fascist document, it means it should not be included in the article. The New Right (i.e., Furet, Courtois) claimed that nazism derived from the democratic ideals of the French revolution. (Remember all the fascism = socialism discussion?) TFD (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Well those authors were dumb enough not to even read what Mussolini, Hitler, and especially Goebbels said about the French Revolution - and that was condemnation of it. If they are that stupid not to look up what fascists themselves said about the French Revolution their material is not worth the paper it is written on. Authoritarian democracy is a concept promoted by fascists - it is mentioned in multiple works on fascism, including Blamires encyclopedia of World Fascism [1], again Blamires states that fascists claim to represent authoritarian democracy, and clearly notes fascism's strong opposition to democracy as at least the West conceives of it. Dylan Riley in his study of fascism in Italy, Romania, and Spain, believes that this conception of authoritarian democracy by fascism was not necessarily a gimmick, and says it was a key basis of achieving legitimacy through replacing electoral democracy with state institutions to account for interest representation and represent the "general will" that fascists claim that electoral democracy has failed to do.[2]. The intro accounts for divergences of opinion on this, by saying that the ideology "claims" to represent an authoritarian democracy, it does not say that it necessarily "is" one - and I will assume the readers' intelligence to be able to analyze the article and sources for themselves to view the basis of that claim.--R-41 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. Riley admits his view is controversial and therefore of too little significance to include. TFD (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Why should Riley's view be excluded? I imagine why he admits his view is controversial - because no one in the West wants to acknowledge the beloved word democracy to be even a mile close to vile word fascism. We include in the intro of the Nazism article that Nazism advocated the supremacy of the Aryan Race - that is acknowledged as being the goal of Nazism - the reality is that there is no such thing as the Aryan Race, it is pseudoscientific fiction - but that is what the Nazis advocated. Remember that authoritarian democracy as the fascists described it involved rule of a dynamic qualified elite to represent the interests of society and act for the general will. Alexander Rudhart states that the fascists advocated a form of democracy that was the rule of such a qualified elite over a majority, they rejected majoritarian-form of democracy. Certainly it is not conventional democracy - and not a democracy in my personal opinion, and I doubt that it would be a form of government that most today in the Western world would support or see as legitimate, but that is my opinion, and I will not violate NPOV by merely going by my gut instinct that forms my opinion, the sources clearly state that fascism opposes conventional democracy.--R-41 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC) A fascist uses an expression once and one writer devotes a chapter of a book to it. It does not appear to have any significance in the literature. "Democracy" btw was not one of the values of the French counter-revolutionaries. TFD (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) A fascist uses an expression once and one writer devotes a chapter of a book to it. - No, multiple fascists said they advocated such an authoritarian democracy. Multiple authors have acknowledged this. Your point that an author devotes a chapter of a book to it does not diminish what was said, it says nothing other than that an author wrote a chapter about the topic. Your evaluation of his in a diminishing manner in combination with your intention to reject the inclusion of multiple scholarly sources provided for this that acknowledge authoritarian democracy as being officially advocated by fascists, reveals a POV on your part. The intro says fascists "claim" to represent authoritarian democracy - it is NPOV because it does not decide what is "true" - it states their claim, and assumes the reader will be intelligent enough to be able to investigate that claim for themselves in the article and through the sources provided. It's just like the term people's republic - we should assume the reader should be intelligent enough to investigate whether such republics do represent their people. We are not talking about French counter-revolutionaries, neither Benito Mussolini, nor Adolf Hitler, nor Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, acknowledged French reactionaries as the basis of their ideology - Mussolini declared fascism's opposition to the reactionary politics of Joseph de Maistre and Hitler's Nazis and Primo de Rivera's Falange publicly rejected and denounced reactionary politics.--R-41 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Your sources refer only to the one use of the term in fascist writing. Also, Riley writes, "I first develop a definition of fascism as an "authoritarian democracy"" (p. 2). It's his concept, it may be good or bad, but has not entered discourse, hence should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) His concept is in the discourse because it is in a scholarly book that is peer reviewed. Fascism's advocacy authoritarian democracy has been acknowledged and investigated by multiple other authors of scholarly works, so WP:WEIGHT does not qualify as a reason to remove the material. For instance, here is another example of scholars acknowledging fascism's claim to be a form of democracy based upon rule of the qualified rather than rule of quantity.[3]. Here is the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right acknowledging fascism's claim to be a form of democracy: [4]. In articles on topics such as Marxism-Leninism, Marxist-Leninist claims such as democratic centralism are investigated - they are not acknowledged as a "truth", but as a part of the ideology. Authoritarian democracy was a concept promoted by multiple fascist movements and this claim has been acknowledged by multiple authors - so there is strong reason for this claim to be addressed in the article. The obvious reason this was originally brought up by a users is because they find the idea of association of the word democracy with fascism as offensive, but neglecting this issue that has been investigated by multiple authors because users find it offensive would be in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Due to the fact that the claim by fascists to be supporters of an authoritarian democracy is acknowledged by multiple authors, it is an established part of the discourse to investigate this claim by fascists, and removing it because of opposition to it would be a violation of WP:NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC) See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.... Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It has nothing to do with whether or not they are published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Multiple sources acknowledge this claim. Also, the sources clearly say that fascism is opposed to conventional democracy. The book The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right is not a fringe source - it mentions fascism's claim to be a form of democracy, you yourself have used this source in the past.--R-41 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Again, the issue is WP:WEIGHT not WP:RS. Now find a source that refers to Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy and explains the degree of acceptance it has received in the academic community. TFD (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Stanley G. Payne - a major historian on the topic of fascism, said of Riley's work The Civic Foundations of Fascism[...] that it is "The most original and provocative new analysis of the preconditions of Fascism that has appeared in years, together with an often persuasive interpretation of the development and failures of civil society." (Stanley G. Payne, International History Review). Max Whyte of the American Journal of Sociology commended the book, saying "Riley's account of the civic foundations of fascism succeeds not only in throwing new light on old questions, but also in redefining the theoretical parameters for understanding fascism. It will change the way we think about fascism in the future." Political scientist Jeffery Kopstein said of the book: "This is a book to be taken seriously."(Jeffrey Kopstein, Perspectives on Politics). And there are other statements by multiple historians, sociologists, and political scientists on Riley's work. All these reviews by these scholars are available to be viewed here at Amazon Books: [5].--R-41 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC) These arguments are typical of people who get an idea into their head about something they believe belongs in an article then Google search for sources. The result is articles that are slanted to obscure viewpoints. I asked above, Now find a source that refers to Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy and explains the degree of acceptance it has received in the academic community. I believe that request is straightforward. TFD (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I cannot find many reviews of term, thus far I have found a few, but I must have an outdated PDF viewer because I cannot view it to see exactly what the first one says, but here is a review that examines it: [6]. Here is a review where the author says about Riley's description of fascism as authoritarian democracy, "I feel it is one of the stronger contributions of his work." [7]. Here is a review that mentions Riley's description of fascism as authoritarian democracy it says "According to the classic Tocquevillean model, countries with strong civil societies should develop into strong liberal democracies. Drawing from secondary sources, he argues convincingly that these three countries developed strong civil societies" - but unlike Tocqueville's thesis, none of these countries were liberal democracies at the that time, and goes on to say "While Riley gets some details wrong, his comparative model raises important questions and focuses attention on the role of civil society and the concept of authoritarian democracy in trying to understand fascism" this is a review by historian Dr. Paul Arpaia of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania.[8] So there you have reviews of it, and besides what I provided already is acceptable - I have provided multiple scholars, including Stanley G. Payne - one of the foremost scholars on fascism, they say that Dylan Riley's work, The Civic Foundations of Fascism[...] is an important scholarly work on the topic of fascism. Payne and others reviewed the book, including the material you mentioned and other material and evaluated the book as valuable. You call it an "obscure viewpoint" even after I showed you multiple positive reviews of the book where the reviewers didn't say that - "obscure viewpoint" that is your point of view, a dismissive POV at that, and users' opinions are not of value to Wikipedia, only sourced material. You are not approaching this from NPOV, you have already made up your mind that it is an "obscure viewpoint" - regardless of the positive reviews of Riley's particular work that focuses on it, and should you continue to pursue that dismissive POV, now that you have been informed that scholars do accept that book by Riley as an important scholarly work on fascism, then you are in clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policies.--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC) The book review says that Riley makes a "dramatic challenge to the scholarship.... fascist movements [are] not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." In other words Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy has not received acceptance in the academic community. TFD (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Did you read the reviews by the multiple people I included. One said that his statements on authoritarian democracy was the strongest claim in the book. Stanley G. Payne - a very prominent historian on fascism - was entirely positive on the book. Many books have changed the way people have viewed things, that doesn't mean that they are not accepted by fellow scholars. What you are calling for, now that you have been informed of multiple reviews of Riley's work that accept his work as a serious and valuable contribution to the study of fascism, is censorship because you say not every single scholar may agree - so then, Marxist intepretations of fascism are not accepted by all scholars, they have been deemed controversial, and have been rejected by a number of scholars, so should we censor those out too? The bottom line is that authoritarian democracy is recognized as a policy of fascists by multiple scholars, just as democratic centralism is recognized as a policy of Marxism-Leninism. Democratic centralism has been criticized as not being truly democratic, but the concept is an important policy promoted by Marxist-Leninists just as authoritarian democracy would be criticized for not being truly democratic, but is an important policy promoted by fascists.--R-41 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC) As for other sources, now that I am at my university campus, I am able to access JSTOR here. At JSTOR, the article "Barres and Fascism" by Robert Soucy focuses on the influence upon fascism by Maurice Barrès , one of the key points Soucy addresses from pages 87 to 89 is Barres' advocacy of "authoritarian democracy" that emphasized the need of a strong leader connected to their nation. Soucy paraphrases what Barres said, saying that Barres believed that: "True democracy, in other words, was authoritarian democracy. What counted most in the government of a nation was not the shibboleths of liberalism which vulgar politicians mouthed for their own nefarious purposes, but the psychic link, the mystical bond, that existed between the leader and the people. Those who protested that there would be a loss of freedom under such a government failed to understand that true freedom sprang not from individual rights and parliamentary safeguards but from heroic leadership and national power." This is the source: "Barres and Fascism" by Robert Soucy, French Historical Studies , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), pp. 67-97. Duke University Press. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285867. And there is also this source that I added that describes fascism's claim to promote an authoritarian democracy: Alexander Rudhart. Twentieth century Europe. Lippincott, 1975. Pp. 444.--R-41 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Could you please stop making long postings and could you please reply to the points made. New books are published all the time and are reviewed. Whether or not they become part of the literature is determined by reading literature written after they are published. So far you have provided no academic writing that relies on Riley's theory. Therefore we should ignore it per WP:WEIGHT. If you think the book is so important, then start an article about it. On the other hand, if you want to present the view that fascism derived from the French Revolution and was not a reaction to liberalism, then get the sources and put it in, provided you do not present it as consensus opinion. TFD (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC) You are deliberately ignoring the fact that it has been positively reviewed by scholars such as the prestigious Stanley G. Payne. It is a relatively new source, but it has received positive reviews by Payne and others - you cannot deny that. You are ignoring that the topic of fascist authoritarian democracy has been addressed by other authors as well such as Robert Soucy over forty years ago. This has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, multiple scholars have reviewed fascism's claim to support an authoritarian democracy. TFD, let's face it, the real issue here is that you do not want to see the word democracy associated in any way with fascism - you want to remove it out of this POV. Removing these multiple sources and returning to the false claim that fascism completely rejects "democracy" - is not verifiable and is a misrepresentation of the ideology, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Also, this has nothing to do with opinion on the French Revolution, and the French Revolution does not equal democracy - democracy existed before then, please stop bringing up that point. R-41 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) It is right that the word 'democracy' should in no wise be associated with fascism. Fascists were 100 per cent opposed to western liberal democracy as it had developed in 19th-century Europe since 1789. Any other form of 'democracy' mentioned is out of context and therefore a red herring (cf. German Democratic Republic!). Kim Traynor 02:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Let me get this straight.. Fascism is far right because it coincides with Nazism (and Socialism is far left..) Yet Nazi means NATIONAL SOCIALIST. "Major elements of fascism have been deemed as clearly far-right, such as its goals of the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior." - From the Wikipedia page for "Fascism." Nazism coincides with the left... Not the right. The Nazis were Socialist. Let's try not to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.200.20 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Let me get this straight, you have no sources right? This is not a forum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC) I have checked source for that statement and it doesn't make any claim about major elements of fascism. Also, as this article and scholarly sources in general state, fascism doesn't have unified position on the issues of racism. -- Vision Thing -- 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC) The talk page is for improvements to the article not for general discussion about the article. I will archive this discussion thread. Please do not re-open if without providing recommendations for improving the article. TFD (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC) ((hab)) Just one last post, first of all the intro makes it clear that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right. The far right means support of supremacism - recognizing people who are deemed innately "superior" to have greater rights than those deemed innately "inferior" - Nazism's racial policies are what is considered far right in practice by scholars, other policies ranged around the political spectrum and yes there were fanatic socialists in the party like Ernst Rohm and Joseph Goebbels - but when people think of Nazis it is their emphasis on racial policy that is the most prominent and it was far-right. And yes there have been movements that have otherwise been left-of-centre that have held far-right racial policies - such as the Dixiecrats - they supported FDR's left-wing New Deal but also supported the far-right Jim Crow racial segregation. Second of all, Hitler and the Nazis did not declare themselves left-wing, nor right-wing, they promoted themselves as syncretic, here is a quote by Hitler where he directly attacks both left-wing and right-wing politics in Germany: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. So look at the quote above again, at the very least, it indicates that Hitler did not publicly declare himself left-wing and that he opposed left-wing politics in Germany. That plus the fact that Nazi racial policy - the primary policy plank of the Nazis - is considered clearly far-right by scholars. Now that the user or users who claim that the Nazis are left-wing are now aware of the position of Hitler himself in Mein Kampf and scholar's reviews of Nazi racial policy, continuing to say that the Nazis are completely "left-wing" is completely false and disingenuous.--R-41 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Woshinsky source on page 156 and 157 talks about fascism and the far-right

"As one moves even farther Right, one finds ever more stronger the conviction that one set of people is superior. Phrases like master race start being used to characterize the chosen few. In fascism (of which German Nazism was a variant), a mystical notion prevails that one people on earth stands above all others. Its mission is to assert its dominance, purge all "inferior" elements and lead the world to glory and greatess." Oliver H. Woshinsky, Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior, page 156.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit made it much closer to what the source actually says.

On related note, is there a reason why we have a full paragraph in the lead talking about place of Fascism on political spectrum? Lead should summarize the article and while sub-section Position in the political spectrum is currently overrepresented in the lead, section Origins and development is ignored. -- Vision Thing -- 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We need it in the intro because its position is controversial and the relatively short paragraph summarizes its relation with the political spectrum in short order, resolving the issue and avoiding potential NPOV disputes that have occurred in the past over it.--R-41 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not controversial and saying, "There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides" is misleading. TFD (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You can remove that. But aside from that it accurately states that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right, that Italian Fascism initially rejected both the left and the right but later shifted to the right, and that fascism's strong supremacist ideals are why is identified as far-right.--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholars of fascism usually don't even mention place of fascism on political spectrum since they don't consider it an useful analytical tool from what I can tell. -- Vision Thing -- 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, scholars of anarchism, communism, socialism, greens, liberals, christian democrats, and conservatives rarely explain where they fit on the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone is complaining about the length of the intro, if we reduce it, it will have problems

The size of the intro is substantial, yes, but still only four or five paragraphs - and necessary ones at that. Fascism is a very controversial and complex ideology, it requires careful and complete explanation for people to be able to understand it. Without such careful and complete explanation the intro will inevitably be accused of violating NPOV. It took a very long time to achieve an acceptable introduction for such a controversial topic, it is just going to open up a Pandora's Box by reducing it's size merely for the sake of reducing it's size.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The intro is not too long. It has to be a summary of the contents of the article and intro sections of four paragraphs are not unheard of in large articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The debate over where to position fascism in the political spectrum, is not an essential element in describing and explaining fascism. I agree that the (body of the) article should consider this and depict the different aspects and positions, but it is unnecessary to overload the lead section with this secondary aspect of describing or analysing fascism. --RJFF (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is way too much information, and the phrasing seems to represent how fascists view themselves rather than how they are perceived. Do fascists really oppose "socially divided class-based societies"? Is that why Ribbentrop had his name changed to "Von Ribbentrop"? Why do we need to mention that "fascists claim to advocate an authoritarian democracy", when only one fascist actually said that and we have six tootnotes, all refering to the same text? Notice there is no mention of World War II, the Holocaust or capitalism in the lead - are they not important? TFD (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that depiction of fascism is at odds with every work I know on the matter.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Your statement utilizing Ribbentrop's decision to change his name to von Ribbentrop to make a claim about fascism is original research and synthesis, it only involves a personal decision of one individual. There were multiple fascists who referred to their ideology as authoritarian democracy.--R-41 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not every fascist group promoted the Holocaust - the Nazis initiated it and a number of Axis powers fascists assisted it - there were fascists in East Asia, the Americas, and other areas did not participate in the Holocaust. Until Nazi pressure grew on Italian Fascism in the mid-30s, the Italian National Fascist Party had Jewish members in it, most famously Margherita Sarfatti as well as Ettore Ovazza. In fact famous Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky had personally appealed to Mussolini through letters in the 1920s to abandon his then pro-pan-Arab policy and support Zionism. Hen Merhavia a leader of Beitar compared Beitar to Italian Fascism in a positive manner, saying:

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that that I see in my movement, Beitar, as a movement of the highest moral level. I have to say that I also see in fascism, as long as it is not aggressive, a moral movement of a nation that wants to control its destiny, rule over its own land. This morality necessarily leads to a corporative form of government, to absolute unity of the nation, and to a virtuous culture that brings progress in all realms of life, science, and human activity. Like our movement the Italians want to establish a nucleus of an exemplary life of morality and purity. Like us, the Italian fascists look back to their historical heritage. We seek to return to the kingdom of the House of David; they want to return to the glory of the Roman Empire.

Revisionist Zionist leader Chaim Wietzmann visited Mussolini repeatedly from 1923 to 1934, and by the early 1930s Mussolini was in fact supporting the creation of a Jewish state from the British Mandate of Palestine as indicated in an internal memoranda of the Italian government. The Italian Fascists adopted anti-Semitism in the late 1930s to avoid a future potential confrontation with Germany - many leading Nazis were suspicious of Italian Fascism's connections to Jews.--R-41 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that there were "multiple fascists who referred to their ideology as authoritarian democracy" is totally unsupported. A fascist document once used the term and you have turned it into a major concept. It is like people who obsess on the fact that Bush once used the term "new world order" and want to say that he is one of the architects of the new world order. And yes not every fascist group supported the Holocaust. So to you that means we can ignore it altogether as unimportant in the history of fascism. TFD (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels as well as Nazi ideologists Carl Schmitt and Walter Gerhart promoted Nazism as an "authoritarian democracy". The intro shows both their claim and that scholars are skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic, the only reason I see why you want to remove it is because you do not want to see the word "democracy" associated with fascism - saying that it just "opposes democracy" in its entirety is not verifiable as an NPOV perspective. The intro clearly says that fascism opposes conventional democracy based on majority rule, case closed. Your desire to put in the intro information on the Holocaust to describe fascism as a whole - even fascists that did not participate in the Holocaust is like putting reference to Stalin's Great Purge, Mao's Cultural Revolution or Pol Pot's Killing Fields in the intro of the Communism article - stating that these acts were naturally communist. The article on Nazism discusses the Holocaust in great depth as it was the Nazis who planned, and organized, and initiated the Holocaust.--R-41 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you picked up a reference to Goebbels statement in an article by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Von Kuehnelt is the only person who has found this statement and seriously, R-41, his analysis of history is really, really fringe. (Did you read Leftism, From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse?) You have a viewpoint and are scraping the barrel to find sources to support it. TFD (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless the author of what that author has said on other issues, he has quoted a source from Goebbels himself from 31 May 1933 in a statement to the press where Goebbels described Nazism as promoting an "authoritarian democracy". This article by von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is included in the peer-reviewed academic journal titled: Journal of the History of Ideas. The author has cited the quotes what the Nazis stated about democracy. Besides people use sources of people who may have important points in some areas but disagreeable ones in others - such as Noam Chomsky even though people may not necessarily agree with his anarchist political views.--R-41 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue is weight, not reliability. Goebbels was a prolific speech-maker and propagandist and only happened to use the term one in a 31 May 1933 speech which is not even included in anthologies of his speeches. In the last 80 years only one writer has mentioned the comment, in a 1948 article. If no one else has bothered to mention it since, then neither should you. TFD (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"The issue is weight, not reliability." - that's nonsense TFD, your post yesterday on Kuehnelt-Leddihn was clearly about its reliability - but now that I told you that the Goebbels quote was in a peer-reviewed journal you are changing your approach of criticism. Authoritarian democracy is mentioned in Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia - a very conventional encyclopedia on fascism that is available in Anglophone-world universities' libraries, describes fascism's position on democracy - that it opposes majority rule based democracy and parliamentary politics, but that it claims to be a form of democracy - as described by Italian Fascists "encyclopedia italiana" as "authoritarian democracy", Blamires says that these perspectives on democracy were shared by Italian Fascism and Nazism. There are also a number of secondary sources that show fascist promotion of "authoritarian democracy" - including those of Nazi ideologists.--R-41 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this is not the discussion I wanted to initiate. Actually I just proposed to cut the only secondary important remarks on the positioning in the political spectrum, which is not an essential point in describing or assessing fascism. --RJFF (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I have removed almost all of them, except for the one pertinent sentence that mentions that fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists who fused ideas from the left and the right.--R-41 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

R-41, please assume good faith, I looked to see where you found the reference and found that it was in a peer-reviewed journal, which is why I did not question whether it was rs. But the writer's views are fringe, which is obvious from the source because he chooses an obscure reference that has been ignored by every other writer, mainstream or fringe, and uses it to build a theory. TFD (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources that analyze fascism as a form of "authoritarian democracy" or "totalitarian democracy" - Jacob Talmon describes fascism as totalitarian democracy and wrote an entire book on the subject of totalitarian democracy. Also W. Martini claims that Nazism was a form of "hyper-democracy" in that it bypassed liberal democratic checks and balances to appeal to popular will. Multiple sources state that fascism sought to garner a total constituency of the general will of the nation through various institutions. The only thing that can be said is that it certainly is not conventional democracy as practiced in the Western world based on majority rule, pluralism, and multiparty elections - and the intro already accounts for this. And do not mistake Western democracy for democracy in itself - original "democracy" - Athenian democracy has been called dēmos tyrannos ("popular tyranny") that was controlled by demagogues who used forceful means to "whip" their citizens to obey their proposals; and Athenian democracy has often been associated as having led to the rule of tyrannies of powerful figures including oligarchs in ancient Greece.--R-41 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You would need a source that explains that "authoritarian democracy" and "totalitarian democracy" are the same thing. Talmon believed that fascism developed out of the French Revolution and not out of the reaction to the revolution. That appears to be a small minority view and i see no reason why you are including it in the lead. TFD (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

TFD whatever you disagree with you call "a small minority view" - do you have some inside information on what is or what is not a "majority" or "minority view"? Or are you just saying what your intuition tells you it is? From what I've read, different fascists called their "fascist democracy" various names - "authoritarian democracy", "organic democracy", "German democracy", etc. - but it all involved a claim to democracy by a single-party state often through attempts to mobilize the national community within the state and create what they deemed as genuine inclusion of people within an ideal, authoritarian elite-led democracy as they claimed liberal democracy failed to achieve such genuine inclusion. As for the French Revolution and your claim that fascism is simply a right-wing reactionary force to it, Ze'ev Sternhell and many other scholars do not associate fascism purely with raw reaction, Sternhell acknowledges that it rejected the French Revolution but speaks of both its leftist and rightist origins, Stanley Payne notes fascism's anti-conservative elements and its connections with revolutionary syndicalist Georges Sorel. Also the key ingredient of fascism - nationalism - only began to flourish as a political ideology after the French Revolution due to its acceptance of a general will of a community of people, and there are scholars that claim that fascism is related to Bonapartism - itself a mix of authoritarian absolutist ideals and Napoleon's Jacobin ideals that he still held on to. It was the French Revolution's human egalitarianism as well as its liberal connections with individualism and parliamentary democracy that fascism rejected, it flaunted the populist nationalism that grew from the French Revolution. Let's face it, the real reason you oppose it is because you just don't want the word "democracy" to be in any way associated with fascism - from what I gather, you view it as either impossible for fascism to be linked to democracy or abhorrent to suggest a link between democracy and fascism. That is your POV that is guiding your objection.--R-41 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a combination of bad faith and worse logic. I oppose giving undue weight to minority opinions not because I disagree with them but because that is policy. And your remark that I use insight to determine what weight various views have is insulting. Scholars state what views are most widely accepted, of which you should be aware, and we should not provide the same weight to minority views (e.g., Talmon) because you happen to prefer them to the mainstream. You are piecing together unrelated comments by various writers to synthesize a new concept of fascism, which is making this article POV. To you, Sternell's saying that fascism has both left and right origins means that it is a form of authoritarian democracy. Sorry, but that is OR and you need to show that Sternhell made that conclusion and show what degree of acceptance his view has. You continue to argue about what conclusions we can draw from what is know about fascism, but that is just wasting time. TFD (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not say what Sternhell said was about the democracy issue - I was responding to your claim that fascism was merely reactionary to the French Revolution. Secondly, most people have strong opinions on fascism - mostly negative, and many repulse at the idea of fathoming association of democracy with fascism, that's why I pointed it out. Thirdly and most importantly, I already told you that Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia refers to fascism's official claims of it promoting a form of democracy while rejecting conventional democracy involving majority rule and multiparty systems. Blamires' encyclopedia is widely available in Anglophone world universities' libraries - thus your accusation of the issue being fringe or an insignificant minority opinion is inaccurate. For the sake of your concerns on the other sources I have removed them - now only Blamires' source is used.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia does not "refer[] to fascism's official claims", it uses the term"authoritarian democracy" three times including in your ref. above where it mentions that Carl Schmidt wrote about "authoritarian democracy". (Check that he actually used the term before adding to his article.) You are taking a phrase barely used in the literature and giving it under emphasis. If an encyclopedia only mentions a concept three times and refers to it first on p. 170, it does not belong in the lead. By comparison, the term "holocaust", which you consider irrelevant and of course was not used by fascists, appears 100 times and has its own article. And could you stop saying that people dislike associating fascism with democracy. It seems to be projection. You are continually writing that East Germany was not democratic when in fact similar arguments have been made about it. TFD (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First, to your point. TFD you keep making up new excuses for why fascism's claim to support a form of democracy should not be included. You wanted a mainstream source, now I have shown you a mainstream source - Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia - which is available at Anglophone university libraries - it mentions fascism's claim to be democratic. I have removed the term authoritarian democracy and simply state that fascist claim to support a form of democracy. Here is what the Blamires source says: "Fascists deny that they are against "democracy" as such, only the liberal, individualist version of it that has become the touchstone or criterion for judging the others." [9] Regardless of what one fascist named it or another, the fact is that fascism claims to be a form of democracy while rejecting conventional democracy based on majority rule. To me fascism is not democratic in my universe of what I perceive to be a real democracy but I accept that that is my POV and I am not going to push my POV, thus I have included the claim by fascists that is mentioned in the mainstream source by Blamires. As for democracy and East Germany - I have focused on the issue of legitimacy of the state amongst East Germans and its international relations position, I did not comment on democracy involving it - but I would note that Marxist-Leninists claim that democratic centralism is the basis of their system.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Second, to your accusation. How dare you claim that I consider the Holocaust "irrelevant". Please immediately rescind the remark where you claim that I consider the Holocaust "irrelevant" - I've known a Holocaust survivor from Poland who as a child lived in a concentration camp - I deeply sympathize with him and am disgusted by the evil sadistic barbarism of the Nazis who persecuted him and millions of others, and I find your accusation personally insulting in the extreme.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a very brief mention on p. 170 that one article by Mussolini "suggests that there is a way the term "democracy" can be understood which is compatible with fascism". If it was important it would have more prominence. It does not belong in the lead, unless you think the lead should be over 170 pages long. You just argued above about the relevance of the Holocaust to this article - you said it does not belong. You are applying your personal view of what is or is not important about fascism rather than following what mainstream sources say. TFD (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said that information on the Holocaust "does not belong" in general - that is completely false and misleading, I said that it doesn't belong in the intro - because the Holocaust was organized and led by the Nazis in particular - not all fascists participated in the Holocaust - there was no mass genocide of Jews by fascists in East Asia, South America, or South Africa where there were strong fascist movements ans strongly pro-fascist and pro-Axis governments, I put in a sentence on the Holocaust into the history section of this article. The intro on the Nazism article is what should mention the Holocaust. Again here is what Blamires, a mainstream source that is available at Anglophone universities' libraries says: "Fascists deny that they are against "democracy" as such, only the liberal, individualist version of it that has become the touchstone or criterion for judging the others." [10]. You have the mainstream source that you asked for - a source that is available in Anglophone universities' libraries - it is in the reference section of the main library at my university's main campus and in the reference sections of the libraries of the affiliated university-colleges' libraries. It is available in other universities' libraries, such as Harvard University's library [11]. You keep changing your reasons for why it is unacceptable to include it - first because you claimed the sources I provided were unreliable, then I showed you that the source you questioned was from a peer-reviewed journal - then you changed your reason to that the issue was weight and that it was not a mainstream source, then I provided you with this mainstream source by Blamires which you now refuse to admit is a mainstream source even though it is available at multiple Anglophone world universities' libraries.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(out) That is the third time you have provided the link and I will reply yet again. He encylcopedia briefly mentions that Mussolini claimed in one speech that he supported "authoritarian democracy". The reference is on p. 170 of the 750 page volume one. Yet you want to put it in the lead. You need to learn what is important and what is relevant in mainstream sources. On the other hand, the Holocaust has its own section and is mention 100 times, yet you assign it a brief mention in the history section. The result is you have skewed the article to your personal view of fascism.

BTW your statement about my objection to the 1948 article is completely false, and has been explained to you. Please do not misrepresent other editors.

TFD (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Please do not misrepresent other editors" - perhaps you should do so yourself TFD - you claimed that I believed the Holocaust was "irrelevent" - that is misrepresenting me and it is highly insulting to me. You are refusing to accept a source available at academic institutions that clearly mentions fascists' claim that fascists deny that they are against democracy but that they are against liberal democracy - since you are refusing to accept it, I have to bring up this issue at the dispute resolution noticeboard.--R-41 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• The lead needs to incorporate information about the history fo the ideology. Including its implication in particularly salient historical events. You all know what I mean. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning that fascists have pursued genocide would be more widely pertinent - it is true with the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanjing by the pro-fascist Japanese government, and the Pacification of Libya where Italian forces killed one quarter of the population of Cyrenaica in three years. But now back to the issue of fascists' claim to be democratic, I am awaiting action at the dispute resolution noticeboard.--R-41 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect flag

In all of the articles that display the Fascist war flag of Italy (although this particular article does not), the wrong flag is used. The actual war flag of Italy (taken from footage from the history channel) looks like this: http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg193/scaled.php?server=193&filename=23700821.jpg&res=medium

However all the articles use this incorrect flag: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_flag_of_RSI.svg

The eagles are not the same, and the Wikipedia version has the eagle facing the wrong way.

This design is closer but still not the right one: http://pistolato.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tricolore.jpg?w=300&h=214

The eagle on the RSI pilot badge seems to reflect the authentic flag the most (but still not perfect): http://axis101.bizland.com/RSIeagle01.jpg

--96.224.50.157 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the Lazio flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.186.91 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Something of Interest for all discussions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_EgdShO1K8 an excellent lecture by political activist and scholar Noam Chomsky go to 1:53:01 to see Chomsky talk about Fascism.

Here is another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpJjuotD534

--JTBX (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is highly inaccurate - fascism is not about merely rule of the upper classes through state capitalism. Many people confuse corporatism - that fascism supported - with rule of business corporations, when in fact corporatism is referring to its view of society as being akin to an organic body (Latin: corpus). Fascism was far-right in its belief in the superiority of certain people over others, but it was fiercely critical of the classical liberal values that caused capitalism - Mussolini denounced contemporary capitalism that he called supercapitalism. There were many Italian Fascists and Nazis who were fiercely anti-capitalist and were disgusted with the liberal attitudes of the bourgeoisie. Many fascists were ex-leftists who had abandoned their belief in human equality but retained the belief that liberal bourgeois rule in contemporary capitalism was unjust - for instance Mussolini was an ex-Marxist and ex-syndicalist, British fascist Oswald Mosley was an ex-Labour Party MP in Britain, Japanese fascist Ikki Kita was an ex-Marxist. Plus there has been new evidence that Hitler when a soldier at least briefly served under the Bavarian Soviet Republic - because the Bavarian communist regime briefly took control of German army regiments in Munich. Plus the person who noted that Hitler had to have served in the Bavarian Soviet Republic due its control of regiments in Munich is not some rabid Fox News pundit like Glen Beck - the evidence that Hitler served in a Bavarian Soviet Republic-controlled regiment came from an ex-Nazi official - the very left-leaning Nazi Otto Strasser. Plus there is photograph evidence of Hitler in the funeral procession of Bavarian communist leader Kurt Eisner - in fact Hitler was one of the soldiers leading the procession right behind Eisner's coffin with Hitler wearing a black mourning armband on one arm and the red communist armband on the other arm, here is the source [12].--R-41 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini and Hitler mutually were disgusted with the contemporary bourgeoisie for its alleged liberal and cosmopolitan values. In 1938 Mussolini wanted to abolish class-divided dining saloons in train cars. Though Hitler was more anti-capitalist than Mussolini (as is now known through investigation of his private life and private conversations ant not merely public speeches), but Hitler was pragmatic - he wanted a major war for conquest of territories to allow Germany to be self-sufficient in resources so that Hitler could replace the capitalist economy with an effectively neo-mercantilist economy. Hitler believed that nations required resources to maintain self-sufficiency in order to free themselves from international trade that Hitler identified as the basis of capitalism. So claims that fascists were in the service of the upper class is wrong - they were fanatic nationalists with patriotic zeal and sense of brotherhood - they opposed class based on wealth.--R-41 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you watched it properly at all, instead raging with an inflated answer that accomplished nothing. Everything you wrote was absolutely correct, but Chomsky is mainly describing how Fascism was used by other nations (supported and so on) not how it internally ideologically is supposed to function. Those are seperate matters. However you view Fascism (which I agree with you in fact), it functioned as a state capitalism system with a strong welfare component. This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adidas#Corporate_History this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen.

In the second video, which I do not think you watched at all, he mentions how Fascism (as you identified) arose out of a current of synthesising elements of left and right while barring any radical takeover. In other words, people were being attracted to the left http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biennio_Rosso & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919 NATIONAL SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY ring a bell?

The point is that the business classes feared a radical socialist/communist take over as many of the middle classes, the petty bourgeise, were defecting to the left. This was dangerous, Fascism arose, and was supported, as a better alternative by business classes. Sure it wasnt perfect to them and Fascists opposed liberalist ideologies but it was more favourable for investment. Seperate ideology from reality.

I do not know how you can call fact inaccurate, as Chomsky backs everything up with internal records and documentation. He's one of the hardest working people out there and theres a reason he does not get any mainstream media attention.

I appreciate your contribution though. As for corporations, yes thye are seen as an organic body but in practice they became and were the corporations (to an extent) that we have today. Fascism, Soviet style Bolshevism and Corporations today all grow out of the neo-Hegelian pool of ideas that bodies have rights (Corporations have personal rights far beyond any human being today) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission Thats my rant over. --JTBX (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't have time to watch the whole video. The issue here is that this is not a blog merely for discussion in general, but for discussions on what to add to the article. Personally the more I have studied fascism, the more I am at a loss for how to describe it. As a centre-left person I once presumed that fascism was just a far-right reactionary movement that deliberately lied when it claimed to have connections with socialism. However through study I have discovered that many fascists were working-class or peasants/small-scale farmers, though not as many as other movements as there was a large body of petite-bourgeoisie who disliked both big business and communism and found a home in fascism that campaigned against both of them. However many fascists did have historic connections with the radical far-left - many Italian Fascist leadership figures were syndicalists. Mussolini as Fascist leader initially praised the October Revolution of 1917 as a positive event before later lambasting Lenin - whom he claimed was no different than Tsar Nicholas (who most Europeans regarded in 1917 as a cruel despot). Plus both Mussolini and Hitler by the mid-1930s actually toned down their anti-Soviet rhetoric as they both had come to believe that Stalin was in fact aligning Soviet communism with fascist ideals, thus by the late 1930s the political differences between the fascist states and Stalin's Soviet Union was more a matter of imperial rivalry - such as keeping Stalin's influence out of Spain. Fascists were far-right mainly in their complete rejection of egalitarianism of humanity and claiming that certain people were superior to others. In other areas fascists policies were similar to centre-left governments - they created public works programs to resolve unemployment, increased social welfare programs, created public recreational facilities for the working-class, amongst other things.--R-41 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You should read more about the modern extreme right and find that the differences are not that great. It is a typical left-wing error to view these groups as mere fronts for the elites rather than as people with legitimate grievances who turn their anger against the wrong people and end up supporting the elites. TFD (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't use this for general discussion but I wanted to post these as they may have helped with the article and so on. (Chomsky can be used as source). But as you mentioned, you did not watch the whole video, which I advise you do (a few minutes of your time). But as for your posting R41, yet again you are correct on all counts. And TFD, not really, extreme right wing groups are usually people who would share concerns with the extreme left (working classes etc) but have been misled, and further more become financed (Tea Party) by big business to hijack them and begin to use them as a front. I am reminded of a video of a Tea Party meeting which I cant find now, but one protester shouted out "Tax the Rich" and the republican giving the presentation stalled. It was funny. JTBX (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your description of the extreme right is the describes fascism. TFD (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Pathachalan.jpg

Claims that the Tea Party or OWS are fascistic are naive, but this is the face of a real-life quasi-fascist movement today, paramilitaries of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in a marching parade in India. Historian Stanley Payne and others say that this movement is highly related to fascism, and with its millions of supporters has a real chance of seizing power in India and dismantling liberal democracy in their effort to create a Hindu supremacist society where Muslims and Sikhs would lose their citizenship rights.

Though I do not want to delve further into a general discussion, what I will say is that we should not merely confuse the entire far right as being fascist. I do not see anyone in the Tea Party, the Republican Party, Occupy Wall Street or the Democratic Party as having anything to do with fascism - contrary to what the foolish partisan politician or blogger may say - other than some nationalistic traits - which is not uncommon for political parties in any country - nor is it akin to the ultranationalism of fascism. If you want examples of recent powerful fascist movements that have been claimed by scholars on fascism, there is Ba'athism that ruled Iraq and still rules Syria amid the rebellion against it - whose ideology is known to have been signfiicantly influenced by fascism, particularly by Nazism; there is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in India that currently has millions of supporters whose historic leader praised the Nazis' purging of Jews from Germany and claimed that that was a model that the RSS would promote for purifying India of non-Hindu elements.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Payne & co. provided a very narrow definition of fascism - only the German and Italian governments were fascist, but they agreed that they belong within the extreme right-wing family. So your comment that Ba'athists and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are fascist is a personal opinion, although there are obvious similarities. But the American Right has similarities too - they stand for the legitimate citizen who is being victimized by the elites who are soft on foreign enemies and who support undeserving minorities. Don't know why you mention OWS - they fall within America's long tradition of anarchism, although both are within the populist tradition. TFD (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyprian Blamires World Fascism academic encyclopedia clearly states that the ideology of Ba'athism is highly influenced by fascism, Blamires notes that former assistants of Michel Aflaq have admitted that Aflaq was influenced by fascist theorists. It is known that the other key founder of Ba'athism - Zaki al-Arsuzi was directly inspired by fascism - particularly Nazism. The RSS is quasi-fascist and Stanley Payne describes the RSS as such - having close ideological resemblances to fascism while differing in its emphasis on religion. Furthermore it is known that the historic leader of the RSS openly praised Nazi Germany's "purification" policies towards the Jews that he claimed India should use as a basis for promoting a pure, Hindu India. TFD don't make up accusations that it's "a personal opinion" when in fact I read it from multiple reliable sources - besides why would I make up a personal opinion about the RSS that hardly anyone in the West knows about? TFD, read Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism and Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia yourself before you continue slandering me as merely promoting "personal opinion" because it is highly insulting to me.--R-41 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

They said they were influenced by fascism - it is your personal opinion that they are fascist. TFD (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I said that they are highly influenced by fascism, - and Ba'athism is described in World Fascism by Cyprian Blamires and A History of Fascism by Stanley Payne, Payne says Saddam Hussein's regime is the regime most closest to Nazi Germany of any government since 1945. And Stanley Payne and others note the RSS' close relations with fascism. Two academic sources state that they are related to fascism, and both were directly influenced by fascist movements.

And for the record, the RSS considers anyone who adheres to an Indian religion to be a "Hindu," which includes Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, etc. It's a cultural group, rather than a specifically religious one. And if they're "quasi-fascist," then so are the Boy Scouts. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You call them Boy Scouts! What because they wear shorts! what an absolutely ignorant, stupid, and moronic statement from you. Bryon, do you know that these "Boy Scouts" committed violent pogroms against Sikhs after Indira Gandhi's murder? Do you know that these "Boy Scouts"' leader in 1938 praised Nazi Germany's "purification" by purging Jews, and that he said that India should follow the Nazis' "purification" as a model? Do you know that these "Boy Scouts" want to remove citizenship rights from non-Hindus? Do you know that who you call "Boy Scouts" are actually hundreds of thousands of trained paramilitaries who are ready to commit violence against Muslims and Sikhs at a moment's notice at their leader's order, as they have done in the past and they have been repeatedly banned by the Indian government for their violent behaviour. Historian Stanley Payne describes the RSS as the most powerful authoritarian nationalist movement in the world with close resemblances with fascism whose paramilitaries could potentially overthrow the government, abolish liberal democracy in India and establish a Hindu supremacist state.

Wow, R-41. I certainly have been known to get a little snarky and condescending in response to editors on WP, but you really need to chill the @#$% down and be happy I don't feel like reporting your comments. And while you're at it, stop sensationalizing. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not sensationalizing. Read Stanley Payne's book, and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar's statement in Our Nation Defined (1938) where he openly praises Nazi Germany's "purification" of Germany from the Jews and says that India should copy Germany's policy of purification, such as persecuting Muslims whom he claims shouldn't be in India. I am angry at your callously ignorant remarks because I find it highly insulting to the victims of the RSS' violence that you describe them as innocent little "Boy Scouts", they are paramilitaries trained for violence. Go ask a Sikh who witnessed the violent pogroms committed by the RSS against them if they think they are "Boy Scouts". Stanley Payne is who says that this movement could rise to power in India, not me.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Listen, chief: There are plenty of examples of political violence in India over the past century aimed at, or conducted by, many different groups: Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, etc. Jumping on the RSS (and claiming they're "Fascist"), while seemingly ignoring the others, seems to me like you've been reading some "selective" reporting, especially since many of the incidents you describe are hotly-contested and fraught with controversy, particularly in reference to how the RSS may/may not have been involved, and to what extent. Furthermore, it is not scholarly consensus, nor a mainstream view in any way, that the RSS is "Fascist." That's OR at worst, and a fringe view at best. Finally, a comment by someone from that long ago does not necessarily have anything to do with the organization today. I'm sure if I searched, that I could find some pretty horrendous statements made by leaders of the various mainstream political parties and organizations in the USA from that far back...but that wouldn't mean that that organization today was led by similarly-minded people. Now stop being insulting, sport. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I was angry about you dismissing a movement that has killed people as being innocent "Boy Scouts" - think how absolutely insulting that would be if someone from India was here who knew a friend or family member who was maimed or killed by the RSS. You have insulted them by cheapening their loss by saying "oh the RSS is just band of Boy Scouts, big deal" - if you said that to the face of one of the people who has suffered from their violence, I imagine their response would be far more fierce than anything I have said. Stanley Payne takes the RSS very seriously, he says it is the most powerful authoritarian nationalist movement in the world, that it has strong resemblances with fascism - where it differs is its emphasis on religion, and that it could dismantle India's liberal democracy should it seize power. Read Payne, read Golwalkar's statements praising Nazi Germany's purificiation policies. If you dismiss that they are not violent, then perhaps you should take note that they were banned repeatedly in British India and contemporary India for their violence. If you think that I am so wrong in being angry, then two wrongs don't make a right, and you have no right to be so patronizing, saying "Listen, chief" or "sport". I will not respond by patronizing you as you have done of me, in calling me "sport", I assume that you are mature grown man who should think twice about dismissing something especially after sources have been presented to back up that claim. Now it's a very nice sunny day here where I live, I'd like to enjoy it, I admit that I got very angry because I found your response to be insulting to the victims of the RSS by saying that they are like innocent "Boy Scouts", now could you just show a bit more caution with your dismissiveness, because if you were to have said that to someone who knew people who have been injured or killed by the RSS you would be facing someone far more angry than me.--R-41 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The RSS is essentially represented in the Indian gov't by the rather mainstream Bharatiya Janata Party...and to my knowledge, the RSS does not "run candidates" like a regular political party. And for the record, if you look at my original "Boy Scouts" comment, you interpreted it incorrectly (although I see how you could come to that conclusion). My point was that, essentially, the only thing about the RSS that specifically makes them seem "Fascist" is their uniforms...and Boy Scouts wear uniforms as well, so it would be like calling the Boy Scouts a "quasi-Fascist" organization. You edit a lot about Fascism, and I'm rather surprised that you've so instantly become "wedded" to the idea that the RSS fits that term. It seems to me as if you've just "discovered" the RSS and have become very indignant and and emotional about them, and your recent edits to the RSS page seem evidentiary of my hypothesis. However, as someone who is very "into" Indian politics, I'd say that there is a lot that is oversensationalized and generalized in regards to Western reporting on them (and most Indian politics in general). You can't just latch on Western political labels and expect them to "fit" neatly. Sure, Payne may make these statements...and Payne certainly seems very knowledgeable about European Fascism...but what does he really know about Indian politics? --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No it is not their "uniforms" that make them fascistic, it is their organization and their objectives - for instance their discipline principle: ek chalak anuvartita (devotion to the One Supreme Leader) and demands total obedience, they are a nationalist mass movement who are training their recruits to be ready to fight, they are a paramilitary movement - they physically train for violence - and they have taken part in violence - Emran Qureshi's and Michael Anthony Sells' The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy describes the Bharatiya Janata Party and the RSS as taking part in anti-Muslim pogroms in northern India that killed thousands of Muslim Indians, and that the BJP/RSS campaigned on tearing down the Babri Mosque and succeeded. Payne says that they could potentially overthrow the Indian government. Are you challenging Stanley Payne's study? What evidence do you have to dispute him? Golwalkar praised the Nazis' purification policies of purging Jews from German society. Golwalkar said that India should purge India of non-Hindus. That is a warning sign to any rational person, and the Indian government has sure taken it seriously, they have sought to ban this growing organization repeatedly due to its violent behaviour, but pro-RSS people in India keep letting it them off the hook. An ex-RSS fanatic Hindu ultranationalist is who assassinated Mohandas Gandhi because Gandhi did not support violence against Muslims which this man did, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru banned the RSS after Gandhi's assassination because they were suspected of participation though investigation revealed no direct participation. They were banned two more times later. I don't trust the article on the RSS on Wikipedia it is filled with distortions - it even tries to put into dispute whether they have even committed violence against non-Hindus. There are POV articles across Wikipedia, I have seen an article trying to defend a far-right Russian ultranationalist partiy as "centrist", or the article on the National Democratic Party of Germany that keeps returning to denying that it has neo-Nazis within it. I respect Stanley Payne's review, he is a serious and respected historian - he has studied fascism and he has obviously investigated the RSS, because the RSS is not commonly known outside of India.--R-41 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Ba'athists were also influenced by Leninism, Karl Marx and left-wing thought in general. Influence does not mean that it is... --TIAYN (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that they were influenced by Leninism? TIAYN you have added a lot of original research to the Ba'athism article - including almost literally copying word-for-word what the definition of Marxism-Leninism is in Marxism-Leninism article, without any sources whatsoever - that's original research. Michel Aflaq used fascist theorists to form Ba'athism, and Zaki al-Arsuzi was openly pro-fascist and pro-Nazi. Ba'athism condemned Marxism for its non-nationalist nature, and the Ba'athist regimes when they entrenched their power, persecuted communists. Cyprian Blamires and Stanley Payne note that Saddam Hussein had an authoritarian nationalist single-party state, persecuted opposition - including communists, had a personality cult that portrayed him as the successor of Nebuchadnezzar II and Saladin, and Ba'athist Iraq pursued expansionist wars against Iran and Kuwait. Stanley Payne says that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is the closest regime to Nazi Germany of any government since 1945. The Nazis never officially called themselves "fascist" - but scholars darn well know from their behaviour and associations that they were fascist.--R-41 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Views of Golwalkar's thoughts on Germany and the Jews can be found at Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar#Criticism and counter-criticism. His pro-German comments are typical of Western leaders before the Second World War and spinning them into a theory that he was a fascist is a flight of fancy. Ironic that you would use this as evidence because you have long argued that anti-Semitism is not part of the fascist core. TFD (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that Golwalkar was inspired by Nazism - a fascist ideology. This is known by his own statements. Also the There are multiple books that investigate the connections of the RSS with fascism, some agree that it was strongly influenced by fascism, others claim it had some influence but was different - this does reveal that the RSS' connection with fascism IS a serious issue. Here is are some that I have found: World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 by Cyprian Blamires on page 333 discusses the RSS, describing it as "Fascism with 'Sanskrit characters'" - that it is a unique Indian fascist movement and says that there is evidence that the RSS was in contact with Mussolini and that it openly admired fascism [13], Fascism of Sangh parivar discusses the connection of the RSS with fascism [14], The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India by Christophe Jaffrelot described the RSS' links with fascism [15], Contours of Hindu Rashtra: Hindutva, Sangh Parivar, and Contemporary Politics by Ram Puniyani describes the RSS as being inspired by fascism and having direct contacts with Italy's Fascist regime [16], Liberation and Purity: Race, New Religious Movements and the Ethics of Postmodernity by Chetan Bhatt calls the RSS under Golwalkar as pursuing "Nazism" and describes the RSS policies in detail [17] Fascism: Past, Preasant, Future by Walter Laqueur mentions the RSS and notes that some RSS leaders have even take comparison with Nazism in a positive manner [18]--R-41 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

actually, everything in the ba'athism article is referenced, so fail. The ba'athist condemed marxism for forgetting nationalism, but they did not condem the ideology of marxism as a whole; thats two different things. --TIAYN (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no references in the introduction and I remember that you clearly modelled the introduction based on what was in the intro of the Marxism-Leninism article, some of the sentences in the intro were almost word for word of what the intro on Marxism-Leninism said. I added to the Marxism-Leninism article this: "Through the policy of democratic centralism, the communist party is the supreme political institution of the Marxist-Leninist state." - with a reference, you later deliberately copied word-for-word what I wrote, and made this: "Through the policy of democratic centralism, the Ba'ath party is the supreme political institution of a Ba'athist state" - the bolded part are the words you copied from the Marxism-Leninism article and used for the Ba'athism article - and with no reference to support it. Plus there are multiple sentences in the main body of the article that make statements about the ideology that have no references at the end.--R-41 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you please stop presenting your original theories and using bold text to highlight them. TFD (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

They are NOT my original theories they are from sources - read Stanley Payne, Cyprian Blamires, and others. Stop your false accusation that they are my "original theories" - you wanted references that support the claims of its association with fascism, I have given you multiple references - perhaps if you took the time to even bother to read them before falsely accusing me of promoting "original theories" - assuming bad faith on my part, you would have come to another conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually he has a point; you've used how much time accusing me of adding un-referenced information in the ba'athism article because you disagree with it????? I mean, seriously. --TIAYN (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No he was claiming that my claims on the RSS are based on original research which is false. I first discovered the RSS and its relation with fascism in Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism.--R-41 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That is referenced in the main body of the text. Per WP:LEAD the lead does not need to be referenced, since everything mentioned in the lead is always referenced in the main body of the text. It is referenced... Have you even read the article? Have you even bothered to read the references i was using? Nearly all the book pages has a link to its real page, what about taking a look at them? Huh, is that difficult? You are able to read, right???? You know, It would be a smart move to stop acting like a jackass and learn; apparently I know more about the subject of ba'athism than you ever will... But to make it clear, check out the references; everything mentioned in the article is their: there is no original research in the Ba'athism article, I promise you that.... --TIAYN (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, everything in the text is referenced; everything... I don't usually put a reference behind everyfucking sentence (unless there is a quote).... If their's only one reference for an entire paragraph, for instance, I put the reference at the end of the paragraph (its a rather normal referencing procedure; you know that right?)).. The sentence in the Marxist-Leninst iarticle is used because the ba'ath copied the role of the party from Leninism for christ; again is is referenced in the main body of the article.. --TIAYN (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You keep resorting to swearing - it is designed for intimidation in the form of sophistry and it does not help your argument - if you do not calm down, I am going to report you for WP:DISRUPT. You have to place a reference for every questionable claim - also I looked at the sentence in the main body in the body, nowhere does it say that Ba'athism used democratic centralism - I also checked the reference at the end of the paragraph in case it had the material - but it does not mention democratic centralism at all.--R-41 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was never able to add the section "Ba'athism in practice...." (because both Iraq and Syria used/s it, so I reworded it.... And sorry for the swearing - it doesn't help, it actually makes it harder for you (and anyother person) to understand, or support what I say (or write). Its a problem, at the same time, its a bad habit. And its nothing you should care about really (because I swear all the time); so sorry..

Bold Rewrite of RSS Text

I have outlined all changes below.

1. Changed undue reliance on Stanley Payne, who is not an expert on Indian politics.
2. Removed references by Ram Puniyani who has no qualifications in the field of politics or any academic field for that matter and is an ideologue.
3. Removed a fake quote "Muslims living in India should be second class citizens living on Hindu sufferance, with no rights of any kind" which had exactly two google hits [19] one of which was the Wikipedia page for fascism. The source (Chandhoke) has likely been misrepresented.
4. Added views by Paul Brass, Christophe Jaffrelot, Chetan Bhatt, and other relevant experts on Indian politics. Its quite easy to call something "fascist" as a non-expert of the Indian milieu of politics, but when experts of Indian politics, alongside experts in fascism like A. James Gregor criticize the use of the term fascist, the mainstream view must be described in the article.

Bhatt's view deserves illumination on the talk page. "The dominant view of the RSS in the literature of Hindu nationalism is that the RSS cannot be strictly conceived of as 'fascist' because of its declaration of its "non-political" orientation and because of its alleged aversion to the seizure of state power - at best it is "proto-fascistic"" (Bhatt, Chetan Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies and Modern Myths (Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers, 2001) p. 124).Pectore^talk 02:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there was an argument above to a similar effect, with R-41 misrepresenting Chetan Bhatt.Pectore^talk 03:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

All scholarly materials are to be considered so I agree.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 16:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)