Talk:Fascism

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22
Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26

PLEASE NOTE

This page has grown long from time to time and topical subsections have been pulled out and new pages created. Please do not complain about information missing from this page until you have explored the Fascism Template pages. Weaving links to existing pages or adding text with pointers to longer discussions is both appropriate and useful.--Cberlet 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and Islam

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, who was an anti-Zionist Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. In the 2000s, some commentators have compared extreme Islamism to fascism, using the disputed term Islamofascism.

The first half of the paragraph is wrong. Collaboration implies that the mufti was involved in their activities, which he wasn't. He was trying to get money and materials from them, with some success. But that doesn't make him a fascist. Saddam managed to get money and materials from the west, but that didn't mean that he subscribed to our ideology. We were just useful to him at the time, and vice-versa.

The second half is true, but content free. It doesn't contain any useful information that wouldn't be covered by adding to the see also, which I will do. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the mufti did help the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen-SS, the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), which participated in counter-partisan activities.King Henry V 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union and China

Why are these two being deleted? It is a fact that "The term fascism is sometimes applied" to these authoritarian regimes. (JoeCarson 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

It's sometimes applied to the mayor of Derry's office. It is important to use some modicum of editorial judgement. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Be boring This is an encyclopedia. I want to remind editors here to restrain themselves when it comes to including in the article whatever their idiosyncratic research into fascism happens to be, whether that be the secret history of the Catholic church's involvement, that Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist, that communism is really fascism, or whatever it is this week. This isn't the place for it. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is explicitly a nationalist ideology. The ideology of the Soviet Union and Communist China was/is explicitly internationalist. Fascism is also strongly linked with anti-communism. 'The term fascism is sometimes applied' as a catch-all political swear-word, about anyone the speaker/writer dislikes, which an encyclopedia should not encourage, IMHO. (edit conflict: I agree with Jkelly). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are only two criterions for listing some regime as fascist. It must be authoritarian and called by that name by someone. Soviet Union and China satisfy both. And paragraph is talking about the scope of the word "fascism"... -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to your criteria, Russia under Peter the Great was a fascist state. Steady on. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That only says that there is no point in listing all authoritarian regimes which are labeled as fascist by someone. -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See the section below. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then whole list should be removed, and not just entries that you two don't like. -- Vision Thing -- 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<- I don't like including China and the USSR because it seems to me to make the term arbitrarily broad, in a way that is not true when describing (eg) Franco as a fascist (which I wouldn't, BTW). Fascism and authoritarianism are not synonyms. But, as you imply, the whole section is weasel-worded and citation-free, and needs trimming or citing. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This selection is from "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" by Roger Griffin. Here he is describing why using most modern, "generic" (fascism as an ideology and not WWII Italy) definitions to call the Soviet Union and Communist China "fascist" is incorrect (even though he is referring to his own attempt at a minimal definition of fascism here he earlier described how his scholarly definition is considered by many the "norm").

"Other misgivings are more pardonable. Two arise directly from the attempt, practically unthinkable before the new consensus, to base a definition of fascism exclusively on its ideology, so bringing it in line with every other major political, social, and religious ‘ism’ of the modern age. I did not make sufficiently clear one corollary of this approach, namely that the ultra-nationalism has to be an explicit part of a regime’s official doctrine for it to fit my ideal type. The point has not been lost on some that every communist state from Russia and Romania to China and North Korea has not only preached the appearance of a new era, and a new man, but has behaved ultra-nationalistically in its foreign policy and social engineering. Yet even if in practice they have thus pursued a programme of ‘palingenetic ultranationalism’, this is far from qualifying them as fascist states in terms of my ideal type, because their charter myth remained officially Marxist-Leninist internationalism. In theory capitalism was in its death throes, not the nation. Socialism was the phoenix of the old order, not the nation."

This is pretty much Squiddy's opinion above just from an eminent scholar of fascism and totalitarian politics. - DNewhall 02:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this article has a POV tag is refusal of left leaning editors to accept Griffin's "consensus" definition of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century By Gregor. A scholar of fascism who believes that Marxism in China and the Soviet Union was essentially fascist. (JoeCarson 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Are you actually quoting Gregor? He's incredibly fringe. john k 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How long do we have to put up with this nonsense that fascism is left wing-and that communist regimes are (somehow) fascist? This appears to be nthing more than POV pushed by a couple of editors on this page, or reasons known only to themselves. Authoritarianism was a term coined to equate fascist and state communist societies(amongst others)-'authoritarian' does not equal fascist-no mater who slings the term around (as many do).Felix-felix 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely, I suppose. This article really just ranges from middling through embarassingly bad to incomprehensible, spending most of its time at "embarassingly bad". It's just the result of this page having a fascination for Larouchites / Anti-Catholic / Anarcho-Capitalists / other fringe group of the week rewriting the page from their POV, and there not being enough editors who both care about writing a encyclopedic summary of what mainstream experts say about fascism and have the energy to keep the article from degenerating into a screed. Frankly, if it's going to be written from a weird POV and be used as a platform to equate unrelated political ideologies with fascism, I'd rather that it be by Americans still fighting the cold war than some of the other ones we've seen here. Jkelly 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" equates fascist and communist sates, not "authoritarianism". -- Vision Thing -- 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"The term fascism is sometimes applied". That is the criteria for inclusion. If we are going to change it to "had many features in common with fascism", Pinochet at the very least should not be on the list and China (both then and today), Russia (Soviet era and today) and the US (New Deal and today) should all be on the list. (JoeCarson 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I've reverted the edit about the USSR and China again-not only is this contested by all but 2 of the editors, but directly contradicts the intro and the following para. Please stop this fringe POV pushing.Felix-felix 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Vision Thing:

Would you be good enough to share with the rest of us the actual text (and some of the surrounding text) in the two sources you've cited that, in your mind, supports the assertion that the USSR & the PRC -- both of which were run by Communist Parties -- somehow come under the heading of "fascism"? A few words about the authors would be nice, too. Cgingold 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Cgingold's request. At the moment, the text is OK by me (indicating that the scope of the word is broad etc) IF these authors, or other serious authors, have used the term in this way. But it also seems to me completely ridiculous to call Stalinist regimes fascist, unless we accept a fairly meaningless attenuated definition of fascism as synonymous with authoritarianism and/or totalitarianism.BobFromBrockley 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending passage until this can be resolved.Felix-felix 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Tang Tsou says: Paradoxically, the program of the ultraleftists, which marked the culmination of the totalitarian tendency in the Chinese Communist movement, soon led not only to its total repudiation but, more significantly, also to sweeping historical reexamination by the current leaders. Mao's successors were forced to ask the fundamental question why a movement for class and human liberation had developed into one of the most oppressive systems in Chinese history – what the Chinese Communists call "feudal fascism."

Alfred D. Low quotes Chou Enlai: There followed a bitter denunciation by Chou of "the Soviet revisionist clique from Khrushchev to Brezhnev" that made a socialist country degenerate into a social-imperialist country. The ruling group "had restored capitalism, enforced a fascist dictatorship and enslaved people of all nationalities." -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These are quite interesting, but they only tell us that certain Chinese apparently have used the term on occasion -- though we don't really know just what it is they mean when they say "fascism". What's more important, though, is that neither example supports the assertion that there are credible scholars who regard either the USSR or the PRC as examples of fascism. In both cases, the authors are merely quoting the views of other people. If you've got something that really does the job, please, don't keep us waiting. (The suspense is killing me!) Cgingold 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is there a mention of "credible scholars". Only criteria is "sometimes applied", and the sources I provided support the claim that "fascism" is applied to Soviet Union and China. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This might also be a good time to remember the shortcomings of academic translations (especially in a realm like political science). It's unlikely that Chinese communists go around actually using the phrase "feudal fascism" and whatever phrase they do use could easily be lost in translation since this is an English translation of a Chinese (I think) author who is in turn reporting on what other people have said. --mroconnell 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Author is born and raised Chinese, who received his Ph.D. in political science at University of Chicago. -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, to include the USSR and China as inaccurate examples of fascist regimes, it makes more sense for them to be in the second para-but frankly they have no place in the article at all.FelixFelix ^talk 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Deal

I've removed this spurious section, which appears to have been based on a quote by Ronald Reagan. State intervention in the economy is not fascism.FelixFelix ^talk 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reagan is far from the only one. President Hoover talking about the New Deal said, "I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini's "corporate state" -Herbert Hoover. Alot of politicians around that time admired fascism and the New Deal was American version of it. For example, US Conferssman Milford Howard said "I want to go on record at the beginning of this unpretentious book by avowing my faith in Benito Mussolini, Italy's great premier, and Fascism, the child of his marvelous brain, as the highest expression of a pragmatic philosophy of government..."Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism. Corporatism is characterized by a high degree of state intervention in the economy. It just doesn't require the nationalism and militarism of fascism. The New Deal doesn't deserve its own section but FDR's government certainly warrants a mention in the first paragraph of this section.

(JoeCarson 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

You are correct in saying corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism and you seem to be using corporatism mostly correctly. However, that section sounded almost overtly POV. If the section was rewritten in a more NPOV tone it could possibly be included. For example, the line "Some aspects of the Roosevelts New Deal were labeled as fascist." is very vague and seems to be almost intentionally so to be weasel-y. Did FDR call the New Deal fascist or use fascist models? Do scholars call the New Deal fascist and are those scholars reputable and/or neutral? Etc. - DNewhall 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of reputable scholars say the New Deal was fascist, largely from the Austrian School of economics. As far as "neutral" I don't know, but, is there such a thing as a "neutral" scholar?Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The passive tense is not anybody's friend. To say that conservative opponents of Roosevelt labelled the New Deal as fascist (or, alternately, communist!) is true, and perhaps should be mentioned somewhere. It is going a good deal further to say that "reputable scholars" have made this claim. What are these people scholars of? I would posit that they were not scholars of fascism. john k 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rothbard and Mises were sufficiently prolific to be considered scholars of fascism, and both men would certainly have considered the New Deal fascist.

(JoeCarson 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I don't see how two economists can be seen as scholars of fascism, a political movement with no clear or consistent economic program. john k 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard and Mises were more than economists. Their breadth of knowledge would qualify them as historians as well.

(JoeCarson 12:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Says who? I've never seen mainstream historians or political scientists quote them as authorities on fascism. Generally, any work I've read on fascism treats the Vienna School interpretation as obviously specious, and dismisses it in a few words, or simply ignores it. john k 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wolfgang Schivelbusch in Three New Deals writes:

The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip.

He also quotes from Hitler in his book

He told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Will Transcends the Interest of the Individual".

If Hitler thinks you're a fascist, you're probably a fascist. (JoeCarson 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Right, because everything Hitler said was motivated by his sincere desire to speak the truth as he saw it ... a man utterly beyond any desire to manipulate or misrepresent ...

I think the key issue here is to distinguish between two really different issues: first, "fascism" in popular perception which means how people use the word "fascist" in general discourse, (the Reagen quote goes here if anywhere) 0n the one hand, and the scholarly analysis of Fascism on the other hand. Some scholars of fascism see it as one form of corporatism and argue that corporatism was a dominant political response to the global economic crisis of the 1930s. Populism (e.g.Juan Peron in Argentina, Velazco-Ibara in Ecuador) and the New Deal (in the US0 are other forms ofcorporatism but responding, at least in part, to the samechallenges fascism - thatother form of corporatism - was responding to. here, discussin the similarities and differences between fascism, populism, and the New Deal as different (NB diffeent) forms of the same broad phenomenon, corporatism, helps place Fascim in its historical context in part by putting it in a comparative-politics perspective. I think that the article must provide a good account of these scholarly discussions. But they are categorically different from Reagan or anyone else calling Roosevelt or the New Deal "fascist."Slrubenstein | Talk 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, Hitler doesn't count because he was bad. And what of the scholar who wrote the book? Clearly, the New Deal and FDR's administration had much in common with fascist policy in both Italy and Germany. It is appropriate to examine both the similarities and differences but it is biased to exclude the New Deal when Hitler himself viewed it as fascist and many scholars of fascism view it as essentially fascist. It is laughable to exclude the New Deal when Pinochet is included. Did Pinochet ever express admiration for Mussolini? Wikipedia is here to allow users to educate themselves and we cannot accomplish this when editors are ignorant about the topics they write about. (JoeCarson 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Hitler is not a reliable source on the New Deal, surely? That there were similarities between the New Deal and fascist administration does not mean that the New Deal is fascism. Fascism is defined by particular characteristics. Most of those characteristics (extreme nationalism and anti-liberalism, particularly) are not to be found in the New Deal, even if others (corporatism) are found to some extent. As to the list with Pinochet, that's an example of mission creep, where a sentence originally about regimes of the interwar period that have been called fascist somehow expanded to include Brezhnev and Mao and Pinochet. I removed that part of the discussion, and added Pinochet in instead alongside Suharto, as a recent dictatorship which tends to be called "fascist" only by opponents. I also removed Peron, although I wasn't sure that was appropriate, but he was clearly from a later period than the others, and really a different phenomenon, I think. john k 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the New Deal is called fascist by its opponents, and deserves mention as an interwar regime that is often called fascist. The Soviet Union and China also deserve mention as postwar regimes that are sometimes called fascist. (JoeCarson 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

There is a lot of popular currency for calling any right wing dictatorship "fascist," even if it doesn't have much currency among scholars. On the other hand, there is very little currency anywhere for calling the Soviet Union or the PRC (although Chiang's ROC has certainly been so described) or the New Deal fascist. The comparison has certainly been made, but it is in no way comparable to the same kind of statements about Pinochet or Metaxas or Salazar or whatever. You are trying to obscure the basic fact that it is very common to describe any right wing authoritarian as "fascist." This fact should be clearly presented with relevant examples. If you want to add business about people having compared these other regimes to fascism, add it somewhere else. But the basic fact is that the vast majority of both scholarly and popular understandings of fascism would specifically exclude both a non-authoritarian movement like the New Deal and Marxist-Leninist regimes from their definitions of fascism. One can disagree with the scholarly and popular understandings, but we should still present them clearly and fairly, and not mix it up with fringe right wing political theory. This is clearly an issue where due weight comes into play, not to mention general desire to express ourselves clearly. john k 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not on what all leftists know. -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It is surely verifiable that it has been a very common line on the left to call pretty much any right wing authoritarian regime "fascist." This usage is not merely that of the far left (which also tends to do things like call social democracy fascist), but also of the moderate left. Whether or not one believes that Salazar or Pinochet or Metaxas was a fascist (personally, I do not think this is a useful term to describe their regimes, and I think most scholars would agree), this usage is a historically significant and important one, it has strongly influenced a broader public understanding of what "fascism" is that goes well beyond those who would self-identify as being on the left, and it should be highlighted and mentioned in the article. The article should not, of course, imply that this usage is correct, but it is widespread enough that it ought to be mentioned. Claims that the Soviet Union or the New Deal were fascist have been made only by very tiny groups, and have had no effect on popular understanding of the term "fascism." As such, they are not significant, and mentioning them in the same breath as the very common description of various authoritarian right wing regimes as fascist is both a problem of clarity and one of due weight. john k 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the section to mention other regimes that have been called fascist, not "somewhere else". Many liberal scholars of fascism consider fascist and Communist states to be quite similar and have referred to Communist regimes as fascist. Furthermore, among American presidents FDR was second only to Lincoln in his authoritarianism. You are trying to obscure these facts. It is important to point out that most authoritarian regimes that are considered right-wing are called fascist, but it is also important to point out that many regimes often considered left-wing have also been called fascist. (JoeCarson 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

And in this case, they are not called fascist by right-wingers, but by their fellow comrades. -- Vision Thing -- 12:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering communism and fascism to be similar is not at all the same thing as considering communism to be fascist. Totalitarianism is a theory that asserts certain similarities between fascist and communist regimes, but it does not assert that fascist regimes ought to be called communist, or vice versa. The idea that there are similarities is a common one. The idea that those similarities make it appropriate to describe communist regimes as fascist is not. This is not the same issue at all. As to FDR being second to Lincoln in authoritarianism, that's neither here nor there. As to what "fellow comrades" say, that is exactly the problem. That Stalinists called Social Democrats "social fascists," or that social democrats, in return, called Stalinists fascists, was always simply a polemical tool in an intestine conflict within the left. These usages never gained any traction, and basically the nuances of such usage do little more than mark anybody who use them as being a devotee of some particular leftist splinter cell. On the other hand, the much broader usage of "fascist" to refer to any right wing authoritarian movement is quite mainstream. It probably isn't right, but it is much more significant than some arcane struggles between Fourth International Trotskyists and Fifth International Trotskyists who call each other fascists in order to taint the other guy as not real Trotskyists. Perhaps the latter phenomenon can be mentioned somewhere, but it's not at all the same thing as the other. john k 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to add the reasons for the New Deal being considered fascist, we must add reasons for all the regimes in this section. (JoeCarson 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Recent edits continue to muddy the waters. It is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to RFC:

The New deal was socialism, not fascism. You could, however, mention the Regan comment as an example of "fascism" being used used as a negative word to insult a political policy. Something like "People have at times have used the word 'fascism' to cast a negative light on political policies, for example Reagan said... blah blah blah..."futurebird 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Statism and Collectivism

In the intro, we currently have both these terms-which makes one of them redundant. To my mind, statism is the more accurate term, but one of them should definately go.Any ideas?FelixFelix ^talk 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the redundancy? These terms are orthogonal, though an instance of one is usually accompanied by the other.

(JoeCarson 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I think both are redundent if authoritarianism and totalitarianism are in there. Statism is a factor in authoritarianism and totalitarianism covers collectivism. Plus, the concept of totalitarianism was given its name by the Italian Fascists. - DNewhall 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism doens't have to be collectivist. Collectivism is part of the fascist ethic. The rulers advocate that individuals renounce self-interest and work for the good of the collective - the state or race. The collective becomes more important than the individual and the individuals exists as a means to serve the collective. Facism is antithetical to individualism and militates against it. Collectivism is opposite of individualism. Also, the source lists statism, antiauthoritarianism, and collectivism separately.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DNewhall makes a good point; authoritarianism and totalitarianism cover all the bases and then some. Totalitarianism forces the people into collectivism. (JoeCarson 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Statism is "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry" [1] Anarcho-capitalism 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do totalitarianism and authoritarianism imply collectivism and statism? If they do and we still include the two latter terms, we are being redundant but accurate. However, if they do not and we do not include those terms, we are not being accurate. (JoeCarson 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Seems to me that statism is a form of collectivism in which the state is the collective, so collectivism is a little redundant. Might as well drop it. Totalitarianism, following, is a form of statism. So, keep authoritarianism and totalitarianism as neither are necessary components of the other. But drop collectivism and statism, because totalitarianism is the most specific type of both. There may be a little disagreement over whether totalitarianism is necessarily statist, but it seems so to me. ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible-the intro and defining features should be short and punchy.FelixFelix ^talk 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Collectivism is a philosophical position. It's not necessary that a totalitarian or authoritarian is based upon the philosophy of collectivism. How about a source? "Collectivism does not necessarily mean totalitarianism." -Ralp George Hawtrey, Economic Destiny, p. 187. It is true that most totalitarian regimes we have seen preached collectivism, but it's not a necessary definitional condition that they do. For example, a regime could justify their totalitarianism on religion - that God wants this. Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that collectivism does not necessarily mean totalitarianism-but its the reverse that we're arguing, that totalitarianism is necessarily a form of collectivismn (for whatever stated reason)-thus all totalitarian systems are, by definition collectivist, if you like-thus 'totalitarian' in the intro makes 'collectivist' redundant. How about appending your citation to 'totalitarian'?FelixFelix ^talk 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An illustration of this point; "Totalitarianism is collectivism." The Only Path To Tomorrow by Ayn Rand [2], not really my cup of tea, but it makes the point. My feeling is that the intro should be punchy, so the interested reader could quickly and accurately get a feel for what fascism was all about. The more terms we put into the intro, the harder that is, so I reckon that redundant terms should be pruned out.FelixFelix ^talk 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding that essay. She's not saying that totalitarian regimes are collectivist by definition. Rather, her claim is that all totalitarian regimes in history were justified on upon the collectivist philosophy. If you want to get to what fascism was "all about," then collectivism is essential. Fascism is essentially a philosophy - a philosophy that states that the individual should serve the collective, whether it's the state or, as in Nazism, the race. Mussolini spoke harshly against individualism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you're understanding my point-no-one is trying to deny that fascism was anti-individualist. Totalitarianism is by definition collectivist-do you know of any totalitarian systems which were philosophically or practically not collectivist? As Switch said above totalitarianism is a specific form of collectivism, and, as such the term totalitarianism in the intro makes 'collectivism' redundant. This is what Rand is talking about in her essay, I don't really see why your use of the word 'justified' (rather than, say, 'based on' or 'founded in') makes any actual difference, or if you could possibly demonstrate that it does. Or indeed, if you could defend that interpretation of the text in the first place.FelixFelix ^talk 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not seeing that collectivism is a philosophy - the belief that the group is more important that the individual - that self-interest should be put aside in order to further the interests of the group - whether that's a nation, state, race, or social class (i.e. anti-individualism). Totalitarianism is not a philosophy but a state of affairs. Collectivism is said to be the philosophy upon which totalitarianism is premised. You can't begin to understand fascism without understanding its philosophical foundations as distinct from its actions.Anarcho-capitalism 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New Deal, again

A) How is it POV to say that Roosevelt's America was not authoritarian? In what way was America in the 30s authoritarian? There were free elections and respect for civil liberties. Given the number of actual authoritarian regimes in the 1930s, the idea that the US was authoritarian at this time is absurd, and it is not POV to mention this, since it is undisputed.

B) Is it actually accurate to say that the New Deal is normally perceived as "left wing"? The United States in the 30s had more of an actual Socialist and Communist left than at pretty much any other time - certainly than in any later time. And the relationship of those groups to FDR and the New Deal was, well, complicated. I'm not convinced that any of them would have accepted it as left wing. In a world where the far left was represented by the Soviet Union and the Comintern, it seems problematic to describe the reform liberal corporatism of the New Deal as "left wing", or as being generally perceived as such. It was obviously perceived that way by conservatives in America. But that's different.

C) I'd also like for somebody to check and see if the source cited actually calls the New Deal fascist, and if so, if it qualifies as a reliable source. I am highly dubious that any actual scholar would say the New Deal is fascist, rather than merely that it shared certain characteristics with fascism. john k 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page 190 of the edition of the book that we are citing in the article says no such thing. This is trivially verified -- amazon.com has a "Search Inside" feature for that edition. Jkelly 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove the whole damned thing, then. john k 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson.

p. 18

He also quotes from Mussolini who found the New Deal

"reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"

p. 23

...the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip"

p. 190

Go to the library and check it out for yourself. (JoeCarson 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

"reminiscent" "strains of thought"This is simply not good enough. Ridiculuous POV nonsense.FelixFelix ^talk 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic will come up again and again and again as it has over the years. I continue to insist that to effectively comply with NPOV, it is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. This leads us away from simplistic and fundamentally stupid claims that "The New Deal was fascist" to the kinds of claims encyclopedias ought to have: "Some politicians have associated the New Deal with fascism in order to ...." and "Some scholars have called attention to the following similarities between the New Deal and fascism in order to ..." i.e. claims that are clearly situated and help better educate the reader rather than just push a certain POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make a practical suggestion so as to avoid a tedious revert war with (Joe. We should either have a section called "Fascism as a form of corporatism" whcih provides non-fascist examples of corporatism and explains Fascism's place among them, or we should have a specifically historical section that addresses how Fascism was one of a variety of statist responses to the economic challenges of the 1930s. The quote about the New Deal would belong in either one of these sections, but obviously it has no place in a section on authoritarianism. I have made two proposals - they are worth discussing a couple of days before acting on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A separate section on fascism and corporatism would be a great, but is it appropriate to include here rather than in the Economics of fascism article? As for authoritarianism, FDR was quite authoritarian for an American president, though he was not as successful in this regard as Mussolini or Hitler. (JoeCarson 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

"not as successful in this regard" suggests that it was FDR's goal to establish a state like the Third Reich. I don't think that most scholars would accept such a claim. This is particularly rich given that actual fascistic elements in the United States - like Father Coughlin, or the German American Bund - invariably detested Roosevelt. john k 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FDR was not as successful in gaining power for himself. I do not believe he wished to model the on US Nazi Germany. Mussolini and Hitler's admiration for FDR is more relevant than the scorn of fascists in the US. To claim otherwise, that's rich. (JoeCarson 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

The "admiration" which Hitler and Mussolini expressed for FDR has a lot more to do with their desire to obtain approval from Americans of their regimes than it does with any actual affinity of the New Deal for fascism. They were saying these things to try to convince American visitors that their regimes were more or less similar to Roosevelt's, and thus to garner sympathy. Little value should be attached to these as analytical statements. john k 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, who has actually checked out the source? The quotes are pretty clear. Shivelbusch (along with Hitler and Mussolini) considered the New Deal to be fascist. Corporatism is implied in one of the quotes. So what about that statement in the article is wrong? (JoeCarson 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Schivelbusch did not consider the New Deal to be fascist. His book argues that there are similarities between the New Deal and fascism, but, so far as I can tell, does not argue that those similarities make the New Deal "fascist." There is a difference. john k 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the book. (JoeCarson 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Why should I read the book, when the available summaries of it directly contradict your claims, and you have yet to provide a single quotation in which Schivelbusch calls the New Deal fascist? john k 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Inserting "even" before the USSR and China implies that the editor disagrees with this. It's fine to state that many scholars see important differences, but we should of course prevent the editor's POV from being obvious. (JoeCarson 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, a broad description of fascist regimes can 'even' include communist ones-'even' as fascism is explicitly anticommunist. It's not weasel words, and the sentence doesn't make proper sense without it. Frankly, I think that even including them is pretty POV. We could always remove them altogether.FelixFelix ^talk 13:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is not here to foist marxist propaganda on the reader. The sentence is fine w/o this weasel word. (JoeCarson 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, it makes little sense without it-according to our intro, fascism is anti-communist-thus 'even' is a necessary word, assuming of course, that we keep these dubious examples at al.FelixFelix ^talk 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most scholars would lump Naziism and Stalanism together as forms of totalitarianism, but distinguish between them in that Fascism and socialism/communism were actually competing and in conflict. This is not propaganda, it is good social science. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, most scholars do not accept "totalitarianism" as a valid frame of comparison. Some scholars would lump them together as totalitarian, and others would merely say that they are similar in their authoritarianism, and that totalitarianism is a flawed concept. What almost nobody would do is say that Stalinism is fascist, which is I think where we agree. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Felix, Communist states were not communist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, we are not talking here about scholar views about fascism/socialism/communism, but about labeling some regimes as "fascist" by their opponents. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then do we have to mention Social Democracy as "fascist" as well? And Liberalism? Just about everything has occasionally been called fascist by their opponents. But the tradition of calling right wing authoritarian regimes "fascist" is a much stronger one than that of calling liberals or social democrats or communists "fascists." john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The last part of the sentence makes it clear that most scholars make important distinctions. Adding "even" makes it clear what the editors belief is. The sentence makes it clear that some definitions of fascism are broad, cites two examples of how broad, and mentions that most scholars see important distinctions to be made between these examples and the archetypal forms of fascism. Even is superfluous in this context. (JoeCarson 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, the sentence is not making a stance on any issue it is simply saying that the Soviet Union and PRC are included in such definitions if the reader believes them not to be (which, since we are referring to communist regimes here in an article on fascism, makes sense). - DNewhall 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is not making a stance on any issue as it currently reads. However, the inclusion of "even" makes it clear what the editors stance is. (JoeCarson 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

How so? As I've said above it does not and only helps to clarify the point. - DNewhall 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like the current version of the section, if we unhide the first paragraph and add the New Deal. I don't seen any weasel words in there and it separates name-calling among the USSR and China from scholarly works. (JoeCarson 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I think "even" is a natural thing to include, given that, as others have noted, explicitly fascist regimes are virulently anti-communist, and this is generally considered a key trait of fascism more broadly. As such, the word "even" seems more or less necessary. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I have a proposal. Why don't we just let Joe have his way on this. I know, the rest of us are having conniptions over this, but what's the worst that could happen? Consider the likely results, in terms of how this material would be perceived by readers:

Yes, it's no doubt true that a small minority of less-educated readers will simply accept the idea that the regimes in the USSR & PRC were both Communist and fascist, as a statement of fact. But not to worry, they will be vastly outnumbered by all of the other readers -- who will either, A) feel confused and stupid, assuming that the cause of their inability to make sense of things resides between their own ears, or B) feel confused and exasperated, blaming the whole thing on Wikipedia, which clearly is an unreliable source, just like they've always heard.

Now, that's a win-win situation, wouldn't you say?

Cgingold 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident that all uneducated yet open-minded and curious readers will recognize the similarities between fascism and Communism upon further study. Those who are not curious probably wouldn't come here anyway. Those who are open-minded and educated will already understand the similarities. So I am for including these referenced portions of the section. (JoeCarson 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Dubious source

"In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson." Really? So FDR suspended human rights and the right to habeas corpus, arrested his leftwing opponents and bribed/coerced his centrist opponents to gain a suspension of the constitution, then abolished all other political parties, abolished the States, andfinally assassinated his opponents in the Democratic party?

I find it hard to believe this is a serious academic source. The comparison is obviously ridiculous.--Triglyph 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarity does not equal 100% congruity. (JoeCarson 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Non-sequitor. You have not responded in any weay to Triglyph's comment.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The process was similar, as the quote states. The final outcome was different, but the quote does not address this directly. Triglyph is comparing the outcomes of the extra power. (JoeCarson 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I believe the process was not similar, and I believe that was precisely Triglyph's point. What exactly was this "similar process?" What makes it similar? And according to whom? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of human rights, habeus corpus, etc. are consequences of the process, although these and other actions were part of the process to gain more power. I don't feel like writing any more quotes from the book right now, but (one of) the whom is Shivelbusch. (JoeCarson 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

How does that make it fascist, though?FelixFelix ^talk 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What process, exactly, was similar? Even interpreting this narrowly, the idea that anything FDR did was very much like the Enabling Act is ridiculous. The book description of Shivelbusch suggests that he does not, in fact, feel that the New Deal was Fascist: "Far from equating Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini or minimizing their acute differences, Schivelbusch proposes that the populist and paternalist qualities common to their states hold the key to the puzzling allegiance once granted to Europes most tyrannical regimes." I don't think anyone would disagree that there were similarities (although there would certainly be disagreement on how important they are). But that those similarities are what constitutes "fascism" is an argument I don't think anyone serious would make or has made. john k 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

His recognition that they were not the same does not negate the fact that they were very similar. I'm sure any scholar of fascism would recognize profound differences between the German and Italian variants, but these are both still considered fascist by most. This section is about regimes that have been called fascist. Most of the other regimes don't even have a reference. This one has a reference that points to the work of a scholar and two arch-fascists pointing out the similarities with fascism. If you were to apply your standards to all regimes in the section, the section would not exist. (JoeCarson 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

To my mind, the section is supposed to be about governments which are widely held to be fascist. That some people think that a particular goverment is fascist is not necessarily enlightening or notable. I think you'll find far more descriptions of the current US administration being fascist, than FDR's administration (and alot for the current UK government too... ). I don't think that this is a difficult concept to grasp.FelixFelix ^talk 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current US administration should be listed as a regime which is often called fascist. But if we are only to include those regimes which are widely held to be fascist, then the list certainly needs some pruning. I am going to hide this section until we can agree on a NPOV rewrite. (JoeCarson 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

I don't see why the list has to be hidden whilst the aforementioned pruning occurs-I'll reveal it now.FelixFelix ^talk 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Carson-is there any reason you wish to smear FDR and the New Deal?

Spain

I do not know of the historical sources that claim Tojo's Japan was fascist, and woul dlike to know what they are. However, I think there is overwhelming agreement among historians that Franco's Spain was fascist - it was authoritarian if not totalitarian, relied on a highly exclusionary kind of nationalism, and was corporatist. I see no justification for removing the example, if anything we should add much more material on Spain. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested removing Spain? I thought Franco's fascism was widely accepted. I know my family experienced it first hand. (JoeCarson 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

There is certainly not "overwhelming agreement" that Franco's Spain was fascist. It certainly included many fascist elements, and the Falange was clearly a fascist movement in the 30s, but I would say that the general consensus is that Francoism does not really conform all that well to the ideal type of fascism represented by Italian Fascism and German National Socialism in the 20s and 30s. It relied too much on traditional conservatism, and, notably, Franco himself was a general, not a party leader. Certainly Franco's movement owed a lot to Fascism, and it is often considered to be fascist in non-specialist works, but I'd say that if you look at books on comparative fascism, Franco's Spain is considered a hybrid at best, like Antonescu's regime in Romania. As to Tojo, I would say that no specialists would call 1930s and 40s Japan fascist, but that in more popular literature, it, along with just about every other right wing authoritarian movement of the period, has been considered to be fascist, and sometimes called such. I think Barrington Moore uses Japan as his case study on fascism in Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, for instance. The Fascist connections are obviously far weaker for Japan than they are for Franco's Spain, however, where the influence of genuine fascist tendencies is much more universally acknowledged. But actually describing Franco's regime as a "fascist" one is certainly not universally accepted. john k 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these comparisons are valuable but the article is currently not organized in a way to facilitate effective presentation of these scholarly debates. What do you suggest? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Although this was certainly a dominant theme of German National Socialism, it wasn't in Italian Fascism for example, so I've removed it from the defining characteristics of fascism in the intro.FelixFelix ^talk 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry does not seem to be dedicated to the narrow meaning of "fascism" (i.e., Mussolini's brand) but to the broader movement that included the Spanish Falangistas, the French, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc. nationalist/existentialist movements of the 30s. Broadly speaking, Fascism was anti-semitic. In addition, it is undeniable that Italian Fascism had a streak of xenofobia and nationalism in it, which if it did not extinguish the tiny Italian Jewish community, as the Germans did, it is doubtful that had the Axis won the war it would've not done it, too. In conclusion, the distinction is specious and in the given context, narroly casuistic. --Damis 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for fascism being broadly anti-semitic? A separate section on the German form should certainly include this, but I do not believe anti-semitism was a defining quality of fascism. (JoeCarson 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I'd say no. After doing a cursory search through the books I have and some papers the closest I've seen is Richard Griffiths who argues that while not inherently racist or anti-semitic (Fascism, pg. 3) it was the policy of many fascist movements and therefore, when looking at fascism from an international perspective, becomes something we can ascribe to fascism because it was such a common policy (ibid, pg. 133-136). However, Eatwell, Griffin, Passmore, and others argue against this thinking (using Italian Fascism and Salazar's Estado Novo as common influential counter examples). If it's to be included it should be something along the lines of "Most scholars reject the argument that anti-semitism or racism is a defining characteristic of fascism, however, there is a portion that argue that since it was a common enough policy it should be included in the definition for practical purposes". - DNewhall 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can an exception test (and confirm) the rule? I always thought that the answer was yes. Fascism was, by and large, antisemitic. German, French, Scandinavian, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Austrian (need I continue) brands of fascism were strongly and murderously antisemitic. If you want to qualify the statement you might probably say "While there were some regimes that did not practice overt anti-semitism (e.g., Italian or Spanish), most fascist movements have practiced various forms of antisemitism, from genocidal policies to discriminatory legislations." As for antisemitism in Mussolini's Italy see [3] --Damis 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism

As this is covered by Totalitarianism,as discussed above [4], I've removed it from the intro. There's no point having multiple redundant characteristics in the intro, which should be punchy and to the point.FelixFelix ^talk 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As Anarcho-capitalism explained it, it's not redundant. -- Vision Thing -- 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism is a philosophy that the group, the collective, is more important than the individual and that self-interest should be put aside in favor of promoting the interest of the collective - whether it is a nation, race, state, or social class. Totalitarianism is not a philosophy but a state of affairs. All totalitarianism is not necessarily based in the philosophy of collectivism. The fascist form of totalitarianism, however, always is. (Also, not all totalitarianism is fascism).Anarcho-capitalism 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ALL totalitarianism is necessarily based on collectivism-how can it not be? Can you provide any examples which are not, in philosophy or practice? As such, it's a type of collectivism-thus making that term in the intro redundant.FelixFelix ^talk 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can easily conceive of a totalitarian regime based on religion - subservience to God rather than subservience to the group - that God simply commanded this form of government. But, fascism is always based on the philosophy of subservience of the individual to a collective, whether that's a race, nation, state, or social group.Anarcho-capitalism 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase you-totalitarianism is always based on the philosophy of subservience of the individual to a collective, whether that's a race, nation, state, or social group. Your religious totalitarian regime would have to have subservience to God AND the group, or it would be individualist, and thus not totalitarian.FelixFelix ^talk 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true that "all totalitarianism is necessarily based in collectivism," the philosophy of collectivism is distinct from the state-enforced adherence to that philosophy. That's even implicit in your assertion.Anarcho-capitalism 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the philosophy (if you can call it that) of collectivism is much wider than the practice of totalitarianism-which is a specific form, as I've said before.FelixFelix ^talk 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if totalitarianism isn't always collectivist - which it seems to be - statism is, no? We should include the specific terms, not the incredibly broad "collectivism" and "individualism" whih together incorporate everything. Anyhow, when can totalitarianism not be collectivist? Totalitarianism is about the acts of the state, which are always based on the importance of some collective rather than the individual. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An Islamic theocracy would be totalitarian but not based in collectivism. The philosophy behind it is not sacrifice of self-interest for a collective but for Allah. Collectivism is usually what's used to justify statism, but not always. What links all forms of totalitarianism, though, is the idea that there is some "greater good" than self-interest - whether that greater good is a a state, a race, or a god. If you can convince people of that, you can manipulate and exploit them.Anarcho-capitalism 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. It's a big thing to separate the "individual," "god," from the collective, the religion or church. Especially so when you're separating a metaphysical concept from a physical organisation. Regardless of that though, because either way would constitute OR, can statism not be collectivist? ~Switch ^{t c g} 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and the political right

The discussion continues. "most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements." this is a defensible statement, easily documented, and discussed repeatedly here on this page and on other Wiki pages.--Cberlet 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with adding that statement, but we shouldn't begin the intro with it. (JoeCarson 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Apart from being riddled with weasel words ("who are those most"), this statement is not defensible. If this article is going to talk about "fascism in its broadest sense," and not just Italian fascism, then France is a good second place to look. Robert Soucy acknowledges that are two "Schools" of researchers of French fascism (the others rallying around Sternhell), and it basically boils down to the question if Croix-de-Feu is fascist or not. Intangible2.0 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian obscure marginal citation contest is distorting this entry

The insertion of absurdly obscure citations to suggest that most major scholars of fascism agree with the increasingly distorted list of common features of fascism must be jolly fun if it is a contest, but for an encyclopedia, it is creating a biased and distorted entry. The issue is what most major scholars of fascism consider core elements. I am sure if I dug through obscure citations I could find equally absurd things to add to the list, but it would not make the entry accurate nor NPOV. We really need to discuss this troubling new pattern of edits.--Cberlet 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism

The mediation request was closed becasue not all listed editors agreed to the mediation. We still need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. I invite editors of this page to participate. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the question is no, and we have dealt with this ad nauseum before. It is time to treat these kinds of arguments the way people at the Evolution page deal with creationists. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is undoubtedly yes, but this should have no bearing on the title for that article.JoeCarson 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini clearly stated:

• "We cannot confiscate the property of landlords; we are fascists, not socialists." [source: Weiss, John. The Fascist Tradition. Harper & Row, 1967. page 91]

Italian fascists never called themselves socialists. The application of the term "socialism" to Italian fascism is done exclusively by outside sources, usually libertarian or conservative. -- Nikodemos 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So Hitler doesn't count?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Adolf Hitler

JoeCarson 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just proven that different fascists made different and often contradictory statements on the subject of socialism. (By the way, that quote was not even necessary - we already know that Hitler called himself a "National Socialist"). There are likewise numerous quotes by fascists saying they support private property and free enterprise, and numerous quotes by fascists saying they want to impose restrictions on private property and free enterprise. Does that make sense? No. And that's the whole point. Some fascist views do not, in fact, make sense. -- Nikodemos 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So is Nikodemos going to reply that just because the NAZI's called it socialism that it wasn't? That would ruin his argument that since Mussolini said it was not socialism that it wasn't. When it comes down to it it doesn't matter what those leaders said. The systems were what they were. I don't know how anyone can deny that they were both socialism. Property was controlled by the state for social good. Billy Ego 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with Mussolini? Interesting. I thought you were a fascist. -- Nikodemos 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do disagree with Mussolini. I don't know how he was defining socialism but the system was socialism. He was a master politicians and knew what to say to get elected. Billy Ego 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume you are right about Mussolini. How do you decide which things he said for propaganda's sake and which things he was being truthful about? Same goes for Hitler. -- Nikodemos 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By looking at the actual economies. It's not necessarily a matter of them being truthful or not more than it is a matter of how they were defining their terms. We do know that both Hitler and Mussolini were in favor of putting property under social control. If you examine the systems both of those economies property was either nationalized or if kept private it was put under the control of the state to make sure that that property was used in the public interest. Billy Ego 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's why they are labelled right-wing. Hundreds of political scientists, historians, and economists have written on fascism. If they are socialist how come the majority of these people say they are right-wing? Furthermore, how do you define socialism? If I consider the word "red" to mean the color blue then I can argue that the sky is usually red with you indefinitely and still be correct. The way around this is to use commonly accepted definitions and I believe that using the most commonly accepted definitions of socialism and comparing them to the most commonly accepted definitions of fascism will show that the two are fundementally different.

However, here's the end-all-be all argument for me. Fascism was from the beginning vehemently opposed to communism, democracy, and socialism. That's what they themselves said. Are they self-hating socialists then? Also, Mussolini advocated neo-liberal economics so much so that Milton Friedman wrote about Italy's economic policies in a good light. How's capitalism socialist? Plus, socialism is more than just an economic policy, there is a fundemental underlying social policy which fascism rejects. - DNewhall 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I define socialism as the state controlling a nation's resources for the public good. Mussolini was led to believe laissez-faire was the best policy in the beginning but he soon came to the realization that it was not in the people's interest. The capitalist were exploiting the people by being allowed free reign. "The IRI invested directly in industry, particularly shipping, steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, electricity and telephones. By 1938 the Italian state controlled four-fifths of shipping and shipbuilding, three quarters of iron and half of steel, while as a result of the 1936 Banking Reform Act, the the Bank of Utaly and most other large banks become public institutions. By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." -Adrian Lyttelton (editor), "Liberal and fascist Italy, 1900-1945", Oxford University Press, 2002. pp. 13 The means of production were controlled by the state as the people's representative. Industry syndicates were set up to make sure people received a proper wage, employment insurance, health benefits, etc Prices of goods were set through syndicates so that everyone could afford them. A welfare system was set up for the poor. And so on. If that's not socialism I don't know what is. Billy Ego 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have that book (Liberal and fascist Italy), and nothing like that quote appears on page 13. That page deals with the last years of World War II and does not include any reference to the "IRI".

On another note, rather than arguing in vain about the meaning of "socialism", isn't it better to just list the concrete economic policies and let the readers decide what name they should go by? -- Nikodemos 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Wrong source. It's Mussolini and Fascism by Patrick Knight, Routledge 2003, page 65. Billy Ego 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened. I accidently cut and pasted the source that was below that one in the Economics of fasicsm article list of references. Billy Ego 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Mussolini was using the term "socialism." He was referring to "Marxian socialism." "Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism." Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore Billy Ego 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------------::Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Billy Ego 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, not again!! Here is the final answer: the vast majority of scholars say no, a small but significant minority says yes, and all of your personal opinions do not matter. Period!! What's wrong with this place?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is NO! To JoeCarson and Billy Ego, and all you fanatically capitalist Ludwig von Mises/Friedrich Hayek/Ayn Rand nuts, assuming fascism is a subtype of socialism, by your very definition feudalism is a form of socialism! After all, feudalism entails a centrally-planned command economy with state ownership! So I guess (by your definition) socialism OUTLIVED CAPITALISM BY AT LEAST 3000 YEARS! After all, if socialism means state ownership and control of the economy, then feudalism is part of socialism, and the Roman Empire was a feudal society. Therefore the Roman Empire was socialist!

Element of fascism: "opposition to laissez faire capitalism"?

In the listed elements of fascism is "opposition to laissez faire capitalism", and the references given are the following:

• Calvin B. Hoover, The Paths of Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World, The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20;

• Philip Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168

Could the text for these sources be provided for independent review? I have seen no evidence that fascists opposed free market capitalism and did they not ally themselves with them? --Jfrascencio 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."

This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."

We fascists do not trust the market to take care of things. The market can operate to an extent, but state must make sure resources are distributed in an equitable manner and make sure that workers aren't being exploited. We support minimum wage laws, welfare system, laws against usury, etc. That's what fascism is all about. The "invisible hand" just doesn't work. Billy Ego 03:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascists, especially Strasserites, often claim to be a "third way" between capitalism and communism. Almost all socialists and the majority of scholar claim this is a deluded self-perception. --Cberlet 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it not a third way? Is it laissez-faire capitalism? No. Is it Marxian socialism? No. Therefore it's a third way. Besides some nationalization private property is allowed but the use of that property is under the supervision and control of the state to make sure it is used for the common good. There is a welfare system, wage controls, price controls, etc. Billy Ego 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now how about some text from the source that is alleged to say that "most" scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements? The source given in the article is John Hoffman and Paul Graham. Introduction to Political Theory. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X Billy Ego 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has happened before. The majority of editors believe that the most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years have disagreements, but generally do not describe fascism using the terms developed by fascists to describe themselves. Nor do most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years adopt the perspective of the libertarian/Austrian School ideologues, none of whom are considered mainstream scholars of fascism by most academics who study fascism. Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find.--Cberlet 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What "marginal view" are you talking about? Billy Ego 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just caught a really flawed from statement from you. You said "Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find." Well, if many sources can be found, then it is by definition not a marginal view. Capisce? Or are views "marginal" just because you say they are? Billy Ego 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find thousands of cites from the Marxist left on the nature of fascism, probably far more than you can find cites for your marginal views. In neither case would this justify adding this to the lead, or making it a disproportionate part of the entry. Even for fascists, size isn't everything...--Cberlet 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you are able to find more cites for your views? The only way to know what is marginal and what is not is to actually try to pull up sources and compare numbers. So far you're saying that other views are marginal. There is no reason to believe you. Billy Ego 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to visit a library and see what I am saying is easy to document.--Cberlet 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't documented it. You're just saying it. Where is your comparison of the numbers of sources? Billy Ego 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet does not have to do your research for you, nor does he have to prove anything. Since the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to alter the status quo (see WP:SOURCE), it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the article, as it previously stood, did not present the views of the majority. -- WGee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The burden is on whoever wants to delete the material. If something has a source then it shouldn't be deleted. I can go around deleting sourced things that you put in by claiming they're "marginal." But do I? No. I'm not a vandal. There is no way to know what is "marginal" or not without a thorough compilation of sources and comparing numbers. Billy Ego 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Please study Wiki guidelines and stop disrupting this and other pages.--Cberlet 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. You're simply wrong. And you're vandalizing articles when you delete cited text with your self-righteous claim that views that you don't subscribe to are "marginal." Billy Ego 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person adding content, not removing content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your source talks about opposition to laissez faire (or opposition to the theory of no or very little government involvement in the economy). It says nothing about opposition to laissez faire capitalism/ free market capitalism. Your source does not say what you are trying to make it say. fascism does not oppose free market capitalism and it is false to state that when under fascism, both coexisted. Fascist states did have free market capitalist economies that were made to serve the state. It did not oppose free market capitalism, it controlled free market capitalism to make it a servant to the state. There was a functioning free market capitalism system in place. --Jfrascencio 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascist economy centers on war production. Since it has no interest in the welfare of the masses of people and prefers to depress wages of workers and farmers and lower their standard of living, goods for popular consumption are of secondary importance

— Facts and Fascism by George Seldes, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/George_Seldes/Facts_and_Fascism.html

--Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."

What do you mean with "regulated laissez faire." Hoover writes himself that laissez faire had been abandonded in both principle and practice in Germany and Italy. Intangible2.0 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "regulated laissez-faire" is meaningless. Either it's laissez-faire or it's not. Fascists are for a state directed economy to serve the common good. Billy Ego 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence is just false and is not supported by any reputable source. Fascism is not socialism or communism, and you will just fail trying to spin things to make it something it is not. --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? The last sentence is supported by the source we're talking about. It says "the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group." Fascism is opposed to allowing the capitalist to do whatever he wants with his property. Property rights are contingent upon using it for the benefit of the group, that group being the society. Billy Ego 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "Fascists are for state directed economy to serve the common good". You are twisting people's words, while ignoring that the source talks about the nation being the group. In fascism the state or nation is an organism working to serve something beyond or greater than any single individual or any group of which this organic state is made out of. --Jfrascencio 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "twisting" anything. I'm saying the same thing you are saying. You just don't realize what "common good" means. It means the public good, as opposed to the individual good. We fascists believe that the common good is more important than the individual good. It is right that the individual sacrifice all for the survival of the people even if that sacrifice is his life itself. The individual should live to serve not himself but the group. The same principle applies to businesses. They must be controlled by the state to make sure they are serving the public good instead of functioning in their own interests by exploiting the people for maximum profit and interest. It is not capitalism because in capitalism the capitalist has control over the means of production. It is not Marxian socialism because there is private property. But it something in between. It is a "third way." Billy Ego 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "regulated laissez faire" (without the word capitalism) means regulation of what is not or should not be controlled. "Laissez faire" is French for "let it be". However, you could "let it be", and then regulate when it gets out of line (like not acting in the intrests of the state). There can be a free market capitalist economy that is regulated (e.g. the United States: Is it a free market economy? yes. Is it regulated? yes). --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That still does not mean that fascist actually opposed free market capitalism. This excerpts showed that there was a coexistence between free market capitalism and fascism as long as the free market was the servant to the state. Note the "Nevertheless", meaning there were things to the contrary of that sentence. Meaning that fascists did not oppose the exploitation or oppose free market capitalism itself just that the capitalist is now the state and the free market capitalist owner of the means of production must obey the state. It also describes the inequality, with the condition on the laborers being "onerous" (very difficult), this goes against what socialism or communism is trying to accomplish egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production by the people. Communism tries to abolish private property and the state. Socialism is a transition to that end. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."

Fascism is known for economic output that exceeds even free market capitalism. While socialism/communism is known for weak economic productivity. Fascism is the reason that fascist states recovered from the great depression so quickly compared to free market capitalist states. Nazi Germany was second in recovering from the great depression if IRC. All that above means is that fascism has become an alternative to both communism/socialism and free market capitalism. Not necessarily where it falls compared to these systems. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fascist/Nazi governments did regulate the economy and have a welfare state, but so did capitalist democratic governments. Most governments in so-called capitalist countries have placed restrictions on the economy, have used government spending to boost certain sectors of the economy, have expected some sacrifices from its citizens for the common good, and have set up programs to help the needy. This is especially true during wartime or economic downturns. If that translated into anti-capitalism, then I guess that means the US, the UK and similar non-fascist/non-communist countries are anti-capitalist too. I have seen no evidence that fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were any more opposed to laissez fair capitalism than those two Western capitalist democracies and other similar countries. There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term.Spylab 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were true that "There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term," what is the relevancy of that? Opposition to laissez-faire comes from fascism. Fascism is the inspiration and model for economic planning, welfare systems, social security, minimum wage, etc. There are economies in the world today that fascists would be pleased with. But they would not be pleased with something like the U.S. because there is not enough state control over the means of production. Capitalists are allowed to run wild in the U.S. and the people suffer. Maybe the better term is opposition to "liberal capitalism" because it's not just "absolute" laissez-faire that fascists oppose. Billy Ego 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are wrong about that. Opposition to laissez-faire capitalism does not come from fascism. There was opposition to laissez-faire capitalism long before the development of fascist ideology. This opposition cam from various sectors of the economy and various factions within the political spectrum. Fascism is not the inspiration for concepts such as economic planning, welfare systems, social security and minimum wage. Again, many of those ideas were around long before the development of fascist ideology. Also, the development of the modern welfare state was partially a response to economic downturns and partially a reward for the sacrifice of working class citizens during wartime. It was also partially a reaction to the rising support for socialism among the working class. Those in power proposed the development of the welfare state as a way to address some of the needs of the working class, in order to quench their thirst for revolution. Spylab 15:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is the same capitalism based on nazism and totalitarism. Communism is the fight for freedom and against the slavery imposed by capitalists (opposite to capitalism). Socialism is the middle way ideology, that is it combines the best qualities of both (no monopoly and no private big corporations). Liberalism is the same capitalism based on free exploitation without government involvment (or some rules against free exploitation). Capitalism is the base of all evel on our earth. All wars before communism was caused by this ideology when a small group of individuals takes all profit of work and the vaste majority are sheer slaves. Monarchy is the same capitalism ruled by dynasties.

"Extremism of the Center"

This is given:

Albert Breton. Political Extremism and Rationality. Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 79

As a reference to this:

However, some scholars say it is an "extremism of the center."

Many illustrations of this mechanism come to mind. One is the fact that Hitler found electoral support among voters who normally voted for parties of the center, and more generally the fact that fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" (see, for examaple, Kershaw 1992, Sternhell 1978). In that case, what could motivate the middle classes is their fear of the consequences of the adoption of some economic policies reflected in the move from mainstream position from R to R'.

— Political Extemism and Rationality By Albert Breton, Page 79 Excerpt

Clearly, Albert Breton does not outright say or argue that "fascism is an extremism of the center". You can't just write "fascism is an extremism of the center" because this is not generally accepted and it won't stand on its own. "Some" is being used to throw this out there without naming the proponents of this claim or where their argument can be found. --Jfrascencio 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He says it can plausibly considered exteremism of the center. And He's giving the names of people who say that is "extremism of the center." (Kershaw and Sternhell). Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No he says that it can be interpreted with SOME DEGREE of plausibility. Plausibility = apparent validity = validity appearing as such but not necessarily being valid. The two names given are authors of two books that give examples of how fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" --Jfrascencio 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the authors he lists are those who say it is extremism of the center. Hold on I'll give you direct sources. Billy Ego 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For "extremism of the center" also see Lipset's Political Man where he talks about fascism as extremism of the middle class. -- Vision Thing -- 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also "The classic fascist movements have represented the extremism of the center." ---Aristotle Kallis, Routlege 2003, page 113 Billy Ego 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Productive industrial capitalism"?

Someone wrote in the introduction that the sources says that Nazis "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Where in these sources does it say that? I don't see it. I'm challenging this. If it can't be verified that the sources say this then it needs to be removed. Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Billy Ego, let me know what you could not find in the cite: Moishe Postone. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier There is a detailed discussion of the artifical and antisemitic division of capitalism into productive industrial capitalism v. parasitic finance capitalism. The Nazis did not invent the consept, but they built their ideology around it. Do you think this cite is just a dollop of chopped liver? I think it is a full meal!--Cberlet 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it in there. Where does it say that they supported "what they considered productive industrial capitalism."? YOu are saying that they called it "industrial capitalism." On what page number of the book does it say this? If you don't come up with a more specific cite then it has to be deleted. Billy Ego 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My summary of a brilliant article by Moishe. Go to a library and go look for yourself and tell me when you have done that and why you disagree. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the 1986 book is anything like the same 1980 essay from Moishe, I think there are some problems. It reeks of New Leftish critical theory, in the standard framework of Marxist ideas on "big capitalist." Intangible2.0 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the article and yes it is very strange. But I don't see it saying anywhere that Nazi's "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Postone talks about "industrial capitalism" in his theorizing but I don't see him say that the Nazi's considered what they embraced to be "industrial capitalism." Cberlet won't give any page number and he won't give any quotes so we can check up on his claim. I think we should delete it. Billy Ego 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"National Socialism"

There was a party in Germany called German Workers' Party in 1919 of about 50 members. Hitler, a corporal, was sent by German intelligence to investigate the party. He got into an argument with party members, where they asked him to join after impressing them with his speaking ability. He later joined the party

The party became National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1920 against what Hitler wanted it to be renamed to "Social Revolutionary Party." Hitler accepted the new party name with the "National Socialist" part because it appealed to the working class and it inspired patriotism and nationalism, and also because there was no clear interpretation of the phrase.

Hitler defined the terms nationalism and socialism in an unusual way. Hitler defined nationalism as the devotion of the individual to the nation. He defined socialism as responsibility of others for each individual.

The fact remains that there was rising support of the working class for socialism and communism at the time. Politicians tend to say anything in public speeches to gain support. So using what Hitler said to the public during his rise to power should be done in a skeptical questioning way. What should be examined is the actual system that Hitler had in place when he was in power. --Jfrascencio 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Socialism" has always been a vague term. But basically, if you're opposed to capitalism you're a socialist of some color. Billy Ego 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're anti-Capitalist. Fascism has shown that you can be anti-Capitalist and not Socialist. Tazmaniacs

That "actual system" that Hitler had in place was definitely not laissez-faire capitalism or anything close to that. There was private ownership of the means of production but that alone does not make capitalism. The means of production were strongly regulated to serve the public good. Billy Ego 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that some refer to Communist states' economic policies as "state capitalism"? Just passing by... Tazmaniacs

I think something along "opposition to economic and political liberalism" in the intro will do just fine. Intangible2.0 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and racism (moved controversial statement)

I moved this here. It should not be included in the introduction because it is only one view on the matter. Others historians have argued the importance of anti-Semitism in Fascism, as well as of racism (see the review Difesa della Razza, for example). To claim Fascism had nothing to do with racism is overlooking the fascist project of creating a "new man;" it prevents understanding the use of sports and the condemnation of so-called "degenerate art" which perverted the "race". If you want to reintroduce that statement, do so in a subsection concerning "Fascism and Racism."

Though a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs, racism is not a constitutive element of fascism.
<ref>Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 
 University of Michigan Press. p. 30</ref>

Tazmaniacs 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So your justification of removing it is just your personal opinion that fascism is a constitutive element of fascism? Do you have a source that says it is? That source says it is not, so why aren't you respecting that and deleting out of the article? One don't have to be a racist to be a fascist. Billy Ego 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on fascism and race, but this a complex issue, even more so if one allows for generic fascism. It would be good to make this point clear though in the introduction, to say it is not a defining characteristic (at least not in the early "stage"). There were certainly prominent Jews (e.g. Sarfatti, Finzi) who worked together with Mussolini; anti-Semitism only became part of the fascistic discourse in the 1930s. Intangible2.0 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

they are also Jews and Blacks in the Front National. So what? Your claim concerning anti-Semitism and Fascism is, however, more to the point. But Fascism has always had to do with claims of "regenerating the nation" and creating a "new man". And how can you "regenerate" if there has not been (racial) "degeneration" before? Tazmaniacs 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also say that the 1938 racial laws were passed as a pragmatic response to the demands of Nazi Germany, and so not really part of fascist ideology per se. Intangible2.0 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And why did you delete the Mussolini opposed Marxian socialism when it says in the essay referenced "Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism."? Billy Ego 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And why are you deleting that Mussolini opposed both political and economic liberalism when it says in the source referenced "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere."? Billy Ego 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, start reading WP:Talk and not confusing subjects. This section is adressed on "Fascism & race," hence I will respond to this claim. Yes, I have sources to back what I say, and Intangible's comments have more validity than yours. What I argued is that this is a complex topic, and as such, should be asserted in such an unilateral way in the intro. As much Intangible's POV can be argued (that it is not inherent to Fascism), as much the other can be argued. So there is a debate. Or do you want to claim that there is no debate? Tazmaniacs 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do say Intangible's comments have more validity than mine? And yes I do want to claim there is no debate except possibly in marginal circles who don't know too much about fascism around the world. You say you have sources, so let's see them instead of you just giving your personal opinion here. Billy Ego 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sic. Tazmaniacs 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any sources to back up what you are saying or not? Billy Ego 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism

It is meaningless to say "Fascists opposed laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism." Finance capitalism is a specific mode of capitalism (which deals with finance). Laissez-faire is an economic policy related to classical liberalism, which advocates to not put any rules or state intervention on the market. Despite explicit ideologies, no state on Earth is faithfull to such classical liberalism theories, and the US least of all (with all the funds given to research and others stuff). It simply is senseless to include the two concepts in the same sentence as if they both designated rival types of capitalism. Furthermore, this article is about Fascists in general, and Italian Fascism and Nazism are the archetypes of such movements. There is thus no need to explicitly quote Nazism in the intro. If you do, use the term Nazism, not "National Socialist" (per discussion above). Finally, part on anti-Semitism related to capitalism is not needed in intro. Here is the controversed passage (which I have not removed myself for the time being (see diff):

Fascists also opposed laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. Many, particularly 
National Socialists,  considered the latter parasitic and associated it with Jews.<ref>Postone, Moishe.
  1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West 
 Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier.</ref><ref>Calvin B. Hoover, ''The Paths of
  Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World'', The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, *
 Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. 
 (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20; Philip Morgan, ''Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168</ref>

Tazmaniacs 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They are seen as diffrent types of capitalism. See laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Finance capitalism is Marxist theory, it's not an ideology one can oppose, it's not even analytical, and reeks of historicism. Again, I think the intro should just state that fascism is opposed to economic and political liberalism. Intangible2.0 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and it is two different criticisms to go with it. Billy Ego 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism revolted against laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was seen as the cause of the Great Depression. Laissez-faire capitalism did indeed exist, and no this doesn't have to mean "absolutely" no intervention. It is a relative term. Economic planning, full employment policy, etc came from fascism. Fascist economics was sweeping the world. The idea was not to let the market take charge but to take charge of the market by controlling it for the public good. If "classical liberal" capitalism doesn't exist now it's to the credit of the fascists. Billy Ego 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The concepts of economic planning, full employment and restrictions on the free-market capitalism did not come from fascism. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously make that claim.Spylab 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority). ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64 Billy Ego 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• That quote doesn't support your claim that fascism is the origin of ideas such as economic planning, restrictions on the market and social welfare. Those concepts were around long before fascist ideology was developed. Besides, that quote is just one person's opinion and is not historically accurate. Fascism borrowed ideas from lots of different sources. Fascists did not invent all the concepts that you're claiming they invented.Spylab 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they were the first to "invent" economic planning but they were the first ones to at least put the ideas together and actually put them to practical use, so the world looked with reverence upon the fascist model. Billy Ego 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fascists were not the first to implement economic planning. Governments had been planning and regulating their economies since markets first existed. In more recent history, Communist countries implemented economic planning before the fascists came to power. Spylab 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the TYPE of economic planning we're talking about. In communist countries, the means of production are owned by the state so of course they controlled those. In fascist countries, though there were nationalizations, most of the means of production were privately owned. Fascist economic planning allows private ownership but strong state control over those means of production. It's neither liberal capitalism such as we see in the USA (though the USA has some mild shades of it) nor communism, but something in between. Billy Ego 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• That may be true, but I'd want to see reliable sources to back up those historical claims. And if it is true, then from now on you should be more specific about the type of economic planning your are talking about, instead of making generalizations that aren't backed up by historical fact. Also, despite the USA's claims of being a free market economy, there are controls over the economy and other interferences in the market such as subsidies and tax breaks for certain industries. The US economy also has social welfare programs. I'm still not convinced that fascist economics are that much different than the economics in other countries, other than outlawing independent democratically-run trade unions and cracking down on labour activists.Spylab 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The type of planning is economic planning of a private ownership economy. I gave you source. "Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority)." ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64. The USA is a generally free-market economy. Nothing is ideal this or that. It's not absolute laissez-faire at all. But it's not controlled to the degree that fascists prefer, which would be something closer to social democratic countries. FDR however did attempt to implement the fascist model though with the New Deal. Mussolini even said ""Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." Billy Ego 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your mentions of social democratic countries and the New Deal show that those economic policies are not unique to fascism, and you have not proven that fascists were the originators of those policies. Also, your quote of one person's opinion does not prove that fascists were the first to introduce those types of economic policies. The quote does not compare specific policies in different countries and what dates they were introduced. Historical claims have to be backed up by hostorical facts. And we haven't even discussed the economic planning that was in place in pre-capitalist markets... Spylab 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not claimed that a planned private ownership economy is unique to fascism. I am claiming that we first saw it from from the fascists. It did not exist prior to the Great Depression. Mussolini was the first to implement it. From there, it spread around the world in varying degrees. But, I'm not claiming this in the article so I don't need "proof" of it. What I am claiming in the article is simply what is cited, which is that fascist economic planning foreshadowed what we've seen later in non-fascist countries. Billy Ego 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, please review WP:Talk page. This is not a political forum, but a page to discuss the article. Furthermore, your outlandish claims concerning fascism testify to a striking ignorance of history. One must not need be an historian of economics to know that all states involved in World War I implemented state control of economy and planified it (it's called war economy), and that was the first, massive use of such planified economy. Finally, concerning Vision Thing's claim, of course "financial capitalism" is not a synonym of "laissez-faire capitalism," I never pretended that. I said that one refers to an economic policy and ideology (classical liberalism) whereas another one refers to a special part of capitalism, the one concerned with finance economics (what we call the tertiary sector.) If you need references, have a passing look at the table of contents of Das Kapital, it might be more reliable than Wikipedia on that matter. Tazmaniacs 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism was first to do away the laissez-faire economy and institute economic planning. Other countries, such as the U.S. took Mussolini's lead. "War economy" came from the fascists. The U.S. today is in a war. So where is all the economic planning? Billy Ego 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Postone and Critical Theory

I am delighted that the libertarians and the fascist all dislike the work of Postone. It confirms my respect for Postone's work. Postone has published a serious analytical work. When Billy Ego, Intangible2.0, and -- Vision Thing -- publish their studies on fascism and capitalism, I am sure they will alert us so we can consider citing them. In the meantime their views remain marginal minority positions peddled in an aggressive and disruptive manor. POV pushing is a form of tendentious editing. This has gone on long enough. The minority position has had its say. It is time to move forward.--Cberlet 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said I disliked Postone's essay. I've just been asking for something specific like a page number or quote so we can verify what you claim it to say because I don't see it. Why won't you cooperate? Billy Ego 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that a work that has more than 800+ academic cites is not marginal? Maybe I do need to start quoting Hayek. At least he will be using an analytical concept of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Laissez faire/ free market and capitalism

Capitalism = supply and demand market economy with mostly private property. Regulation or planning in a capitalist economy does not make someone anti-capitalist. Opposition to laissez faire capitalism is not note worthy, because it is practically dead.

This is nonsence because do not exist such kind of market (cannot be free market at all, this is logic). Any economic system relies on supply-demand market, that is why all these countries develop. Everywhere is planning and regulations it is inevitable, chaos do not allow us to progress.

Laissez faire capitalism was a reaction to Mercantilism. Does government intervention = socialism? Then Mercantilism is a form of socialism if that is the case, but it is not.

Socialism/Communism was a reaction to free market capitalism (or laissez faire capitalism) by the lower or working class. Fascism was a reaction to the rising power of the lower and working class. It was a reaction to maintain the existing order.

That is true. Moreover fascism must contain nazism elements or some superiority against others. And not only to free market but any kind of capitalism. Socialism and mercantilism is two completely different ideologies cause in mercantilism can only exist private economy with some restrictions.

Take the capitalist economy of the U.S. for example: market economy, supply and demand, mostly private property. However there is regulation and government intervention or opposition to laissez faire (i.e. no government intervention).

Is laissez faire communism possible? In theory yes. That is a system with no government intervention, but no private property, property is shared, and a classless society. --Jfrascencio 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? You cannot have an advanced economy without private property. Intangible2.0 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

His point was that opposition to laissez-faire does not equal opposition to capitalism. I'm sure you would agree that the vast majority of economies in the world today are not laissez-faire. Does that mean that the vast majority of economies in the world today are anti-capitalist? On another note, I'm not sure what you define as an "advanced economy", but economic systems without private property certainly have existed and continue to exist. -- Nikodemos 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I already stated that I would be happy to change that bit to refer to economic liberalism. Intangible2.0 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem lies in how different people define capitalism and socialism. Most people consider the US mostly capitalist, but Milton Friedman considered it only about half capitalist; the government controls 40% of the economy directly and government mandates and regulations bring it up to ~50%. His argument was that ownership of capital is essentially equivalent to being entitled to the product of that capital. Government entitlement to x% of profits is equivalent to x% ownership. By his definitions, most Western nations are more socialist than capitalist.JoeCarson 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

collectivism

These last changes were incorrect. Collectivism in this case does not only refer to economic planning. It also means anti-individualism, as in being subordinate to the state, which is a form of social planning. It needs to be changed back. Intangible2.0 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Nikodemos 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible OR

Fascism portrayed itself as seeking a transformative rebirth of the society, it opposed both liberal and conservative solutions to societal problems and it claimed to represent a Third Way between liberal capitalism and Marxist socialism.

This does not cite it's sources and it goes counter to what is generally accepted. Fascism is a conservative, right-wing movement and it is unfortunate that conservative/right wing individuals want to twist the truth because they refuse to accept it.

Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; ...its [fascism's] protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

— Fascism, Encyclopedia Britannica

--Jfrascencio 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote in the article is correct and is the most dominant view in scholarly research. Richard Griffiths in "Fascism" (2005) gives a large account about it on pgs. 15-16 (too much to type right now). Passmore in "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" talks about this in Ch. 2 (see Definition of fascism for a quote). There are certainly more sources but these two are the only two I have handy right now. The "transformative rebirth" part might be a bit harder to source but the opposition to "liberal and conservative solutions" is pretty well documented. - DNewhall 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Several scholars talk about Fascism as calling for the "transformative rebirth of the society," primarily Gentile's concept of "sacralization of politics;" and Griffin's concept of "palengenesis."--Cberlet 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate suffers from the same problems arising with Martin Heidegger's relationship with Nazism. Supporters of Heidegger claim he was not a Nazi, on grounds that some Nazis have opposed him. However, this is fallacious reasoning - and we are here confronted before the same fallacy: assuming that Fascism (or Nazism) represent a monolithic, coherent, ideology & movement. However, historians have demonstrated that:

• Fascism (I use the term "Fascism" in the sense of "historical Fascism": I think it better to use neo-Fascism for posterior movements, as Fascism, as the Encyclopedia Britannica's quote show, arose in a specific European context, immediately after WWI and the October Revolution) has got various historical stages: before taking power - taking power - state fascism - and what several historians have called the ultimate stage of fascism, "fascism in war" (some historians actually have stated that fascism follows a sort of teleology which culminated in war annihilation ; by the way, this concords with Foucault's statement in the Will to knowledge - see Talk:Fascism and ideology#Economic policy again). Thus, there is a diachronic distinction of fascism to make, which is very important to understand its "revolutionary" aspects.
• Fascism is not a monolithic movement, neither is Nazism. They agglomerate many, competiting people, groups and ideologies. It does not make a coherent ideology, as has been orthodox Marxism (that is, Marxist philosophy codified by the Komintern in some clearly defined thesis, easy to learn and to repeat). It is not supported by people who agree with themselves: hence the conflict between SA and SS, support by Futurists revolutionaries and by wealthy Italian bourgeoisie, etc.

I think we must make this clear in order to solve this controverse. Tazmaniacs 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bideleux and Jeffries

Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998 (ISBN 0-415-1611-8) provides some rather good discussion of various views of fascism. Someone may want to draw on some of this for the article.

• "During the 1930s almost all the ruling oligarchies in Eastern Europe sought authoritarian nationalist and quasi-fascist means of resolving or containing the acute tensions, political pressures and military challenges engendered by the 1930s Depression and the growing power and territorial/hegemonic ambitions of Fascist Italy and (after 1933) Nazi Germany." (p. 467)
• "The ruling oligarchies also often resorted to the creation of fascist or quasi-fascist states in the hope of heading off, undercutting or politically 'neutralizing' potential threats and challenges from the more wayward, anarchic and violent fascist and quasi-fascist movements that were emerging…" (p. 467–8)
• "However, it is often argued that the fascist or quasi-fascist parties, institutions and organizations created 'from above' by more traditional authoritarian rulers… were fundamentally different from the more autonomous, radical, mobilizatory fascist movements that 'conquered power' for their leaders and active supporters." (p. 468–469; they go on to quote several authors to this effect, including J. Linz, Hugh Seton-Watson)
• Hence, they conclude "Either we can adhere to a narrow, uniform, 'purist' conception of fascism, which would carry the very misleading implication that fascism as such was a relatively marginal, extraneous, peripheral phenomenon in inter-war Eastern Europe. Or we can uphold a broader, more variegated conception of fascism… This would make possible a greater appreciation of the multifaceted nature of European fascism…" (p. 469)
• They then discuss what they see as the limitations of a purist approach that sees Italian fascism and German Nazism each as a unique and ungeneralizable phenomenon. They quote and paraphrase from M. Kitchen, expressing this view that "fascism was essentially an extraneous, skin-deep phenomenon in Eastern Europe… 'imported' or even 'imposed'…" but call this "misleading and unsound". (p. 470) Kitchen apparently believes that proper fascism can only occur in a country that is already in a state of advanced capitalism: "Fascism is phenomenon of developed industrial states," a view they characterize as "quasi-Marxist", and also particularly problematic with reference to Italy. (p. 471)
• They go on to assert (p. 473–4) "…Italian Fascism had more in common with kindred movements in southern and eastern Europe than it did with German National Socialism" and quote Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1966, p. 308–9). They quote more extensively than this but, in part, "…even Mussolini, who was so fond of the term 'totalitarian state', did not attempt to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contented himself with dictatorship and one-party rule. Similar non-totalitarian dictatorships sprang up in pre-war Romania, Poland, the Baltic States, Hungary, Portugal and Franco's Spain." They then go on to discuss the forces in Italy and elsewhere that frustrated totalitarian ambitions. (p. 474 et. seq.)

Their discussion continues for another 20 pages and resumes later in the book, where they look also at the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist views of fascism (basically, they think the Marxists — and others — have some good points on economic matters, non-Marxists have good points on nationalism, and both tend to ignore the strengths of each other's views). I'm not going to try to summarize it all here; someone working on the article may want to get hold of the book, though. I think the discussion is excellent. Just a few more quotations:

• "…there is no generally accepted threshold beyond which authoritarian nationalist movements or regimes can clearly be said to have become fascist. The former 'shade off' into the latter." (p. 483)
• "Unlike Stalinism, fascism was not a monolithic phenomenon." (p. 483)
• "…one of the crucial tasks of any effective fascist leader was to hold the disparate elements together by creating and sustaining the illusion that the 'ideas' he put forward and the movement he led were coherent. He did so mainly by embodying and drawing together all the potentially conflicting strands in his own person and by concentrating fascist phobias and hatreds on a single 'arch-enemy'…"
• "The fascist movements were relative 'latecomers' on the party political scene… This… helps explain why fascism was to such a large extent defined by the things it opposed…" (p. 489)
• "It is … striking that fascism mainly developed in 'nations' which had attained 'national' unity and statehood relatively recently…" (p. 492)
• "Marxists were quite correct to emphasize that 'prole-bashing' ant-Bolshevism was a much more pronounced, pervasive and persistent feature of fascist ideology than its superficial and ephemeral anti-capitalism." (p. 514)
• Finally, they quote P. Togliatti, Lectures on Fascism: "…fascism must not be viewed as something which is definitively characterized: that it must be seen in its development, never as something set, never as a scheme or a model, but as the consequence of a series of real ecomonic and political relations resulting from real factors…" (They only date the quotation to a 1976 book, but this would have been written some time in the mid-1930s.)

- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The second part of your quotes is particularly relevant for our problem: Fascism is not monolithic. Something which Marxists, such as Togliatti, quickly understood, because of their own peculiar doctrinal habits of theorization. Togliatti, if my memory does not failed me, was one of the first to say that Fascism had to be understood historically in its development, and not as a "pure, ideal, ideology" (as if any ideology or political movement could be described in such a way, when even philosophy can not be described in such a way, without some reference to the political & historical context). The distinction between Fascism & quasi-Fascism, strict sense & broad sense is also a clear way of putting the problem, and allows for varying perspectives (hence avoiding any dogmatism). However, it is contrasted by the allusion that Fascism became to power in recent nation-states. Even more important than that, Arendt recalled that both Italy & Germany were revisionist states after WWI, and Fascism can not be understood without WWI (territorial disputes, but also plain awe before violence & war - see futurism movement & various veterans' association). This leads to an important problem: extending the definition of Fascism to make it a full-fledged European-wide movement (with influences even in North & South America) might lead to missing the important point that Fascism came to power only in Italy & Germany (if you accept that Nazism & Fascism are not as different as some claim they are). This reminds two historical discussions:

• one on "French fascism", initiated by Zeev Sternhell. French historians have defended their country's prestige by claiming that one could not assert the existence of "French fascism" because it remained a ultra-minoritary movement. Sternhell never really claimed the reverse, as his main argument was that the intellectual matrix of Fascism was to be found in France. In any cases, the degree of this "ultra-minority" is subject to caution and it would be nice to have foreign historians investigate the matter closely (as did Robert Paxton for Vichy). But the main point remains: Fascism did not gain power in France, and one of the main reason might be found in the absence of "revanchism" and irredentism after WWI. Quite to the contrary, French population feared war, in a diametrical opposition to Italy & Germany.
• the other on the appearance of capitalism in Europe, and not, as Fernand Braudel investigated, in China. Transposing the question here: why did Fascism become such a mass movement, which managed to take power, in Italy and, in the case of Nazism, in Germany, so early, while other countries had to wait WWII, at minima, to have fascists in power (showing that they did not have support of the majority of the population)? This answer, again, can only be resolved by the issues of WWI. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Twisting of references

Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a battle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a 'Third Way' between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.

— Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch, Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge 2003, p. 101

Text in Wikipedia Fascism article: "Fascist movements have often claimed to represent a "Third Way between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." (reference above given)

1. Reference talks about a claim, but makes no mention of who makes the claim.
2. The word "often" is not used in the reference.
3. The reference uses the word "Nonetheless" (meaning there were mentioned things to the contrary).
4. The reference appears to be taken out of context.

--Jfrascencio 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a specific section on this topic would be more than appropriate. It could discuss claims of representing a "Third Way" (without, please, linking that to that other claim, Third Way (centrism)), explain fascism relation's to revolutionary movements (beginning with anarcho-syndicalism), underline that this purported "revolutionary" aspect of fascism is related to its first, historical stage (before taking power) and that it is considered by the vast majority of historians to be in fact "counter-revolutionary" (also called "revolutionary right" by Sternhell). It could continue on by showing how fascism in power has favorized and supported various members of the upper classes; how fascism before taking power in Italy struck down workers' strikes and presented itself to the bourgeoisie as the sole way of retaining control of an insurrectionary context, etc. There is plenty to do, and a whole article by itself would not be enough. Finally, it could point out that the so-called "Third Position" is today used by the Strasserist movement or people who claim to follow it — and also that such movements have often hesitated between "alliance of the extremes" vs. simple alliance with the far-right, be it more reactionary (see Nouvelle Résistance's slogan: "Less leftism! More fascism!"). Tazmaniacs 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I think starting a major entry with a quote from a single scholar is a very bad idea.

• Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation (defined in exclusive biological, cultural, or historical terms) above all other loyalties.<ref name="Passmore">Kevin Passmore, ''Fascism: A Very Short Introduction'', pages 25-31. Oxford University Press, 2002</ref>

In any case, the lead quote and cite are simply butchered and need correction. If it is a "direct quote" as Nickodemos states, where are the quote marks? And the cite is missing information. What is the name of the book? A one sentence quote cannot run from pages 25-31. Either the quote is wrongly cited, or this is a chapter, or what?--Cberlet 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the book ("Fascism: A Very Short Introduction"), so I went to check. The sentence appears on page 31 (I have no idea why it was sourced to pages 25-31). What we have in the intro right now is not exactly a direct quote, but it's pretty close. In the book, this is the opening sentence of a lengthy definition of fascism, which goes as follows:

• "Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism."

I strongly suggest using sourced statements in the introduction, because, as the history of this article shows, it is utterly impossible for wikipedians to arrive at any sort of consensus about fascism. -- Nikodemos 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that WP:LEAD says that no source are even needed in the intro (my mistake: this policy has been changed it seems), as they should be provided in the body of the article. This means that we should be able, maybe through a draft here on talk page, to agree on a stable, consensual version (which means: excluding fringe views per WP:UNDUE). If we manage this incredible feat, we should be able to submit this draft intro to a poll, establish it, and keep it there in a stable manner. If someone's up to it... It should present, in a quick way, the mainstream view on Fascism, the various aspects of it, and the main points lifted by the article. Any controverse should be at most mentioned, but certainly not solved there. Further on, I think it should concentrate on historical Fascism: fascism is, after all, a political and social movement closely related to the inter-war period, and posterior movements are best called "neo-fascism". All in all, I think we have enough people here knowledgeable on Fascism who could easily make such a consensual draft (consensus does not mean including all extremist POV, but giving the state of knowledge of modern, mainstream research on the matter). Tazmaniacs 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: this nationalist definition of Fascism is very restricted. If Fascism was only nationalism (and I particularly appreciate the "biological", "cultural" or historical: so, do you know any type of fascism not based on ethnic nationalism?)... This is indeed a very insufficient definition, and would lead, to the dismay of most far-right contributors here, to the inclusion of all of today's far-right parties as Fascists! (not to say, to the inclusion of Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, etc. etc.) Tazmaniacs 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of the book is probably Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. To me definition looks fine. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think (following Bideleux and Jeffries phrasing, quoted above) even in the lead we should distinguish between "a narrow, uniform, 'purist' conception of fascism" and "a broader, more variegated conception of fascism". - Jmabel | Talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A link to Fascism as an international phenomenon might be relevant. In any cases, if Vision Thing doesn't see the difference between Fascism and nationalism, well, he support yet another fringe views which would include all authoritarian nationalist states of the 20th century (Franco, Peron, maybe even some Communist states as being authoritarian and nationalist is also possible in Communist states...) as Fascists.Tazmaniacs 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see some problems with the current version of the lead:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology accompanied with a mass movement seeking to forge national unity based on ethnic, cultural, or genetic "racial" concepts, and pledging to reclaim historic glory through a struggle to renew and rebuild the society.

For one thing, it's a run-on sentence, which should be avoided, especially in a lead sentence. I'm not so sure that "mass movement" should be mentioned in that sentence, because one can be a fascist without having a mass movement to back you up (also it should be "accompanied by", not "accompanied with"). Finally, some of the wording seems right out of a speech or pamphlet, such as "forge", "pledging", "reclaim","glory", "struggle", and "renew and rebuild." All those words together in one sentence makes it seem like a commercial instead of a neutral encyclopedic article. Spylab 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism

I find that the mention of collectivism early on is interesting. I always associated collectivism with communism. Interesting viewpoint. My encyclopedia defines it as a more socialist/communist ideology, but I guess that the Brittannica is good enough for me! Wikiisawesome 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism in communism refers to the collective ownership of the means of production by the people as a whole, instead of individual ownership. The collectivism in respect to fascism is in reference to the synergistic aspect of the people as the whole to become suberviant to the will of the state, opposed to their individual interests. --Jfrascencio 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)