Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paco Zamora

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)

Leftist Political Terms?

I don't understand why this sentence is here:

"fascists supported revolutionary politics, and fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler used leftist political terms such as "proletariat" and "bourgeois" to describe society. "

"proletariat" and "bourgeois" are not leftist political terms! If one is associating them with Marx (who didn't invent said words) then they would be right-ist (very conservative) not very liberal. --Russ Frank 16:11, 02 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation, there was national walfare, but the economic system was capitalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (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)

Didnt Musso join Hitler because it "looked like" the Nazis where winning the war. He would then have had to have implemented a Nazi-esque racial policy to not "let the side down". Having the most powerful land army in Europe on his doorstep at the time probably helped "convince" him. I would say that Fascism doesnt HAVE to be racist though. As, at it's core, it is simply placing the nation/state above the individual, it could be argued that the race of the individual within the nation doesnt count, as long as they 'give themselves' to the state. To answer an above user i'd say that the cult of "Chavs" in Britian was a degeneration of the state, though the chavs themselves can be any race. Though the white ones are normally racist though they talk in ebonics. Thinking isn't thier strong point anyway, hence the degenerationFelneymike (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (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)

Fascism in its purest form like communism is an economic system that is a tool meant to keep a stable government, there has never been a pure fascist ruler, Hitler was a nationalist who used fascism as his economic plan and Mussolini was a socialist that used some fascist idea as his own. And to say racism or hate towards Jews being a major principle in fascism, would be a lie because nationalism promotes racism and Hitler was just racist so he shouldn't be your judge of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.134.192 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (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)

These examples are always of those who received their definitions of "fascism" from sources which were detractors of the construction of the term. Mussolini in 1927 considered it a progressive, and thus "leftist" movement in 1927 when stating; "It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism." [1] [2] He similarly stated while being a forward looking movement, it sought to perserve national tradition, and didn't yet fall into traditional categories of politics like "right" or "left" and was thusly outside political tradition. The 'corporativst' model advocated by Mussolini and other Italians was never put into practice. [3], so like many who argue about "true Communism", "true Fascism" has never seen historical realization. That is, the Corporative Syndicalist model branded "fascism" as laid out by the literal historic Italian 'Fascist' movement. Nagelfar 10:16, 18 May 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)

Fascism was not only an ideology, it was a mass movement too. -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One can say that about almost every ideology, yet articles about other ideologies don't tag on the phrase "and a mass movement" in their lead sentences. A person can support the ideology of fascism without being involved with a mass movement. I'm not sure why you deleted the lead sentence without discussion. I am restoring it because all Wikipedia articles need lead sentences, and there was nothing controversial about the most recent version.Spylab 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is usually defined as a mass movement. As for the lead, I deleted first sentence because there is obviously no definition of fascism on which we all agree on. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is outlandish POV pushing and bias. Don't even try to defend it. Reverted.--Cberlet 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that first sentence was something we could all agree on. Authoritarian statist nationalism.JoeCarson 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoeCarson that "Authoritarian statist nationalism" are elements that most of us agree on. Mass movement I re-added since almost all scholarly research in the past 20 years emphasizes this point. Some exclusionary form of national unity is also something most of us have discussed as present in some way. And I added the word individual to the lead since most of us agree that the individual is subservient to the state under fascist rule (and ideology). Since we are about to have a mediation on the current disagreements, could folks please step back a bit and avoid an edit war? I tried to make the lead reflect the general consensus, without including buzz words and issues that go too far.--Cberlet 14:24, 6 April 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)

The above is incorrect. Collectivism in respect to fascism means that the individual is subservient to the collective. In Italian fascism the collective is the state. In Nazism the collective is the race. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No Joke (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Your dispute is simply semantics and the use of different terms to describe basically the same thing. How could someone be subservient to the race? It is an abstract concept and does not exist in reality. It is the state government and a hierarchy that exists. The will of the state is defined by the leader of the state. Did not the Nazi soldiers fight against those of different nations, including those of their own race? -Jfrascencio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But understanding the philosophy of each government and official policy (which are abstract concepts & matters of simple semantics also, and at the same time essential to the spirit of the regimes); in Nazi Germany, the state existed for the race and people. In Fascist Italy, the people and race existed for the state. So the National Socialist state was an effacing state; existing to place a prescribed ethnic group above all else and even its own form & function, it was a sufferage to an ideal condition of a people even if it were a people that was not even real. The state was simply a useful tool to a sought social condition. Fascism by contrast was a self-exultant state that held its 'sum as worth more than the parts' even above the nation itself; compare how Giovanni Gentile writes (as recorded in the works on him by A. James Gregor) how "nationalism is a presupposition"; which is the greatest sin of his philosophy, but that "the state" is the core nature and immanent 'Subject' of his ideals. These distinctions define and set Nazism and Fasicsm at odds in their core philosophies, quite apart from their (also very different) administrative natures (of expansive localism and social reductionism in the former and centralization & public aggregation in the later). Nagelfar 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism, an element?

Totalitarianism can not be considered an "element" of Fascism. Rather, Fascism may be defined as a totalitarian movement. Changed intro accordingly. Tazmaniacs 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "Totalitarian" was originally appropriated by the Italian Fascists (usually qualified as not being outright coercive, but universally syndical) and was a form unto itself, a condition of their ideal state, rather than a function or means of bringing disparate social entities into congruence. It depends on how Totalitarian is meant, if it is an aspect by means of the result of a particular kind of governing, it can be considered an 'element'. If Totalitarian is considered a single initial root of which there are many branches of different kinds; different things to be brought into line; it may be categorized the way you argue. However I am of the inclination that a 'Totalitarian' structure can be the result of many alternate and mutually incompatible ways of governing, at base; from the bottom up; and therefore Totalitarianism becomes an aspect and a qualification to many exclusively different social functions. In this way it could be considered an "element", as either a static 'form' or a coercive 'function'. Nagelfar 10:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism and fascism

I see that the debate continues whether racism is a necessary element of fascism. This should be hashed out on the discussion page instead of turning into an edit war. It is my understanding that racism is usually part of fascist movements and governments, but that racism is not absolutely required in fascismt. Spylab 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put in the statement backed up by a source. The source says "Racism was not a constitutive element of fascism although a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs." (Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 University of Michigan Press. p. 30). Tazmaniac deleted it. He seems to think that it's a controversial statement, but I'm not aware of any sources saying one has to be a racist to be a fascist. Many fascists just happened to be racists. But so did many communists and anarchists. Racism is not a constitutive element of fascism. Billy Ego 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some broadly-defined form of ethnocentrism is arguably a constitutive element of fascism, but it is not accurate to simply add "racism" to the list of generally agreed upon constitutive elements of fascism. I now need to take a cleansing intellectual shower...--Cberlet 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Italian fascism became only overtly racist when race laws were past in 1938. The problem is of course if you don't attribute racism to fascism, you cannot claim that National Socialism is a form of fascism. But this goes by the historic antecedent for why these race laws were passed in Italy. Intangible2.0 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to push these idiosyncratic and marginal views, Intangible2.0, you really should sign onto the mediation as a matter of basic courtesy and principle.--Cberlet 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See Mussolini and the Jews by Meir Michaelis. Intangible2.0 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misspellings of "fascism" and "fascist"

How come it's so common among the general public to misspell the word "fascism" as "facism"? That has got to be one of the Most Annoyingly Common Misspellings of All Time. What's a "facist" supposed to do, support the application of eye shadow, lipstick, and powder puff? 204.52.215.107 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism

And your source is? Do you know history of Austria?Xx236 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant generic fascism here. If you take a historic look, this is of course incorrect. There were certainly fascists in Austria and Czechoslovakia who were opposed to the National Socialists, making history far more nuanced than simply a "modern consensus." It's like Paxton's use of the five stages of fascism. Why stop at only five? Intangible2.0 14:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Communist language many opponents of Soviets are called fascists and many people in the West are talking Soviet language till now. The result is that any statement about fascism has two meanings. Xx236 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism and Nazism were terms outlawed under Stalin's reign. Hitlerites was a term they did could use as well. Intangible2.0 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is fascism?

Many people think that fascism was created by Adolf Hitler; this is not strictly true as national socialists are in fact a massive part of the past five hundred years.Connections with racism,homophobia,feelings of self imposed power and egomania is what makes this growing trend truly a laughable thing.

Obviously, well I believe, that the six million jews were indeed killed; amongst millions of gays jews etc. But this is growing with the idiotic BNP which poisons our society. People of different races have right to live ANYWHERE they want and that is final!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eternity666 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Nationalisim has nothing to do with fascisim

Nationalisim has nothing to do with fascisim. Name one nation state without this characteristic? Europeans are in the midst of a political shift, a consolidation of national identities and thus believe that EU trends are of global relevance. Before I edit nationalism out of the article, is there ant debate? Raggz 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Your opinion is not supported by most of scholars. Tazmaniacs 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, academics do have a definite POV, I do not dispute this. We agree.

1 "Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals." nationalism's. (n.d.).

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

When Italy was fascist, were either of these two definitions emphasized more than now? Italy had and has a strong "devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation." During WWII it entered into a strong alliance to act "collectively", after fascisim fell it resumed "emphasizing national rather than international goals." Was post-war or pre-war Italy more fascist? The very meaning of the root (fascia) implies collective rather than individual actions.

Logically: Either the definition above is flawed - or the description of Mussolini as a fascist is incorrect?

So, how do you (or "most scholars) answer, was Mussolini fascist - or not? Raggz 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to say that fascism needs nationalism while nationalism can and does exist quite seperated from fascism. You know the old saying "All mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertabrates are mammals..." You can have a backbone without being a mammal. You can have nationalism without being fascist. Does this clear things up?

John 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationalists are found everywhere on the Left-Right political spectrum, from the Communists of todays Russia up to Adolf Hitler's Nazis. Thus fascists are not necessarily nationalists, for fascists want POWER FOR THE STATE... -Pika ten10 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism does not alone explain fascism and nationalism does not set fascism apart from other ideologies. What makes fascism different is its ultra-nationalism. This is what sets it apart. This is mostly because of the mythology surrounding the state and its people. How many states include ideas about mythologies of the people who live there? This will undoubtedly evolve within a fascist state to biological racism. Something that does not happen within a democratic or communist state. Biological racism comes from the conclusion that ultra-nationalism comes to. Ultra-nationalism assumes that if the nation is great and its origins are too, then the nation must not be 'infiltrated' by others. This forms biological racism and is also only present in fascist states. For example, Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic agenda, and the mass killings that occurred in Abyssinia (currently known as Ethiopia)committed by Italy under Mussolini. This nationalism and ultra-nationalism will be required in some form in order to attract members of all social classes.By the way, there is no such thing as a nation state. A Nation state is country, in which there is one nation living. The only country that MIGHT fit this description is Japan. No other country fits this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.81.247 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I tagged parts of this article with {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} which are unsouced. I didn't tag the anti-communism section, because it already has a similar tag. There is enough materila unsourced here to warrent the {{More sources}} tag--Sefringle 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

==fuck that shit lmfao!!

FASCISM AND ITS SYNDICALIST ROOTS

Fascism isnt socialist nor capitalist, it is syndicalist. To be more precise it is National Syndicalist. We should include that most fascist theotricians take their ideals from syndicalist George Sorrell, and were part of syndicalist parties before joining the Fascists. The syndicalist parties in Europe split into two camps: The Nationalist camp and the Anarchist camp. The biggest supporters of Franco were the National Syndicalist party. Remember the group of bound arrows in the film Pan's Labrynth? That was the JONS! Mussolini mentions that his system is a form of corporate syndicalism. British Union of Facsist Leader Oswald Mosely propated syndicalism as Fascism and his ideals are open for the public viewing on his website.

The point is that the Fascists parties of Europe were right wing in nature but used LEFTIST tactics to gain power. They believed that the Fascist Party was the one big union that would unite workers and bosses under one roof.

These are interesting points that reflect substanial research, but here on Wikipeida, especially on controversial entries, we need to rely on the major published scholars on the subject, not our own opinions or beliefs. See WP:OR and {{WP:Reliable]].--Cberlet 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not my own opinion.....

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/dannunzio.html http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/sorel.html http://www.oswaldmosley.com/um/syndicalism.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism#Syndicalism_and_the_.27Third_Way.27

MYSTERY OF FASICSM: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm "Fascism was a doctrine well elaborated years before it was named. The core of the Fascist movement launched officially in the Piazza San Sepolcro on 23rd March 1919 was an intellectual and organizational tradition called "national syndicalism."

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism: "It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism …" http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

"The fascist party had conceived the fascist state. One could not think of a "corporate state" or a "syndicalist state" without thinking of the fascist party. Fascism was inseparable from corporativism or syndicalism. If one removed the one concept, he necessarily removed the others. The fascist party, not the state, was the guardian of the fascist ideals, especially including syndicalism and the corporate organization of the state. The orthodoxy of syndicalist ideas was safeguarded in the fascist party. Hence, the highest value in the fascist state was syndicalism-corporativism." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html

Fascist Flange Arriba, number 20, November 1935. "No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production."

Any more proof, needed? http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

<-------------Few scholars dispute that syndicalism played a role in the formation of fascism, but if you are unwilling or unable to provide a reputable published scholalry source and edit text based on Wikipedia guidelines you are simply wasting everyone's time. --Cberlet 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean Oswald Mosley, Benito Mussolini's own words arent enough to convice Wiki?

Fascism and Protestentism

This section seem to be quite bias against the protestent churches, especially the Lutheran church, and seems based more on generalizations and outmoded assumptions than actual fact. Needs to be edited IMO. The way it is worded seems to cast blame on the Lutheran church, and it also supports that tired, old, ridiculous, overly simplified view that Martin Luther directly inspired anti-semitism in Germany... He most certainly did not. He only partook in something symptomatic of his time. But I digress. Anyway this needs a sever re-write.

John 07:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, much recent scholarship supports the curret text. See, for example:

• Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

So any rewrite would have to be cited to contemporary serious published scholarship on the subject.--Cberlet 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are only looking to support one viewpoint naturally you're only going to look for anything that supports it. I stand by what I said. I really do not care that some people are witing books making direct links between Nazism and the Protestant church. To think that authors have no bias, well, as we all know, that's silly.

John 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging Nordic theory into this article

I figure the Nordic theory acticle reflects the chaotic science and antihumanitarian emphasis of Fascism sufficiently to justify a merger into this article.

1. Both articles refer to the subject of politically inspired racism.
2. The fascist views on nordic supremacy are completely covered by the article on Nordic theory and Wikipedia is not a dictionary to account to such an degree of overlap
3. The subject of Nordic theory is unlikely to be expanded very much since this topic is not meaningful by itself, ceased to be reinforced by mainstream theorists and lacks currency within legal and recognized politics.
4. The article on Fascism requires the information from Nordic theory to supply the necessary background material and context. The other way round, Nordic theory is incomplete without fullscale reference to its political consequences the world is suffering until today.

Rokus01 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nordic theory is a different topic from fascism. It's possible to have fascism without racism, and not all fascists are "Nordic", or even white.Spylab 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Innocence on the anthropological definitions on race is why mosts fascists at least think (or thought) they are of the Nordic race. Even Hitler was far from anything Nordic. I would say such suprematist racial theories are typical to all fascists, without exception. Your statement on fascism without racism sounds pretty OR to me. Other race theories might be involved, however, this does not take away the outstanding and almost exclusive importance of race theory to fascism. Rokus01 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I think User:Rokus01 is confusing Nazism (heavily Racist) with Facism (Corporatist, Nationalist rather than Racist). Facism per se has nothing to do with nordic theory — the guy who created it certainly wouldn't have thought of himself as Nordic! CWC 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The fascism and Nordic theory articles clearly show they are about two different topics and should not be merged. Nordic theory should not even be merged with the Nazism article, because Nazi ideology has a lot more to it than just the racist aspect. Perhaps Nordic theory could be merged into a similar racial article such as White supremacy, but definitely not the fascism or Nazism articles. Spylab 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. --Cberlet 14:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. "The" Nordic theory is not so much a theory on "race", but an abuse of contemporary racial anthropology. This abuse was in accordance with fascism's political motives towards expansion and hegemony. Thus, such a racial theory to be specifically "Nordic" is just circumstancial. Italian fascism adopted the ideal of cultural hegemony by themselves and Mussolini was not deterred to introduce the Charter of Race, here confusing concepts of nationality and race by purpose. Correspondingly, Japanese fascism recurred to indoctrination touting Japanese racial superiority - leading to atrocities against the Chinese population and European (ironically, mostly "Nordic") prisoners of war and slave laborers. Also, the appliance of "Nordic Theory" to Nazism did not save the milions of Polish people and Russians from termination by Nazicm, without regard to their true racial features being Nordic or close to Nordic, instead they were labelled Üntermensch" and killed accordingly. This article should make clear fascism's total abuse of the concept of race by racial theory. All adherence to racial theories is referred to nowadays as being Fascistic. The article on Nordic Theory could be useful to this end, naturally heavily condensed and put in a subsection together with those other "racial theories" inherent to fascism. Rokus01 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you have explained above, they are not the same topic and should not be merged.Spylab 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to Rokus01. It would help immensely if you grasped the fact that we are not ignorant about fascist ideology, ethnocentrism, and racism--we simply disagree with you. So please stop posting long lectures as if we are simpletons. Thank you.--Cberlet 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hold this as a "yes" to a new subsection "Fascism and the concept of race". Rokus01 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no agreement to any such proposal.
Can we remove the merge tags now? CWC 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote: we are not ignorant about fascist ideology, ethnocentrism, and racism. Still I don't see any indepth reference here to the Fascist concept of race. Such a Fascist concept certainly differs considerably to the scientific concept, since it involves nationality rather than anthropology, insinuates psychology rather than physical measurements, adheres to a predefined political stance rather than insight and continuous investigation. There are lots of studies tying fascism to race theory. In other words, this article on Fascism wouldn't be complete without an indepth subsection on race theory. Since all of you are not ignorant, I would like to hear some valid arguments against such a subsection - if any. I mean, you can't be serious in wanting to keep race theory issues out of this article? Are people here working on a redefinition of fascism to make it self-explanatory, or what? Rokus01 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, there is no "fascist definition of race". Perhaps you can tell us what these "lots of studies" are. Otherwise, you are just a pusher of OR; no more, no less. Paul B 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus is still splattering the talk page of Nordic theory with his insistence that racism is a "fundamental characterstic" of fascism. If any editors here have any useful referece t help resolve this I would be grateful. Paul B 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia the fascist encyclopaedia

File:Hitlermusso.jpg

These two were quiet the Conservatives back in their day

Hrmmm... Your article says political liberalism can sometimes cause Fascism. Bollocks, liberalism is against nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, so this page contradicts itself. Conservatism is more likely to cause fascism because it is PRO nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, censorship and of course has one of the biggest aspects for fascism FEAR CAMPAIGING. I bet this will get taken off this talk page because Wikipedia is the fascist encyclopaedia nobody can edit without getting banned.--124.187.20.197 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misread the article. The article states that fascists oppose economic and political liberalism.JoeCarson 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is actually against liberalism. Liberalism is an ideology which seeks freedom for the individual, while fascism is longing for the power of the State. If we are to incerase the power of the State, then the individual is to be bound to its rules, and it will result to loss of freedom for the individual. But, if we are to increase the freedom of the individual, then we must restrain the State from controlling the individual. For example, here in the Philippines, we had a curfew last Friday, November 30, 2007, from 12a.m. to 5a.m., for the State was in trouble after Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim and 48 others staged a coup attempt against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Nicanor Faeldon had escaped after that attempt. If a curfew is implemented, then you're not allowed to go out during the curfew hours. As we know this is restrainment of individual freedom for the sake of the State. If this were not implemented, then individuals are free to go out at those hours, but that the State can be in trouble if Faeldon is not found. -Pika ten10 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The strongest state I know is the Soviet one. Nazi Germany was very liberal comparing to the Soviet Union.Xx236 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "Encyclopedia." Although wikipedia is mildly fascist, ->They have to be if they want any accurate information on their website<- I wish didn't save my IP adress though that bothers me. But if you disagree with an article on any wiki you have can edit: ETIT IT! Jeez! Oh BTW Stalin is worse than Hitler because at least Hitler's friends were safe. Stalin's friends however were most certainly dead. See ya!76.19.175.114 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.175.114 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism as socialism - not again

There have been numerous debates over this matter extending back many months. Please, let's not open this up again. The current wording is already a compromise that overemphasizes the minority viewpoint.--Cberlet 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cites project

Anyone want to chime on on which format the cites should take on this page? We need to convert to a single standard. Some sections need more cites inserted (although the books cited at the end of the article already cover most of the text). I personally hate the long cite method, but that's me. Anyone want to adopt a section and find the proper cites?--Cberlet 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

then keegan ate a lot of food and got fat :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.249.228 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Paxton reference?

Why is the reference by Paxton included? It's not an informative reference so much as putting fascism down. That reference would be like me going to the page on democracy and saying "democracy is defined by corruption, lack of direction, slow legislative process, etc." The reference doesn't add to this article, it just points out some of the flaws of fascism. JW 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Paxton is one of the most important English language scholars of fascism, and he is attempting to offer a definition of fascism. It is absolutely relevant. john k (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nationalism

Just an anonymous contributor, but I think something needs pointing out. This article claims fascism is usually understood as nationalistic. Wikipedia defines nationalism as "a doctrine or political movement that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny." And Benito Mussolini, in "The Doctrine of Fascism", which, I think we can agree, is something of an authority on the subject claims that: "In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for XIXth century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity."

This weighty block of text will, I hope, prevent anyone claiming I have taken a soundbite out of context. So there it is: a whole paragraph basically contradicting our definition of nationalism. It seems to claim that nations cannot exist without states (in a nationalist's ideal world, the reverse is true), and that a nation without a state is not in fact a nation (so there goes the ideology of an overwhelming majority of nationalistic revolutions, resistances, political parties and other movements).

Can someone help me solve this without getting cognitive dissonance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.125.107 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Facism

I don't like George W. Bush very much either, but I don't think there's the same abundance of scholarly evidence to suggest that his government is "most often considered to have been fascist" in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini (second paragraph of the article). The list after that is made up entirely of WWII era movements as well. Certainly many people are unhappy with his administration, but they can hardly be lumped into the same "facist" group as Hitler. Am I alone in thinking this is a little silly? Perhaps this could be somewhere else in the article, but it seems like it shouldn't be in the second paragraph that someone reads. Unquist 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NM. Someone just reverted it.Unquist 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems to me and many people I've spoken to, that they would define George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their administration as fascist. (From the Wiki page): "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism"... seems pretty accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.234.126 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I included George Bush's name in the list of governments thought fascist, because there is an incredible amount of articles examining the possibility - search for 'george bush fascism' on Google Scholar and see what you can uncover. 144.92.120.44 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V & WP:CITE please. --Van helsing (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The term fascio

This edit changes a longstanding statement as to the definition of fascio from '"union" or "league"' to '"group", "gathering"'. I simply do not know Italian well enough to have a valid opinion (since it seems to be matter of connotation) and no citation is given. - Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Payne's A History of Fascism, fascio means bundle or union. I will make necessary change. -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, "the Italian word fascio [not only] means 'bundle'" but "was commonly used as a synonym for unions" — which seems to go toward proving the point of his book. Asteriks (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Split out religion section?

This has been proposed. I oppose it. It would be a magnet for an edit war. At the very least, we should first fix up the current section here under the scrutiny of multiple editors.--Cberlet (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, too much space is given to both "Anti-Communism" and "Fascism and religion" sections, while some other areas are neglected. -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky

The quoted sentence describes situation in Communist countries. Were those countries fascist?Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Please, let's not open up the fascism=communism discussion again. Been there, done that.--Cberlet (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article contains a definition of fascism by Trotsky. The definition is so broad it includes Communist states. I try to solve this problem here before someone edits the article. Wikipedia isn't a store for contradictory definitions and let the reader decides. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:La difesa della razza.jpg

Image:La difesa della razza.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt quote

I mistakenly wrote in an edit note that the quotation in the following paragraph did not mention the word fascism, but I stand by my deletion of the quote because there was no reference proving that he actually said that.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined fascism in a famous quotation-- "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: Ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."

If anyone can find a reference to back it up, feel free to re-add the quote)Spylab (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this was a politically-motivated quote by Roosevelt, and really does not belong on this page at all.--Cberlet (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts about Fascism

1. The main opponents of both the fascists in Italy and the Nazis were socialists and communists. The feared blackshirts that existed in Italy under fascism would beat socialists in the street or anybody who stepped out of line.

2. Mussolini combined the nation's corporations under his command and organized them according to their industry type. These corporations remained private entities with their respective private owners and those who ran these corporations subserviate to the will of the state. These corporations employed workers at fixed wages.

3. The above all purpose of these corporations is to serve the will and needs of the organic state and this is ahead of making a profit. So these corporations may be required to do things that serve state interests, such as hiring more workers than is profitable to increase production.

4. Both Italy under fascism and Nazi Germany banned labour unions and trade unions. Members of labour/trade unions were persecuted, beated, or arrested.

5. The state in Italy under fascism had great power and control over the lives of their citizens. --Qualcuno75 (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good for you. Are you trying to make a point? 75.1.251.58 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another name for this is corporatism...another name also happens to be socialism. The fact that Nazis and Communists didn't get along is only representative of the fact that they were largely competing for the same people along the left side of the ideological spectrum and the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.176.50 (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany had an capitalst economic system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

--
1. Socialists were turning communist during the 1920s. The remaining socialists who were nationalistic, who saw weakness in Democracy, who
viewed Marxism as a threat, turned to 'Fascism' and 'National Socialism.' This is outlined by Hitler's own writings (see Hitler.org).
2. Your points 2 and 3 seem to be similar to what France and other socialist/pseudo-socialist countries do today.
3. In the Soviet Union, labor unions were just arms of the government. One could not start their own labor or trade union.
4. Hitler commissioned the Volkswagen (the "people's car"). The Nazis did not have a free market capitalist economic system.
76.215.47.190 (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What is that thing?

Uh, yeah, whats that a picture of in the little box on the facism series? It looks like a pillar, lion and ax. What the hell is it and why is it there? 75.1.251.58 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It represtents in symbol form the idea of fascism. 1 stick will break, but the synergistic aspect of hundreds of sticks holding up an axe blade does something way beyond what an individual stick could do. This entire bundle of sticks and the axe blade represents the organic state and the individual sticks represents the servents to the state. --Qualcuno75 (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Poetry as a source?

A line from a Sylvia Plath poem appears within the gender section of this article. Is this considered to be an adequete source for developing the subject at hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.55.61 (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to anyone I offend in removing the Sylvia Plath reference. It seems to be too far outside the boundries of conventional sourcing requirements. 67.162.55.61 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture of facism

What the hell is that picture supposed to be? With the axe and lion to some wooden thing. Mallerd (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply look at the discussion above the one directly above you.--71.57.55.24 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, read the first paragraph of the article body. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have some serious issues with the recent edits. Very opinionated, and they seem to extend beyond the cited sources. Anyone else concerned?--Cberlet (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing sounds like an essay to be honest and is very biased. Hitler did bad things, give the guy a break. I wonder how Ariel Sharon sounds like on here in 70 years time? Probably the Saviour of Israel despite Israel sharing many fascist traits, built because some guy called Moses promised them that land. Maybe it was an estate agent. Who knows. Brush up this article please. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than parroting typical antisemitic drivel, do you have a point?--Cberlet (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Misleading

"Arab dignitaries from the colony of Libya convinced Mussolini that the Arab population was worthy to be given extensive civil rights, and allowed Muslims to join a Muslim section of the Fascist Party - the Muslim Association of the Lictor.[27] However under pressure from Nazi Germany, the Fascist regime eventually did take on racist ideology, such as promoting the concept of Italy settling Africa to create a white civilization in Africa[28] and handing out five-year criminal sentences for Italians caught in a sexual or marital relationship with native Africans.[29]"

The above misleads into making people think that after Hitler convinced Mussolini to take on a racial view, the fascist Italy went against Muslims. This is wrong, the Italian fascism started objecting to the Black race, not Islam. If a Black person happens to be a Muslim, is not an issue for determination that Muslims were targetted. The Arab recognition by Hitler and Mussolini continued all the way with racism only taking place by skin colour and religiously only against Judaism. Muslims were never targeted unlike popular belief. And please, don't use speculative sources. I.e. an author who fills in the gaps when there is no evidence... like saying Alexandra of the Greeks was bisexual. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

here is a clear definition of fascism, a single party government, this concept does not mix well with socialism, but is unparalleled if mixed with constitutionalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.235.28 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, not a very useful definition. Try a library with books on fascism written after 1970. Something by Roger Griffin, for example.--Cberlet (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Note to Nikodemos. The first paragraph is cited to specifric authors. If you cannot cite the page of the cited author's book on which your claims are validated, you have no business changing the lead.--Cberlet (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the lead is that it is far too vague. Fascism is defined as an authoritarian movement that subordinates the interests of the individual to something; which is to say any authoritarian movement at all. I'm sure all citations support this, because fascism is indeed an authoritarian movement. The point is that we need to say a bit more about it rather than just the fact that it is authoritarian - even if that "little bit more" just notes the difficulty in finding a definition. -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How about relying on reputable published experts rather than your POV?--Cberlet (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we have a whole bunch of them over at definitions of fascism. -- Nikodemos (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Then pick one, cite it, and edit the lead based on the cite, which you add to the end of the reference chain. This is basic Wikipedia, so just do your homework.--Cberlet (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I have compiled a hybrid definition based on the definitions given by Paxton, Griffin and Passmore. I have deliberately avoided mentioning the relationship of fascism to any other ideas or ideologies, as those are inevitably controversial. Tell me what you think. Also, I have another definition in mind in case it will turn out to be impossible to reach consensus:

"Fascism is a term used to describe a type of authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements; the precise features needed for an authoritarian nationalist movement to qualify as fascist are a matter of controversy among historians."

-- Nikodemos (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Most excellent. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone changed the lead away from saying that individual interests are subordinated to saying the nation is placed above "all other sources of loyalty." That would be not true because NAZI fascism places the race above the nation. But most important the sourced that I added did not say that but said what I said it said which was that individual interests are subordinated. Fascism subordination of individaul interests to that of the collective whether it's a whole nation or a race. Cold Porcelain (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about your source, it is about the other sources used in the definition. Specifically, Kevin Passmore begins his definition of fascism with the following words:

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. [...] .

Yes, fascism subordinates individual interests to the nation, but it doesn't subordinate only individual interests to the nation - it subordinates all other interests to the nation. Including class interests, gender interests, or any others you can think of. Therefore your formulation is too narrow.

Also, while the distinction between fascism and nazism based on nation vs. race is interesting and useful, I do not believe it belongs in the very first paragraph of the article. It's also a bit controversial - when Passmore says that the fascists define the nation "in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms," he is including the concept of race in the concept of nation, since a "nation defined in biological terms" is a race. But thank you for your contribution. Would you find it more acceptable if the intro said that fascism places the nation or race above all other sources of loyalty? -- Nikodemos (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what Nikodemos is trying to explain is very important. Race was less important in other forms of interwar fascism than the Nazi version. Recent scholarship supports what Passmore is discussing. See Paxton, Eatwell, Griffin, Gentile, Payne, etc. Let's not go back to outdated scholarship on fascism.--Cberlet (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The source I added says "individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation." There is nothing to argue about. Cold Porcelain (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why not seek consensus rather than just inserting your version, Cold Porcelain? The newer majority scholarship shifts the focus from the loss of individual rights to the primacy of the homogeneous collective in its struggle for rebirth after a period of decline. Your version is outdated. --Cberlet (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Try that on someone more gullible. I'm not that easily deceived and manipulated. Cold Porcelain (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been given to support our definition. Furthermore, this definition includes yours, because placing the nation or race above all other sources of loyalty implies placing the nation or race above the individual (among other things). I suggest you read the wikipedia guidelines before you say that "there is nothing to argue about," and I suggest that you try to work towards a more constructive compromise. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect me to compromise. I'm not going to compromise the source. It says the interests of the individual is subordinated to the interests of the nation. This is the same way Mussolini defines it. You might not like that definition or think you have a better one but that definition exists and is cited. Cold Porcelain (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The loss of individual rights doesn't exclude the primacy of the homogeneous collective, in fact they are complementary. -- Vision Thing -- 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The point is that the loss of individual rights is already implied in the term "authoritarian," and that fascism places the nation (or race) above everything, not just above the individual. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "authoritarian" does not elucidate the collectivist fundamental of the ideology. Cold Porcelain (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<-----------Note: Cold Porcelain has been banned as a sock puppet.--Cberlet (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Third way

What will be the best disambiguation for third way used in the article? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The economic theory of central planning mixed with some market forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.176.50 (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no central planning in Nazi Germany's economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Left and right

Cberlet, concerning your latest edit, can you provide quotes form this scholars? I'm asking this because it would be good to say on what do they think when they say "right" and "left", due to the vagueness related with these terms. Also, on what do you think when you say "attracted support" - on money, votes or something else? -- Vision Thing -- 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am citing reputable published sources. Please, let us not have this same discussion over and over.--Cberlet (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked you politely in an effort to avoid edit war. For what I have seen so far you have very peculiar way of summarizing sources. -- Vision Thing -- 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I know of the literature on Fascism, Cberlet's summary is accurate. The only fault I can find is that it is as superficial as any concise summary necessarily is. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, Cberlet tried to summarize Fascism and the political spectrum section from Fascism and ideology, article with POV and OR tags. First problem with his summary is the beginning "According to most scholars of fascism". According to WP:RS: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." Here the claim that most scholars hold this opinion is not properly sourced. However, bigger problem is that sources don't support rest of the text.

• Laqueur quote says: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". (p. 223.) "gravitating toward the extreme Right" is not the same as "the extreme Right". So that doesn't support Cbartlet's interpretation especially when we take into account what Laqueur said on page 13: "Fascism did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either. In many respects, fascism was not conservative at all in inspiration but was aimed at creating a new society with a new kind of human beings."
• Eatwell quote: "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" (p.39) – how can this be used as a source?
• Griffin part from summarized section says: "Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right-wing ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201." - on the page 50. Griffin says: "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."

Cbartlet also listed Payne, Fritzsche, Laclau, and Reich as sources but no quotes or page numbers are given for them. -- Vision Thing -- 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was very careful to not claim that fascism is simply a right-wing ideology, I wrote:

• According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, but fascism, especially once in power, has historically attracted support primarily from the political right, especially the "far right" or "extreme right."[ref]Laqueuer, 1996 p. 223; Eatwell, 1996, p. 39; Griffin, 1991, 2000, pp. 185-201; Weber, [1964] 1982, p. 8; Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970).[end ref] (See: Fascism and ideology).

This is totally supported by the scholars I cited.--Cberlet (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your summary gives wrong impression to uninformed reader. Simply stating that it is associated with political right gives wrongly implies that fascism is intertwined with conservatism. Several prominent scholars of fascism explicitly stated that fascism is in its essence anti-conservative. If we are to mention at all left-right division (which I consider totally vague) we should also explain how fascism is connected with the left and the right. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We cannot avoid the left-right issue since it is still a major concept used by most scholars of fascism. I did, however, rewrite the sentence to make matters more clear.--Cberlet (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. -- Vision Thing -- 21:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is very clearly a left of center ideology. Militarism and racism, contrary to modern popular opinion, are shared between both right and left. Much of the remainder of fascism is heavily influenced by leftist thought and also, heavily influences today's leftist thought.

And btw, most scholars do not agree on an accepted definition of what fascism means. It has been used as a pejorative term for 60 years for most honest scholars to take an objective look at it. Most people who use the word fascism today are not using a definition which is supported by historical facts but are only making an ad-hominem attack because they have no better arguement (just go to college for a few years and start a few debates...  :) ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.176.50 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is very clearly a right of center ideology. Big government and planned economics, contrary to modern popular opinion, are shared between both right and left. Much of the remainder of fascism is heavily influenced by rightist thought and also, heavily influences today's rightist thought

And btw, most scholars do not agree on an accepted definition of what fascism means. It has been used as a pejorative term for 60 years for most honest scholars to take an objective look at it. Most people who use the word fascism today are not using a definition which is supported by historical facts but are only making an ad-hominem attack because they have no better arguement (just listen to modern day talk radio...  :) ). 69.179.56.199 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There can´t be no doubt that fascism is a RADICAL right-wing movement. It has indeed some points in common with radical left-wing movemnts for instance the idea of collectivism and most importantly the self-conception of being YOUNG & REVOLUTIONARY. But in the essentials the ideologies of socialism and fascism are strongly diverse! In fact they were ( are ) enemies! BTW: The Neo-Fascists/Neo-Nazis STILL consider themselves as being extreme right-winger and tradionally they sit on the right-side of the parlament. --82.83.151.157 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

From a collectivist perspective everything is collectivism, therefore one has left wing collectivism and right wing collectivism. This is a bias. Hitler was a Socialist, he even called his movement the "National Socialists." Socialism is a general concept, whereas Marxism has specific goals and views. Hitler was strongly against these goals, he had his own goals, and he was against Karl Marx, who was a Jew. This is why they were enemies. Hitler made this clear in his writings and speeches (see Hitler.org). In Europe during that time, many socialists moved to the extreme left to Marxism and considered the nationalistic socialists "right wing." This is mostly why we are stuck with this terminology. Neo-Nazis and KKK are collectivists and anti-capitalists. They are left wing, despite what people call them or they call themselves. Being a social conservative does not make you a right winger, as one can be both socially conservative and socialist. One cannot however be both a collectivist and be for individual liberty. One involves forced volunteerism, whereas the other involves voluntary volunteerism.76.215.47.190 (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss splitting or merging articles

The sections on "Differences and similarities with Nazism" (especially "Foreign Policy"), "Fascism and Religion" (especially "Fascism and the Roman Catholic Church"), "Economic Planning", have grown way too long, especially recent editions by editor R-41. We need to discuss splitting several sections into separate articles.--Cberlet (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Section about differences and similarities between Italian Fascism and Nazism should definitely be split into a new article. Maybe we could also add into it certain parts from Italian Fascism, and redirect IF article to new one? -- Vision Thing -- 21:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe make IF a disambig page, create a new page on Fascism/Nazism comparison, and move the text from IF around to other entries. I have been trying to figure out the split and merge templates for complicated proposals. Tough sledding, clearly written by geeks.--Cberlet (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha! You are so mean!...by the way, i agree with the split; it's absurd not to have a specific article. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! _{Sarcasm is beauty} 06:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

american fascism

we are missing american fascism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.39.119 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not missing, it just fails to pass scholarly muster for inclusion on this page.--Cberlet (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He must be talking about America's Social Security program. Maybe we should mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.176.50 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article is extremely bias. Especially the Fascism and Religion section. True fascist governments are never atheist, atheism is a characteristic of communism. All fascist governments have endorsed a religion strongly. Hitler and Mussolini were devout Roman Catholics, both of them paying their Church tithes until the day they died. Mussolini endorsed the idea of Italy being a glorious Italian and Catholic empire. Hitler wished his Third Reich to be a strongly Christian nation, especially of the Catholic and Lutheran varieties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebenundamerika (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are patently wrong and multiple reliable sources demonstrate that. There were numerous fascist atheists. Mussolini was originally an atheist and was originally quite anti-clerical. Hitler had abandoned his faith before his teens. Tomas Garrido Canabal was a rabid atheist. The fact of the matter, and this is well sourced, is that fascists at various times in various places ran the spectrum of religious belief and disbelief.Mamalujo (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Socialism!?

"...fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism..."

Wait! What the fuck? In opposition to socialism? Socialism distincts from communism, the most collectivistic ideology of them all. To call socialism individualistic is like calling Britney Spears a great singer.

Socialism and fascism are very similar philosophies but differ in Fascism placing the state as its highest ideal and Socialism places society there. That is why they oppose one another. Arbiter099 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

The diffenrce is the economic system: Commies: central planning, collective/state property Fascism: market economy, private property, but state interventions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascist History

Why isn't WWII listed under Fascism in history? Nazi ideology holds Fascism at its core.Arbiter099 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099

Intro again

I have restored the opening paragraph that I created a month ago, and which was apparently modified following a brief episode of vandalism. This restoration required removing a few phrases, and here I will justify why I removed them:

• "Fascism [...] raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual"; later "In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race..." - that's repetitive.
• "[Fascism] is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition" - this is taken almost verbatim from Merriam Webster Online, to the point of being possible copyright infringement. It's also rather POV. The real problem, though, is that it says nothing about fascism that isn't true of nearly all dictatorships everywhere. The intro must make it clear why the word "fascism" exists at all and we don't just say "dictatorship" instead.
• I have added that fascism is "concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth." This is sourced, and important. -- Nikodemos (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

international fascism

I have removed Kevin Coogan and Jonah Goldberg from the International fascism section in further reading. We should only have the writings of scholar/historians or historicial figures on fascism not pundits. Bobisbob (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to what? Both are notable for their work. The point is to help readers, not establish centrist orthodoxy. I am restoring them pending a further discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I got sidetracked, and Mamalujo did it. Please discuss before deleting.--Cberlet (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Millenarian national rebirth?

What the hell is a millenarian national rebirth? And is it really an essential element of fascism or just an element of some fascist movements? If it indeed is (which I don't believe it is - I've never seen it mentioned) perhaps we should state it in less obfuscated language. Mamalujo (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a concept used in various ways by Rhodes, Gentile, Griffin, Paxton, and Redles. I have seen it mentioned repeatedly. It is a concept I use in my scholarly published articles and chapters. Harly obscure. Griffin calls it "palingenesis" for example Palingenetic_ultranationalism. --Cberlet (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary for "millenarian" says: Relating to or believing in the millennium of peace and happiness, and for "palingenesis": Emergence during embryonic development of various characters or structures that appeared during the evolutionary history of the strain or species. So I don't see how that can be same things. We shouldn't conduct OR, and if most scholars don't use "millenarian" we should avoid it. -- Vision Thing -- 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

After some reading I see what Cberlet is getting at. A couple of problems remain, though. First, the term is academic jargon and is unclear, not good for an intro paragraph. After reading the pertinent material it's clear to me what it means, but I don't know if it belongs in the intro in that form. Second, another problem is that many scholars on the subject don't consider it an element. This is a problem in general because there are substantial definitional an taxonomical disagreements. I think Payne's approach or another more traditional approach to the definition may be more suitable for the intro than the more novel approach. Other reference and tertiary works I've seen seem to deal with it that way. Perhaps go with a more traditional definition and then have another sentence in the intro understandable to a layman which says something like: "A growing number of scholar view .... as an essential element or even the minimum requirement for fascism." I like this definition from an abstract of an article by Eatwell "an ideology that strives to forge social rebirth based on a holistic-national radical Third Way, though in practice fascism has tended to stress style, especially action and the charismatic leader, more than detailed programme, and to engage in a Manichaean demonisation of its enemies." (That definition has clarity problems too, but at least we could have a link for Third Way and Manichaen in the intro to clarify.) Thoughts? Mamalujo (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

True, it is a bit jargon ridden. There is, however, a growing consensus over the ideas of dualism, demonization, and "heroic rebirth."--Cberlet (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Marxist composed false information in the intro

The intro, describes some practises which are related to Nazism and the thug neo-nazi hate groups made up of neanderthal fans of rascist "music"... not the political ideology of Fascism. Those other topics have their own articles, this is supposed to be a serious article about Fascism. I'll give you a few examples;

"millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race"

This is claimed in the intro, despite the fact that, Benito Mussolini explicitly stated the following when questioned on the subject of race;

“ Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. [...] National pride has no need of the delirium of race. ” — Benito Mussolini, 1933.

Also in practice, there were no laws relating to race for the first 16 years of Mussolini and the Fascists in power. Only when a pact was made with Hitler did Nazism (a subject with its own articles) begin to push itself into Italy, with its ideas of "racialism" and "purity". Neither the The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle nor Giovanni Gentile's The Doctrine of Fascism make such claims either. Nor is "ethnicity", "race" and "purity" claims in following with Fascist Imperialism in Africa or the nationalistic songs, which accompanied it such as Faccetta Nera. One of the main fascist anthems is an imperialistic song calling a black Ethiopian girl "beautiful" and hoping that her "only flag will be Italian", saying that she "will be Roman". The article needs more truth, less propanganda and Nazism-specific material. - Gennarous (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop peddling original research claims and join the rest of us struggling to find compromise by relying on reputable published scholarly sources. The discussion page is to help edit text, not launch polemic attacks on other editors.--Cberlet (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what you are doing on numerous other talk pages? -- Vision Thing -- 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, thanks for asking. My complaints about you, Vision_Thing, are based on your edit-warring for over a year on these pages. That is an issue of violating Wiki policies, not a personal attack such as the one you just posted above.--Cberlet (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am appalled with Gennarous' accusations of "neo-Marxism" on editors who say that fascism has connections to racism, it should be made clear that literally endorsed racism is not a necessary attribute of fascism. Ethnic nationalism is a more accurate term which every fascist movement endorses, but I have also changed the intro to say that some fascist movements but not all literally endorse racism. I have also removed some hazy statements from the into and reduced it to important points.--R-41 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert: What part of "discuss changes in lead before substantial rewrites" is unclear? I have reverted your edits, R-41. Please discuss your suggestions here first. Thank you.--Cberlet (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert: Note to Bobisbob, please name the cited sources from the list at the end of the paragraph that support your inclusion of "class collaboration," and "social darwinism;" or provide the cites before adding these again. Also, as stated above, Please discuss your suggestions here first. Thank you.--Cberlet (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Class collaboration is stated as being apart of fascism in the other articles, and the CC article itself has the fascism box in it. Bobisbob (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I happen to agree, but the "controversial" banner at the top of the page requests full and proper citations.--Cberlet (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

R-41; the type of alleged "fascism" which is racist/racialist is specifically Nazism and its spawn, with it silly racial sciences and allusions to a "master race", I think we should make this blatantly clear to the reader instead of the ambigious "some forms of fascism". The vast majority of the movements we known as "fascist" from that time; Austria, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc didn't hold racial sciences as important to the ideology, but all of them are undoubtedly heavily nationalistic.

Cberlet I provided scholarly sources by pointing you towards The Doctrine of Fascism by the official "philosopher of Fascism", Giovanni Gentile. I suggest you read it and then attempt to claim that the philosophy is based on any kind of "racialism". I'm curious as to what your "scholary sources" are, personally I think the actual plain as day doctrine by the person who "created" the ideology is authoritive as can be. We need the real, down to the bone facts of what the ideology actually was when it existed in practise, not some half assed article where capitalists and marxists paint a convinient distorted picture just because "they can". Such a false representation does not inform the reader of why so many people across Europe followed the ideology. - Gennarous (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has written peer review journal articles and chapters in scholarly books on fascism and neofascism, you will forgive me if I do not accept your personal attack as having any merit whatsoever. Several varieties of interwar fascism were racialist.--Cberlet (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you decided to bring your personal writings into it, one should only have to look at your personal article Chip Berlet. An American leftist, who aparently hijacks the word "Fascism" to attack the religious right in your own country, using the word as an "insult" with no basis on the actual philosophy of it. The fact that a puzzled look is on your face as the mention of Giovanni Gentile and The Doctrine of Fascism, exemplifies said ignorance on the topic. This article is about Fascism, not social problems in your country who claim to be "neo-fascists" and "neo-nazis" (both of these have their own articles) or some hyperactive lefty using it to "attack" anything conservative. After reviewing some of the critisism of your writings on your article, you'll forgive me if I do not view your writings as carrying any merit whatsoever. LOL @ "Scholary". This on Wikiquote sums it;

"Berlet is really saying that he loves the plutocrats and considers any expose of their crimes to be a fascist conspiracy." - Ace R. Hayes, Portland Free Press, July/August 1997 issue

Your complete ignorance on the social situations which allowed for Fascism to be born in Italy in the first place is telling. An allied country which got shafted and insulted in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, leaving behind less wealthy nation is a HUGE reason. The fear of communist revolution during this period after the Russian Revolution is a HUGE reason. You're dillusional if you think racialism was at the front of Italian peoples minds, especially as Italy is one of the most homogeneous countries in Europe and vast parts of the peasantry had likely never seen a black person, even more so back then. There is no evidence that the squadristi went after racial groups (Jews were even in the PNF), they violently attacked communists, socialists and mafiosi. All of which are social, not racial problems.

Keep in mind it is America, not all of Europe of the 1920s who sit around throthing at the mouth over racial divisionism all day. Whether its the racist far right, or the whinging closet racist far left. Its the US with your segregated "ethnic ghetto" communities within cities where Irish, Greeks, Chinese, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Italians, etc are all "isolated" and "segregated" from more "desirable" races (in a ridiculous trans-Atlantic sense) and from each other. That is the case of YOUR modern day country, not Italy during the time of Mussolini, not Spain during the time of Franco. Presentation of facts in the article backed up by reliable sources, not projection of your personal racialist obsessed society on an unrelated topic. For god sake educate yourself, if you're going to involve yourself with writing on Fascism. - Gennarous (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making your POV clear. I appreciate it. I have actually collaborated with neonazis on editing articles here on wikipedia. Let's see if you can step up.--Cberlet (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)--Cberlet (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming with your retort, that you're completely lost in the field you've decided to involve yourself in. Exemplified by not knowing who Giovanni Gentile is and refusal to cite your sources, as well as talking about "neo nazis" on an article about an different topic. I don't agree with many things R-41 says but at least he offers up an actual attempt at intelligent discussion and engaging on the article problems, rather than mind numbing evasion tactics. Perhaps we should discuss the United States a little more in comparison; the Fascist Italy or the Falange Spain never lynched anybody on the basis of their skin colour, unlike the Ku Klux Klan who were heavily linked to the Democratic Party[4]. Or how about repulsive racist comments from Abraham Lincoln like this;

“ I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ” — Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate (18 September 1858).[5]

Or how about an other gem of "liberty", "freedom" and "democracy" from the men who are after all, your "founding fathers" and you honour them in great memory such as the Jefferson Memorial.

“ Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. ” — Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography (1821)

Just reading such a peverse and unabashed decleration of racial discimination makes me feel ill. Comparing it to the quote by Benito Mussolini on race, you're going to have to do A LOT, Mr. "Scholar" to show the "Father of Fascism" held racist views while the Fathers of your Very Society didn't. - Gennarous (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break

Even if Mussolini was not a literal "racist" advocate, he certainly was not a supporter of a multicultural society, he brutally repressed ethnic groups who demanded independence or opposed his regime. Above all, he was a Machiavellian politician - opportunistic, "ends justify the means", divide and conquer. Fascist policies were not set in stone, they were changed over time to be what would be in the best interests of the state. When Nazi officials asked Mussolini as to why he did not endorse anti-Semitism, he declared that Jews had been no threat to Italy, but said that he thought that the major threat to Italy was represented in Italy's colonies, especially by black people who Mussolini saw as a threat to Italy's colonies. In Libya in the 1920s, Mussolini send the army to stop an Arab revolt by the Senussi people led by Omar Muktar. When the campaign faltered, Mussolini ordered the creation of a barbed wire fence to be put across Cyrenaica to isolate the Senussi in Cyrenaica, internment camps were established for the Senussi people. In Italian East Africa, Mussolini used "divide and conquer" tactics, removing powers from the Christian elite of Ethiopia and giving powers and territory to Ethiopia's rivals, the Muslim Eritrean and Somali people who had territorial aims on Ethiopia. When a group of Ethiopians tried to assasinate Rodolfo Graziani, he unleashed a reign of terror against Ethiopians, the monastary where the assasins were hiding in sanctuary was ransacked by Graziani's forces - the nuns who ran the monastary were murdered for accepting the refuge of the assasins, and then Addis Ababa was subjected to raids by Italian forces in which Ethiopian houses were burned down and many Ethiopians were left homeless. The occupation of Ethiopia changed the political dynamics of Fascist colonial policy, Mussolini then sought gain support of Muslims in Libya and Italian East Africa and established a Muslim branch of the Fascist party, the Muslim Association of the Lictor. Then of course is Mussolini's support of Ante Pavelic, the fascist dictator of the Independent State of Croatia who murdered hundreds of thousands of Serbs. Mussolini gave Pavelic's fascist Ustase movement refuge in Rome and gave the Ustase training grounds. The Ustase always publicly declared its ambition to ethnically "purify" Croatia, but Mussolini apparently had no care for the targets of the Ustase's racist policies. When Italy and Germany invaded Yugoslavia, Mussolini unleashed the Ustase from Italy and allowed them to take over Croatia and commit genocide against Serbs. In exhange for supporting Pavelic, Pavelic offered Mussolini most of the region of Dalmatia and Adriatic islands. Many people in the Balkans wrongly believe that Pavelic was a political puppet of Hitler, when in actuality his Ustase movement was supported and financed by Mussolini's Fascist regime. Mussolini's alliance with Pavelic is the most obscene of his policies which allowed a genocide to take place in the Balkans against Serbs.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascist Italy was Imperialist and Expansionist, I don't think anybody can deny that, especially with the irredentist stances to complete the Italian unification. In the Italian colonies of Africa rebellions were supressed when they presented themselves, but on the basis that Mussolini wanted to keep these territories. No scholar has ever suggested a link to "ethnicity". This is the face of imperialism in general, when rebels in Africa or Asia rose up against rule in the British Empire or the French Empire, they were brutally supressed too. But are we to say that Classical Liberalism and Conservatism are "racialist" ideologies? Since this is an issue of territorial greed and expansionism not stances on races.

Many of the propaganda posters at the time of Mussolini speak positively of Africa, who dressed the continent up calling it "the future". Fascism was radically anti-crime and those who rejected the law, its not like the society of today where policy is basically kiss and cuddle with criminals, playing long, drawn out bureaucratic games. The mentality of the Fascists was "with us or against us", so how else could they be expected to deal with rebels who were trying to kill and overthrow them like the bandits tried to do with Graziani? The same way as they defeated the Mafia, strong hand no compromise. We should not forget that also while in Ethiopia not everything was negative, Italy improved much for the normal everyday Ethiopian citizen who were not outlaws; improving roads, schools, building modern hospitals, improved agriculture, secured economic success and avoided famine (no easy feat during the Great Depression). We should also not forget that there were also numerous local black Africans who fought for Italy in the MVSN Colonial Militia during WWII.

I'm not sure that we could judge Mussolini on the actions of Ante Pavelic since the two are accountable for their own actions, running two different parties and Pavelic was never under the "control" of Mussolini. We should not forget that Croatia was a proponent of Nazism, evident in that the Independent State of Croatia was a Nazi Germany puppet state. Since the basis for the Pavelic-Mussolini relationship was the giving of Dalmatia where Italians lived; something Italy had wanted to complete the Italian unification far earlier. It is inline with the irredentist stance with the desire for Empire. Also since Josip Broz Tito then went on to commit genocide against the Italians of Trieste-Istria-Dalmatia after WWII, it is no surprise Italy had wanted Dalmatia back. Are we to say in the communist article that it is a racist ideology? Certainly Tito's direct involvement to ethnic cleanse seems to put communism much more in line with other racist philosophies like Nazism (Germany, Croatia, Hungary) than any of the traditional Fascist regimes of Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria. - Gennarous (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pavelic picked and choosed what elements he wanted from both Italian Fascism and German Nazism. Racism was definately attributed to Hitler, but his desire for close connections with the Catholic Church was very much based on Italian Fascism (i.e. the Lateran Treaty)}. But let us remember, it was not Hitler who took Pavelic in exile, it was not Hitler who gave the Ustase training grounds to prepare for war with Yugoslavia, and it was not Hitler who had funded the Ustase up until 1941. It was Mussolini. I've read that Hitler himself did not want any independent Croatia until 1941, he preferred that Croatia be split between Italy and Hungary to avoid creating a Slavic state. Hitler hated all Slavs (including both Croats and Serbs), in Mein Kampf, he blamed Croats for being unfaithful to the Austrian army. However in 1941, he was deeply angry over Italy's miserable military performance in the invasion of Yugoslavia and refused to allow Italy to gain territory that had been taken by a German-spearheaded invasion, and Hitler himself did not want a long Balkan campaign, nor substantial territory to be held by a weak ally (Italy) so he allowed the Croatian Ustase to deal with the situation. Hitler and Pavelic pressured Mussolini to allow more territory to be ceded to Croatia, while Croatia in turn would be forbidded to build any substantial navy, so that Italy could dominate the Mediterranean Sea. Pavelic was an opportunist like Mussolini, he followed Mussolini when he had to, but in 1941, the Nazis gave him a better deal. Still, Mussolini and Pavelic met each other afterwards to discuss war strategy and Italy was allowed to hold military control over the entire Croatian coastline. I once thought that Pavelic was a Nazi puppet from day one, but upon studying it is clear that Ustase benefited enormously from Italian Fascist aide and support from the 1930s to 1941. But back to the original point of the whole discussion, I agree that Italian Fascism was not literally racist, but at the same time it advocated cultural imperialism, and was repressive to ethnic groups that showed hostility to the Fascist government policies, such as the persecution of the Senussi in Libya and the Amhara people of Ethiopia. To put it simply, the rule of Fascist Italy demanded loyalty and obedience to the state, if people were deemed loyal and obedient, they had nothing to fear, but if they were deemed as being disloyal and disobedient, horrible acts of repression were utilized by the Italian Fascists. This is not to say whether Italian Fascism is "better" or "worse" than other ideologies, which is of no importance or relevance for an encyclopedia to determine. But it does say that Italian Fascism was virulently intolerant to opposition and that it was very dangerous for people at the time to oppose the regime.--R-41 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit war and endless breastbeating

The point of the discussion page is to talk about editing text, and the text is supposed to reflect the majority scholarhip on a topic. We can all cite our favorite scholars and out pet ideas, but that is a waste of time. I have restored the lead that existed before this edit war. Reach consensus before editing the lead again, or I will ask that this page be locked.--Cberlet (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else already changed the multiple cited defintion and changed it to it being about making a "new nation/man". I simply changed that edit. I have no problem with the current edit. Just to let you know. Bobisbob (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.--Cberlet (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to User:Mamalujo: Please do not rewrite the first few paragraphs of the Fascism entry without first seeking consensus on the talk page. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A while back I wrote on this page the following: I have another definition in mind in case it will turn out to be impossible to reach consensus:

"Fascism is a term used to describe a type of authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements; the precise features needed for an authoritarian nationalist movement to qualify as fascist are a matter of controversy among historians."

This offer is still on the table. If we can't agree on what fascism is, we can always agree to disagree. -- Nikodemos (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"Authoritarian nationalism" on its own is too broad to define fascism, fascism must at the very least contain authoritarian nationalism, anti-communism, opposition to democracy and political ideologies that accept democracy, a dictatorship, a mass movement-led state. There have been many authoritarian nationalist regimes which could be debated as fascism under the simple description "authoritarian nationalism", such as Saddam Hussein's Arab Socialist Baath Party, Slobodan Milosevic's Socialist Party of Serbia and its support of sending paramilitaries to fight for the independence of Serb territories from Croatia and Bosnia. But Milosevic officially denounced fascism and called his opponents fascists. What about Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF, it oppresses white people, political opponents, and homosexuals in Zimbabwe. It could be seen under the definition of authoritarian nationalism as being an African fascist regime, even though it officially promotes Marxism and denounces its opponents as white supremacists. A precise and narrow definition should be given for fascism, as there are many authoritarian and indeed xenophobic nationalist regimes and movements that do not identify with fascism.--R-41 (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascist negations in intro

The intro lists two of Payne's fascist negatives, anticommunism and anti-liberalism, but omits the third, anticonservatism. I am going to add it. This is consistent with the mainstream schoarly view that fascism seeks to transform society. See an encyclopedia entry by Roger Griffin here.Mamalujo (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please pay attention - "classic liberalism" is "political conservatism". Your edits here will be far more contructive if you pay more attention to the existing text and how it might be read in both Europe and the United States, as well as by others who speak English. Do not assume that other editors are ignorant of the history or theoretical analysis of Fascism. Many editors here from across the political spectrum are very well read. Let me repeat: Please do not rewrite the first few paragraphs of the Fascism entry without first seeking consensus on the talk page.--Cberlet (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, classic liberalism is not political conservatism. How can you say something like that? -- Vision Thing -- 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Because many scholars, journalists, and Wiki entries describe it as such: See: "Classical liberalism is not to be confused with the ideology that is commonly called "liberalism" today in the United States, as "classical liberalism" is closer in economic aspects to what today is a claimed current of "conservatism" in the U.S.[7]" Classical_liberalism.--Cberlet (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that classical liberalism is sometimes seen as a current of conservatism, but that is not the same thing as saying that classic liberalism is political conservatism. -- Vision Thing -- 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

When Payne describes Fascism as being anti-liberal and anti-conservative I think it is plainly evident that he is using the terms is their classical sense. If I must, I will demonstrate this. He is a scholar writing for a world-wide readership, and in his scholarly work he would not and did not use those terms in the modern American colloquial sense.Mamalujo (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is to make matters clear for the average reader, not celebrate Payne's excellent use of language.--Cberlet (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention that fascism opposes democratic conservatism in particular and opposes conservatism's support of preservation of traditional class and social foundations of society, as fascism supports revolutionary changes to society. This being said, fascism has values that typically endorse a number of authoritarian conservative traditionalist social values, endorsement of patriarchal society, after 1929, most fascist movements offered public endorsement of the dominant religion of their nation, and its opposition to the workers' right to strike. Furthermore, fascist movements typically gained the support of conservative figures in society. In Italy, Mussolini gained the backing of the Italian monarchy and later conservative religious organizations. Mussolini conceded to conservative demands for the weakening of the Fascist party's labour movement faction in order for them to continue to support his regime. In Germany, Hitler gained the support of the conservative-nationalist German National People's Party DNVP on a number of occasions, such as allying against communists in the 1920s and supporting Hitler's rise to power in 1933. The only real differences between the DNVP and the Nazis was that the DNVP favoured a return to monarchy and was not interested in the drastic and revolutionary societal change that the Nazis wanted but rather wanted a a return to the society of Imperial Germany. Other than that, the DNVP had similar nationalist political views to the Nazis, it opposed the Treaty of Versailles, opposed the Weimar Republic, blamed democratic liberal-leaning parties and communists for Germany's defeat in World War I. A number of members of the DNVP were allowed to join the Nazi party before the Nazis abolished all other political parties. The reason why fascists are typically labelled as far-right is because of the authoritarian conservative elements of their nationalist agenda. In power Hitler purged the party of the socialist-leaning Nazis while retaining the nationalist faction. Their social agenda is a mix between social conservatism on some issues and sometimes more progressive measures i.e. the Nazis abandonment of chastisement of "Aryan" children born out of wedlock, and both Italian Fascist and Nazi support of social welfare for their citizens. Nevertheless, appeal to conservative traditional social values were significant components of fascism's support base, so I think it should be specified somewhere of what elements fascism opposed of conservatism and what elements it supported.--R-41 (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

<-----A good argument, but how would you word it to make sense to the averge reader? Remember, we are talking about "old regime" conservatism not post WWII conservatism.--Cberlet (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well let's bear in mind common attributes of fascist movements that demonstrate conservative elements and anti-conservative elements. It could be said this way "fascism typically strongly supports various social conservative values which have resulted in fascism being viewed as a movement of the far-right. However fascism opposes conservatism's advocacy of traditional society, as fascism in its rise to power appeals to revolution of the masses and drastic changes to society." I think that a description in detail would require a separate section in the article but it is necessary.--R-41 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

I think that the lead has multiple redundancies based on an overweighted libertarian POV. For example:

"statism" should suffice for "economic planning," and "collectivism."

and "dictatorship" covers "autarky," and "autocracy."

We can elaborate on the distinctions lower in the article if needed.--Cberlet (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. Bobisbob (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of statism, autocracy and/or both autarky and corporatism would be acceptable. -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the list of elements. I also replaced political and economic liberalism with plain'ol classical liberalism. Bobisbob (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

See below.--Cberlet (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose liberalism or classical liberalism?

Should it be put that fascism opposes liberalism or classical liberalism? By saying it opposes classical liberalism that might imply that it doesn't oppose mordern liberalism. Bobisbob (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The linked terms clear up any confusion. Please wait for a real discussion before making changes. Your edits made it much less clear. Patience please.--Cberlet (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But how would you word it to make sense to the averge reader. Remember, we are talking about political tendencies as they existed prior to WWII.--Cberlet (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion

While several of us editors are actually discussing changes to the lead, it is disruptive and tendentious to simply revert the lead back to a particular controversial version. Please play well with others. We are actually making some progress and new wording through consensus. Happy 4th of July!--Cberlet (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, please stop rewriting the lead without discussing it first here. Bobisbob, Vision_Thing, R-41, Mamalujo, and I are trying to find a compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cberlet, I earlier reverted your controversial revert back to the less tedious version by R-14. Then I went ahead to simply rewrite the lead with more accurate information, including some sources. I'll add some more sourced to go with it. I can't see what all important serious talkpage discussion is supposed to be going on apart from the conversation already entered with R-14?

I can't really see any other serious talkpage discussion in regards to political sciences of Fascism. All that seems to be going on is squabbling over whether or not fascism was against "Liberalism" or "Conservatism". While fascism was opposed to Classical Liberalism (which is absoutely alien to the modern day definition of the term) its hardly an all important part of the ideology, since socialism, communism, organised crime and capitalism are much higher up the list of things which it is "anti".

Seriously, we already have the [[Fascist {epithet)]] article for people who want to play silly games in regards to mudslinging between two non-fascist modern mainstream political parties like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. This is supposed to be a serious article, but with you constantly reverting improvals by either myself or R-14, then its going to remain a comedy article. - Gennarous (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Please discuss changes to the lead before making them. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is not entirely anti-conservative; its conservation and championing of agrarianism, its stances on protecting culture, its stances on maintaining the social heirachy fall within "conservatism". It is certainly anti-capitalist. Also as WP:CON has shown in the discussion with R-14 fascism is not ideologically racism. Please stop claiming to have consensus when the only person who is claiming your stance is YOU. - 14:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The current consensus lead is the result of many months of discussions. If it were up to me, I would rewrite it. But it is not up to me. We edit collaboratively here. It is an experiment. If you want to see how I define fascism, feel free to read any of my published scholarly articles and chapters on the subject. Several of the editors here are quite well-read on the subject of fascism. We seldom agree, but we are trying to work collaboratively. Sometimes it takes several days for a participating editor to chime in. Also, this is a mjor holidary here in the U.S. Editing Wiki is seldom an emergency, unless we are delting vandalism. Please join the discussion. You make some interesting observations and have added some useful cites and text. But please do not model the Anschluss and Blitzkrieg in your editing habits...it would be too ironic. Cheers.--Cberlet (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new lead

Gennarous proposes the following:

• Fascism is a political system which commonly promotes statist nationalism, and government-directed economic practises such as corporativism and national syndicalism. Fascism emerged in Italy during the 1920s following a period of social unrest, providing a Third Way and alternative to the popular socialist and capitalist movements of the time.

Fascism was both revolutionary and traditionalist, opposing the class war philosophy of communism, instead supporting class collaboration.

• The movement militantly opposed organized crime, corruption and other elements it deemed harmful to social progress, including an anti-communist stance; due to this some authors regard Fascism as an authoritarian system. When Fascism originated it was expansionist, however others focus almost entirely on domestic policy. The original movement under Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party, which saw the birth of Giovanni Gentile's The Doctrine of Fascism is always defined of Fascism. However, some authors reject broad usage of the term Fascism in relation to other regimes, sometimes excluding certain parties.

• Various subforms or movements which took influence from Fascism emerged during the early 20th century, such as Falangism, Austrofascism, 4th of August Regime, Estado Novo and National Socialism. Due to each of these movements having their own distinct features, the relationship between them remains a hotly debated topic. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed parties which identify as fascist. Since that time the term fascist has often been used as an pejorative epithet to describe political opponents, with little relation to the actual philosophies of fascism.

Discussion?--Cberlet (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I think the last one was better. It was more to the point and was more general. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but there is some interesting citations that might be used lower in the article.--Cberlet (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I liked the old lead better than what is currently there or what is proposed above. Athough I think the old lead could have used a little refinement and some clarification for the average reader. Still, it was better than what we currently have under the locked version.Mamalujo (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, Mamalujo, how about taking the old lead and making some suggested refinements? Then other editors can chime in.  :-) --Cberlet (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous changed the opening text back to his definition. I thought we had a consensus?. He didn't even trying to defend his text here. Bobisbob (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Bobisbob" (I presume this is actually Berlet considering your editing pattern) you do not have consensus, as R-41 also reverted Cberlet's false representation. We work on WP:CITE not WP:ILIKEIT. This isn't a strawman vote. - Gennarous (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and now Gennarous has been blocked for 48 hours. - unsigned comment Bobisbob (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected this article for 72 hours until editors get together and discuss the proposed changes. It's a bit of a last resort, but it's a content dispute and there should be consensus. I'll keep an eye on things. Meanwhile the options at dispute resolution remain open. --Rodhullandemu 16:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Improving the lead?

Anyone have suggestions?--Cberlet (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's intentional holding back of article progress

Far-left Hoxharian propagandist Chip Berlet is intentionally holding back the progress of the article, and recently removed information and work which took a very long time to build after going through numerous books which I own on the topic, he removed over 50 independent citations in a huge violation of WP:CENSOR, WP:EDIT, WP:OWN and WP:CITE to hold back information from the general public. Especially look at his vandalism of the "Italian Fascism" section. If Chip Berlet in a conflict of interest removes this information again I WILL report his intentional destruction as vandalism.

I placed th {{underconstruction}} tag at the top of the page for a reason, he should embrace the progressing of the article and respect the concept of the tag instead of trollishly reverting hours and hours of work just because he, in this communist agenda "doesn't like it". Nobody has to ask the permission of Chip Berlet before working on the article and adding vertified information, you do not WP:OWN it or control who can contribute to it and you are not god. Here is what Chip Berlet would like to hold back from the general public who wish to learn about fascism (ie - the people who type "fascism" into wikipedia);

• A) what fascism is outside of boogieman cartoon depictions. Devotion to such anti-educational, anti-scholary stances on the part of Cberlet has already made this article decidedly inferior to every other encyclopedias coverage.
• B) that Fascism considered itself a Third Position on the political scale, not "far right", with its roots actually in defected members of the Italian Socialist Party (such as Mussolini himself) and anarchists such as the anarcho-syndicalists; not as berlet claims "far rightists". This is a particularly inconvient truth for Chip Berlet who depends on the presenation of fascism as right wing, so that in the United States he can attack followers of the Republican Party. Concepts irrelevent to the entire rest of the world. If fascism is not rightist, Berlet's world crumbles to dust.
• C) the history of fascism, how and why it came about after WWI (Treaty of Versailles, Italy's transition from regionalism to nationalism), what happened in practice, who its intellectuals were, what the Philosopher of Fascism Giovanni Gentile's reason and idea for opposing liberalism and democracy was; the latter is perhaps the most striking by modern considerations and the reader will be wanting to know "why would these intellectuals think this?".
• D) Berlet would like to build a collection of names of what fascism "opposes" and stack them all up in the intro. but he refuses to allow what it stands in support of and why; for example he removed the references to national syndicalism and corporativsm from the intro, absoutely essential pieces of this political system. He removed the reference to The Doctrine of Fascism and he removed the section which presents that it is hotlt disputed exactly which movements are and are not fascist apart from the National Fascist Party of Mussolini which is always called Fascist.
• E) once again, despite the discussion above with R-41 and myself. Berlet has, against consensus and against WP:CITE entered into the article that fascism is "race" and "racial" orientated, when it has been presented that it specifically is NOT the case and the majority of scholars do not take that line. As racialism belongs to Adolf Hitler's national socialism not all of fascism in general; some scholars such as Jewish writer A.F.K. Organski dispute whether National Socialism is Fascist at all. So to type that fascism is "racially orientated" in the intro is a complete and intentional deception, Berlet is well aware of this and his game is boooooring. That belongs in the intro of Nazism's article, as it already is there.
• F) Berlet would like to cover up the fact that the Fascist government under Benito Mussolini waged war on the Mafia, shattering the criminals into little pieces with Cesare Mori leading the way. This is again, an incredibly inconvenient truth for Barlet, because his democratic nation the United States openly collaborated with Lucky Luciano to invade Italy in the first place and then made previously jailed Mafiosi mayors of Sicilian towns after the conquest.

• G) maybe unrelated to Berlet (unless its his other name), but Bobisbob with his IP rather than username, has several times attempted to cover up that Adolf Hitler's movement is called "National Socialism" that is its full and correct title. I presume this editor is a socialist, who wants to distance the use of the word "socialism" from what Hitler called his movement. Well tough luck son you can't go back and rewrite history, that is what they called their party; anything else is a misrepresenation.

Here are some examples of what Berlet removed. Notice all the third party sources, which was painstaking put together from the books of real third party scholars which he decided to tear out. I attempted to make the article more up to the standard of the communism article (especially its layout which is very helpful) by presenting its different "variations" in specific sections; he blanked this intentionally. - Gennarous (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Fascism

See also: The Doctrine of Fascism, Actual Idealism, and March on Rome

Fascism was born during a period of social and political unrest following the First World War. The war had seen Italy, born from the Italian unification less than a century earlier begin to appreciate a sense of nationalism, rather than the historic regionalism. Despite the Kingdom of Italy being a fully fledged Allied Power during the war against the Central Powers, Italy was given what nationalists considered an unfair deal at the Treaty of Versailles; which they saw as the other allies "blocking" Italy from progressing to a major power. A significant example of this was when the other allies told Italy to hand over the city of Fiume at the Paris Peace Conference, this saw war veteran Gabriele d'Annunzio declaring the independent state Italian Regency of Carnaro. He positioned himself as Duce of the nation and declared a constitution, the Charter of Carnaro which was highly influential to early Fascism, though he himself never became a fascist.

File:Czarne koszule.png

Blackshirts and Mussolini 1922

The war had left Italy with inflation, large debts, unemployment aggravated by demobilisation of thousands of soldiers and social unrest with strikes, attempts at insurrection by anarchists, socialists and communists, as well as a breeding ground for organised crime. The democratically elected Liberal government had no means to control the unrest, so when Benito Mussolini took matters into his own hands to combat the social unrest by organising the paramilitary blackshirts, made up of former socialists and war veterans, Prime Ministers such as Giovanni Giolitti allowed them to continue. The government prefered this class collaboration orientated movement, to the prospect of a greatly feared bloody class war coming to Italy by the hand of the communists, following the recent Russian Revolution. Within The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle the initial stances of Fascism were outlined, requesting amongst other things voting rights for women, insertion of a minimum wage, insertion of an eight-hour workday for all workers and reorganisation of public transport such as railways.

File:Benito Mussolini Roman Salute.jpg

Mussolini giving a speech and performing the Roman salute towards his gathered audience.

By the early 1920s, popular support for the fascist's fight against "Bolshevism" had increased to around 250,000. The Fascisti were transformed into the National Fascist Party in 1921, with Mussolini being elected to the Chamber of Deputies the same year, enterting legitimate politics. The Liberals retained power but Prime Ministers came and went at a fast pace, Luigi Facta's government was particularly unstable and dithering. The fascists had enough of what they considered a weak parliamentary democracy process and organised the March on Rome in an effort to take power, with promises of restoring Italian pride, reviving the economy, increasing productivity, ending harmful government controls and furthering law and order. Whilst the march was taking place king Victor Emmanuel III made Mussolini Prime Minister and thus the march turned into a victory parade, the Fascists believed their success was both revolutionary and traditionalist.

Mussolini and the Fascists followed through domestically with elaborate public works programmes such as the taming of the Pontine Marshes, developing hydroelectricity, improving the railways which in the process improved job oppertunities. Economically Italy improved with the GNP growing at 2% a year; automobile production was increasing especially those owned by Fiat, its aeronautical industry was making advances. Mussolini also championed agrarianism as part of what he called battles for Land, Lira and Grain; he physically took part in these activities alongside the workers creating a strong public image. Due to this government-directed economic policy, Italy was able to avoid the Great Depression which hit more industrial nations. Through various outlets including everything from stamps to monumental architectural and sculptural works, the Fascists made Italians of every social class aware of the countries rich cultural heritage, including Roman, medieval, Renaissance and Baroque periods through to the modern age. Fascism declared war on the Mafia and organised crime, to defeat it the fascists did so on the terms which the Mafia itself had used for so long -- violence and honour. Mussolini recieved plaudits from a wide range of figures, such as Winston Churchill, Sigmund Freud, Mahatma Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw and Thomas Edison. It was under Mussolini that the long standing Roman Question was concluded with the Lateran Treaty between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, this allowed the Holy See to have a tiny microstate within the city of Rome; the move was brought about due to most Italians being religiously Catholic.

“ The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide; he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, life which should be high and full, lived for oneself, but not above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after. ” — Giovanni Gentile in the The Doctrine of Fascism, signed by Benito Mussolini, 1933.

File:Giovanni Gentile.gif

Giovanni Gentile — The Philosopher of Fascism.

The Doctrine of Fascism is the official presenatation of the Fascist ideology; authored by Giovanni Gentile, approved by Mussolini and presented to the public in 1933. Gentile was a Sicilian who was influenced by the likes of Hegel, Plato, Croce and Vico; he introduced the idea of Actual Idealism. The Doctrine presented that the Fascist viewed the world quite apart from the mere constricts of currently political trends, but rather the wider picture of humankind. It rejected ideas of "perpetual peace" as fantasy and accepted man as a species constantly at war and those who met it achieved the stamp of nobility. It accepted that in general men who had made the most significant impact in history were conquerers such as Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte; the Roman Empire was of particular inspiration. It looked at Italy and saw that life for the state and by product the everyday person was of a better standard, under a single party fascist system than it had been in 1920 under a democratic liberal party. Mussolini thus spoke of democracy as "beautiful in theory, in practice it is a fallacy" and spoke in speeches of celebrating burying the "putrid corpse of liberty" to rapturous Italian applause.

It was the Acerbo Law of 1922, which had allowed Italy to become a single party system. The National Fascist Party had won the election with 65% of the votes, giving them 2/3 of the parliamentary seats. The socialists were bitter with this defeat and couldn't accept it, especially socialist Giacomo Matteotti who accused the Fascists of fraud. He was killed by Amerigo Dumini, for this Mussolini had Dumini tried and imprisoned but some socialists accused him of foul play, they protested by quitting parliament leaving the Fascists as the sole representatives. The means which Mussolini generally dealt with political decenters was placing them under arrest and sending them to small Italian islands. Mussolini declared himself Duce from the Roman title dux meaning leader in 1925; though regarded a dictator by most popular historians, the Grand Council of Fascism was still in place and the king had the power to fire Mussolini, as would eventually happen.

Other variations and subforms

See also: European fascist ideologies

Movements identified by scholars as fascist hold a variety of views, what constitutes as fascism is often a hotly contested subject. The original movement which self-identified as Fascist was that of Benito Mussolini and his National Fascist Party, his intellectuals such as Giovanni Gentile produced The Doctrine of Fascism and founded the ideology. The majority of strains which emerged after the original fascism, but are sometimes placed under the wider usage of the term self-identified their parties with different names, major examples include; Falangism, National Syndicalism, Integralism and National Socialism as well as various other designations.

Falangism

See also: Falangism and Falangism in Latin America

Austrofascism

See also: Austrofascism

4th of August Regime

See also: 4th of August Regime

Estado Novo

See also: Estado Novo (Portugal) and Estado Novo (Brazil)

National Socialism

Main article: Nazism

See also: Arrow Cross Party, Iron Guard, Ustaše, and Rexism

Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism, some scholars, such as Gilbert Allardyce and A.F.K. Organski, argue that Nazism is not fascism — either because the differences are too great, or because they believe fascism cannot be generic. A synthesis of these two opinions, states that German Nazism was a form of racially-oriented fascism, while Italian fascism was state-oriented.

Nazism differed from Italian fascism in that it had a stronger emphasis on race, in terms of social and economic policies. Though both ideologies denied the significance of the individual, Italian fascism saw the individual as subservient to the state, whereas Nazism saw the individual, as well as the state, as ultimately subservient to the race. Mussolini's Fascism held that cultural factors existed to serve the state, and that it was not necessarily in the state's interest to interfere in cultural aspects of society. The only purpose of government in Mussolini's fascism was to uphold the state as supreme above all else, a concept which can be described as statolatry. Where fascism talked of state, Nazism spoke of the Volk and of the Volksgemeinschaft

The Nazi movement, at least in its overt ideology, spoke of class-based society as the enemy, and wanted to unify the racial element above established classes however, the Italian fascist movement sought to preserve the class system and uphold it as the foundation of established and desirable culture. Nevertheless, the Italian fascists did not reject the concept of social mobility, and a central tenet of the fascist state was meritocracy. Yet, fascism also heavily based itself on corporatism, which was supposed to supersede class conflicts. Despite these differences, Kevin Passmore (2002 p.62) observes:

There are sufficient similarities between Fascism and Nazism to make it worthwhile applying the concept of fascism to both. In Italy and Germany a movement came to power that sought to create national unity through the repression of national enemies and the incorporation of all classes and both genders into a permanently mobilized nation.

Seeking consensus

Seeking consensus implies a conversation, not a deluge of text.--Cberlet (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, you are not paying any attention to the note at the top of the page about seeking consensus before making substantial edits, and other than posting personal attacks and POV claims that represent only one narrow view on this contentious topic, you are not engaging in meaningful discussion. Furthermore, by making up to 50 edits per day, you make it impossible for any other editor to have any meaningful input into the page. Please discuss this here.--Cberlet (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And how is labeling it "Nazism" rewritting history? That what it was called and that's the name the editors choose for it's repective article. Putting in Nazism links directly to the article while in other for National Socialism to link to it you have to do National Socialism|Nazism. But going though that effort it seems you are the one with the agenda, by linking Nazism to Socialism. Bobisbob (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote on Lead

There are two competing leads (let's define it as the first three paragraphs) being proposed. The older consensus version here and the newer Gennarous version here. Please indicate if you support or oppose the the newer Gennarous version.

Oppose --Cberlet (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose but I the think the current Italian fascist section and the sections on other fascist ideologies can stay -- Bobisbob (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we carved out a chunk of Gennarous's section on Italian Fascism and re-created the Italian Fascism page? Then User:R-41 could take a crack at expanding it? It is well-written, but the page is already way too long.--Cberlet (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bobisbob (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll contact R-41 and ask.  :-) --Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should vote on lead, especially because Gennarous is blocked from editing for a week. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Italian Fascism

The excellent section on Italian Fascism by Gennarous on the main Fascism page here has been plonked onto a recreated Italian Fascism page with additional material from the older, mostly uncited, page. Let's go passionate advocates of this page--have at it! After a few days, I will see if others want to reduce the size of the section on Italian Fascism here on this page.--Cberlet (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

I thought the idea was that we do not change the lead (in my mind the first three paragraphs in this entry) without first seeking consesus. I have restored the lead from before the edit wars. Please, please, please discuss content changes for the lead here first. See the note at the top of the page. --Cberlet (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, the first sentance of second paragraph is partially redundant (it repeats part of first paragraph), innaccurate in part and unsourced. I think it should be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping work this out here. I agree it is redundant and that needs to be fixed, but I believe it is sourced at the end of the paragraph. What precise wording is not accurate?--Cberlet (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the sentance itself is without citations. If it has support it should have citations appended to the sentance itself so it can be verified. It's also written in a very ambiguous fashion so that it can give a false impression. It says "usually based on" and then at the end of the series of words it is supposedly based on it has "and/or". Fascism does usually exalt nation or race/ethnicity, but culture and religion, where is the authority for that? Do "Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on...religious attributes"? Where is the source for this assertion? Even if there is one, should it be in the intro, because there is much authority contrary to that assertion? Specifically, some scholars consider fascism a type of anti-religious or non-religious "political religion" which competes with traditional religion. There is a strong anti-religious strain to fascism and it is often a competitor with religion. Granted there were the "clerical fascist" movements, but many scholars reject that classification altogether. And where is the authority for the assertion that it is usually based on cultural attributes? And what does that vague term mean? For these reasons I think it is innaccurate or at the very least misleading and should be deleted. I've made my effort here. At the very least, if the assertions aren't sourced soon, I will delete it. Mamalujo (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At some point a number of citations were moved to the end of the paragraph. Some of the current citations at the end of the paragraph support the claims in the sentence you dispute. If we put citations after every concept, it becomes difficult to read the lead. Your understanding of the concept of "political religion" (Gentile: sacralization of politics) is mistaken. Clerical fascism is a well-established category, especially for the Romanian fascist movement. Fascist culture is hardly an obscure notion. Perhaps we can reconstruct the citations for each claim some other way. Remember, we are supposed to be representing the major scholarly views and substantial minority views for a contentious subject. At the very least we can start stacking citations together into a single footnote for each sentence as is being done on other pages on Wiki. Much easier to read.--Cberlet (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the article history back to Nov. of last year and it has never been sourced since then. Moreover, I've never seen such a statement in any definition of fascism from a reliable source. I'm deleting it. I think I've more than justified doing so. If sources for it arise, we can discuss putting it back in, but I don't think that will happen.Mamalujo (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, Mamalujo, if you were a bit less agressive and demanding about the righteousness of your views and a bit more cautious and cooperative. This is a controversial page, and you did not give otehr editors enough time to comment. Don't be a bully.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. Sometimes I get a little overzealous. My feelings were just that the sentance was plainly flawed and without sourcing and I was glad to talk, but it seemed as if the talking was going to go on and on. I will try to be more amicable in resolving issues in the future. Mamalujo (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Information Overload

There are some great additions to this page, but the length and detail is way overboard. We need to start moving whole blocks of text to the various exisiting subpages. Please think about what can be moves, and where. The section on Italisn Fascism clearly should have the entire bottom moves to the Italism Fascism page. Anyone want to help?--Cberlet (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that sections "Italian Fascism", "Other variations and subforms" and "Distinguished from Para-Fascism (Radical Right)" should be briefly summarized here, while rest of the content should be moved to related pages. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The para-fascism section could be abridged some, but I think the variants and subforms should not be. Unlike para-fascism, Nazism and early Falangism were true fascism (although a small minority may disagree about Nazism). The greater detail is appropriate in an article about fascism itself.Mamalujo (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and capitalism

I don't think it is a good idea to say the fascists opposed capitalism. They certainly did not oppose busniess or private property. Saying they opposed laizze faire capitalism would be better. Bobisbob (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy first sentence

"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with…"

• Is the article about the term or the concept?
• In the form "fascism" it presumably refers to an ideology or a practice, not a "movement". A movement can be "fascist" but it cannot be "fascism".
• Further, are there examples of mass fascist movements that are not ideologically rooted?

That said, I don't have a particular proposed rewording, but I'd welcome one. I suspect that "mass movements" can be moved out of the lead sentence and that later in the lead we can say that there have been numerous fascist mass movements and regimes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I improved the lead sentence, so fascism is defined as an ideology, not as a "term". However, the sentence is still clumsy because it is way too long. On my computer monitor, the run-on sentence is three lines long. Surely the topic can be summarized in a shorter sentence.Spylab (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely headed the right way. I'll take it another step. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would look to the sources used in the lead you would noticed that for example Britannica defines fascism as a "political ideology and mass movement". Please refrain yourself from original research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are determined to have a lead sentence that is almost unreadable. I don't have the patience to fight over this. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Political spectrum: undue weight

This section seems very tendentious. First it proposes the "Third Way" view. Then it rejects the view of fascism as being on the right before reluctantly conceding it partly back with the quoted phrase "gravitating toward the extreme Right".

As far as I know, the predominant scholarly consensus is that despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force. I believe that this section as it stands gives undue weight to a minority view while failing to adequate present the dominant view. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have long had a problem with these discussions. The root problem I think is (1) political positions do not easily fall along a one dimensional line; I do not even think they easily can be plotted along three or four dimensons; and (2) what people mean by "right" and "left," when these terms have meaning, can vary from time to time and country to country. I personally prefer to say that fascism is a form of corporatism, which was a common response to a particular crisis in capitalism in the 1930s; that corporatism took many forms in the 1930s (the New Deal, Stalinism, Populism) that differed in a variety of ways owing to the specific political history of the country in which they took shape; that different forms of corporatism at times formed alliances and at times were antagonistic to one another; that whether one considers a given form of corporatism (e.g. fascism) left or right depends as much on your own politics as on any objective features of that form of corporatism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a minority point of view (yours) not shared by most scholars, whose perspective Jmabel has adequately resumed. Tazmaniacs (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Tazmaniacs. I don't doubt for a moment that several active Wikipedia contributors and numerous other people dissent from the view I describe as "dominant", but our goal here should not be to represent the consensus of Wikipedia contributors active in working on the article, it should be to represent the consensus of scholars writing on the subject. I have no problem at all with the dissenting views being present in the article, and I agree that there is only a weak consensus on the subject. But I have an enormous problem with the article failing to state the dominant, prevailing scholarly opinion and to present it as such. This is clearly a "high importance" article. Many students, in particular, will come here to get an overview of this important topic. We should not be using this article as a venue for our various polemics on the topic. It should be a well-balanced introduction to the topic.

I personally abhor fascism, but you won't see me adding anti-fascist diatribes to the article. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel; in regards to predominant scholary consensus who is it that allegedly claims "despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force"? As far as I'm aware (owning numerous books on the subject) that is not the scholary consensus at all. The consensus, developed by respected scholars of fascism who write in a manner which is not bias to any interest group such as Roger Griffin, Hamish McDonald, Roger Eatwell and Zeev Sternhell all recongise fascism as a "Third Way" as the references show.

The only dissenters I'm aware of who seem to think fascism has absoutely no leftist connections and is merely a radical right system are street level socialists who want to put as much distance between the movements as possible. This of course does not come from educated people in a position to write books. For example, even the foremost scholary expert on Fascism, and a former member of both the Communist Party and then Socialist Party of Italy, Renzo De Felice doesn't try to "cover up" its socialistic origins and third way status. This is a man who has wrote a definitive seven volume piece on Mussolini. - Gennarous (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that Tazmaniacs read my comment as a personal statement. When I said "this is my view" I do not mean that this is my personal view about fascism. The personal views of editors are irrelevant to articles and I won't use this page as a soap-box for my personal views about fascism or fascists. I was describing what I consider a very notable scholarly view of fascism, and one which I find useful for understanding 20th century history. It has no particular impact on how I make my own political or moral decisions, or view the decisions of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no respectable scholar denies that Mussolini et. al. were on the left when they were young. I think that if you look back a few years to when I was active in this article and related articles you'll see that I added quite a bit of material about the left origins of (especially) the Italian Fascists. But being an ex-leftist does not inherently mean you are not on the right. Look at David Horowitz, or Walter Winchell. Not to say that either of them are anything like fascists, just that they are examples that one's politics can migrate.

Similarly, I don't think any respectable scholar denies that fascist tactics were heavily influenced by the left. But the political spectrum is not about tactics, it is about ideology. Again, to take examples from my own country, the Christian Coalition borrowed tactics from the Civil Rights movement and even from Saul Alinsky, but it didn't mean that they were not on the right, just that they were tactically innovative within the context of right-wing politics. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my point was not that Fascism is of the left, nor that it is of the right, and insofar as they are notable any debates in reliable sources concerning this question should be included in the article. I was pointing out that there is another approach to examining Fascism both in its historical context and comparitavely. I do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and religion, redux

I notice that the section currently oddly named "Fascism and Religion" (shouldn't "religion" be lowercase?) makes no mention of Romania's Iron Guard, also known as the "Legion of the Archangel Michael". The latter name indicates the strength of their ties to religion, and I would think that any definition of "fascism" that isn't confined to Italy would include them. Any reason for the omission? - Jmabel | Talk

Now remedied, but how can you have a statement "Similar to Ayatollah Khomeini's Shi'a Islamist movement in Iran…" when you cite no source later than 1970? - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian fascism

Gen, I removed the text from the Italian fascism section because it's already in the Italian fascist article. We need to summarize the section as much as possible and leave the detail to the main article. Don't accuse me of "covering up fascism's involvement in the government." Bobisbob (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do what you want with it. But I think the Italian fascist article needs to be expanded. Bobisbob (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascism & Conservatism

Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton Excerpts:

Page 22 "In this book I use liberalism in its original meaning, the meaning in use at the time when fascism rose up against it, rather than the current American usage noted above. European liberals of the early twentieth century were clinging to what had been progressive a century earlier, when the dust was still settling from the French Revolution. Unlike conservatives, they accepted the revolution's goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but they applied them in ways suitable for an educated middle class. Classical liberals interpreted liberty as individual personal freedom, preferring limited constitutional government and a laissez-faire economy to any kind of state intervention, whether mercantilist, as in the early nineteenth century, or socialist, as later on. Equality they understood as opportunity made accessible to talent by education; they accepted inequality of achievement and hence of power and wealth. Fraternity they considered the normal, condition of free men (and they tended to regard public affairs as men's business), and therefore in no need of artificial reinforcement, since economic interests were naturally harmonious and the truth would out in a free marketplace of ideas. This is the sense in which I use the term liberal in this book, and never in its current American meaning of "far Left." Conservatives wanted order, calm, and the inherited hierarchies of wealth and birth. They shrank both from fascist mass enthusiasm and from the sort of total power fascists grasped for. They wanted obedience and deference, not dangerous popular mobilization, and they wanted to limit the state to the functions of a "night watchman" who would keep order while traditional elites ruled through property, churches, armies, and inherited social influence."

"More generally, conservatives in Europe still rejected in 1930 the main tenets of the French Revolution, preferring authority to liberty, hierarchy to equality, and deference to fraternity. Although many of them might find fascists useful, or even essential, in their struggle for survival against dominant liberals and a rising Left, some were keenly aware of the want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."

Page 8 "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

Page 102 "In a situation of constitutional deadlock and rising revolutionary menace, a successful fascist movement offers precious resources to a faltering elite."

"Fascists could offer a mass following sufficiently numerous to permit conservatives to form parliamentary majorities capable of vigorous decisions, without having to call upon unacceptable Leftist partners. Mussolini's thirty-five deputies were not a major weight in the balance, but Hitler's potential contribution was decisive. He could offer the largest party in Germany to conservatives who had never acquired a knack for the mass politics suddenly introduced into their country by the constitution of 1919."

"The fascists offered more than mere numbers. They offered fresh young faces to a public weary of an aging establishment that had made a mess of things. The two youngest parties in Italy and Germany were the communists and the fascists. Both nations longed for new leaders, and the fascists offered conservatives a fountain of youth."

"In sum, fascists offered a new recipe for governing with popular support but without any sharing of power with the Left, and without any threat to conservative social and economic privileges and political dominance. The conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors"

Page 140 "Even if public enthusiasm was never as total as fascists promised their conservative allies, most citizens of fascist regimes accepted things as they were. The most interesting cases are people who never joined the party, and who even objected to certain aspects of the regime, but who accommodated because its accomplishments overlapped with some of the things they wanted, while the alternatives all seemed worse."

This is a respected source, and provides a good source of information on fascism's stance on conservatism. --Qualcuno75 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above source clearly supports the statement. How about sources that goes against the clearly stated above that fascism allied and aided conservatism. I also have another source in addition to above that fascism arose as a response to the growing power of liberalism. If you dispute anything, either provide a source or tag disputed unsourced statements with a "citation needed". --Qualcuno75 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one's personal opinions on Fascism, you must admit that a quote like this "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" which is used by Paxton and shown in the discussion board above, is very opinionated. Every author has biases which others must recognize and point out. Fascists in power were indeed very much in favour of conservative social values and made alliances with conservative political forces on these points, but aside from social values, fascists were much different in other areas to conservatives. The provision of social welfare programs by fascist states was more progressive than even those of liberal states of the time which rejected social welfare programs. Secondly, Paxton's conclusion does not take into account that fascists in Germany and Italy both condemned reactionary politics. In addition, Reactionaries in Europe during the French Revolution rejected nationalism as being a threat to established monarchies and states not formed on national boundaries. Unlike reactionaries, fascists fully embrace nationalism and in Italy, much like liberals had desired, fascists pushed the monarchy into a figurehead position while Mussolini effectively became the ruler of Italy. Reactionaries rejected revolutionary politics and looked down upon civil violence while fascists supported revolutionary politics and violence. Unlike Paxton says, fascists were not just endorsed by elites, as in many countries they did have significant popular support, and elites supported them largely as a means to counter the rise of communism, while on other issues, elites and fascists often squabbled. It appears to me at least that on social value issues, fascists in power were indeed very conservative and anti-progressive, while on other political issues, especially economic issues, fascists ranged from centrist to even progressive. It is these differences that make it necessary to discern that fascism is a unique movement of its own, which I will admit is closer to reactionary in its social values than many other political movements, but deviates from reactionary politics in other areas.--R-41 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Argentina in the 70's. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Columbia

This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Columbia from late 40's to the 1950's. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issue: Comparison of Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies to fascism

In one section on fascism's position on religion, Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies are compared to that of fascists based on the idea that Khomeni's demand for strict obedience to religion. This is a very controversial claim. There have been many fundamentalist religious movements that have advocated strict obedience to religion, such as the Puritans who were known for persecuting non-believers. But strict obedience to religion even with persecution does not automatically equate to fascist stances on religion. I'm not sure as to what the editor was trying to point out, but I want to clarify one thing: some editors may point out perceived anti-Semitism in Islamist government in Iran as demonstrating "fascist" religious policy, but bear this important point in mind, fascism does not always promote anti-Semitism nor does a fascist movement require any xenophobia to be fascist, i.e. Italian Fascism opposed anti-Semitism and racism until pressured to endorse them by Germany in the late 1930s. A lot of references and explanations would be needed to effectively demonstrate why Khomeni's religious polcies should be equated as similar to fascist religious policies.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are refering to one sentence comparing comparing Khomenini movement to the Iran Guard.

The fascist movement in Romania known as the Iron Guard or the Legion of Archangel Michael invariably preceded its meetings with a church service and "their demonstrations were usually led by priests carrying icons and religious flags." Similar to Ayatollah Khomeini's Shi'a Islamist movement in Iran, it promoted a cult of "suffering, sacrifice and martyrdom."

Which actually doesn't mention "obedience to religion." The idea that religion and fascism (or fascist tendencies) are not mutually exclusive and often fit together quite comfortably in a political movement, was advanced by Said Amir Arjomand, (Turban for the Crown : The Islamic Revolution in Iran, Oxford University Press, 1988, p.208-9) (maybe by others as well).

Resemblences between Khomeini's Islamist revolutionary movement in Iran and fascist movements discussed by Arjomand and others go well beyond "obedience to religion," and include devotion to messianic leader, military expansionism, strong antipathy to leftists, intollerance of opposition whether violent or non-violent.

You may be right that many scholars of fascism do not accept this idea, but then again we are talking about a sentence not a subsection. BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But Khomeni opposed a key policy that all fascists promote, nationalism. Khomeni declared that nationalism was a flawed ideology which divided the Muslim people along ethnic lines. Unlike fascist states, Iran since 1980 has allowed political plurality with multiple political parties contesting elections (though these are accused of being fraudulent), while fascist states promote one-party rule and declare their opposition to democracy. There are many dictatorial regimes that are intolerant to leftists and opposition figures, we can't label them all fascist. Iran is totalitarian in the sense that it is a theological state with an all-powerful supreme leader, but not a fascist state because it rejects nationalism and it holds elections to demonstrate that the government is democratic, which no fascist state claims to be.--R-41 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war has started over fascism's attitude towards conservatism

There is an edit war over whether fascism opposes conservatism. From what I've examined, fascism opposes some elements of conservatism while it is supportive of others. Unfortunately every time I try to post information on the general social policies of fascism, someone keeps removing them, including an anonymous user who vandalized the section by removing it completely on the false claim that the section on social policy was original research. In it mentioned that fascists have typically endorsed a number of social conservative policies. I listed a number of references that showed Italian Fascism's positions such as a reference for the Fascist government's law that banned abortion, as well as having a reference for the Fascist government's decision to outlaw homosexuality, as well as others. Another editor added important points with references on fascism's appeal to men behave in a heroic masculine manner. Now this being said, I still believe that debate is still open as to whether fascism opposes other parts of conservatism. But this is debated, as one reference on this page by historian and scholar Robert Paxton has claimed that fascism largely served the interests of reactionaries. On the other hand, fascists claim to oppose conservatism. Some believe this is true, others disagree, and note that fascists have typically allied with conservative political forces when rising to power. It is a debated issue, fascism has individual traits in social policy that I mentioned before that were conservative, but also others that were more progressive. But once again, sadly a user has removed material that they disagreed with and claims that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. I urge other users to be aware of this edit war, and actively find referenced information that can clarify this dispute.--R-41 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the view that fascism does not oppose conservatism, is that the view is a fringe view, or a minority view at best. The mainstream view is that fascism, as far as a simple left-right spectrum is concerned, is sui generis. It incorporated elements of both left and right, and perhaps curisously, both revolutionary communism and aristrocratic conservatism were its close cousins. For this reason, it competed with communism for the same proletariat supporters and, at times, both domestically and internationally cooperated with the far left. By the same token, while it attracted sometimes adherents from the far left and criticised Marxism for not being sufficiently revolutionary, it also garnered adherents from the right and, particularly, as it gathered power it often became less revolutionary and found support in the establishment. The social policy section is rank POV pushing and ignores scholarship which is contrary to its editor(s) POV. For example, it paints the Nazi position on abortion as socially conservative, when the actuality couldn't be farther from the truth. Abortion wasn't limited as a morally unacceptable afront to the dignity of human life. Rather, it was encouraged and even forced among "non-Aryans" or by "Aryan" women who were carrying the child fathered by another race. This was not socially conservative morality but rather the racist eugenics and social engineering which was found among the left in the U.S. and Europe and mostly originated in the American left with such advocates of racist euginic abortion and contraception, Margaret Sanger and Paul Popenoe. There is myriad authority pointing this out, even some of the authority that is cited in the section. The section engagages in synthesis combining portions of various sources to say things that the sources (at least some of them) do not say. The section cites Dagmar Herzog but only for facts which would support the erroneous thesis that Nazism (and fascism generally) are socially conservative. A review of Herzog's cited work states: "On the question of how one would characterize the Nazis--prudish or licentious--her conclusion is ambiguous. The Nazis promoted an odd mixture of liberalism and conservatism." The same review goes on to say Nazi "propaganda sometimes encouraged such behaviors as pre- and extra-marital sexual relations, unwed motherhood, and divorce". The review also points out how Herzog notes that the Nazi's position on homosexuality was not at all conservative but rather stemmed from a leftist eugenic scientism. For this reason, the section misrepresnts sources, engages in OR, SYN and is highly POV, not to mention plainly factually erroneous. The Encyclopedia of World History specifically states that fascism is not socially conservative. I am going to appropriately tag the section until it can be fixed. Personally, I think it would be best to lose the section altogether (but I suspect that won't work) because fascism did not have uniform consistent social policy and the section would only be a POV magnet and a venue for POV pushing.Mamalujo (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave clear examples of references which show that Italian Fascism passed laws that banned abortion, birth control and homosexuality. Since these are disputed on whether these instances show social conservative policies, then the judgement will be removed, but I still personally think these demonstrate social conservative values. I think it is important though to recognize that a major scholar and historian like Robert Paxton views fascism as reactionary.--R-41 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A rather unusual statement is in the section on social policy now that says there was "nothing new" about fascist policy on abortion and birth control and that it was only unique in regard to racial eugenics. The reference given is page 80 in The Fascist Experience in Italy by John Francis Pollard and the user has provided a rough link to Google Books for the book. However the overview on Google Books has page 80 missing, as can be seen here [6]. So the user is going to have to provide clarification for this and provide a quote on what the page said. Furthermore the statement appears immediately after the section on Italian Fascism which appears to indicate that the criminalization of abortion and birth control in Italy was "nothing new" and that the ban on homosexuality was "nothing new". I don't understand what "nothing new" is supposed to mean if it is addressing the specific context of Fascist legislation on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, after all in the case of Italian Fascism, the government was not continuing bans on abortion, birth control, and abortion, but enacted them. I believe the editor was saying that in the general context there is "nothing new" in the sense that indeed other political groups opposed abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, and indeed these are not unique fascist policies, but other than pointing this out, I don't understand the relevance of the point. After all one could say that there was "nothing new" in fascism as a whole as all beliefs and policies derive from or evolve from other beliefs and policies. Furthermore, if Pollard said that there was nothing new in regards to these policies with the exception of racial eugenics, it is mistaken to use this in regards to Italian Fascism as Italian Fascism did not have racial policies until pressured to in the late 1930s by Nazi Germany. While such policies on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality by Fascist Italy were not new in an ideological sense, as I said before the Fascist government delivered legislation that was not in existance prior to it coming to power, so this is not a continuation of previous policy.--R-41 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may put in my 2 cents, I been in an email conversation with Roger Griffin. I asked him about fascism and conservatism. He said that fascism does have elements of conservatism but in a futuristic sense. That is when a conservative realizes he/she cannot go back to an idealized past to restore the values he/she longs for to overcome the decadence of the present society he/she is forced to try to realize them in an idealized future and becomes a revolutionary (hence Revolution from the Right). This would be the conservatism that fascism endorses. But you don't have to take my word for it. Email him yourself. It's easy to find. Bobisbob (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm more concerned with new content being added. One reference claimed to provide evidence of fascist policy not being conservative, but the reference was just a small summary of fascism which had no material at all that said that fascist policy was "not conservative". If a multitude of well-known and non-partisan (i.e. not deliberately biased) scholars claim that fascism is a right-wing revolutionary movement, then this should be investigated. I admit for one that I do not like fascism due to my democratic-leanings and the negative affects I see as it causing on society such as expansionism which leads to war, but my beliefs are my own, and I am attempting to be as unbiased as possible and have been trying to seek out sources that show both sides of the argument.--R-41 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Roger Griffin said to you in an email conversation, but he wrote an article about fascism for Encarta. [7] In it he states that anticonservatism is one of the three main elements of all forms of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He clarified that he meant restorative and reactionary conservativism but not the type of conservatism described above. Bobisbob (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that fascism sometimes banned abortion does not at all make it a conservative policy, that is merely a gloss of an editor's personal opinion. In fact, in all of the dozen or so sources I looked at about the battle for births, every single one of them talked about increasing the population or growing the number of fascists, none of them mentioned moral opposition or concern for the rights of the unborn child. This is leftist social engineering (like China's one child policy), not at all conservatism. Also, Nazis actually expanded abortion in some contexts, even making it compulsory (as communist China has also sometimes done). Contrary to the assertions made above, the Encyclopedia of World history (a teriary source, not the opinion of a single author such as Griffin) does explicitly say that fascism is not a socially conservative perspective. The attempts to color it as such are POV and, even worse, counterfactual. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that fascism sometimes forces abortions on "undesirables" doesn't make it leftist either. Their concern was limiting other races not reproductive rights. Just because China has a social engineering policy (which is different) does not make The Nazi's eugenics leftists it is social Darwinist. Eugenices was embraced by people on different politcal spectrums. And fascism not being socially conservative does not conflict with it not being entirely anti-conservative. Bobisbob (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misread me. I'm not saying fascist policies are leftist in general. I was objecting to the previous edits on abortion being used to characterise them as conservative. The point is their policies did have aspects of the left and right. However, social engineering and eugenics did and does tend to find much more support on the left. They are definitely not conservative policies, and that is point. If the social policies section had not been edited pushing a POV that fascist social policies were conservative, we would not even be having this discussion. BTW, I did call it leftist social engineering here on the talk page, and I believe that is what it was. But that is merely my view and I did not put the word leftist in that context in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bobibob, the racial policies of the Nazis were not leftist, they were based on social Darwinism which does not have a specific place on the political spectrum. Calling the fascists' policies "leftist social engineering" appears very biased. Political ideologies of all across the political spectrum have at one point or another attempted social engineering of some sort. Mamalujo should present the quote of the source Encyclopedia of the World History that says that fascism is not social conservative. Furthermore, the section that says that the Nazis were opposed to homosexuality based on scientific notions. This may be officially accurate that the Nazis claimed their views were based on scientific conjecture, but this appears to one of a number of examples of the Nazis' use of pseudoscience to justify their dislike of homosexuals and their persecution of homosexuals. After all the Nazis used so-called "scientific" means to determine who was a suspected Jew by measuring the noses of people. The Nazis picked and choosed what scientific analyses that were deemed acceptable to their pre-existing racism and anti-Semitism while disregarding scientific analyses that went against their views and destroyed literature opposed to their political views. True science involves debate, the full evaluation of hypotheses and their flaws before these hypotheses can be made theories, and even then, theories are subjected to thorough evaluation to decide whether they should be kept, altered or abandoned based on the number, degree, and severity of flaws within them. By repressing all dissent and dictating what were scientific findings are, the Nazis were practicing pseudoscience a.k.a. false science. Xenophobia was why the Nazis opposed Jews, homosexuals, and others, the use of science was not the creation of these views but a means to justify them.--R-41 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The source says: "It was not simply an assertion of dictatorial or military rule, nor was it a socially conservative perspective..." I think that's pretty clear and explicit. Forgive me if I'm not assuming good faith, but I think to avoid these edit wars and protracted discussions, contributors need to stop using fascism in its sense as an epithet and trying to smear some unrelated point on the modern political landscape. The mainstream consensus is that fascism, although incorporating elements of both right and left (it is National Socialism after all), was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.Mamalujo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an important note to remember about the term National Socialism. The term was not created by Hitler, the ideology was based on Anton Drexler's combination of ethnic nationalism with the rejection of capitalism. Drexler was a genuine national socialist, he was locksmith who was known to associate with workers and personally urged them to endorse nationalism and anti-semitism based on claims that Jews controlled the financial system. Drexler wanted both a nationalist and socialist revolution, though like Hitler he was conciliatory to the middle class and promised that they would benefit from the party's socialist policies. While Hitler thought on similar lines, he personally demanded that the party be called the "Social Revolutionary Party" which did not appear explicitly socialist, until he was pursuaded by others to name it the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler was opposed to Drexler and Ernst Rohm's demands for a socialist revolution to go alongside a nationalist revolution. Under Hitler's influence the party followed Mussolini's class collaboration views which rejected socialist revolution. Under Hitler's guidance the party moved away from focus on urban industrial areas to gain workers' votes to spreading efforts to the countryside to gain the support of farmers. And from the information in my university course on totalitarianism and my own readings, on the subject of supporters for the Nazis, German farmers at the time tended to be more conservative, and more receptive to anti-communist beliefs. In fact in my course on totalitarianism I and fellow students learned of how when the Nazi election campaigners met with farmers and wary middle-class citizens, they toned down leftist rhetoric and even declared that the Nazis' position on nationalizing private property only was meant for the confiscation of Jewish property. Leftist Nazis grew distant from Hitler after 1933 for failing to deliver a socialist revolution, this was especially the case in the S.A. Then Hitler violently purged the socialist wing of the party in 1934 by killing Rohm and many other left-wing Nazis. Workers lost the right to strike under Hitler's rule. Literal national socialism was destroyed in the party in 1934, after which the party was completely fascist-dominated, which meant class colaboration instead of socialist revolution, bans on worker strikes, and scrapping the Nazis' original declared opposition to private property, and abandoned its original hostility to industries. Real national-socialists in the Nazi party included Drexler, Rohm, Gregor Strasser, and for a period of time Joseph Goebbels. Now this is just my opinion, but I tend to think Hitler continued to have the term "socialist" in the party's name and left-wing sounding propaganda after 1934 just to avoid being accused of being a hypocrite after adhering to a party that had a strong and influential leftist faction up to that point. Some sources have indicated that Hitler in private despised socialism entirely. One footnote in this article which is linked directly to Mein Kampf claims to say that Hitler saw social welfare negatively as being used by the weak and degenerate to prop themselves up. A number of non-socialists associated with the party, including powerful and wealthy elites: Erich Ludendorff, a Prussian Junker (Junker essentially means aristocrat) supported the Nazis, Herman Goring, another high-placed Junker and also a monarchist associated with the party. In summary, I see pre-1934 Nazism was a mix of genuine national-socialism and fascism, post-1934 Nazism was dominated by fascism which is not socialism, but a different ideology all together.--R-41 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A while ago someone removed socialism for the list of thing fascism opposes by noting Roger Griffin's writing about Fascism form a new type of socialism. Well that same scholar says that fascism is not completely anti-conservative and writes about "conservative revolution" and it's relationship to fascism in Chapter 6 of "Fascism and Mordernism". Therefore I have removed conservatism from the above list. Bobisbob (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your edit but I also removed claim that was put in the lead to balance claim about fascist opposition to conservatism. -- Vision Thing -- 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OR with regard to the Fascist Negations

The fascist negations, anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, are a longstanding part of an exhaustive definition of fascism which has general consensus (although many prefer a shorter but consistent definition). I think that to reword or remove one of those three elements is OR. There may be some that disagree with the forulation as part of a definition of fascism, but that can be said about many parts of every definition, and the article intro recognizes that. There have been repeated edits which fiddle with the accepted statement of the fascist negations. I think such edits are blatantly OR. I would suggest that we list all three negations (not two of three - which misrepresents the scholarship on the subsect with a specific POV) in their ordinary wording (not some SYN or OR reformulation by editors). Can we get a consensus on this so we can have a stable intro.Mamalujo (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not original research, fascism's anti-communism and anti-liberalism is well known, and backed up by many sources, while its anti-conservatism is debated, such as by notable scholars like Robert Paxton who claims it is reactionary, and Paxton has written a number of books on fascism, and his works are considered worthy enough to be used in university courses, as I have read his work. I have mentioned Paxton's view of fascism as being reactionary before and another user has mentioned that another scholar who believes that fascism is a modernist revolutionary conservatism, and there are other scholars who believe that fascism has catered to conservative elements for support. Please forgive me for this sounding as a personal attack, but I believe Mamalujo that you are not taking into consideration the evidence by other users. These views as a whole may be mistaken, but the reasons they give to prove this are important to analyze. It is not that I am saying that "fascism is only conservatism and that there is no other possibility" but I and others have indicated, with evidence, that fascism's supposed commitment to anti-conservatism is debatable, which means that it is not certain to say that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. Also fascism was not entirely pro-conservative, but this is not only indicated by Mussolini and Hitler loyalist fascists but also fascists who disagreed with decisions made by Mussolini and Hitler which these fascists themselves deemed as catering to conservative and right-wing politics. These groups included the "Intransigent" faction of the Italian Fascists who were frustrated with Mussolini's decision to support the monarchy and his decision to reach out to the Roman Catholic Church, when they believed that fascists should overthrow the monarchy and weaken the Church. Italian historian Philip V. Cannistraro's collection of information on Fascist Italy in his large book called The Dictionary of Fascist Italy, claims that Italian Fascism became divided between the more left-of-centre Intransigents as mentioned earlier and a right-of-centre faction which Mussolini endorsed for many years that advocated conciliation with more conservative elites such as the monarchy, the Roman Catholic Church, and landowners via the abandonment of previous staunch opposition to property rights, all of these were means to consolidate support and power. I would argue that after Mussolini was overthrown by the monarchy, the more left-of-centre policies undertaken in the Italian Social Republic when he was reinstalled in power for 2 years by the Germans indicated a final reversal back to many original and Intransigent Fascist positions which were anti-conservative such as nationalizing property and murdering wealthy landowners, but this is an assumption by me, and a reference must be found for that. In Germany the Strasserists Nazis saw Hitler as selling out to the right-wing when he purged the S.A. of leftist Nazis and negotiated with conservative-minded elites such as the Prussian Junker (aristocrat) dominated German officer corps which remained intact under Hitler's rule, along with claims by Strasserists that Hitler did not deliver a genuine national-socialist revolution, but instead just a nationalist revolution which they claim occured in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. I invite anyone to investigate the claims I have made such as on Google Books, and I am certain that anyone can find information to back up these claims, and I will gladly provide sources for this information if inquired.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that the anti-communism and anti-liberalism are well known and backed up by many sources. The same is true about it's anti-conservatism. And what anyone knows who's read about this subject is that the three are virtually always stated together. The fascist negations are listed as the usual three in Payne's A History of Fascism, Political Science and Political Theory, Griffin & Feldman's Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Renton's Fascism, A Fascism Reader, The Culture of Fascism, and The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe. I think it's fair to say "many" scholars see fascism as opposing these ideas. "Many" does not mean "all" or even "most". If your read up on the subject they are often referred to as the "typical" or "classic" fascist negations. That is one of the reasons I think it is OR to alter the usual formulation of the negations. If you want to point out some disagree, I think that's O.K., but to delete the usual statement of this idea because you have one scholar who disagrees is not acceptable.Mamalujo (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But I have mentioned that internal forces in fascist movements such as the Intransigents in the Italian Fascist party and the Strasserists in the Nazi party claimed that the movement had conceded key policy planks to conservatives. The murder of Rohm who demanded socialist revolution, is commonly seen as Hitler conceding to the conservative Prussian Junker dominated officer corps, which Rohm opposed. Furthermore, Hitler banned the right of workers to strike when in power, and allied with big businesses to build up Germany's war economy, further concessions to the right-wing. A number of Intransigent Italian Fascists were bitter that Mussolini had not overthrown the monarchy but instead stood beside it. Mussolini did not deliver on his promise to nationalize property and instead allied with landowners, Mussolini did not deliver women the right to vote as he had promised, but instead took away the right to vote for all people, Mussolini allied with the Catholic Church after he had said he would not. Intransigents were frustrated about this. Thus a number of scholars claim this indicates that fascists paid lip-service to anti-conservatism, while allying with conservatives to push through key parts of their agenda. Declared anti-conservatism was largely a means to rally leftist-minded people to their largely militarist nationalist agenda, in order to make the movement a mass movement. Evidence that Strasserists and Intransigents saw their fascist movements as slanting to the political right is a good indication of why claims of fascism being "completely" opposed to conservatism are flawed, as governments, fascists sought alliance with conservative political forces. Fascism was however opposed to elements of conservatism, such as opposition to regional-minded or provincial-minded conservatism, opposition to conservative demands at the time for increased power for monarchies, and opposition to all democratically-minded forms of conservatism. This being said, policies undertaken by fascist governments have been seen as slanting to the right by both external opponents of fascism, and critics inside fascist movements. However, fascism as a whole is not a far-right ideology as some have claimed, it is typically in power an authoritarian and totalitarian centre-right movement with both social and economic policies taken into consideration. The Nazis may be far-right on the social scale if the Nazis' scientific reasons for their social positions are considered pseudoscience as a number of scholars have claimed.--R-41 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just leave the argeed upon negates (liberalism and communism) by themsleves in the main text and let possible negates be discussed in the section (like in the political spuctrum section). Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eco-fascism

Is there room here for a topic on eco-fascism or environmental fascism? I think there is definently scope for it given many countries are forcing climate change laws on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.231.252 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascist foreign policy

I noticed that under the search-word on wiki: World domination. It seems Fascism does not seek that as an overarching objective. It should be mentioned, because the popular belief is that it was precisely world domination that was the idea of Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.183.65 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does KKK belong in this article?

Should KKK be in this article, even in the parafacism section? I know the klan has had association with neo-fascists but that doesn't mean they are fascist. Communists, monarchists and other nonfascist groups have also made common cause with fascists in the past. The sourcing in the KKK section also seems kind of weak. I think we need a solid reliable source, preferably a scholar of the subject, that says they are fascist or parafascist. Thoughts? Mamalujo (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare the relationship between the KKK and Nazis to the relationship between the Nazis and those other groups. They are nearly indistingushable, at least today. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The current section on para-fascism is extremely misleading. In the opening paragraph it defines para-fascist movements as "anti-liberal, anti-communist inter-war movements" that "typically eschewed radical change and viewed genuine fascists as a threat." It is also mentioned that "parafascist states were often unwillingly the home of genuine fascist movements which they eventually suppressed or co-opted." This applies to Austrofascism, the Estado Novo, and the 4th of August Regime, but not the KKK, Baathism, or Islamofascism. Indeed, these latter three movements don't even fit the basic requirement of being "inter-war movements". Post-WW2 accusations of fascism are a dime a dozen; just about every post-war dictator in the world has been called a fascist by someone or other. We should limit the parafascism section to interwar movements, as the opening paragraph says, and we should add some interwar movements that are missing, such as the Romanian Iron Guard. -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 The answer is No. The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 

The intro, again

The third paragraph in the intro is out of place and poorly sourced. It is out of place because it launches into a discussion of the economic features of fascism, which is a controversial subject to say the least. I could try to balance it by adding opposing views, but the point is that controversial assertions about fascism do not belong in the intro. I will move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the appropriate place in the article, which is to say the "economic policies" section.

And this brings us to the second problem with that paragraph, the fact that it is largely unsourced. First, I challenge the use of the phrase "Soviet-style" in the first sentence. The USSR did not invent price controls or wage controls; I'd like to see a direct quote from the source being used to support the sentence in question. Second, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and will therefore be removed. -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the Economic policies section, but then I saw that they were already there. It appears that someone in fact moved them up to the intro, while adding words and phrases not supported by the sources in question. -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify what do you find controversial besides the phrase "Soviet-style"? -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explicitly said above, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and should therefore be removed. The first three sentences of the paragraph are sourced, but I dispute their relevance for the intro. Notice that they are copied almost word-for-word from the "economic policies" section (the exact same sources are used twice: [8], [9] = [10], [11] = [12]). That section contains numerous other cited statements with sources. Why copy these three statements in particular and not any of the others? For that matter, if we're going to copy arbitrary statements from sections of the article and move them to the intro, why not do the same for nationalism, position on democracy, or militarism? -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Spectrum

"The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism." This statement implies that there is a lot of common ground between fascism and socialism, which is highly contentious. There is no similarity between the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of France or the New Labour Party of Britain and fascist movements. --The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany were called "social fascists" by communists? -- Vision Thing -- 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Their point was that both fascists and socialists supported capitalism and were therefore no different from liberals or conservatives. It says more about the communists' position on the political spectrum than the fascists'. --The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader on Fascism

Ralph Nader defines Fascism as "government controlled by private economic power". Elsewhere he also uses the term "Corporate Fascism". While this has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, and may be considered demagoguery, I think the use of this definition is enlightening, because it helps explain why so many people link fascism with the far right and laissez faire economics.

I'm not sure how to integrate this viewpoint into the article, or perhaps it would go better on an entry such as Economics of Fascism. Is anyone else up to it? Sharkey (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this definition is helpful. Although fascist governments are "controlled by private economic power", so arguably are most other governments. Fascism has other aspects however that differentiate it. If fascism is defined so broadly, it loses meaning. --The Four Deuces (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascist Movements Were Socialist in Nature

Mussolini was a committed socialist and the National Socialists i.e. the NAZI's were obviously also socialists. The communists in Germany were constantly switching sides and becoming national socialists in the beginning. The reason that fascists are called that and ignorantly thought to be "right-wing" is because of the split between Moscow and other countries such as Italy and Germany, that Stalin, using Marxist prophecy, labeled as "other" and "right wing" in order to maintain some control of the movement after the idea of workers across the world uniting died philosophically due to things like nationalism and cultural differences. Fascist movements were explicitly socialist in their doctrines. The fascists expropriated wealth and nationalized or socialized (the two words are synonymous ) big business to the state, etc , etc. This is not complicated at all. Fascists fought for control of the left not the right. Fascism is not the antithesis of communism at all. That is imported soviet propaganda language in essence not a true analysis of the doctrines. JohnHistory (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whose view is this, and what are your sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you disagree with? Let me put it this way, if the state is not socialist in nature - it can never be fascist. JohnHistory (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Look up socialism and you will see that fascist countries employed socialist tenets in the running of the nations. Mussolini was a committed socialist, even saying that socialism was in his blood. JohnHistory (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

They are simple questions, but I guess I mus repeat them: whose view is this, and from what source does it come? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No no, I believe it was more complex than that. [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob2 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini may have said he was a socialist in the past when he was a socialist, but he changed his position, becoming a nationalist and a corporatist. Look at how Mussolini himself talked about the role of fascism twentieth century in 1932: "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century". Mussolini explicitly identified fascism with tending to the right, socialism is not a right-wing movement, so it is not applicable to Mussolini's own statement about fascism. National socialist versions of fascism on the otherhand declared themselves to be left-wing. So there is no single definition for fascism's scale on the political spectrum and it is not universally socialist, and "socialism" without a prefix usually refers to international socialism, which all fascists oppose because they do not agree with the internationalist class struggle being the most fundamental issue in society which international socialists believe. The Nazis, "National Socialists" believed in the nation as being the most fundamental issue in society, and claimed that the German nation and race was being persecuted by capitalism, communism, liberalism, international socialism, etc. which they claimed were part of a Jewish conspiracy. Original Nazi party founder and leader Anton Drexler genuinely believed in national-socialism, while Hitler in practice did not deliver on hardly any of socialist measures in the Nazi Party's 1920 Programme such as abandoning its commitment to of major nationalization of private property, Hitler purged the party of most genuine national-socialists in 1934 when he had Ernst Rohm and other left-wing Nazis killed. Instead Hitler adopted Mussolini's successful corporatist economic system that kept private property while intervening and nationalizing areas where private enterprise was failing. Corporatism as defined in the Italian Labour Charter of 1927:"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," then goes on to say in article 9 that: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management." This encourages the dominance of private enterprise in the economy except in limited instances where private enterprise fails. It is acceptable to mention "national socialism", because it is a specific variant of fascism. Fascism certainly borrowed ideas of state intervention from socialism, such as fascists' social welfare, but that doesn't mean that fascist social welfare is automatically socialist. Keynesian economic and political reforms created social welfare states in Western Europe and North America, including the United States, which continued to support capitalism, so again, borrowing policies from socialism does not equate an entire ideology with socialism.--R-41 (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What you think of as the "right" in american politics is something totally different then what the Stalin and Mussolini were talking about (and he specifically says he is a socialist, and Gregor Strasser - one of the idealogical founders of the National Socialists said - "We are Socialists" of course it is more complicated then socialism as an abstract term but so is fascism and every form of socialism because it does not form and exist in a vacuum. The "Right" in america are individualistic in nature, often characterized as religious in outlook. these two things, and the concept inherent in them of a small government are fundamentally at odds with tenants of fascism which are socialistic ( socialization of industry, secularization even destruction of religion, etc, etc) Mussolini was a dedicated socialist. he never renounced socialism - he writes about realizing that the idea of marxism - were not applicable in terms of marxist idea of the destruction of nationalism. again, the right wing of socialism (which using Stalin's terminology, remember Stalin called Trotsky a "right winger" also. anyone stalin disagreed with in the socialist world became "right-wing" . so be careful throwing these terms around) would still be socialists even under your incorrect view of the term "right". I will change the article later when I have time. JohnHistory (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here's the main point, since the article lists all the things associated with fascism (nationalism, etc etc) then it should invariably have socialism too. though I believe these movements were socialist in nature to a high degree, for you to say that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the long list of things "assoicated" with fascism in the intro is very illogical. JohnHistory (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

To whoever requested it here is the full quote and the sources. This should be enough proof. how could it not be? I'm bringing facts from the horse's mouth while this article is chalk full of garbage - yet it is I who is challenged. ironic.

Here is the full quote by Mussolini and the source. mussolini was a socialist his whole life - he just realized that the idea that nations shouldn't exist was ludicrous and impractical. mussolini - like hitler- saw men of all strata's fighting in WWI this made him realize the power of nationalism etc.

[(ALSO, RIGHT WING SOCIALISM IS STILL SOCIALISM AND DEFINITELY HAS NO CONNECTION TO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS(individualism, religion, etc)]

In response to fascism being labeled by Stalin "right -wing" (right wing socialism that is) Mussolini emphasizes his opposing view in the following passage from Heaven on Earth by Muravchik page 148- citing The Life of Benito Mussolini by Margherita Sarfatti on page 263...

"You hate me because you love me love me still" addressing Italian Socialists..."whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. SOCIALISM IS IN MY BLOOD."

after being forced to resign from the socialist magazine Avanti (mainly because of his support for WWI and embrace of nationalism) mussolini said "you think you can turn me out, but you shall find I will come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones." JohnHistory (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Please provide references for evidence if there is such an ideology of "right-wing socialism". Even so, we must think of what kind of socialism did fascists advocate. Some times fascist were indeed very socialistic in a statist sense such as by nationalizing large numbers of industries, other times they were very right-of-centre economically, advocating minimal government interference in the economy where the fascists deemed there was no need of government interference. This could be seen as third way socialism which advocates a mixed market. But then there is another issue, national-socialistic fascists recognize class fault lines, but their solution is not like that of traditional "socialists" (international socialists) who advocate a victory of one class over another, but instead seek to avoid class competition and conflict by promoting unification into a proletarian nation, this is national-socialism, which is much different than traditional "socialism" which is international and focused on promoting the interests of the lower class and restraining the upper classes. Also I am not denying that fascism has adopted socialist elements (i.e. use of proletariat and bourgeoisie in fascist political language) just as I am not trying to insinuate that fascism is completely associated with conservatism. Furthermore, let's be realistic about the topic here. I am reading a book right know that investigates multiple arguments on fascism by multiple scholars, THEY CAN'T AGREE THEMSELVES on whether fascism is right-of-centre, left-of-centre, or centrist in nature. So please do not assume that one side is correct, because another side will present many good arguments in return. All we on Wikipedia can do is only rule out ones that do not fit with information provided from many reliable sources (i.e. someone saying "democracy is fascist", "conservatives are fascist", "liberals are fascist" or "communism is fascist" etc), and we must be specific on what fascists supported and opposed. For instance it is a fact that many fascist movements openly advocated "national socialism" which should be pointed out in the article but saying that they just supported "socialism" alone is too vague and will become confused with people thinking of international socialist viewpoints. Now, what fascism is seen by many scholars as advocating is totalitarian nationalism fused with corporatism. Corporatism is socialistic to the extent that it advocates a significant role for state intervention into the economy to protect national interests along with officially allowing organized labour to negotiate on an equal level with managers. National-socialist fascists like Hitler emphasized the socialist aspects of corporatism in propaganda. BUT, there is another element, corporatism protects private property, protects the right to gain profit, and in fascist doctrine, corporatism is not to intervene in the economy when private economics are functioning normally and sufficiently for the economy. Mussolini himself stated that he wished that he had of called Fascism corporatism instead, as it accurately described the policies he was undertaking. Critics of fascist governments' use of corporatism including dissident leftist fascists (such as "intransigent" Italian Fascists and Strasserist Nazis) themselves claimed that it unfairly favoured business, landowner or national economic schemes in expense of workers' needs and that this amounted to concessions to the political right. These are what "intransigent" Italian Fascists and Strasserist Nazis believed, not just opponents of fascist ideologies as a whole. There were internal squabbles in fascist movements between left-leaning and right-leaning members, one of which in 1934, saw Hitler purge the party of all radical leftist Nazis who were promoting a socialist revolution to follow the nationalist "revolution" (Hitler being appointed Chancellor) including Ernst Rohm and threats on the lives of far-left Nazis like Gregor Strasser (whom you mentioned earlier) during The Night of the Long Knifes. A number of leftist Nazis remained, such as Joseph Goebbels, but original Nazi far-left policies as supported by ardent national-socialists like Anton Drexler and Rohm in 1920 such as mass nationalization of property were scrapped under Hitler's guidance when in power. Instead the Nazis followed corporatism as Mussolini's regime in Italy had done. Also back to Mussolini's statements, it is well-known that Mussolini was a political opportunist, he changed his position on issues repeatedly and radically. Mussolini in 1926, he spoke of the need to promote the interests of the Italian race, then said he opposed the very concept of race in 1934, when relations with Hitler's race-focused regime were bad, and then Mussolini reverted back to promoting the interests of the Italian race in the late 1930s through the 1940s. In the early 1930s, Mussolini spoke with a Jewish Italian intervier in 1934 on the issue of racism to assure Jews and others that he was not a racist like Hitler, then in 1936 when he was forming an alliance with Germany, he denounced Jews as a "ferocious tribe". He presented himself as a hero who would fight for workers against exploitation while he presented himself as a rational moderate on economics to the middle-class and businesses. Mussolini tried to be all things to all people in different ways at different times. It should be noted that I mention in the article that Mussolini claimed he was "right-wing" in 1932 and then "left-wing" somwhere between 1943 and 1945. That's opportunism and I don't know how one can claim that Mussolini was coherantly left-wing or right-wing from his statements. Perhaps political opportunism itself should be considered a part of fascism as an ideology, as this would show in one single section the variating positions that Mussolini and perhaps other fascists had.--R-41 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. 71.192.116.68 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

But a type of socialism advocated by a number of fascists is mentioned, that is national socialism. As I have said before we must clarify this because "socialism" with no prefix almost always refers to international socialism. Furthermore not all fascists were socialists, a number in the fascist movement were former anarcho-syndicalists who were drawn to a nationalist version of it, which is national syndicalism. Other fascists had no socialist, syndicalist, or leftist past, such as Francesco Coppola. Thus it is not just associated with socialism, but with syndicalism, and non-leftists.--R-41 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

JohnHistory, everything you have written is a waste of time because you are providing your own interpretation based on your reading of primary sources. Nothing you have written is relevant to the article because it violates our WP:NOR policy. R-41 has also written much informative comment but with respect, it is not helpful. This page is to discuss improvements to the article. Edits to the article have to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and most salient here, WP:NOR. I urge you to use your time in a way that will actually help improve the article. This means organizing significant views from verifiable and reliable secondary sources that are not yet represented in the article itself. When you guys can agree on how best to represent and organize your accounts of these views, and where to put them in the article, your knowledge will be transformed into actual contributions to the encyclopedia. Woudn't that be a good thing? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SirRubenstein, you are the one who asked for the source to the mussolini quote, then I give it to you and you say "this is irrelevant" and can't be included, etc. What? JohnHistory (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

And by the way, to finish answering your question of whose view this is - it's MUSSOLINI'S VIEW! JohnHistory (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Really badly written article here

This article is bad. I would rewrite it but I am too lazy now. The whole intro is wrong. there were several fascist governments and they had differences and the intro seems to dwell on something other then the doctrine which is what this article should be about. otherwise it's all just allusions to the holocaust and Germany. JohnHistory (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. JohnHistory (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have to agree with JohnHistory, though he's not trying very hard to fight against what seems to be the consensus on this article. The article really is terribly wrong, and frankly I think it has been compromised by left-wing ideologue Chip Berlet, who seems pretty active in the edits. To exclude the idea that fascism is inherently socialist is just wrong. What I'll call Berlet's Consensus is a perfect illustration of the word "fascism" in current usage. It simply refers to something that the utterer of the pejorative doesn't like. I believe George Orwell notes this in his "Politics and the English Language." At any rate, Berlet's is a deeply personal and blunt application of the word is most unhistorical, except as it serves to illustrate the uselessness of the word today. However, Wikipedia is in the business of providing a general view, not a contemporary, partisan position paper. It is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. And frankly, this entire article takes at face value the Soviet assertion that the fascists were right-wing and the opposite of everything that socialism represents, which is simply bold and untrue propaganda. The difference between fascism and international socialism is internationalism. And that's pretty much it. This article also completely fails to account from the remarkable similarities between the logic of nationalistic, non-militaristic or even non-nationalistic, non-militaristic social and progressive causes and the logic of fascism. Indeed, fascist regimes were, and are champions of these causes. This article pretty much ignores that. I have read the entire discussion page, not including archives, and I feel I have to point out how bad this article is. I am not trolling. I am starting a discussion in the hopes that other like-minded people will respond and take action. --Anacreon (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of KKK section

The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists. JohnHistory (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism is not a tenet of Fascism, it was a part of National Socialism, however, specifically in Germany due to the anti-semitism that was already present in the culture. The Italian fascists, for example, did not practice killing jews at all and refused to turn any over to the Germans until they were taken over by the NAZI's in 1943. Spain is another example of that. Spain refused to take part in WWII. each of these three countries practiced their own form of fascism.

Dachau, the German concentration camp, had the largest organic farm in the world. The nazi's were always into vegetarianism and helped pioneer the whole grains movement, along with the Green party movement which was started in nazi Germany. why not have discussions of PETA (the nazi's were heavily into animal rights, and seriously considered mandating vegetarianism for all Germans. At least those are accurate links not the KKK. By the standard set here those are higher relevance. JohnHistory (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Clearly the KKK does not belong in the article. They have had fascists among their members (such as Nazi skinheads), but I checked several of the sources and did not find a single one which called the KKK itself fascist. Mamalujo (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Peronism belong in the article?

I checked about a half dozen of the top sources and either they didn't mention Peron or Peronism at all, or briefly mentioned it calling it something other than fascism. We all know that fascism is an epithet and a political football, so editors of this article need to be particularly rigourous about requiring reliable sources, otherwise this article is going to be loaded with every movement or government that has had this label thrown at it. The idea that it is fascism is either a novel or fringe idea, and thus it does not belong in the article. I'm going to remove the section, if good sourcing is cited (doubtful), I won't object to it being reincluded.Mamalujo (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Peronism like other forms of LA populism should be discussed in the article on corporatism, but not fascism (unless as you checked a major source discusses Peronism). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)