Talk:Fascism/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Latin American fascism (Pinochet, the Argentine Junta, etc)

The fascism article (post WWII) ignores the rise of fascism in Latin America after WWII. The strongest example of such a leader is Pinochet, but he isn't mentioned at all. Admittedly these fascist regimes failed to build the same kind of totalitarian societies seen in Germany and Italy but they were still fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.45.141 (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can be quite as explicit or definitive as that, but I think the military dictatorships there are probably worth mentioning in some regard, as the comparison is often made. If we're going to have content about the Baath Party and Peron, where the link is equally tenuous, if not more so, we should certainly have something about them. N-HH talk/edits 11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Most sources do not consider them fascist, but we should explain that some definitions of fascism do. TFD (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascism supports socialism

I hope the following is a good explanation of the change I'm going to make in the article.

It only opposes communism(marxism), the radical form of socialism. Socialism exists in various forms. Any system that implements redistribution is socialist as well. Redistribution is a violation of private property. Percentage of redistribution can be described as a percentage of socialism in the economic aspect. Welfare state is a part of fascism. Social solidarity is a key part of fascism. It's funny that the preface of this article says fascism is "Hostile to socialism" but national socialism(Nazism) is obviously a part of fascism.

Any ideology that wants to turn a group of people(class or nation) into one organism, one mass(but excluding and eliminating people who "are worse" and "don't belong" - Enemies of the revolution during Jacobins, Jews during Nazism, everyone too rich during communism) and kill individualism is going to implement socialism because it's the economic and social manifestation of such an ideology. The more you want to kill the natural inequalities that exist between men the more tyranny you need to accomplish that. In other words the more extreme socialism the more extreme tyranny. That's why National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism are the most evil systems mankind experienced and Communism was worse for it's own society. Italian Fascist didn't want to create absolute control and tyranny = they didn't create absolute equality = they didn't want absolute socialism = they officially opposed communism. Communists wanted absolute equality = they created absolute socialism = absolute tyranny and control. You can start both ways: Absolute tyranny leads to absolute equality = absolute socialism; Absolute socialism leads to absolute tyranny(because it needs it as explained before).

I think it's extremely important for all people around the world too understand this natural connection between socialism and tyranny. People aren't equal! Don't confuse equal justice under law with equality. Didn't Fyodor Dostoyevsky say that equality can only be achieved in slavery?

Note that socialism doesn't have to exclude and eliminate anyone. It doesn't have to physically eliminate anyone, it may use other forms of coercion what may seem to be much less evil but in fact it achieves the same results. A tyranny isn't better if it's less violent but takes away just as much Freedom. ~MR 01:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to say that WP is not a forum for discussing personal views of politics nor should article content be based on such analysis. Also, new threads/sections should usually be started at the bottom of the talk page. N-HH talk/edits 14:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It is only an explanation of the change I made. I removed "Hostile to socialism". I see my change in the article was reverted without any attempt of discussion. Maybe some people are using their own definition of socialism. If we use the normal definition, socialism is a part of fascism. To show an example "public healthcare" is a totally socialist idea. ~MR15:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
"Without discussion"?! You probably ought to read the rest of this talk page, where there has been very lengthy discussion of this very point and where editor consensus and the evidence of mainstream reliable sources are quite clear. In any event, as I explained, the contentious removal or addition of article content should not be simply based on, explained through or justified by personal analysis. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm using the definition of socialism. You can read more about it in the wikipedia article. I don't see this clear evidence and consensus wasn't achieved. Some people are just using their own limited definitions. Furthermore, my arguments weren't used here before so you should address them before reverting. ~MR15:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk)
Thanks for the advice. However, I know plenty about these concepts already, as well as about how mainstream scholarship and political taxonomy treats them. I also know that the WP entry for socialism, despite your suggestion, does not include any mention of fascism as being a type of socialism. And I have dealt with your argument, such as it is. Finally, I think it's rather clear who's relying on "their own .. definitions". Finally finally, I'm not having the same discussion in two places. N-HH talk/edits 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
And the same WP article describes the exact things fascist were doing with economy as parts of socialism. Yes, it's clear who is using his own definitions. ~MR15:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk)
"Hitler had a mustache! Mother Theresa had a mustache! Mother Theresa is Hitler!." [1] This is what they call a "logical fallacy", Chief! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Mother Theresa and Hitler can be both socialists and Mother Theresa doesn't have to be Hitler. Or are you trying to say that only full socialism called communism is socialism. You would be a new Marx then! MR16:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk)
I really think you need to watch the video I linked. I'll do it again, just to make sure. CLICK HERE-->[2]. I guarantee it's more relevant than anything you heard on the Rush Limbaugh Show this afternoon. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
You clearly don't know what socialism is... You seem to confuse socialism with communism, which are connected but not the same...... --TIAYN (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
MR, articles are based on reliable sources and present mainstream views, not conclusions that we draw from our understanding of fascism and our understanding of socialism. BTW you defined socialism as "[a]ny system that implements redistribution." That applies to all governments. TFD (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Not all governments historically and not all modern political parties with significant electorate. If you are wondering maintaining government, police or courts is not redistribution. I'm basing on mainstream definitions. I'm not trying to add my whole original comment to the article, only the word "socialism" in "Hostile to socialism" should be removed. If I'm nominally an owner of a factory but 100% or even 75% of my income is stolen and "redistributed" is it my private factory or social factory? MR16:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk)
  • MR, please refer to WP:RS and WP:NOR. Is there something policy wise that can be pointed out to the IP regarding signing? What is the status regarding the signing "MR" and not registering an account? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
MR, when a government takes money from taxpayers and redistributes it to government employees, it is redistribution. Note too that different taxpayers pay different amounts and some benefit from these services more than others. Of course other than in a mythical Peoples Republic of Libertaria, every government has gone beyond spending on the night watchman state. TFD (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Stealing money from the rich and giving them to the poor is redistribution. Protecting people from aggression isn't redistribution. It's quite obvious that the rich are going to be the object of the attack of the poor. Low linear tax is enough to maintain those functions of a state. There were night watchman states in the past. MR16:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.3.13 (talk)
So when the government takes your money according to a tax system you support and give it to people you think deserve it, you do not see that as redistribution. BTW there has never been a night watchman state - that is a nostalgic fantasy. TFD (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Government redistribution existed before socialism... You Americans really need to learn the definition of what socialism really is. --TIAYN (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea that "fascism" is a form of "Socialism" is a misreading of the relationship between the two, and a bad assumption based on the fact that "National Socialism" has the word "socialism" in it. Fascism is in fact "corporatism", or "third positionism", which was an attempt to solve the problems which motivated people to become Communists, except within the basic structure of capitalism. Socialism is defined as the attempt to move beyond class division, and fascism was clearly wedded to the idea of class divide, so they are by definition opposite. Saying Fascism is a form of Socialism is like saying Communism is a form of Capitalism because China has a Capitalist economy and a party with "communist" in the name.

The ideological assumptions of MR are obvious and outside of the scope of any article. Calling systems "evil" is kind of ridiculous for any encyclopedia. You obviously don't like communism but that's no reason to take your biases and implant them into wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.45.141 (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; this confusion (fascism=socialism) is pretty wide-spread. We have here a good chance to clear that up.
In fact, I didn't see much reference to fascism as corporatism, which is one of Mussolini's definitions of fascism. Kortoso (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Fascists oppose socialism and socialists oppose fascism -- both in theory and in practice. This is well documented in history, and it continues to this day.Spylab (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascism is a variant of Socialism

a belief attributed to several such as, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Georges Valois, Pierre Andreu [3], and Thierry Maulnier. A brief summation of this can be found here: Neither Right Nor Left: Fascist Ideology in France, Zeev Sternhell ISBN0691006296, page 59 as well as in works by and about the above writers. I suggest we add this material to the lead and cite passages from each of the above in a new section. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

How many times are we going to have this discussion, and how many times is the community consensus to reach the logical conclusion that fascism is not a variant of socialism.... --TIAYN (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a FAQ like we have at Evolution? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Zeev is one of the world's leading experts on Fascism and headed the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, his work should be highly relevant to this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
And has been show in this discussion page several times, the majority of scholars say otherwise, but please quote him. --TIAYN (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you post a quote of the passage to which you are referring?
Obviously it will have to be assessed in accord with P:WEIGHT, and shouldn't go into the lead until its degree of relevance in the main body is determined, etc.
But before you go trying to tout that author as deserving more prominence than others, I suggest you do some more reading[4]

"A. James Gregor is indisputably the foremost authority on totalitarian philosophy and practice in the English-speaking world (at least). This magisterial book will add to that reputation: there are few scholars, if any, who could produce a work of such panoramic sweep. Further, Gregor makes the most imaginative linkages between ideas and phenomena that previously might have seemed unrelated. His provocative insights will attract much attention."—Anthony James Joes, Saint Joseph's University

"In this impressive work of scholarship A. James Gregor shows that the totalitarian twins, communism and fascism (my emphasis), are not at all what they claim to be—secular and atheistic ideologies—but thinly disguised 'political religions' arising from their common source in the militant intellectual milieu that Marxism engendered."—Carl Linden, Emeritus, The George Washington University

Note that even the blurb doesn't mention socialism in that context.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
No, this article will not say or suggest that fascism is a variant of socialism as commonly understood. Can you provide any evidence that the majority of mainstream scholarship (and, even, non-academic writing) takes such a position? At what point do you stop trying to push these kinds of minority and even near-fringe views and finally work out that WP pages are not written to the views of one or two individuals (whether such people are respected academics or fringe politicals) but to a neutral point of view and based on the predominant, mainstream account of things? N-HH talk/edits 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The Sternhell book, which Darkstar1st quotes says, "Nor was fascism a "variety of Marxism," as claimed by A. James Gregor, a normally perspicacious scholar and the author of major works." TFD (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That's interesting, in what context does Gregor state that fascism was a "variety of Marxism".
And from another angle, if fascism was not a variety of Marxism, then what would that mean with respect to its relationship to socialism?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Since it is Darkstar1st's source, I will let him explain what Sternhell meant. In 1930s Germany, Marxism and socialism were synonymous. TFD (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
TDF, please review talk page guidelines, my opinion of what James meant is irrelevant. we are only to discuss whether the opinions of Pierre Drieu La Rochelle, Georges Valois, Pierre Andreu, and Thierry Maulnier should be included here, so far no one has made the case these people are fringe or unreliable sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if they are "fringe" or not, as a quick examination of the people you mentioned uncovers that they are (1) A novelist (Pierre Drieu La Rochelle); (2) A journalist (Georges Valois); (3) Another journalist (Pierre Andreu); and (4) A playwright (Thierry Maulnier). Some of them were Right-Wingers, and others Left-Wingers...but none of them is a "scholar" under any definition of the word. Their views are no more "RS" than something written by Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann. Furthermore, your tactic" of saying, "I have found new sources (that nobody's ever heard of) that promote my fringe theories! If you don't contest them in the next 5 minutes...I will assume consensus and add it to the article!" is about the most dishonest thing I've seen on Wikipedia since QWORTY. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
And of course we know that some people, both critics of and sympathisers with fascism, see it as a form of socialism. Adding the names of a few relatively obscure Frenchmen – some of whom appear to have been Nazi collaborators – that one editor has managed to dig up to that list doesn't represent a revelation or tipping point (and did you even know who they were before you seized on them?) The key question is, as ever, do most people? How does mainstream serious academic and political analysis deal with fascism and categorise and describe it? And, as we all know, or should do, it does not describe it as a variant of socialism. End of story. As for whether we should note the views of any of these people directly, the page itself already has plenty of detail about the ferment of ideas in early to mid twentieth century Europe and the inter-relationship of various competing philosophies, which is muddied enough as it is unfortunately. N-HH talk/edits 14:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's interesting that you suggest a number of "writers" who would appear, after I clicked on the links you provided above, to have been no more than journalists and actual participants in movements, basically, as reliable sources to be considered on a par with the leading historians and political scientists in the English speaking world.
You have not made the case that any of those "writers" are reliable sources, and the unsupported assertion that they are without even providing links to sources and quotes of text for evaluation, for example, would seem questionable. Have I perhaps missed something?
Without such material, it's not even possible to evaluate whether any of their statements would be considered to meet the criteria required of secondary sources. If they did meet the criteria for RS as primary sources, for example, one would assume it to be in the capacity of a minority view. In all likelihood not meriting mention in the lead, even if mentioned in the main body somewhere.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)your comment is dishonest, i made no time constraints, demands, or assumptions, please strike. my suggested edit is not a "tactic", please review wp:battleground and wp:agf. concerning the sources: Pierre was a member of Parti Populaire Français, editor of L'Emancipation Nationale, and director of Nouvelle Revue Française, Georges was the founder of Cercle Proudhon(Proto-fascism) inspired by Georges Eugène Sorel. The source at the beginning of the section is one of the world's leading experts on fascism, all people knowledgeable of the subject have certainly heard of him. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
No one is disputing Sternhell as a serious source on fascism – although there is of course a debate about the weight his opinions would carry in any encyclopedic overview, not least because there are other experts, and even experts disagree – the debate is about the people he briefly mentions and whose names you have now seized on as if their individual views represent some kind of trump card. There are far more notable people, both scholars and partisan activists and writers like these people, whose views are not included in this article. And as for Sternhell, does he even say "fascism is a variant of socialism"? All I see on the page you point to is his brief, passing remark that Valois and Drieu "claimed" something like that. That seems like a sceptical observation, not a ringing endorsement. N-HH talk/edits 15:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Moreover, the book cited by Sternhell is specifically about France, which narrows the scope, and the page is not shown in the preview on googlebooks. Is it viewable elsewhere? If not, why not quote the passage, as has been requested before above.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Fascism is not a variant of socialism any more than it is a variant of capitalism, feudalism or any other type of system. Fascism combined aspects of various ideologies and systems, and fascism's characteristics have been well documented. Fascists oppose socialism, and socialists oppose fascism, in theory and in real life. Attempts at historical revisionism will never change that fact.Spylab (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick way to resolve the issue of fascism's relationship with socialism every time it arises

A quick question & answer that resolves all the rational components of the discussion:
First: Did fascism have influences from socialism? Yes.
Second: Was fascism socialist in the conventional definition of the term as involving support for social ownership of the means of production? No.
I suggest that these two Q & A above are a very quick way to resolve this issue when it arises, which it always does when a right-wing libertarian editor seeks to attempt to place fascism firmly on the political left and deny its right-wing stances based on a bizarre but sadly common right-libertarian interpretation of the left-right spectrum as being totalitarianism on the left and anarchism on the right, that cannot possibly explain for reactionary conservative absolutism.
It is impossible to ignore that there were socialist influences on fascism, but it is also impossible to ignore that fascists officially endorsed and accepted a large degree of private ownership of the means of production. Note that I am not promoting some conspiracy theory or revisionism that fascists are totally socialists, because I am a socialist who is saying this and there is widespread academic sources that show both socialist and non-socialist influences on fascism. Fascism in its original form of Italian Fascism sought to be its own beast, a new ideology altogether, it attacked everything that was outside of its worldview. Mussolini acknowledged that he synthesized components of various ideologies into Fascism, and some parts were very socialistic while others were not. Italian Fascists in public showed a Marxist-like contempt towards liberal bourgeois culture but claimed that they wanted class co-operation, in private Italian Fascists were actually even more aggravated with the bourgeoisie. Nazism a.k.a. National Socialism, was an ideology borne as a means to draw workers into German nationalism, it appealed in its ideological stances to socialist themes of the need for social justice for workers and of the injustice of economic liberalism and the problems of economic individualism, like Italian Fascists they held contempt to liberal bourgeois culture, but it did not advocate the conventional socialist prescription of social ownership of the means of production - instead it denounced such conventional descriptions as "Marxist" and and "not true socialism" and accepted private ownership of the means of production on a wide scale while claiming that state regulation and guidance of private ownership of the means of production was the best option along with state ownership of certain enterprises to promote the goals of the nation-state - i.e. KdF's manufacturing sector.--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I can agree with that R-41.. However, I must clarify, being influenced by socialism is entirely different from being socialist.... --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT from all the sources presented here, "Fascism" was intended to be a pragmatic form of absolute rule founded on irredentism and militarism, tied together by "national unity" - which meant that any economic, religious, or other tenets were pretty much side issues. A fascist regime could be Shinto, Catholic, or Atheist, or anything else. It could be pro-Asian, or pro-German,, or pro-Argentine "national identity". It could favour abortions, or outlaw them. It could allow sexual variants, or outlaw them. It could build churches, or tear them down. Any group which opposed the core tenets, was the "enemy" and this had nothing to do with anything other than the militarist, irredentist, national unity absolutism which tied pretty much all of them together. Which is not is discord with R-41's notes. Collect (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The simple way to resolve this issue is simply to note that the vast majority of serious, mainstream political and terminological analysis does not include fascism as a variant, or type, of socialism. That is all that is needed. Argument and debate among WP editors based on personal analysis is unnecessary, original research when it comes to relying on it for article content and also open to counter-argument from those whose personal analysis differs (for example, someone could counter much of the above by saying, "Well, socialism doesn't have to mean the total elimination of private property", which is no less true than much of what has been posted above). N-HH talk/edits 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Socialism does not aim for the total elimination of private property and such a claim would be futile and easily dismissed, in theory and in practice it has accepted private property needed for personal use. What it has aimed for is social ownership of the means of production - that is expanding ownership of things like factories into a broader ownership that typically involves including workers who put in the labour, having direct controls in the means of production. Fascism never aimed for social ownership of the means of production, it publicly accepted widespread private ownership in that section of the economy. Yes sources are needed, but a means to augment that evidence by a quick and sharp response involvign the two Q&A above will help to resolve the issue quicker, and get past the typical statement "But the Nazis said they were socialist!" response through combination of such sources with such Q&A. --R-41 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
As long as there are substantial numbers of people who hold fringe views as promoted by people like Glenn Beck, the issue will recur. People like that are not persuaded by arguments or discussion. TFD (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
That socialists oppose private property is false... From what I understand Marxism does not oppose private property, and they do not oppose capitalism either per say, but they consider capitalism to be a historical stage (just like feudalism) which will be eclipsed by another stage (which they call socialism) which will lead to the abolishment of private property... The problem is that Soviet-inspired Leninists called for jumping over the capitalist stage (which would entail an anti-private property and anti-capitalist view from the outset, and which went against Marx's original interpretation of development).. Second argument, our Chinese comrades do not oppose private property, and neither does the Cubans or the Vietnamese.. --TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. [5] Darkstar1st (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
To TFD: I completely agree that to those people they will most likely not be persuaded by arguments or discussion, however if we quickly show them the academic sources that refute that and mention that fascism did not support social ownership of the means of production as the conventional conception of socialism supports, then we can shut down that discussion faster. Because if they go on ranting after having received a quick and to-the-point informed response, we can shut it down as WP:SOAPBOX. They can try to complain about shutting it down, but we gave them a quick factual response, and if they refuse to acknowledge that, their argument is irrational and can be ignored. I want see these silly issues to be resolved fast with no more improvised long lectures to these users that waste space and time. Let's work here to find a means to respond quick and decisively to these claims so that we can move on faster.--R-41 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Rather does not mean oppose. The word rather is rather vague, it could mean that the socialist prefer public ownership... And prefer is totally different from oppose. --TIAYN (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Now then how about this as an idea of a swift formula response to these issues that can be easily copied-and-pasted:

  • (1) Fascism is not socialist in the conventional description of support of social ownership of the means of production, it publicly supported widespread private ownership of the means of production. Nazis created a new definition of the kind of "socialism" they meant that is not the same as the conventional description of socialism and they rejected the conventional description of socialism.
  • (2) Fascism did have influences from socialism and other ideologies, but that does not make it socialist in the conventional description of the term.
  • (3) In response to any claims that state control over the economy automatically implies socialism, this is inaccurate, state control does not imply socialism, there are anarchist forms of socialism that involve no state control and there is state capitalism.
  • (Note - do not copy-and-paste this but please review this: If the user does not accept these facts and continues to push the view that fascism is socialist, the discussion has become irrational, do not respond further, tag the discussion as a WP:SOAPBOX to close the discussion)

That's what I propose, one can simply copy and past these 3 points as a formula response in a user sandbox to have it available as a response. Then just paste in the 3 points, if the response by the user to these points is irrational, don't bother further responding and just mark it as soapbox and move on.--R-41 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I would rather just say that no respected sources consider it socialism, and policy requires us to respect that. I do not see what FAQs should be devoted to refuting the arguments of extremists, whether it is here, or articles about global warming, evolution, Obama's birth and connection with Bill Ayers, aspartame, water fluoridation, 9/11, etc. TFD (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
You can't stereotype people like that as a means to refute them if you do not know if they are extremists who believe in such wild conspiracies. If they do from evidence, then yes ignore them for their irrationality BUT also tag the section as a soapbox to end further discussion. However if you jump to such conclusions with no evidence, that is literally prejudice. If you use such prejudice in your assumptions of them and you are wrong, they will use that against you, they will rightly report you for incivility on that, wasting your time, their time, and most importantly other people's time. This 3-point proposal I have made here is NOT an FAQ. This is a swift response that can be copied and pasted whenever this tangent shows up. Don't waste your time with personal improvised remarks if as you say you suspect they will not listen, just copy-and-paste this, the minute the person rejects these facts, the discussion has become irrational and it is clear that it is a soapbox - they have done themselves in, then tag it as a soapbox and close it down, and it's done. It ensures that other users' time won't be wasted with such soapboxes dragging on and that relevant content discussion will be the priority.--R-41 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

bulk removal of Baath party section

User bulk removed the section, I restored, he removed again. While the section (as all sections on every article) could be tweaked or improved, I do not see that this section was unsourced or problematic to the level that it should be completely removed. Thoughts? I note that the editor's contribution history deals extensively with the baath party, so their edits may be due more to their personal political affiliations or leanings or interests and less with wiki policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no political affiliation or leaning towards the Ba'ath, i assure you... The Ba'ath is a pan-Arab, Arab nationalist movement... The Ba'ath is inspired by Marxist thought and in general, thought from the enlightenment.... The movement has been accused of being fascist (just as some accuse Stalinism and Nazism to be nearly identical), but that's all.... --TIAYN (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Show me one reliable source that supports that outlandish claim?
The Baath party is generally considered from the perspective of its being a secularist movement as opposed to the theocratic norm in the Middle East.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(The connection between Ba'athism and fascism is better explained at Ba'athism#Allegations of being fascist.) Cyprian Blamires has classified many ideologies as fascist, where other authors say only that they were influenced. Payne says that many modern regimes (Nasser, Gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, etc.) have fascist influence and characteristics. I think that this should be mentioned but there are several problems with Ba'athism in the article. First, it should express the opinions of authors as opinions, rather than facts. Second it should not give undue weight to any one ideology regime. Third, it should not say, "x says y" was fascist, then launch into a description of y without saying what that has to do with fascism. For example, Saddam Hussein's interest in ancient Babylon may be similar to Mussolini's and Hitler's interest in Aryan mythology and the Roman empire, but we would need to explain this.
The reference to Saddam Hussein is so poor that I think it should be removed. It is representative of the whole artile. Minor aspects of the subject receive a lot of attention, while major aspects are given little attention or ignored.
TFD (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with most of the posts above. As noted in the previous section, there's a need to present some material about those later 20th century political movements and dictatorships that have attracted the fascist label from some commentators but we shouldn't focus on one or two to the exclusion of all others or, for any of them, suggest that the label is accurate to the extent that we did here. N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm concur with N-HH here, we can state in this article (without any problem) that Ba'athism has been accused of being fascist, or have certain fascist features. But the text which was removed stated with near certainty that Ba'athism was fascist.. --TIAYN (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

fascism - "century of the right" issue, proof that the original Italian language Doctrine of Fascism did not say "century of the left"

The user named Web420 added material on the page that claims that English translators mistranslated the original Italian language La dottrina del fascismo, and that it should say "century of the left" based on several English language translations of the book. I looked up the Italian language statements, here are the results:

web search in Italian of ""un secolo di sinistra" dottrina fascismo" ("a century of the left" doctrine fascism) = 4 results and none of them mention the Doctrine of Fascism or the quote [6]
web search in Italian of ""un secolo di destra" dottrina fascismo" ("a century of the right" doctrine fascism) = 861,000 results, the second result on the search links to an Italian language book on Google Books that includes the Doctrine of Fascism in it and the quote saying "un secolo di destra" [7]. Here is the link to the book and the quote: [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.75.33 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The first expression "un secolo di sinistra" does not exist in "La dottrina del Fascismo". About the second, here is the quote (from [9])

Ammesso che il sec. XIX sia stato il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia, non è detto che anche il sec. XX debba essere il secolo del socialismo, del liberalismo, della democrazia. Le dottrine politiche passano, i popoli restano. Si può pensare che questo sia il secolo dell'autorità, un secolo di «destra», un secolo fascista; se il XIX fu il secolo dell'individuo (liberalismo significa individualismo), si può pensare che questo sia il secolo «collettivo» e quindi il secolo dello Stato.

Alex2006 (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear the original text uses "right", but if reliable and notable sources have quoted it differently (perhaps intentionally misquoting for their own political or rhetorical ends), then we can certainly present their versions and attribute it to them, however we should make it clear that the original used the word "right". Indeed, the "anthology" ref cited does quote it as "left" [10] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Then it is a wrong translation. Because of that the source is not reliable, and has nothing to do in the article. Alex2006 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
We cannot impeach otherwise assumed reliable sources with our own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The sources says what it says. Find a source specifically saying that it is a wrong translation, and we can include that as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I accept there's s slight OR issue here, but if it is clearly a mistranslation or error – which it appears to be, even though it appears to have some purchase (mostly in the usual libertarian echo-chamber but also in a couple of books) – then I agree there's no need to mention it here, unless there's some indication that the fact of mistranslation itself is relevant to the topic of Fascism. There are plenty of translations around that clearly refer to "right". It certainly shouldn't be here in the POV form currently presented, with phrasing like "And yet ... clearly stating" and with the stuff about Herbert Hoover. N-HH talk/edits 14:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Soames was the official authorized translator of the work into english, making this not just a garden variety mistranslation. Either that version was authorized, or she snuck it in under their noses, or its a mistake that nobody noticed, but if that is the seminal translation - then that explains the origin of the "echo chamber" you discuss. This same topic was apparently discussed in this article previously [11], but does not appear to have resolution. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with N-HH, except that here is no OR here, but only the capacity who someone has to read a document in the original language instead than in English. Here we are talking about a translation of an article, not about an its interpretation. And we are interested in the though of Mussolini, not of Jane Comesichiamalei :-) (in that case the wrong translation would have been for sure important). I want to remember (another OR for sure :-)), that when he entered in the Camera for the first time, he sat at the upper right corner, and asked by Grandi (who wanted to sit at the extreme left) about the reason answered "Da qui posso guardare in faccia i miei nemici". Alex2006 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Editors are permitted to use foreign language sources and translate them. If some editors doubt whether destra means right, we can ask at the translation desk. Also, we could ask if someone has an original copy of Soames' translation to see if she translated "destra" as left. Incidentally, presenting theories based on mistranslations or transcription errors is original research. TFD (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fascism as a form of democracy

The section Fascism#Fascism as a form of tyranny is entirely about the theory that fascism could be a form of democracy, which is based primarily on a statement by the fascist theorist Gentile who, after explaining what was wrong with democracy said fascists are the real democrats. This theory is rarely mentioned and most writers dismiss it. The statement attributed to Laqueur was actually taken from an article by another author in a book edited by Laqueur. Because WP:WEIGHT does not support inclusion, I will remove it. A link to the section can be found here. TFD (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are attempting to impose your POV on what is found in RS, and that is in contravention to policy. You cannot remove reliably sourced material because you think it is mistaken, you can only introduce other RS that address the same subject matter in response, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
NPOV says, "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Since this theory is rarely mentioned, even in comprehensive textbooks and is not, even according to the sources used, generally accepted, it lacks weight. Where one is more likely to find it is in books like the National Review's Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's Leftism Revisited: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot (Regnery Publishing, 1990, p. 311): "The weakness of democracy, the Mother of Leftism, should be of deep concern....The Jacobins, even back then, wanted to "make the world safe for democracy"; our century has had its fill of their disciples." (Although Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn makes no distinction between socialism, national socialism and American liberalism.) TFD (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, several writers are quoted in the section, including those providing third-party commentary on Gentile. The page should arguably have something on the "democracy" issue and its relation of fascism (in both the sense of the liberal democracy they generally despised and any esoteric higher undemocratic democracy they might have claimed to be introducing). In my view, the more fundamental problem is the way this whole section is structured under the bizarre title of "Criticism of fascism" and then divided into various random sub-themes including this one. N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Two authors are mentioned as supporting the view of fascism as "authoritarian democracy": Dylan J. Riley and Juan Linz. There are however thousands of books that have been written about fascism. Th point is this theory is generally ignored. Kallis' Fascism Reader for example that included essays from leading experts does not mention the theory. That is the problem with this article. Instead of outlining the main aspects of fascism as seen in most sources, it is filled with lengthy descriptions of aspects ignored by most scholars. TFD (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Are any of these three (Gentile, Riley or Linz) actually notable? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Riley is a fairly recent writer and therefore is not yet a notable writer on Fascism. As Stanley G. Payne, one of the world's foremost experts on fascism, for example, wrote, "The most controversial aspect [of Riley's book] will be its definition of Fascism, which he calls an 'authoritarian democracy', using the latter term in a distinctive manner that is not as clearly defined as it might be....The thrust of his argument is that democracy is a broader concept and practice than the classic liberal democracy of the West....It is doubtful that this definition will gain much acceptance."[12] Payne praises the book for other aspects. Juan Linz is a notable writer on totalitarianism, although his brief mention of "authoritarian democracy" has not been picked up by other writers. Even Riley seemed to be unaware of it. Gentile was Mussolini's ghostwriter, and the whole issue is how to interpret the single mention he made of "authoritarian democracy" in his extensive writings.

"In rejecting democracy Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress. But if democracy be understood as meaning a regime in which the masses are not driven back to the margin of the State, and then the writer of these pages has already defined Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy." (The Theory of Fascism.)

Here is a link to Anthony Arblaster's discussion of the section in his book Democracy.

Notice that Fascism#Definitions does not even mention any of these definitions. (The Gentile mentioned in this section btw is a different writer.)

TFD (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is less whether there is any serious support for the validity of the concept of "authoritarian democracy" and more about whether it is a significant part of fascist theory, and one that is noted by third-party opinion, at least to the extent of it being worth mentioning briefly in any encyclopedic overview. That may well not be the case but the section as is also notes Antony Arblaster (who I am not really aware of) and Walter Laqueur at least commenting on it. Including it is not to validate the idea but simply to say "this is what fascism said and this is what others said about what fascism said". If anything, the fact that Payne enters into the debate, albeit briefly and in terms of a critical response to another author's contention, is an argument in favour of inclusion, not exclusion. N-HH talk/edits 21:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
ps: the "World Fascism" encyclopedia, which provides a tertiary source overview itself and which is used a source elsewhere on this page, has a dedicated entry for "Democracy", where it asserts: "Fascists deny that they are against 'democracy' as such, only the liberal, individualist version of it". It then discusses the difference between populism and democracy, rallies and participation etc. N-HH talk/edits 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Fascism, Volume I is 750 pages and has an entry for democracy but none for "authoritarian democracy." No other article in the book mentions the concept. If we wanted to expand this article to hundreds of pages, then there would be an argument to present minor issues. Laqueuer btw does not comment on on the concept - that is a misattribution. Arblaster is actually a notable academic for his writings on liberalism and democracy. All he says is "Yet even Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy.'"
As long as we provide extensive coverage to aspects of fascism that are generally ignored while neglecting to mention aspects that are extensively covered, this article will remain POV.
TFD (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue against losing any dedicated sub-section entitled "authoritarian democracy" – or indeed, as noted, the whole section here as currently structured – but that's not what the heading says currently or how the sub-topic is primarily defined here. It is a section looking at the broader relationship between fascism and democracy, which seems relevant and significant in some form at least, even if not this exact one. N-HH talk/edits 18:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It's an awkwardly organized section, but the context is complicated.
The main point is that as a modern political system/ideology, its spokesmen have addressed democracy as well as every other concurrent political system/ideology. In this case, academics have examined and commented on those statements. The link to the article on "authoritarian democracy" is sufficient that a dedicated section is not needed here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The main view is that fascism was anti-democratic but the section is mostly about how it was a form of democracy. Again, this whole article overemphasizes minor aspects of the topic and minimizes or ignores major ones. In this case we have a whole section about one sentence that has been largely ignored in writings on fascism. This is a backwards way of building an article - find some obscure opinion we happen to like and find sources for it. TFD (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First section revision

Hi, Everyone,

I am new to the group. I visited this entry two years ago and was struck by the fact that it made Fascism seem indistinguishable from Socialism or Communism. It used terms like proletarian, classless society, etc that rightly go with Communism or Leninism.

In returning to it recently, I find some of the same problems.

There is an implicit bias that seems to want readers to see Fascism as a species of Socialism. Terms like "vanguard party" and "revolution" that are almost always used with Communism and Leninism are used, for example. There is also a strong emphasis on the State and statism here that is absent in other online encyclopedia entries on Fascism. That also is suggestive of bias. As is the opening characterization of Fascist ideology as derived from Socialism.

From a conservative libertarian capitalist perspective, Fascism and Socialism and Communism are of course alike if not identical. They use the State to control society. But from a scholarly historical perspective, there are significant differences, and the duty of an encyclopedia entry is to make those clear, not to confuse them.

The entry as it stands also is ahistorical. It should describe up front how Fascism was an historical event that arose in response to communism, economic egalitarianism, liberal democracy, cultural liberalism, "decadence," etc and that tried to create an authoritarian social order founded on hierarchy, inequality, and law and order.

I gather someone wants Fascism to fit under "nationalisms", but Fascism was not only nationalism. Look at the first two notes in the entry. They describe fascists as espousing nationalist ideas. But that does not make F "nationalism." It was a political movement and a form of social organization that was nationalist, authoritarain, xenophobic, etc. Its identity was not limited to "nationalism."

I suggest you all check the available online encyclopedias such as Cambridge, Blackwell, etc. I paste a couple of those below.

I post below a proposed revision of the opening section that makes it more in keeping with the other online encyclopedias and that makes it more historical. It also removes the tendentiousness--the implied libertarian conservative bias that sought to equate Fascism and Socialism or Communism.

I apologize for the fact that for the moment, certain references were removed in that proposed revision. They would go back in to a finalized revision.

I look forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks. (Encyclopedia entries follow after my signature and the proposed revision of section one follow them.)

Mryan1451 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Cambridge:

Sometimes used as a word of abuse to refer to movements or individuals who are intolerant or authoritarian, fascism is certainly intolerant and authoritarian, but it is more than this. It is a movement that seeks to establish a dictatorship of the “right” (that is an ultra-conservative position that rejects liberalism and anything associated with the “left”). It targets communists, socialists, trade unionists, and liberals through banning their parties and their members, so that these groups cannot exercise their political, legal, or social rights. It is anti-liberal, regarding liberal values as a form of “decadence” and seeing them as opening the floodgates to socialist, communist, and egalitarian movements.

Blackwell:

Fascism is a totalitarian doctrine and a form of political system that was prevalent between the two world wars. The word was coined from the 'fasces', a bundle of rods that the magistrates of the Roman Empire used to chastise people. The Fascist movements saw themselves as punitive, purifying agents of a new national spirit that must redeem their nations from the decadence and defeatism into which they had sunk. Concerned to rejuvenate their nations, their doctrine presented an analysis of the reasons for national disaster and the principles by which national greatness was to be restored. They anticipated much conflict in this enterprise. Fascism was essentially a militant form of nationalism. War was glorious.

The predicament in which the nation found itself was the result of its attachment to liberalism, egalitarianism and democracy. These notions represented a rejection of the nation's true, old values for a false conversion to values which were internationalist. Democracy was a slow and unsatisfactory way of making decisions and it allowed much arguing with rulers. Moreover, its populist possibilities were encouraging socialists and Bolsheviks to take power. Hence it is not surprising that the major locations for the emergence of Fascism were Italy and Germany. Both countries had achieved nationhood in 1870; both had since then experienced a rather unsatisfactory form of parliamentary democracy; both felt shattered by their experiences in World War I (though Italy was on the side of the victors); and both felt threatened by the results of the Russian Revolution in 1917 with workers' and soldiers' councils, strikes and general disorder common in central Europe.

Fascist rule would reverse these tends. For disorder it would substitute Fascist discipline; for democratic delay it would substitute swift decisive action, Will rather than Reason would prevail; instead of division there would be national solidarity; in place of egalitarian values there would be a return to hierarchy and leadership. Fascism promised to resurrect the old values which had been discarded during the flirtation with democracy. But the instrument for this rejuvenation was not the old discredited aristocratic elite, but a new meritocratic elite with modern technological expertise. Consequently, Fascism could appeal to either conservatives or radicals, they could be united under its nationalistic appeal. This spirit would also permeate industrial relations. There could be no conflict and the Fascist state would supervene over worker and employer — the so-called Corporate State.

Bloomsbury:

Fascism is a term used to describe historically specific interwar (1919-45) European political movements and doctrines. Its derivation is from fasces, the ceremonial bundles of rods containing an axe with its head protuding, symbolizing the authority of the ancient Roman republic (which many Fascist governments wished to emulate). Fascist is also used more loosely to describe any form of right-wing authoritarian régime which is not explicitly socialist. In its most loose usage fascism is employed to denigrate people espousing either right-wing or left-wing views with which the speaker or writer disagrees.

Interwar European fascism is easiest to define by what its exponents opposed. They were anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-liberal and anti-conservative: although they were prepared to make temporary alliances with their enemies, normally with conservatives. They rejected cultural and economic conservatism, including its Christian foundations, but also the internationalism, pacifism and materialism of liberals and the left. They invariably embraced an extremely chauvinistic form of nationalism, usually in a form which emphasized the racial or ethnic foundations of national identity, and committed them to the imperial aggrandisement of their nations and to militaristic doctrines and practices. They were generally in favour of totalitarianism: the total control of the polity, economy and society by a fascist party which would create a new national and secular culture, and indeed a new (or revived) people. Fascists were élitists, emphasizing the role of charismatic and authoritarian leaders: although they claimed that fascism represented the interests of all the nation and they mobilized mass political parties.

Proposed revision:


Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ was a radical rightwing political movement and form of social organization characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the use of state violence to attain political ends. It arose in the early 20th century in western Europe in response to the rise of social liberalism, communist revolution, and the perceived cultural decadence of European society. It sought to restore a social order founded on hierarchy, submission to the state, property inequality, and traditional rightwing values such as the church, the family, and law and order.

Fascism refers specifically to an Italian political movement (1927-1945), but the term is also used to characterize other rightwing political movements in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere during this period. Fascism is usually distinguished from other authoritarian political forms by the mass mobilization of the national community in accordance with the fascist principles of hierarchy, corporatism, and law and order.[1] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[2][3][4][5] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations.[6]

Fascism sought to provide a solution to the divisions between classes within the nation by displacing attention to the conflict between nations and races.[7] It advocates a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[8] Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.[9] Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

Influenced by national syndicalism, the first fascist movements emerged in Italy around World War I, combining elements of left-wing politics with more typically right-wing positions, in opposition to communism, socialism, liberal democracy and, in some cases, traditional right-wing conservatism. Although fascism is usually placed on the far right on the traditional left-right spectrum, fascists themselves and some commentators have argued that the description is inadequate.[10][11] Following the Second World War, few parties openly describe themselves as fascist and the term is more usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The term neo-fascist or post-fascist is sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideological similarities to, or roots in, 20th century fascist movements respectively.

Please read WP:SOAPBOX and the messages at the top of the page, including WP:NOTFORUM
The lead is a summary of the content of the article, and is not dependent on what other encyclopedias write.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
First, it would help if you added less text and were more specific about the actual changes you propose (reading through it, your proposal actually retains much of the current lead, while only changing one or two sentences and some of the emphasis). Secondly, I don't disagree with much of your criticism. I think there could be more on history. I also disagree with User:Ubikwit that what other encyclopedias say does not matter – in fact tertiary sources can be a good guide to how to approach topics. Yes, the lead should be a summary of what we have in the main body of our article rather than necessarily directly reflect other encyclopedias, and there are many ways to approach most topics, not one "right" one; but as all of us acknowledge, there are a lot of problems with this page, including the way the main body is currently structured.
That said, the lead is much better than it used to be and I disagree that it leans too far towards a libertarian bid to equate socialism and fascism. It does that far less than it used to and has also lost all sorts of obscure content about "proletarian nation" theory. In fact, I'd argue some of the suggestions here lean too far the other way in terms of saying "right-wing" every other sentence and focusing on, for example, the church and traditionalism. I also don't see the problem with referring to "revolution" or even "vanguard party". Yes, the latter is more often found say in the context of Leninism, but it does come up in writings about fascism too. N-HH talk/edits 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
It is a soapbox wall-of-text post advocating more emphasis on "right-wing" labeling and referring only to tertiary sources.
The Wikipedia article is a work in progress, but has far more depth of sourcing and perspective than any of the cited text from other encyclopedias. I don't disagree that cues can be gleaned from other encyclopedias, but Wikipedia is not under the same editorial constraints as other encyclopedias, and the suggestion that it should conform to those is inadmissible and counterproductive.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ubikwit on this matter, I'd also suggest that this has been discussed on the page and in archives for several years. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That's good evidence that there's a issue to be resolved, then, isn't it.
Ubikwit is right that WP does not need to model itself on other encylopaedias. However, if our coverage of any given topic diverges significantly from the way encyclopaedias noramlly treat it, it is at least reasonable to wonder why that is and whether its a good thing. Formerip (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd say the previous discussions at the archives and notice boards are evidence that this highly controversial article had dealt with this labelling problem and found a stable consensus. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Capitalismomo that there is a consensus. I certainly don't agree that F is not rightwing in its essence. It arose in reaction to and in contention with leftwing socialism and communism. It was a reactionary rightwing movement that was counter-revoutionary, not revolutionary in character. That is why when you do a simple search for "fascism definition" on google, you get the Oxford English Dictionary defining F as a "rightwing political movement" and google itself defining it using similar words. W editors can't invent realities as you seem to be doing here. You can't simply say "we have decided all existing scholarship is wrong and all encyclopedias are wrong and in our opinion F was not rightwing." Sorry, that just doesn't fly. When I first looked at this entry a few years ago, I sensed it was being used for propagandistic ends--suggesting communism and fascism were the same thing. That tendentiousness is still evident in the first section of the entry in the overemphasis on "statism", the effort to diminish the political content of F as an ultra-conservative movement, the attempt to confuse it with leftwing socialism, and the inappropriate use of terms like "vanguard party." The argument that W's entries do not have to conform with standards set by other encyclopedias is specious. If anything, W has a responsibility to make sure entries are as much as possible similar to other encyclopedias. This entry is not. I will request dispute resolution on the issue of the definition of F as "rightwing." I'm about to start teaching, so I'll put off addressing the rest of section one for now. Thanks. Mryan1451 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

You've presented this as if there are major errors here that your proposed version will put right. In fact, as noted, the lead was changed significantly recently, and for the better, while your further proposed changes are actually quite limited in scope in some ways. Plus the criticism levelled above actually seems to ignore and misrepresent what the lead actually says currently: it does refer to the right-wing characterisation of fascism, albeit in the last paragraph. It also very specifically refers to its opposition to "socialism and communism" in the first paragraph. Also, are you saying fascism is not statist? Not only is that an untenable position, but your version includes mention of this. As for the "revolutionary" point, many do consider fascism to have had revolutionary elements to it, even if it was indeed "counter-revolutionary" in terms of opposing communist revolution. You're relying on an almost-Marxist interpretation of that word, when in fact of course it has a wider meaning.
That said, I in fact do agree that it should be described earlier on simply as "right-wing", following the standard description, and that more should be made earlier on of the socially conservative and traditionalist elements of fascism (and that there are remnants of the former lead that could still be happily lost). But that cannot be done quite as definitively or with quite such focus and repetition as you propose. The problem is that fascism was always a jumble of things and the term is used these days to cover a wide range of groups and ideas, from the more traditionalist authoritarian conservatism of Franco to the more radical – often anti-Christian and more genuinely socialistic – elements, say, of the Italian Fascist and Nazi parties. N-HH talk/edits 08:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that input. I agree that we need to characterize F as rightwing up front not out back. F was statist, but an opening paragraph should summarize all the major elements of a movement. Currently, the focus is almost entirely on statism (mentioned twice while other elements such as social conservatism are not mentioned at all). To me that suggests a libertarian conservative bias--see only the statist part and ignore the extreme social conservatism of F. I sense that someone is trying to push F away from being associated with the political Right. That also seems to be the case with the suggestion that F derives from socialism. Again, further on, you could talk about how Mussolini began as a socialist, but in a summary of the main points of a movement--what a first section should do--you need to focus on essentials, the main traits of the movement such as authoritarianism, state violence against adversaries on the Left, racism, nationalism, corporatism, etc. These used to be in older versions of this entry but have been removed. The attempt to foreground socialism seems once again an attempt to make F seem leftist rather than rightist. Historically, F was a ferocious rightwing response to socialism, not a party to it or with it. We need to stop blurring the difference for ideological reasons. Finally, nationalism. Only one of the many online encyclopedias characterize F as "nationalism." All others describe it more broadly (as does the OED) as a "political movement and form of social organization" that was among other things "nationalist." We need more accuracy and we need to be more in keeping with existing encyclopedia standards. Otherwise we will appear cranky and unusable by teachers. Right now, I would never assign this entry to students. Indeed, I encountered it first when I thought of assigning it and noticed it had serious problems. The first section needs revising, and thanks for your feedback. I will take another stab at it when I have time and post it here on the Talk page. I will also post all of the other online encyclopedia entries for you to consider. In the man time, though, I have asked for a Third Opinion regarding the use of "rightwing." That is not dispute resolution, but it might help to have an outsider's perspective. Thanks again for your feedback. Mryan1451 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Leaving the "right-wing" issue to one side, I really don't see what is controversial with the opening formulation "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism". Sure, you could open with a different sentence, and other encyclopedias and dictionaries will, but that one is perfectly accurate and well attested to in academic treatment of fascism. It also allows us to scoop up all the varied theories and practices – one thing all movements now described as fascist had in common was their nationalism. I think quibbling about nationalism being only one of its aims rather than it being a form of nationalism is exactly that; quibbling over semantics that don't matter. Re the other points:
  • Statism: again, I don't see the problem with the focus on that. As you acknowledge, it is relevant to fascism and the first paragraph does mention other things besides that; indeed it includes most of the things on your "main traits" mini-list
  • Social conservatism: I agree there could be more mention of this, so long as it does not become the dominant theme
  • Socialism: again, you seem to be ignoring that that the first mention of socialism is the point that fascism arose in opposition to it. You're misrepresenting what the lead currently says and exaggerating the problem. Yes the lead as a whole mentions that fascism took some ideas from socialism, but this basic point is not a controversial one in academic writing, even if perhaps the extent of it is (and it also goes beyond Mussolini having been a socialist leader previously)
  • Libertarian bias: I accept that this article, including the lead, has suffered from this, with some editors battling against it expressing agreed mainstream perspectives. But you seem to be seeing that everywhere and you also need to be careful about imputing too much to other people's motives
Overall I don't disagree that the lead could be improved and the rest of the page even more so (the editor who wrote much of it is no longer active, for the most part, but we are left with much of what they added and their structuring of the page). But as I say, I think you exaggerate the extent of the problem with the lead. Why not focus on one or two specific things you think could be tweaked/improved, especially those where you are more likely to get agreement from others? N-HH talk/edits 13:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a controversial article apparently. In July of 2009 this article was placed under 1RR. There are at least 43 pages of discussion on fascism's position on the political spectrum in the archives. Thus I note that the fact that the lead has been relatively stable since late 2009 or early 2010 suggests that there has been some sort of solid consensus. I haven't been active on this page til this week but I suggest that we should be cognizant of the previous discussion to avoid refighting other editors old battles. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's only recently that the lead has been relatively stable, probably since the RfC earlier this year and the deletions and additions that preceded it, which, as noted, all round left a much better, if still imperfect, lead. The squabbling over the specific political-spectrum/right-wing point over the years has been plain daft but we have at least got a reasonable accommodation now and I'd advise anyone against revisiting it just yet, if only because there are other issues and improvements that could be dealt with much more easily. Perhaps those looking for changes could concentrate on those? For example, I would happily lose the current second sentence as drafted: "Fascists seek ... to organize the nation on fascist principles", instead perhaps expanding on what the first para already says about what those principles are. I agree with Mryan that the elided part of that sentence probably also gives too much prominence too early to the concepts/terms "vanguard party" and "revolution". They are not irrelevant to the topic, but they are perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind. N-HH talk/edits 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
ps: here's a link to the lead as it was back in February this year. I think even Mryan would agree that what we have now is a lot more comprehensive, accurate and better written, as well as far less "biased", than what we had then. Some of those sentences remain, but the worst and most misleading of them have gone, while relevant detail and explanation, including on the right-left issue, has been added. N-HH talk/edits 14:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks N-HH, I stand corrected about when the lead was mostly stable. I was checking the history back to 2010 and it seemed that the first sentence formulation had stayed pretty constant. Looking, I see the improvements that have been made in the lead. I was unaware of the RfC. I will go and read it now. As a newcomer to the page, I'll do some additional reading in the archives. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of this article reflects a peculiar view of fascism and the best way forward I believe is to go back to sources and re-write it based on how it is normally seen. I would say that most of the article is devoted to aspects of the subject that are unimportant to the neglect of important issues. There is also too much jargon, particularly in the lead. For example, the lead says fascists "rel[ied] on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles." The source is a chapter on French fascism which says, "Like Hitler and Mussolini, [Marcel Déat] saw the need for a "vanguard" party to lead his revolution...."(Eatwell, Fascism, p. 215)[13] Eatwell does not mention this concept anywhere else, I can find nothing about it in other sources. I do not even know if by ""vanguard" party" he is referring to the Marxist concept of a vanguard party. No one else has called fascist parties "vanguard parties." Any objections to removing this? TFD (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
They all had vanguard parties, however, if the term vanguard is the correct one, is entirely another discussion.... Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany had one-party states, so it's not false....--TIAYN (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, I object.
Fascism most certainly involves the concept of vanguard. If you don't have a source-based rationale for introducing a point here, please don't introduce it, because it is WP:OR.
I would recommend that you read Gregor, the foremost authority in the field, as I have recommended to others.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The rationale is source-based, at least to the extent that it involves asking what the broad spread of sources appear to say (or not say). Are you asking for a source that specifically says "Fascism does not involve vanguard parties"? In addition, writing a lead is about prioritising information and laying out the key points. Just because something is or can be sourced, that does not mean it has to be included in a lead, let alone in the second sentence. And one author's focus on a term is not a trump card that we have to follow, whether one WP editor unilaterally declares them to the "foremost authority" or not. If scholarship as a whole does not lay much stress on it, we should not either. Mention it, sure, but with due weight and in the appropriate place. N-HH talk/edits 15:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Eatwell doesn't really support the use of the term vanguard party in the article, let alone in the lead. The term he uses is "vanguard" party. I would take the quotation marks to mean "sort of but not really". Formerip (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary page break

(edit conflict)I have already stated (recited policy) that the lead is to be a summary of the article. So any such changes should be proposed via changes to the main body of the article supported by secondary sources. Is that too convoluted?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That presupposes that the lead is currently an accurate and complete summary of the body, or that there is only one fixed, accurate summary possible. As noted above, a lead should of course reflect what is in the main body but there are 1001 ways of prioritising and laying out the far more expansive and detailed information that is included there, some of which will include and some of which will exclude specific points. Furthermore, literally following the rules in that way means that if we have a rubbish, threadbare body and a rubbish lead, any improvements to the lead are barred until and unless more expansive changes have first been made to the main body. That's a sure way to keep both parts rubbish for even longer, surely? In reality, most articles are written the other way round: lead first as an overview and then detail fleshed out below. N-HH talk/edits 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on the point that there are many possible ways in which the material in the main body can be summarized in the lead, but refrain from commenting with regard to the rest, as the policy is self evident.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The body of the article does not mention the ""vanguard" party/"vanguard party." TFD (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In reviewing the history of the entry, I can see that it has changed and transformed quite a bit. It has been imbalanced in various ways. The current opening section is still imbalanced. For example, very few people say the essence of F was "nationalism." (Only one other encyclopedia of the two dozen out there does this.) The opening section should be historically accurate and conceptually complete. It should not overstress one thing (statism) and leave out other significant elements of F such as social conservatism, violence against the Left, suppression of trade unionism, antipathy to cultural modernism, etc. Yes, F was statist but you don't mention that twice in an opening section that supposedly defines the movement and leave out three quarters of what F essentially was. It's shocking that "corporatism," which historians see as essential to F is now left out (after having been central to its definition a few years ago here). We need to get the balance right--bring back in stuff that was ejected and blend it with the stuff you all feel is essential as well. I have to see my son off to college next week and then return to teaching myself at my university. I'll try to find time to stitch together some of your discussion with my own sense of what that opening section should accomplish and get back to you. Mryan1451 (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

The first source (Turner, 1975) says, "Despite the concern of Falangist leaders to avoid the charge of mimesis, the doctrines of fascism provided the only viable model for their goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism." The second source is an article in an anthology which wrongly credits the editors as the authors and says fascism was an "organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism". (I have no access to this book which was published in 1980. But neither source says it was form of nationalism. This is just another example of deciding what the article should say and finding sources to support it. It is more correct to say that nationalism was a major part of fascism. TFD (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
A couple of responses to points in the last two posts ..
  • "Form of nationalism" as the opening definition. I would repeat that I think we are in the realm of petty semantics here. Nationalism is a feature of fascism and often regarded as the key/common feature among all the range of things usually described as fascism; and if fascism can be said to espouse nationalism, or have nationalism as one of its key features, then it is, by definition, a form of nationalism. Furthermore, the definition is common currency in academic writing, regardless of the current sources cited. I'd certainly argue that serious sources, as a whole, focus more on nationalism than they do on fascism as simply some form of macho anti-socialist conservatism with knuckledusters, which seems to be the idea being pushed here but which is, to some extent, quite a narrow left-wing perspective (just as fascism=socialism with a bit of nationalism thrown in is an extremely narrow right-wing libertarian perspective)
  • "Left/unions". Arguably this is covered under the broad observation "hostile .. to socialism". I wouldn't disagree with something more explicit on this
  • "State". I don't think the first para overemphasises this or makes it the dominant theme, although arguably within the lead as a whole there's a bit too much repetition (which to me is a copyediting issue, not a deliberate, substantive thing). It doesn't actually use the word "statist" either
  • "Corporatism". I agree this should be mentioned, maybe in the second para with the economic stuff
  • "Social conservatism". As noted, I agree there should be something on this
  • "Cultural modernism". I don't think the antipathy of fascism is quite as clear cut as suggested (eg Futurism and Italian Fascism)
  • "Bring back stuff that was ejected". What is referred to here? As noted above, back at the beginning of this year it was full of utter nonsense about "proletarian culture" etc. Even before the editor responsible for that got seriously stuck in, say two years ago, it was a bit of a mess
Anyway I think we probably need less navel-gazing and a few more specific suggestions about what to change and where (I'm also about to revert some of the unexplained changes of the last 24 hours re "hostile .. to free enterprise", which a silent editor seems to insist on trying to quietly edit-war in). Also, there's no need to repeatedly tell everyone that you're off to "teach at university". Even if we take you at your word, it's irrelevant. N-HH talk/edits 09:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not semantics - it is taking one opinion and stating it as a fact. We cannot go from saying "Nationalism is a feature of fascism and often regarded as the key/common feature" to saying "fascism is a form of nationalism." TFD (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
But the one follows, logically and linguistically, from the other. If the premise is not simply opinion, or at least not controversial opinion, then the latter formulation is not either. Equally, if you want more specific statements that directly use the phrase "form of nationalism", there are plenty in the Google Books link provided, including some that explicitly refer to this notion as more or less the academic consensus. The qualifier "form of" is significant of course in that it means we are not saying nationalism and fascism are the same; there are many other types of nationalism, some anti-fascist. We have to start with something and the current construction seems as good a first sentence as we are likely to get – there are always going to be objections to whatever we come up with. As I see it, the key is to build on that with an improved second sentence, which brings in the other common features more quickly, as discussed. N-HH talk/edits 15:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to basically agree that the first sentence is not in need of attention at the moment, as there seem to be other portions that are in need of attention.
The question of nationalism is part of the semi-nativisitic reaction to various forms of internationalist political and economic trends (e.g., proletarian communism, laissez-fair capitalism) at the time that were perceived as one form of threat or another. The nation-state, though itself a modern construction, was the organizational paradigm to which fascism appealed. The fact that it grew out of more local economically oriented "syndicates" attests to the local vs global dimension of the sociological tendencies after WWI that were tapped by politicians and scaled up into a full-scale political movement that manifest as fascism. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
If we compare the alternatives currently on the table, we have:
  • Fascism was a radical rightwing political movement and form of social organization characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, xenophobia, and the use of state violence to attain political ends (proposed); vs
  • Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe (current)
I don't see it as the former option somehow putting right an error with the latter, just a choice between two valid, but different, options for an opening sentence. I'd probably be happy with either (and certainly wouldn't insist that if we currently had the former, we would need to change it to the latter). If consensus emerges in favour of making the switch, that's fine by me and I'm certainly not going to die fighting for the current formulation – but perhaps the most pertinent issue is that we will never get consensus for the former as currently phrased because of the "rightwing" qualifier. Maybe that's daft, but it's the reality of the situation. There are other parts of the lead that perhaps have issues that need resolving more and which, fortunately, can probably be resolved more easily. N-HH talk/edits 16:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Right-wing" is only one of the emotionally overladen terms in the proposed version. The other is "xenophobia", which presumes an irrational disposition, and that would have to be established. Syndicalism does not fall under any of that rubric and may, in fact, have been influenced more by left-leaning thought than right. Syndicalism cannot be burried in the treatment of the fascism the became established on the basis of syndicalism thereafter. The integrity of the historical narrative has to be maintained intact. And those terms are not the only problem. The bit about "state violence" is also nonsensical. All such loaded statements would have to be solidly supported in the main body and represent a summary of that material.
The proposed sentenced is full of hyperbole and is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Ubikwit seems correct in this analysis. The lead should mirror and summarize the body of the article. The proposed formulation is less than optimal. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
While the "lead" should "summarize the body of the article", it should also provide a concise overview of the topic. The two can only be the same when the article is written from a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Everyone. If you wish to communicate with me about the Fascism: Talk issue I raised, please do so on this page rather than write to me on my Talk page. I will not read or respond to notes from you about this issue on that page. Thank you for understanding. All of our discussion should be public here. Mryan1451 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Hi, Everyone. I just posted two new discussion sections. See below. One is about other encyclopedias. The second is a new version that takes our discussion of the past few days into account.

Mryan1451 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference eatwell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference gj120 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference routledge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Stanley G. Payne. A History of Fascism, 1914–1945. Pp. 106.
  5. ^ Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. P. 935.
  6. ^ Cyprian P. Blamires. World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 2. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ABC-CLIO, 2006. P. 331.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Griffin, Roger 1991 pp. 222 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Blamires, Cyprian 2006 p. 188-189 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Frank Joseph. Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45. West Midlands, England, UK: Helion & Company, 2010. Pp. 50.
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference university was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference aristotle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism/Archive_42&oldid=1143854331"