Talk:Fascism/Archive 16

Just a little comment
I believe, though I may be wrong, that the problem with identifying political phenomena today is the same as the predicament before classifications were devised for plants and animals. Lots of people use terms like "fascism" loosely because too many people are offering definitions. We need a system for codifying political regimes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User: (talk • contribs) June 2006 or thereabouts.

Cleanup
What remains to be cleaned up so we can remove the dispute flags? I have moved much of the marginal material to Fascism and ideology. Is there still a problem with the section on religion?--Cberlet 16:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it now strangely dominates the article, since so much else has been moved to child articles. I'm not greatly concerned, but I suggest it is worth discussing what to do with that section.  Jkelly 18:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up a few things inn terms of style and formatting, but there is more work to be done. For example, all the sentences that say "(See also:article name)." should be deleted and the links should be either incorporated into another sentence, put in the "See also" section, or be linked as a "See further" or "Main article" message at the beginning of a section. There is also some unnecessary repetition, such as the content about the use of the word fascist as an epithet, which re-appears in a few different places. There is also some content that appears in the wrong sections, such as a paragraph about who supported fascism, that is incorrectly in the "Scope of the word" section. Spylab 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
Why is Robert Paxton's working definition of fascism ("A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion) not cited in either this or the Fascism and Ideology articles? I disagree with the view that definitions should not be part of the article; keep in mind that the text should also serve the interest of the curious general reader who seeks a basic grasp of the concept(s) - albeit perhaps one that is necessarily understood from various angles. While the "definitive" definiton may yet be elusive, Paxton's seems at least as worthy of being cited as Mirriam-Webster or the American Heritage. To leave this one (Paxton's) out seems a significant disservice to readers. Arjuna 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Added. Good idea. --Cberlet 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. Given the contention surrounding this article, I was loathe to do it unilaterally, but I do think it adds something worthy. Arjuna 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The term 'Communism' is often used as a political system, but isn't it more of an economical one? Therefore can we really compare facsim (a political ideology) to an economical system that some governments in the past have adapted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.170.102.41 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2006.
 * It's both, whereas fascism is mainly a political system. "Communism" in the respect that it at all relevant to this discussion refers to single-party government by Communist parties. - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that dictionary definitions should not be included in Wikipedia articles, since they are unattributed to any writer, and they don't really add much, especially in topics that are about ideas instead of objects. I suggest removing them and keeping all the other cited definitions of the word. Also, the content about the slang/pejoritive use of the word is repeated, I think three times. The two extra mentions should be deleted, since there is a specific section called "Fascist as epithet" (or whatever the exact title is). Spylab 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 'Scope of the word fascism'
Am I alone in finding the following a glaring contradiction: 'Fascism is not racist (even though Mussolini did eventually put antisemitism on his agenda and did in 1938 pass generally unpopular antisemitic laws)'? Also, 'fascism' should be in inverted commas. Etaonsh 10:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is confusing, and an issue where there is disagreement among scholars. Needs work.  Why should fascism be in inverted commas (quote marks)?--Cberlet 12:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some earlier 'Fascism' may have been less openly racist/compromised by the 'Axis' alliance with Nazi Germany, but references are needed, and the Fascism experienced as a force in WWII was clearly anti-semitic by then, as the article records.
 * It's surely the convention to use inverted commas when referring to a word? Etaonsh 13:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fascism does benefit a great deal from an external enemy, but that does not imply a need for racism. It's a good one, but religious fascism would be easy as well (within a single race), or possibly simply a different culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.166.41 (talk • contribs • WHOIS )


 * If you are not using Mussolini's Italy as definitive of Fascism, we need references for the source of your definition. Fascist Italy seems to have addressed the outside world very badly, seemingly having her ethos significantly compromised by a domineering ally and ultimately provoking military defeat by her enemies. Etaonsh 08:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many argue that hitler's Germany is the true definition of fascism. In the article it is onlyreally italy that is referred to as specifically fascist. Methods of defining fascism in the context of germany compared to italy would add much value to the article


 * "Many?" Who, for instance? The scholarly books and articles I have read begin with the idea that the defining model of fascism was Italy, and everything else is compared to that. A few do not even consider Nazi Germany to be a form of fascism (although I disagress). So there is Italian Fascism as a form of corporatism; German Nazi national socialism; and clerical fascism in countries such as Croatia and Romania.--Cberlet 12:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does allow for a broader definition of 'fascism' with a small 'f.' Etaonsh 21:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism and Fascism are similar but distinct. National Socialism has a more mythical, even cultic, vision of a volk (people's) community, and it also emphasizes racial identity. Mussolini, overall, did not posses these sentiments and was more concerned with political, not biological, weakness (his fears of Communism, Democracy, and Liberalism). They are distinct forces. GANDALF1992 03:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A few points: I would include Ernst Nolte's 6 points on fascism (antimarxism, antiliberalism, anticonservatism, the leadership principle, a party army, the aim of totalitarianism) [also quoted in Stanley Payne's Fascism]. Secondly, Mussolini's Italy was *not* antisemitic. In fact, Jews were overproportionally represented in the Party. Italian Fascism had an ideology of cultural, instead of racial, superiority. Only in 1938 did Hitler force an antisemitic line. Thirdly, I see that totalitarianism is mentioned. Hannah Arendt's definition of totalitarianism (On the Origins of Totalitarianism) has since been eclipsed by modern historians and political theorists. See, for example, Jan T. Gross (Revolution From Abroad), Anson Rabinbach, and others. And fourthly, it has become just as useful to compare Nazism with Stalinist Bolshevism as with Italian Fascism; Fascism lacked the 'totality' of society that the 2 former exhibited. It should therefore be mentioned that applying the label 'fascist' to Hitler's Germany overlooks the scholarship that has been using Hitler's and Stalin's models as the basis of a totalitarian model.

Hmmm....this sounds exceedingly familiar. You wouldn't happen to be Italian and have been indocrinated with the works of Renzo De Felice for the last 20-30 years, would you??!! There is no dount that de Felice was an extraodinarily talented, bright and knowledgeable historian of fascism (certainly the greatest and most thorough chronicler of this abomination of his generation!!). But de Felice was a self-confessed rigth-winger with an inveitable bias and limited access to the volumianous doceumentation that has recently come to light (and has yet to come to light!!) on that tragic period of history. In particular, the idea that Italian fascism was not anti-semitic has come under serious attack in recent years by several Italian historians of serious weight who have demontsrated that the Mussolini government's primary interest was in protecting exclusively Italian Jews who could be kept on as invaluable and indispensable cheap labor and did nothing at all to stop and/or enthusuaitly participated in the shipping off of non-Italian Jews in, eg, Greece, France and North Africa to the extermination camps all over Europe. I don't remeber the names of the major historians, but the journalists Furio Columbo, Giorgio Bocca and others have writeen about this extensively. The Italian racial laws were not passed involuntarily and Mussonili himself heavily redacted and published the Manifesto of the Italian scientific racists in 1938 or '39 (?). Neither he nor the Italian fasicts intellectuals/ideologists who collaborated in this effort were forced by anyone to adopt these ideas, much less to offically publish them as a sort of unversal manifesto for the fascist movement. I need to get some copies of these author's books and writings and I will let you know whatever information I can gather on this topic. Things are never quote as simple and straightforard as they seem: German Nazis-racist, Italian Fascists-involuntary accomplices!! I don't buy it.--Lacatosias 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Griffiths says, "Just as their was little anti-Semitism in Italy, there was equally little anti-Semitism in the movement, which benefited from Jewish founders in its early days, and which was joined by a higher percentage of the small Italian Jewish population than that of the Gentille population. It was only by the late Thirties, under the influence of Hitler's Germany, that that anti-Semitism was to play any important part in Mussolini's policies." (Fascism, pg. 38). Kevin Passmore says the same thing (he also gives instances where Italian policy was explicitly anti-anti-Semitic) except he says it's due also in part to a wave of anti-Semitism that arose all across Europe in '38 due to fear coming from the rise of Hitler (Fascism: A Very Short Introduction'', pg. 117). Without adequate sources saying otherwise this is the view we're required to take. - DNewhall


 * There's a caption under the magazine picture in the article that's pretty biased, and at the very least totally out of place. It has nothing to do with the picture itself.


 * As I wrote, when I find the sources I will get back to you on it. Period.--Lacatosias 07:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The book (in English) and anything else written by some of the outstanding scholars listed here would not be a bad place to start.--Lacatosias 07:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an outsider who just happened on this page, I find this is honestly pretty unpersuasive and trollish. Fixed your indentation, by the way.


 * It is not trollish to pose the question. I was genuinely interestd in it and there is still some debate over here.However, from what I've been able to read so far, I'm coming around to the conclusion that it really is an unpersuasive case. The people I referred to seem to be primarily editorialists of a strongly left-wing bent. It looks like a very minority position which doesn't hold much water. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Further points of discussion
Perhaps its best not to suggest fascism was an advocate of the state or nation as superior. Weren't these more commonly justifications for questionable actions?
 * It is not a suggestion; questionable actions are just how fascist states operate. A quick glance at the definitions of fascism shows that questionable actions must/will be taken in all cases.  To compare it to eating, one does not eat to justify being alive, one eats because one must stay alive.  A fascist state must commit questionable actions, because the individual must stay repressed, there usually is some sort of enemy against one can take questionable actions (like in war), or if no enemies exist one must be created (a questionable action I would say).    "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Mussolini 170.252.248.193
 * Are you sure referring to the definitions is the best idea? There is afterall a lot of debate over them. Even those used by wikipedia. - Josey, 18/05/06
 * By the way you did not answer that persons question - Alex, 19/05/06

Its good that it has been noted the difficulty of defining the concept. Why has the wikiproject for fascism said it will rely on the wikipedians definition though - What definition?

A similar system to fascism (albeit a primitive one) has been suggested to have first occurred in Spain up to 300 or 400 years ago. One author who suggesed this for example though there are many more is H.R. Kedward. Perhaps this is worth noting. I.e. "One for all and all for one"

Also Its good that the various differences have been noted between Mussolini's Fascism and Hitlers Nazism. Perhaps this deserves more emphasis though.

Various other advocates could be explored in more detail during the pre-war period such as those in Holland, and the US. Similarities to Japan and Kitta Ikki's ideas may also be worth exploring.

Lastly, i hope their are plans to expand this article. - A regular visitor to wikipedia 14/05/06

(Removed the new header that was here to prevent confusion regarding this dialogue.--Ma&#39;ath&#39;a&#39;yü (aka: Proofing) 07:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC))


 * I say leave it...I agree fascism is used to loosely today however it is a political Philosophy and there will always be debates


 * Please sign comments in the future as it helps to seperate the personalities in the conversation. Thanks.
 * There seems to be overlap in this discussion with one taking place at WikiProject Fascism. The topic I refer to is Accusation of fascism. It has been suggested that a seperate article be developed concerning the use, abuse, and etymology of the terms fascism and fascist. Thoughts anyone? --Ma&#39;ath&#39;a&#39;yü (aka: Proofing) 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Talk


 * Isn't that Fascism (epithet), an article that needs some attention? Jkelly 17:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see Fascism (epithet) merged with Fascist (epithet). And maybe that resultant article serves the purpose we were looking to address. Thoughts?--Ma&#39;ath&#39;a&#39;yü (aka: Proofing) 22:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Talk

Fascinating. There seem to be no corresponding articles on Communist (epithet) or Communism (epithet). I wonder why that is the case? Having lived in the US for most of my life, I can assure that the terms socialism (epithet) and socialist (epithet) are extraordinaily common terms of abuse used to delegimitize anyone who holds policital beliefs which even midly deviate from the hard-right wing views of Rush Limbaugh!! Why are there no articles on these particular terms of abuse?? HMMMMMMM!! --Lacatosias 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably because commmunist or socialist as an epithet are usually just accusations of being too far left, whatever that means to the speaker. Fascist as an epithet is more complicated: there is a specific implication of thuggishness, underhandedness, and contempt for justice (often nonetheless cast in legalistic form) that often has nothing to do with the left-right spectrum. I honestly haven't looked at Fascism (epithet) or Fascist (epithet), but I can see a case for saying that is a more legitimate topic. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's probably a legitimate point for the US. But Wikipedia is supposed to be international in scope. Over here in Italy, "communist" is still used (probably more now than ever) in the sense that it was used by Joe McCarthy in the US of the 1950s. It means something like "evil, atheist members of a worldwide conspircay intent on destroying the family, etc...". That IS an epithet and a very powerful one. Berlusconi used it systematically against his opponents in the recent campaign. He said that only he could protect "democracy" in Italy. He would make speeches in which he read from the "Black Book of Communism", going so far as to suggest that if the Left won the elections, Italians would end up "eating children", as happened under Mao.


 * This would seem ridiculous in the US; in Italy, it is still taken quite seriously. Well, if anyone agrees and wants to write about, they can.


 * I do see your point because I lived in the US for most of my life. It makes me wonder what sorts of connotations words like "Communism" and "socialism" have in Eastern Europe. There's something to be investigated!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and Sexuality Citation Cleanup
I added a book cite to the section because the reference cite above it wasn't working right and wasn't as complete in information (viewed on the edit page - link didn't work on the article page). Also, the ref link is suppose to point out that the citation referenced is from the forward and I wasn't able to make that happen in the book cite. I am not up to the task yet of sorting out how this is suoppose to best display and and be styled so I need some help for that. Thanks. --Ma&#39;ath&#39;a&#39;yü (aka: Proofing) 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Talk

Nazism began as a form of National Socialism
This deserves to be mentioned on this page, but in a factual and NPOV way. Nazism was only one form of national socialism. Nazism changed dramatically once in state power in Germany. The relentless attempts by a handful of editors to paint fascism as a form of socialism so that they can piss all over people on the political left is not merely annoying, but violates several Wiki policies. If we can teach cats not to spray in the house to mark their territory, there is hope that we can teach Wiki editors the same basic manners.--Cberlet 16:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually this article amazingly transfert the real discussion on fascism in the Italian fascism page, which I haven't closely read but doesn't seem outstanding either. Since many historians consider that fascism was a unique movement that can, in truth, only qualify Italian fascism, this is quite strange... There is surely loads of work to do here, and it is definitely important enough. Tazmaniacs 16:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We have been through this discussion repeatedly. Among current recognized scholars of fascism, the general consensus is that fascism (small f) had three forms in the interwar period (Italian Corporatism, German Nazism, and Clerical Fascism). There is also a general consensus that fascism survived after WWII in an increasing number of variations, including International Fascism. There is a lengthy discussion in the archive if anyone wants to see it.--Cberlet 16:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Communism was a reaction to bourgeois liberalism, fascism was a reactionary reaction to communism. Certainly if one was first a communist, one can have become disillusioned, and turn into a reactionary fascist. This is the story some liberals will tell you, and it needs to be mentioned as well. Intangible 16:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Fascism page got too big, and was split up into a collection of pages. For the page discussing fascism and socialism, please see Fascism and ideology, which is linked to on this page and the Fascism Template.--Cberlet 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would still expect an Anti-liberalism section though in this article. Intangible 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea --a fascist critique of laissez-faire capitalism. RJII 13:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As RJII is well aware, this debate has been repeated more than once, and the consensus is always that this discussion -- primarily a set of marginal right-wing claims linking fascism and national socialism in a way that bashed the political left -- belongs elsewhere, primarily at Fascism and ideology. --Cberlet 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that both Fascism and fascism are staunchly anti-liberal deserves mention in both those articles. I can only refer you to the work of Benedetto Croce. Intangible 23:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe fascism can be defined as any far right government that stresses intense nationalism over individualism, hence the bundle of sticks analogy.

<-And yet, most scholars disagree...--Cberlet 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I myself never had heard of the expression "Clerical Fascism" before and can assure that it is not a consensus of scholar to distinguish Fascism into these three types. There are clearly various categorizations and Wiki may have privilegied this "tripartition". I see however that the "Clerical Fascism" article is quite under-developed, and that it includes Vichy France &mdash; a term which is used by no Vichy regime scholar that I know of. I understand what the authors mean about it, and it probably is quite relevant for Salazar & Franco (although that doesn't makes it a "consensus" for scholars anyhow). In my understanding, Fascism usually designs primarily Italian fascism, which is itself then divided into various historical phases (before power, power, etc.). The term "Clerical Fascism" was clearly coined to refer to those quasi-fascist regimes which almost everybody accords in seeing some relations with Fascism (the date is a good point to start on), but with few of them claiming they were completely Fascism. The relation to religion & to ideology are usually invoked. Nazism, on the other hand, is often considered a form of exacerbated fascism, or "war Fascism", or again Fascism with a more developed racist ideology and anti-Semitic program. The question about the survivance of Fascism after WWII should of course be adressed. Tazmaniacs 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try reading some of the major scholarship on fascism written in the past 20 years. Clerical fascism is a common term. Your claims about fascism are outdated and marginal and do not represent the work of Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueur, Paxton, etc. What scholars are you relying on? Please name them and cite their works.--Cberlet 02:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Chip, you say above:  Among current recognized scholars of fascism, the general consensus is that fascism (small f) had three forms in the interwar period (Italian Corporatism, German Nazism, and Clerical Fascism). This seems distinctly wrong to me. As I understand it, four fairly distinct forms of genuinely fascist movements are recognized - Italian fascism/corporatism and imitators (including the Déat and Doriot parties in France, the pre-Franco Phalange in Spain, Mosley's party in England, and various other imitators in most European countries); German Nazism and imitators (Austrian, Danzig, Czechoslovak Nazis, notably, but other tiny groups elsewhere); the Hungarian Arrow Cross movement; and the Romanian Iron Guard. Note that while there are thus few true fascist regimes, this still leaves a substantial number of fascist movements. I would say that most people I've read don't consider "clerical fascism" (regimes like Salazar's Portugal or Dollfuss's Austria; movements like the Action Française) as really being "true fascism." If I recall Payne, his argument was that these movements, and other radical right wing movements, do not qualify as fascist because they are too conservative. If we go back to Nolte's fascist minimum, clerical fascism isn't anti-conservative - it is, in fact, reactionary. The extent of the leadership principle and the aim of totalitarianism can also be debated in these types of movements and regimes, I think. (Did Kurt Schuschnigg really develop the leadership principle?) Obviously most of the right wing regimes in Europe in the 1930s took some fascist elements, and shared in the anti-liberalism and anti-marxism that distinguisehd the fascists  But it seems like most of these regimes are more easily comparable to the proto-authoritarian catholic conservatism of a Brüning, or to the semi-fascist right wing nationalism of Hugenberg's DNVP, than they are to true fascism of the Nazi and Italian varieties. So I'd prefer to be careful with "clerical fascism" - I don't think there's any real consensus that "clerical fascist" regimes were genuinely fascist. john k 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian Arrow Cross movement which was briefly handed state power by the Nazis, and the Romanian Iron Guard, are examples of clerical fascism.--Cberlet 20:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any reasonable way to classify the Arrow Cross as clerical fascism. It was, as I understand it, a very idiosyncratic movement. There was a lot of pseudo-pagan mysticism about the Magyar people as nomadic warriors in central Asia, and that kind of thing.  It certainly doesn't seem very much like Salazar - it's more like Himmler's Nazi mysticism than like typical clerical fascism, but isn't obviously all that similar to Nazism, either.  I'm not really sure about the Iron Guard, either - traditional definitions of "clerical fascism" are based pretty closely on the connection to the Catholic Church.  Obviously the Iron Guard had a lot of basis in Orthodox beliefs, but I'm not sure that qualifies it as "clerical fascist."


 * At any rate, if I recall correctly, Payne, whose book I've read most recently, divides the various right-wing movements of the interwar period as such:


 * 1) The "normal right". Examples would include Brüning's quasi-authoritarian rule in Germany; Horthy's "reactionary liberalism" in Hungary; the SEDA in Spain; the Croix-de-Feu movement in France; the Colonels in Poland, Metaxas in Greece, the various strong men of the Baltics, the royal dictatorships in Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia; the clerical regime of Dollfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria; perhaps Salazar's Portugal.  These individuals and movements would be virulently anti-marxist, and usually not trivially anti-liberal as well (Horthy in Hungary would be a partial exception, perhaps due to the lengthy and strong liberal tradition in Hungary.)  They tended to be strongly traditionalistic and conservative, and to increasingly prefer authoritarian solutions and be contemptuous of liberal democracy.
 * 2) The "radical right." This would include Hugenberg's DNVP; the Action Française; Julius Gömbös's racist movement in Hungary, and similar groups.  Payne defines these groups as more radical than the traditional conservatives, and more right-wing than the fascists.  They embraced many of the methods of true fascists, but continued to identify with the traditional right in ways that the fascists rejected.
 * 3) Finally the Fascists. Payne divides fascism into four categories, as I said before:
 * 4) Italian fascism and imitators (Mosley, Déat, Doriot, the Phalange, etc.)
 * 5) German National Socialism and imitators (National Socialist parties in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig; various other tiny Nazi movements in other countries)
 * 6) The Hungarian Arrow Cross, considered sufficiently idiosyncratic to be sui generis
 * 7) The Romanian Iron Guard, likewise.

Now, obviously, one can define things differently from Payne. But the idea of "clerical fascism" seems entirely incoherent to me. To combine radical fascist type groups like the Ustasa and the Iron Guard (and, apparently you say, the Arrow Cross), with reactionary clerical regimes like Salazar's or Dollfuss's seems inappropriate. I think a basic issue is the distinction between a fascist movement (an idea which is fairly well-defined in the comparative sense), and a regime, which I think is an incoherent concept that doesn't really work - in no country did fascism ever take over the entire state structure in the way that Communism did in the Soviet Union. Even in Nazi Germany, which went the furthest in this direction, you have considerable autonomy within the officer corps, for instance, to the extent that the anti-Hitler plotting therein went unnoticed for years. Moving to Italy, where the royal family remained and the army was never really under fascist control, this is even more true, and pretty much every other regime that had fascist involvement usually never really saw the fascists in complete control - Antonescu, for instance, included the Iron Guard in his government from 1940-1941, but he was not himself a fascist; nor was Pétain really a fascist, although his government included fascists; the same can be said for Franco. A notable thing about many of the right wing regimes established in the 30s and 40s is the pluralism of their internal viewpoints. While external dissent was suppressed, there wasn't any clear consensus about the ideological position of the regime. This is particular clear with respect to Vichy France - you have genuine fascists like Déat and Doriot; you have reactionary Action Française types like Weygand who want to crush the French left, but hate the Germand and Nazism; you have technocratic internal reformers like Darlan who have decided that an authoritarian regime is the most efficient way to run the country and want to reform the government to increase technocratic control; you have an old parliamentary schemer like Laval who is mostly concerned with aligning France with German foreign policy. john k 23:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A number of scholars call the Croatian Ustashe, Romanian Iron Guard, and Hungarian Arrow Cross fascist movements.


 * RADU IOANID, The sacralised politics of the Romanian Iron Guard, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Volume 5, Number 3, Winter 2004http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/tmp/2004/00000005/00000003/art00005;


 * Nicholas M. Nagy–Talavera, The Green Shirts and the Others: A History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania (Iaşi and Oxford: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2001);


 * And others. I do make distinctions among conservative, radical conservative, and fascist movements.--Cberlet 00:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, so does Payne, as I noted above. He discerns four main types of fascism, two of which are the Arrow Cross and the Iron Guard, as sui generis variants of fascism.  I don't recall exactly how he categorizes the Ustasha, but I think they were considered somewhere on the border of radical conservative and fascism (but don't quote me on that, I don't have Payne in front of me).  My point was that I'm fairly sure the Arrow Cross cannot be categorized as clerical fascism, because it wasn't clerical, and that I'm dubious of characterizing the Iron Guard that way, because "clerical fascism" is generally seen associated with Catholicism.  I also find the term "clerical fascism" itself to be more confusing than illuminating - it lumps together authoritarian, but basically normal conservative movements/regimes like Salazar in Portugal or Dollfuss in Austria with much more explicitly fascistic regimes like the Ustasha.  john k 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, and Roger Griffin and I have gone back and forth over this same ground in a scholarly journal, with Roger arguing that the term "clerical fascism" is too loosely applied, and with me offering the term "theocratic fascism" to cover certain movements. Payne does not use the term "clerical fascism." But since a number of scholars use the term "clerical fascism" our original research is all very fascinating, but otherwise has no relationship to editing text here due to the No Original Research" rule. I don't like the term "Islamism," as it is too loose and is objected to by many Muslims as tying their religion to a political struggle. But I can't pretend the term does not exist and is used in a particular way by many scholars.--Cberlet 12:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how original research is being done here. I wasn't saying that the term doesn't exist.  I was objecting to your claim above that it is one of three generally recognized variants of fascism, along with Nazism and Italian fascism.  I was also objecting, later, to your characterization of the Arrow Cross as clerical, when, as far as I am aware, it wasn't at all.  I think we ought to be careful about using a controversial term like "clerical fascism" - which you've just noted that Payne doesn't use and that Roger Griffin finds to be applied too loosely.  All I'm saying is that we should avoid using it too loosely, and should closely base what we say on what major scholars of fascism say.  Most of the times I've seen "clerical fascism" used it's been in a loose sense, and not in serious comparative studies of fascism.  Many of the regimes called "clerical fascist," like Salazar's or Dollfuss's, are explicitly denied to be fascist by several of the books I've read.  We should just be careful with the term. john k 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

scope of definition
I believe the intro should use the common usage definition - not the narrow (Franco) definition. Perhaps we could say something like fascism is a government after the style of ... But when the man in the street says that someone is a fascist, he doesn't mean that they are Italian. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph clearly mentions the more expansive definition. And when the man in the street says that someone is a fascist, that does not necessarily mean that they fit conventional scholarly definitions of fascism.  Lots of men on the street say that George W. Bush is a fascist, for instance, although he clearly doesn't fit the normal definitions very well. john k 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are numerous related pages on Wiki that discuss aspects of fascism in detail. I think it is appropriate that this page has a narrow focus based on scholalry work.--Cberlet 02:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

<Sorry. Didn't mean to suggesting we should be less than rigourous in our discussion. It's just that the current intro starts off talking about italian facism, in the past tense, which is a misleading guide to the the rest of this page.

There is also some duplication in the intro, and a few things said by way of explaination that can, I think, could be addressed by rewording the intro to remove the confusing bits.

What about:


 * Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.


 * The original facist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II, most notably Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, but also Hungary's Arrow Cross Party, Romania's Iron Guard, Spain's Falange, and the French political movements led by Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot.

It combines the two paragraphs, and (I hope) makes clear that there a general sense of the word (implicitly discussed on this page) and a strict sense (explicitly linked to the first time it is mentioned).

Yes? No? Thoughts? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That does seem better to me. john k 09:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems better too me as well. Could folks please learn to use the colons to step the discussion over? This format makes discussions easier to read.--Cberlet 13:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel the current version has the advantage of explicitly mentioning that there are several interpretations of the term. This is not present in the definition you propose. Can you add something to this end? Dpotop 13:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It speaks of the 'original facist movement', mentions that there were 'similar' movements, and describes fascism as a political philosophy. That's a couple of different interpretations already.  What are we still missing?
 * Given that there is agreement that this is an improvement, I'll put it in. We can keep improving it.  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascist Economics
Noticeably absent is any serious insight to the economic policies of fascism. A few words are thrown around here or there, but there is nothing concise. But without understanding who was doing what with the $$, there is a big gap IMO -- jce17:20, 15 June 2006 EST]

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. There are already several pages where Fascism and political economy is discussed. See, for example, Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism. --Cberlet 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you mean? Economic policies? The truth of the matter is that Hitler stumbled into Keynesian Economics by chance more then anything else (surprisingly scholars can agree on this) – Hitler had no economic background. Further Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money wasn't to be released for a few years yet. Hitler was militaristic and thus spent money on military expansion. Although, this did result in economic growth it is doubtful that Hitler actually planned it to do so. - A Wikipedian - 19-06-06

A blurb on Hitler's use of mefo bills and general subversion of traditional economics under Hjalmar Schacht might be helpful because it belies fascism's tendency of mass deception and corruption. Potashnik 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-rationalism
Just wondering if there would be any objection to me including "anti-rationalism" in the first line along with the other elements that fascism incorporates? Though anti-rationalism itself has no article, opposition to the intellectual dominance post-Enlightenment, and a focus on urges and social Darwinism were significant aspects of fascist theory, as I have been discovering from several texts I'm reading about it. -Erolos 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More information of American fascism
Although the U.S. never was completely under the fascist spell of the 1930s, we have a far-right anti-democracy underground in America. Most neo-fascist and far-right political groups carried hypnotic labels or starts with "American", "Christian", "Conservative", "Moralist", "Nationalist" and "Patriotic" seem to hold a semi-fascist ideology. They are the National Alliance, the Christian Identity (not the Christian Coalition, sometimes reported to have a rightist anti-liberal viewpoint) and the American Fascists or Nazis under a variety of official party names. They preached the "dangers" of social permissiveness, liberal/moderate reform, the threat of "foreign influences" like Islamic terrorism, and hold a racist, nativist and anti-gay/feminist agenda. Many of the far-right get off ranting on some subjects like "political correctness", "liberal elite" and "new world order", deemed as threats to usually "white Christian straight working men" in rural America. The abuse and manipulation of "old fashioned" traditonal and moral values of a "very democratic" country by neo-Fascism in the U.S. goes ignored by the public, but widely reported by the media as conservatives whom gone to the extreme. If the U.S. is historically opposed to all dictatorship and totalitarianism, because they violate the free will of the people and the individual, then why did a rise of small but hostile organizations of neo-fascists/Nazis, hate groups and militias since the 1980's wasn't curtailed not by the government, but the American people? Most decent thinking people in the U.S. find the neo-Fascist movement is unworthy and unacceptable. It made me wonder Wikipedians from the U.S. and Europe are not fully aware of the subject on the phenomenon and we need sources to research American neo-fascism. The American far-right prototype of militia members like Timothy McVeigh, committed the 1995 bombing on the federal building in Oklahoma City, and he deeply held far-right/ neo-fascist beliefs. + 207.200.116.68 17:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The pages you are looking for are neo-fascism and neo-nazism, among others.--Cberlet 03:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of movements are against of todays democracy, not all of them want to throw it down to place an Adolf or a Mao instead of a W., but make it less corrupt from what it is right now (easily enough, money moves democracy today, making it fairly undemocratic), and these people arent necesarely facists.


 * This is the wrong page for these comments. Please do some homework. Please stop wasting the time of serious editors.--Cberlet 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Compliments
This article has come a long way in just a few months. The part involving religion and fascism is particularly interesting. Just a few comments though. I am hoping that the actual scapegoats used by the various regimes will be properly identified instead of been thrown untidily into a single overarching category called “national enemies.”

Lastly, the article states that aristocrats lent their support to the various fascist regimes - I think perhaps this should be substantiated because the various regimes played on the masses and as such drew the majority of their support from the masses and proportionally very little from the elite. -- A Wikipedian - 28-06-06.

I disagree regarding questions of support. Fascist movements drew much support from elites, especially business elites; their funding came mainly from business. This was one of the issues 'resolved' during the 'Night of the Long Knives' where the more populist, anti big business wing of the Nazi party was suppressed in favour of the big business wing. It is important to distinguish between: movements; regimes; movement prior to coming to power; movements in power (regimes); espoused policies; policies carried out; Pacificbiblio 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove Flags
I propose that we remove the quality and NPOV flags. Comments?--Cberlet 14:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks OK to me. -- Vision Thing -- 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Uncanny, I was planning on asking the same thing too. I'm for removing them. - DNewhall

Disinformation
The Roman Fasces (bundle with axe) is a noble symbol representing the power of cooperation. As individual branches are easily broken, but resistant when joined together. Likewise weak individuals become stronger when their efforts are combined. The axe head was symbolic of the awesome force of such cooperation.

Governments are instituted among men to secure rights, according to the Declaration of Independence (1776).

The fasces grace the U.S. Congress building, in harmony with that sentiment.

According to Webster's Dictionary: FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right which relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes and the brutal use of force for getting and keeping power.

LEFT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holds the most left or radical views.

RIGHT WING - the section of a political party, government or group that holding the views of the Right.

THE RIGHT - that section of a political party ... which associates itself with traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the right of the presiding officer.

THE LEFT - that section of a political party ... which differs most from traditional authority or opinion and which in legislative bodies is seated traditionally to the left of the presiding officer.

From these definitions, we can see that the common use of the term "Fascism" is inaccurate.

Both Hitler and Mussolini OPPOSED the traditional governments of their respective nations, thus branding them as LEFT WING. Since FASCISM is right wing, and in support of the traditional government, the abuse of the fasces and its symbolism is disinformation promulgated to confuse.

Both Socialism and Communism, by definition, are opposed to traditional government, they are LEFT WING. The common characteristic of both Socialism and Communism, is the transfer of private property rights to the collective (*State). They only differ by the degree of transfer.

The compelled dispossession of private property owners is evidence that both Socialism and Communism are piracy (or more accurately, piracy ashore), disguised by flowery phraseology.

Both "Fascist" Italy and "NAZI" Germany were left wing, and therefore not fascists. They WERE socialists, though not in harmony with the socialist paradigm promulgated by Marx and Lenin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetgraphics (talk • contribs)


 * Hmmm... Did you know that there is a party over here in Italy called the Radicals which strongly defends private property rights and liberalization of the economy, is ferociously anti-clerical, anti-traditional (they support gay marriages, abolition of the Concordat, stem-cell research, quotas for women in Parliament, pacifist disobedience, abolition of the military and so on) and they are now offically a part of the center-left wing coaltion allied with socialists and communists against Berlusconi and the right!!
 * Well, what on earth shall we make of that, my libertarian friends?? Meanwhile, the facists (Alessandra Mussolini) and post-fascists of National Alliance defend the traditional istitutions of Church, state, military, law and order, family, etc... They proudly label themsleves extreme right-wing!! Go back to school please!!--Lacatosias 09:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Italian "Partito Radicale" is neither a left nor a right party. While the joined the coalition that opposed Berlusconi and the Right in the last elections, they openly supported him when he first got elected. Italians Radicals choose each time the coalition that's more likely to support their agenda. - wrote by [mailto:nebox@tiscali.it | Nebo]


 * Please Note: Dear Jetgraphics: your comments are not a revelation--it is a marginal assertion by tiny handful of libertarians and conservatives. This debate is covered in agonizing detail at Fascism and ideology. Please do not assume other editors are idiots. Please read more widely in the field before lecturing us. Thank you. Have a nice 4th of July weekend, where we celebrate the quest for democracy rather than the defense of private property.--Cberlet 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is not Left Wing, Hitler and Mussolini were not left-wing
Again, this stupid point is being made! You can't describe Hitler and Mussolini as left-wing. it's utterly stupid. They both insisted they were returning to some form of real or imagine "traditional" values, they hated, or claimed to hate everything modern.

Yes, obviously they were revolutionaries who destroyed the (not especially well-) established governments in Germany and Italy, but they claimed they were doing this because the establishment was corrupt and decadent.

The only convincing argument that i've ever heard claiming that fascism is left-wing is that it believes in state-intervention in the economy.

However, lots of capitalist, right wing governments have used state intervention in the economy. I'd hardly call early 19th Century Britain "socialist" or "left-wing", but it used very heavy tarrifs and subsidies to protect British farmers. George Bush's America still subsidizes cotton farmers and imposes tarrifs on imported steel.

All countries introduce command economies during times of major war, both Britain and the USA during WW2 being excellent examples of this. Fascist countires being by nature militaristic, inevitably have some form of command economy to produce all the weaponry they need. But, unlike real planned, socialist economies, fascists never nationalized all industries and shut down private companies. Hitler USED private companies to produce everything from tanks and artillery to Zyklon B gas and the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Are there similarities between Fascism and totalitarianist communism? Yes. Does this mean that Fascism is left-wing? No.

217.196.239.189 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the National SOCIALIST Workers' Party, precious?


 * So if a party calls itself socialist, it's socialist? And I suppose every People's Democratic Republic is democratic. There is a common thread between

fascism and socialism in that both wish to use the power of the state to achieve their ends - but those ends are actually quite different. Conservative and liberal governments also wish to use the state for certain ends - are they socialist? or fascist? There is a common factor between fascism and communism of the Soviet/Maoist variety - both use totalitarian methods. But so have governments of many different hues, particularly in wartime. The distinguishing factors of fascism are in general an appeal to tradition, a distaste for democracy, a tendency to blame the ills of the nation on particular groups, especially foreigners or those of a particular race or religion, a tendency to wish for the nation to aggrandise itself at the expense of others, hostility to notions such as equality, liberty and the brotherhood of man. A cynic might also say that its distinguishing feature is that it is a label that everyone wishes to hang round the neck of their opponents, be they socialists, islamists or George Bush. It may actually be fair to say that the only true fascist regime was that of Mussolini, and others merely share some common features.

Exile 13:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It may actually be fair to say that the only true fascist regime was that of Mussolini, and others merely share some common features.

This is basically the way I tend to view political ideologies. It may be called the "archetype" or Gestalt/holistic approach. Instead of the usual pick- and-choose laundry lists of charactersistics--anti-communism, corporatism, social conservatism--one should look at the overall pictire of the archetypical Fascist regime and then discuss all of its variations based on the commonalities or lack of commonalities with the archtype. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 14:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a distinct type of political movement at least in the interwar period, including the Fascists in Italy and the National Socialists in Germany, and also other groups like the Arrow Cross in Hungary, Déat and Doriot's groups in France, the Iron Guard in Romania, Mosley BUF, Quisling's party, the Phalange in Spain, and so on and so forth, that it makes sense to use a single term to describe. Historically, that term has been fascist.  To the extent that movements of this sort have been involved in forming governments in various European countries, or that other regimes not so explicitly connected with outright fascist movements have co-opted fascist elements, it makes sense to talk about "fascist regimes" (although I would say that the only truly "fascist" regimes in Europe were probably Italy and Germany, in that those were the only ones where a fascist movement was in more or less unfettered control of the state apparatus - and in Italy, even this is not quite true, what with the retention of the monarchy, which, as it turned out, still retained some independent power - the others, like Franco's Spain, or whatever, were at best fascistoid, or quasi-fascist).  It's worth talking about these in comparison with each other, and the only term we have to describe such movements and regimes is "fascist."  Which is not to say that we shouldn't try to emphasize the differences as well as the commonalties. john k 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Communism and Nazism are opposite ends of the same beast, and that beast is collectivism. I consider fascism to be left-wing, but then I subscribe to the Hayek school of thought that right is individualism/limited government and left is collectivism/interventionist/Keynesism. By this definition, fascist are left-wing, especially considering the influence Mussolini had on Roosevelt's New Deal. But I also understand this is not the mainstream academic or commonknowledge position. And there are many compelling arguements that fascism is right wing. It comes down to the fact that the word "fascist" is used too broadly applied and misunderstood, with many people described as fascists who are not (ex. leftist calling GW Bush are fascist), and also left and right-wing are rediculously vague, inaccurate, utterly useless, and causes confusion.


 * Because who was bigger on individualism and limited government than Charles X, Nicholas I and Pius IX? Any definition of "right wing" which does not include any of the nineteenth century right as being on the right needs to be seriously reconsidered. john k 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Collectivism
Note to user Intangible. Please do not add "collectivism" to the entry core definition until the discussion with you at the Nazism page is finished. Assume good faith. Continue with your cites to published material that support your views at the Nazism page.--Cberlet 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Changed. Intangible 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not done. Complete fabrication and distortion of ongoing discussion.--Cberlet 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Distortion? Please provide some quotes for your last change. Until then I cannot be see this a ongoing discussion related to Fascism. Intangible 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about both of you provide sources for your additions. If someone can't then it shouldn't be included; if both of you can we'll have to work the working of that phrase out. - DNewhall 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Collectivism quotes (from Talk:Nazism)
in "The Social Crisis of Our Time" Röpke wrote: "One cannot continually intervene without finally reaching a point where the highly developed nervous system of the market economy refuses to function. The power of the market economy must, then, either be restored by a lessening of intervention or must be completely replaced by collectivism. This crisis was reached in Germany in 1935 and in France at the end of the Popular Front Government; in the former case it was overcome by a step forward, in the latter by a backward turn".

"The Bureaucratisation of the World" (1939) Bruno Rizzi:

"Bureaucratic Collectivism too has its social base in dominant classes which have established their headquarters in the States in Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan and the smaller States".

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

''"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism." ''

"Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?" (2002) Jacob Golomb, Robert S. Wistrich:

"At the same time Nietzsche also posed serious question for those aspects of fascism related to etatisme and totalitarianism. In this area the contradictions between Nietzsche's individualism and fascist collectivism were difficult, if not impossible, to bridge."

"Key Ideas in Politics" (2003) Moyra Grant:

"Right-wing collectivism is organic, hierarchical and statist; it stresses the individual's duty and subservience to the state. Fascism take this furthest with its philosophy of "Everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state"."

Some other quotes, from Bonn (1940): To Mussolini and Hitler economics are not ends in themselves, they are mere means which society needs for the pursuit of its main purpose "power," in order to dominate other societies and to grow at their expense...economics count only indirectly; neither the pursuit of wealth nor of welfare by individuals matters...this view of society is highly collectivist—in some ways more collectivist than that of the communists, for these people see society as a physical unit, an organic body made by nature not by men.

From Roepke (1946): The best way to understand the Hitler regime is to conceive it as one of those tyrannical collectivist mass-regimes...under the name of Fascism, Communism or National Socialism...That such a government for cogent reasons, will represent itself in the economic sphere as a regime which cannot be termed other than socialist or collectivist is a fact too well established...


 * Can I have my edit back? Intangible 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we are still discussing this at Nazism. Behave.--Cberlet 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wonder how your are going to rhyme "völkisch collectivism" with Fascism. Intangible 02:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well maybe you can explain, here, how holistic third-way nationalism is not collectivism. Intangible 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<---Definitions from some of the leading Scholars of fascism. Robert Paxton: "A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Ernst Nolte: 6 points--antimarxism, antiliberalism, anticonservatism, the leadership principle, a party army, the aim of totalitarianism.

Roger Griffin: "[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the 'people' into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence."

The term "collectivism" is used primarily by right-wing critics of government intervention in the economy to attempt to link this and liberalism in general to fascism. POV political polemic. Not scholarly. Discussed in great detail at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet: Ridiculous. Collectivism is a utilitarian justification for limiting individual rights in the name of the group that a government claims to represent. Since fascism (and communism) wouldn't have gotten very far with arguments like "I must restrict your freedoms (or even group x's freedoms) to improve conditions for myself and my buddies", or "...for the benefit of people in other lands", or "...for Gaia", the only politically viable justification for the suppression of individual liberties in the mid-20th century was a collectivist argument. Therefore a belief in collectivism is a necessary prerequisite for proponents of fascism. Another thing: I understand the desire to reroute the political discussion to the article on "Fascism and Ideology", but doesn't this open up the possibility of misleading people who read this article, and thereby reduce the usefulness of these articles as a resource? Shouldn't an article which discusses the underpinnings of what fascism is or is not actually be merged into another section of this article, especially since the definition of fascism is so hotly debated? 208.115.200.62 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)MBM


 * I have asked you how holistic third-way nationalism is not collectivism. Those quotes do not help me solve that question. Intangible 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because your POV and original research does not belong here. If you want to find an answer to your qustion, go to a library, please do not use wikipedia edits to carry our your quest. --Cberlet 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you agree that holistic third-way nationalism is collectivism? Great! Intangible 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is citing the leading scholars of fascism accurately, rather than POV pushing a minority viewpoint. Once again I invite you to take part in a mediation over these issues on the pages Fascism, Nazism and related pages.--Cberlet 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Minority viewpoint? Maybe you should talk to Paxton or Laquer. They will reiterate what the quotes provided by User:Vision Thing and me are saying. Intangible 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

<---I'm going to have to agree with CBerlet on this one. While you did provide cites for your claim the fact that the major scholars of fascism don't list collectivism as being a part of fascism is important. Besides the authors CBerlet listed I also checked Kevin Passmore, Richard Griffiths, and Roger Eatwell (briefly, he has a lot of stuff) and found absolutely no mention of collectivism at all (yet I was able to find references saying Fascism is descended from Bonapartism). I think adding "some scholars define fascism as a form of collectivism" or "some scholars find parallels between fascism and collectivism" somewhere later in the article is fine but it shouldn't be in the introduction (unless you can find more and better sources). Maybe it'd be better placed in definitions of fascism instead? - DNewhall 20:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I still cannot understand how you can argue that the organic state, that nazism and fascism seem to pursue, is not collectivist... Intangible 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what DNewhall or you or me (or Chip Berlet, at least in his incarnation as a wikipedia editor) argues. It matters what actual scholars argue.  And they mostly disagree with you. john k 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * They don't disagree about the element of the organic state/society. Which is what collectivism is. Intangible 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Collectivism, as far as I can tell, is basically libertarian jargon used in an attempt to link together communism, fascism, and the welfare state in virtually all its forms. It is thus both useless (encompassing, as it does, virtually every form of state which has existed in the 20th century) and propagandistic.  It is not a clear term with a clear meaning, and you can't infer that scholars mean "collectivism" because they say something which you identify with your understanding of that term. john k 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with john k completely. It is an attempt to smear the welfare state as a form of fascism or communism, which some libertarians claim are two sides of the same collectivist's coin.--Cberlet 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of repeating ourselves endlessly, I wonder if it would be worth the time investment to sort the archives by subject. On the other hand, perhaps a talkpage banner that reads  "The fascism article should not be written from a United States libertarian point of view" would do the job...  Jkelly 17:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A banner saying "written by collectivists for collectivists" might do. That will keep them pesky liberals away for sure. Intangible 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
We are going in circles. Will you accept mediation User:Vision Thing and Intangible? Yes or no?--Cberlet 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since a RFAr is filed against me, I cannot answer this question. Intangible 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My response can be found on the arbitration page: here--Cberlet 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Tags
Last time i read this artcle it sounded really quite good (not long after i posted "compliments" section.) Can we remove the tags? -Wikipedian(Again) -23/07/06


 * I removed the cleanup tag since I can't find any major problems with the article. If someone believes a section still requires clean up can they please put the tag in the offending section and notify us here so we know exactly what you think needs work. - DNewhall 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations?
I note that this article no longer has any inline citations at all. What happened? Jkelly 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it was a markup error. Jkelly 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascism and Sexuality: Suggested relocation
I suggest we spin this section off from the main article to a "Related subjects" article of its own. It's a bit tangential, and since the entire article is getting fairly large, we should become more active in spinning off such material. --Varenius 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. --BobFromBrockley 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm... I think someone has written a rant in that section. 24.160.89.140 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascist movements and parties
The see also section of this article has a couple of very marginal things in it, like Faisceau. Thinking about removing the link to Faisceau made me realise that there is no mention of fascist parties in France, which made me realise it didn't mention lots of other important fascist movements. Should there be some sort of section before the Italy section that introduces the key historical fascist movements and parties around the world? Or a bullet point list of these at the end of the article? --BobFromBrockley 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags
Wow, just the removal of all of those tags has enormously improved the appearcne of this article. The Italian fascism section is thin. When I get the time, I will rip out my DeFelice and other authors and see what I can do.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by User:66.42.13.122 to Mussolini's Fascism
I tried to fix 66.42.13.122's additions but couldn't so I reverted and made some comments here. The additions completely disregards or glosses over Mussolini's line of thought of the time. There is much, MUCH more to the development of fascism than Mussolini realizing "Socialist revolutions don't work". It also over-emphasises Mussolini's influence on the origins of fascism. The theories were already proposed by the French radical right at the end of the 1800s, Mussolini just adapted them into his own distinct style which he then christened "fascism". He also had many people helping him in the party, it wasn't all him. I agree that the section needs to be expanded but these most recent additions are fasctually incorrect for the most part. - DNewhall 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsolicited assessment
On the whole, this is much improved since I last looked in, especially the first half or so. A few comments/questions, though.

On the whole, I think this is a far better article than a few months back; I hope my remarks here will be of some help in building it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What precisely is "democratic capitalist economics"? I don't believe I've ever heard that term; I suspect that it is someone's made-up formula.
 * "An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism." Passive voice; I cannot work out what exactly is being said. I was inclined to rewrite as "These ideas show fascism's affinity with Social Darwinism", but I wasn't even sure that is what was meant and, above all, which ideas are being referred to. There is nothing in Social Darwinism that particularly favors mysticism or opposes class conflict. There may be a coherent thought behind this, but, if so, it is not clearly expressed.
 * Y'know, even before I hit the phrase "Watkins, who some accuse of being out of step with the academic mainstream…" I was saying internally "Thayer Watkins??? What's he doing here?" Does this fringe view really belong here? At least we indicate that it is a fringe view. And, unless I'm mistaken (I haven't exactly read him at length, doesn't he use "corporatism" in a way rather unrelated to the Italian Fascists' use of it?
 * Should the section "Mussolini's Fascism" really be marked as a stub? It's basically a condensation of an article elsewhere; if we want it longer, we can just bring over a bit more of the material from that article. Then again, looking at that article, it doesn't summarize easily, it's a bit scattershot.
 * Mussolini "forced by the Western Allies into an agreement with Hitler"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Certainly it could be worded more clearly.
 * The section "Anti-Communism" seems weak. It is better on the rise of the "threat" of communism than on how fascism was a response and counterweight.
 * The sections on fascism and religions (Catholicism and Protestantism) seem disproportionate. Fascism is not primarily a religious issue, but these constitute about 20% of the article. And there is only the most passing mention of paganism or occultism; I realize that is more an issue with the Nazis than with other fascists, but surely it deserves a paragraph if we are going on at this length about Catholicism and Protestantism, and in the latter case mainly about Germany.
 * Oh. And from what I can tell, the "Further reading" section looks really solid, good to have.

Removal
Just wondering why the cited phrase "(which some have argued don't properly fall under the definition of "fascism")" was removed from the intro of the article? - DNewhall 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I changed it to "Some authors reject this broader use of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes" and put it at the end, instead of having a parenthetical statement in a short lead paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry, missed that. Thanks. - DNewhall 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei and fascism
Please see the Opus Dei article on the latest research on this topic. I quote a portion below:


 * Messori (1997), who investigated the claim that Opus Dei is a kind of political party which supported Franco, says this is a longstanding "black legend" spread by the Falange and some clerical sectors. He and Allen state that of the 116 ministers of Franco, only 8 were members. According to English historian Paul Preston (1993), these belong to different political persuasions and Franco appointed them for their technical competence and not for their membership in Opus Dei. These 8 ministers were technocrats appointed to be part in leading the economic progress later known as the Spanish Miracle. Another historian, Brian Crozier, states that Opus Dei "is not, as its enemies either think or want others to think, a political party; nor is it a political pressure group...Opus Dei was not a group to be conciliated by being given a share in power, as the Monarchists were, or the Falange, or the Army." German historian Peter Berglar, an Opus Dei member, says that it is a "gross slander" to connect Opus Dei with Franco's regime, since the latter prosecuted some prominent members of Opus Dei. These include Rafael Calvo Serer, and Antonio Fontan who fought for press freedom and democracy, and later became the first Senate President of Spain's democracy. Allen states: While two of the most visible Opus Dei politicians in the world -- (Paula) Binetti, (a senator-elect) in Italy, and Ruth Kelly, the Local Government Minister in England -- are now women who belong to center-left parties, there is a sociological reality that the kind of people attracted to Opus Dei tend to be conservative, theologically and politically.


 * I will correct the item in this article accordingly. Lafem 09:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Failure of democracies reason for fascism
I removed the following statement from the intro:
 * There is also a school that believes that the import of Fascism was only due to a specific condition, which was the massive failure of democracies. They note that in only two instances, Italy and Germany, was democracy replaced by fascist regimes, the rest of the cases being replaced by royal, military, or party dictatorships.


 * An example of this reasoning in in the paper of Nancy Bermeo about surviving democracies in the Thirties.
 * 

The reason is that it's very broad in scope with only one minor citation and doesn't describe its subject matter very well. Also, and this is the biggest thing, it doesn't belong in the intro. - DNewhall 06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that I could only get one link. This has more to do with the lack of Internet references than to their non-existence. No one in the internet seems to know about professor Normal LeVaun Stamps, who did an insightful study about the collapse of democracies in the Thirties "Why democracies fall" though the political science community referst to it. Nor there is much about Professor Alexander Groth whose recent book "Democracies against Hitler" is an eye-opener. Nor John Lukacs, who believes that the use of the term "fascist" in the general form was due to the influence of Stalin who did not wish to talk about national socialism since he himself has abandoned the international form of socialism for a nationalistic one. Unfortunately w have reached the point where if something does not show in the Internet you have trouble proving that it exists...

I would like the subject addressed though. AdrianaInes 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I also Support. --Quoth the Raven 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you believe there is something solid here, there is absolutely no requirement that you use Internet references. Many of us feel that print references are actually to be preferred. Please see Verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a case for arguing that in the interwar period democracy failed in much of Europe. However, to explain the rise of Fascism in these terms is simplistic. There's a book by Volker R. Berghahn on the wider issue. See: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8042.html However, I think that the failure of democracy calls for an article in its own right and shouldn't be hooked on to this article. Norvo 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The 800 Pound Gorilla
IMO, the article SCREAMS the American GOP and George W. Bush. So I wonder when it is acceptable to add his sorry ass to the list or any fascist leader/regime to the list? Once out of office? 10 years after his death? StormBear 04:37 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, the Bush junto should be included. But let's start with an even more obviously fascist regime, FDR with his corporatist New Deal. If we can't get that one, over a half century old, mentioned, then I doubt if we can get Bush included. Hogeye 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * sigh* We've had to deal with this a million times before. The Bush administration is not fascist and its actually relatively hard to make a solid case for it being such. The Bush "junta" can be labeled as fascist when a significant proportion of scholars label it as such. Regarding the New Deal, that is mentioned in fascism and ideology and doesn't belong here. - DNewhall 05:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Claims that Bush or the American conservatives are fascist are already presented in the Neo-Fascism article, claims made of course by the "usual suspects." The mention of their claims is not really Wikipedia worthy. Intangible 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Summing up the libertarian position
Let's see if I can't sum up the definition of fascism in a few words, according to the libertarian point of view: fascism is any form of government intervention in any sector of society with the possible exception of the military, immigration control, capital punishment of the less fortunate (oh, I'm sorry, fortune is not recognized by these folks)....the WEAK and the INFERIOR like myself. Governments that fall under this classification: every single one in the history of mankind, past, present and future!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "libertarian point of view." Saying that there is, sounds like a sort of marxist dialectic. Intangible 11:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no libertarian POV. Intriguing?? What could this possibly mean? Does is mean that there is no single libertarian POV? The term is vague. So what?? The term blue is vague and relative, so is the term green, but that does not stop us from using them. the point is that  the various people who identify themselves as libertarian, notwithstanding their differences, tend to share certain fundamental principles and ideas, otherwise there would not exist a specifiable category of people who fit the bread outlines of the concept "libertarianism". In other words, if libertarianism means everything, then it means nothing. Since it most certainly means SOMETHING and there are people who fit into this vague category, I suggest that the description I have offered above is one of it's central pillars.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You could also say that libertarians are not fascists, and be done with it. No need for arguments. People profess viewpoints, concepts do not. The term blue does not have to be vague, I can easily think of a physical experiment and operationalization that gives a determined definition of blue. Intangible 12:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The term blue IS logically vague. You are confusing vagueness with ambiguity or, more likely, unclearness. Your operationalization and experiment would have to be based on some predetermined conventional physical parameter chosen a priori. Anyway, here's the proof: pick any space-time point that clearly falls in an area which most people would describe as "green". Assume that we are dealing with discrete values. Move further and further away from that point by gradations until we get to a point that lies between green and blue. Is the point more similar to green or more similar to a point in a clearly delimited blue area. How many less hairs does it take for a nearly hairless person to become bald? How many more shifts will it take until we move from an area of green into an area of blue? The sky is blue. But the concept of blue is vague. So is the concept of vague. "Libertarian view point" is simply shorthand for "the viewpoint of those people who espouse the concept called libertarianism". I could not say "libertarian is not fascism and be done with it" because my point was that libertarians deliberately misdefine fascism to the point that even many people who might be thought to fall within the category of libertarianism (e.g. Silvio Berlusconi and George W. Bush) turn out to be fascist on many (consistent) interpretations of libertarianism. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Language is also a convention. But one can assume that during a debate, people speak the same language and use the came conventions. Anyways back to the fascism bit, Berlusconi and Bush are pretty much social-democrats, not libertarians, thus your argument is futile. Intangible 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still not getting the logical point. I said that "the sky is blue" is true but the concept of blue is vague. Patrick Steward is definitely bald, nonetheless the concept of baldness is vague. But never mind. Bush and Berlusconi are social democrats. Fine. Now, Franklin Roosevelt is often described as  a social democrat and yet there are many "libertarian" editors on this site who continue to insist that the New Deal was a form of "fascism". It follows, according to that view at least, that Berlu and Bush are fascists since, like Roosevelt, they are statists and social democrats. This is addressed to the folks who actually DO sustain this view (and there are quite a few out there, such as Hogwood). So, if you do not maintain this view, then you are not really the target of my argument. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the premise in your argument is that libertarianism is different than fascism, although your conclusion is that it is not. A false argument thus. You can check yourself if your premise is at fault, or your logical reasoning. Intangible 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No one here is arguing that libertarianism is different or not different from fascism. Jkelly 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, au contraire.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Francesco: "Let's see if I can't sum up the definition of fascism in a few words, according to the libertarian point of view: 'fascism is any form of government intervention in any sector of society with the possible exception of the military, immigration control, capital punishment of the less fortunate..."''

No, you are mistaken. The "libertarian" view (from Robert Higgs to Rothbard to Rand to non-libertarians like Kolko) is that fascism is government control of the means of production while maintaining de jure private property. This generally involves corporatism ("war boards," "industrial boards") and massive regulation of production inputs and sometimes consumer pricing/rationing.

The New Deal was fascist since it involved corporate boards (National Recovery Administration) controlling production, and government price-fixing. There was no significant difference between Mussolini's corporations and Roosevelt's NRA and related boards. Hogeye 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fundamental differences are obvious and have been stated repeatedly by people on this forum and by the major experts on fascism: fascism is not limited to economic corporatism. Fascism involves rabid nationalism, authoritarianism and the abolition of liberal democracy in the broad sense, the cult of the leader personality ("Duce, Duce" or "Fuhrer, Fuhrer"), the creation of a police state, government spying and terrorization of the domestic population (closer to Bush than Roosevelt), elimination of all opposition political parties, the absolute subservience of the individuals to the state in ALL spheres of activity (birth control, abortion, sexual morality, book reading), the total control of the media and other means of communication and information (again closer to Bush and Berlu than to Roosevelt), imperialistic designs and grandiose international aspirations for power(again much close to Bush than to Roosevelt), an emphasis on past values and the restoration of past glory, traditional values and social institutions (family, marriage, heterosexuality, etc.)....Further, corporatism involved placing even labor unions under the control of the state and the elimination of class warfare by subservience to the state. That was NOT what the NRA and other such agencies were all about. I may have oversimplified in my first comment a bit. But not by very much. If fascism is defined as broadly as some of you folks seem to, then just about every government (past, present and future), including those that DESCRIBE themselves as classical liberal, are fascist regimes.   --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most would say "one or more" of those characteristics (as in the current article) rather than "all." Let's look at some you mention. "Authoritarianism and the abolition of liberal democracy in the broad sense, the cult of the leader personality" - Like buying votes through redistributive programs, thus getting "elected" for an unprecedented 3 times? Like threatening to pack and ultimately intimidating the Supreme Court to declare something constitutional when they had previously unambiguously declared unconstitutional? To objective observers, these are signs of executive takeover of power and anti-liberal developments. Some USAmericans, with nationalist blinders, don't seem to see this. "Imperialistic designs and grandiose international aspirations for power" - Like getting involved unnecessarily in a foreign war? Like insulting foreign peace delegations, engaging in illegal embargos, thereby goading a foreign govt to attack so as to change the 80% plus anti-war sentiment of Americans at the time?  BTW, you are wrong about the NRA not coercing labor unions - both key unions and firms were controlled by the NRA and various fascist boards, and by govt price-fixing. Hogeye 18:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Buying votes? Hmm....when has this ever NOT happened in a democracy? You don't need to give out actual money to rig a democratic system though. How about redistricting, gerrymandering, electronic vote-rigging, excluding people on the basis of not having the proper papers, the right color of skin, the right gender, making promises of jobs in exchange for votes, spoils system, ad infinitum? If we use this kind of stuff as a criterion, than liberal democracy has never existed, and given human nature, probably never will! Court-packing was certainly a bad move, but it wasn't successful and Roosevelt eventually gave up and did not go on to try to take the court over by violent means. "Unnecessarily in a foreign war"---Right!! A Buchananite. I think that one speaks for itself. BTW, I currently reside in Italy, not the US. I have traveled all around most of Europe. I don't write from any sense of American nationalism. I can assure you of this much: if Roosevelt-style corporatism is necessary and sufficient to be classified as fascism, then all the European governments that currently call themselves "liberal democracies" are actually fascist regimes. Every single party in Italy, for example, (there are about 26) embraces some form of social democracy. According to your criterion, they are all fascists, including those who have spent their lives precisely... combating fascism. But this is profoundly absurd. The Italy of today is not the Italy of Mussolini, whether under Prodi or Berlusconi. But, according to your criteria, there would be no such thing as the "Fascist period" in Italy because Italy has always been and continues to be fascist. Surely something is wrong with even the "one or more" definition of fascism. But I'll leave it at that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, there is another intersting thing about the Italian economy that relates to this subject which I omitted to mention. There is, in fact, a very large chunk of the economy (about 35%) that is completely unregulated and untouched by government: it's called the black market and it is largely controlled by organized criminal organizations. The rules are pretty basic and primitive: power and wealth is handed down from generation to generation through family connections (no estate taxes or anything like that!!); redistubtion is based on the possibility of annihilating the current boss/enterpreneur and his cohorts; interest rates are often very high indeed and the cost of not paying....well....say no more. Slave-labor, prostitution, bribes, the exploitation of drug-addiction for profit and so on are all very successful and effeicent practices indeed from the economical point of view. It's a libertarian utopia!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Francesco: I've seen you make excellent contributions elsewhere, so why the utter trolling here? This is not your blog. This is a page for working on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes. Alright. I got carried away. Apologize for the blogging. --Francesco Franco 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Facism redirection
Currently facism redirects here. Is there a standard policy on redirecting common spelling errors and/or typos to correct articles on wikipedia? This is the first time I've seen it done. --NEMT 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, most articles have common spelling errors redirect to the page they most likely refer to. - DNewhall 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that makes sense. We just have to hope no one comes up with a political ideology based on people's faces, then we'll be in a real jam. --NEMT 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

why no mention of the similarities between socialism and fascism
Of the modern ideologies socialism, liberalism and conservatism, socialism is closest to fascism because both support state intervention in the economy, both argue for large scale welfare programs (Nazi Germany was a welfare state).


 * That's your opinion, but many disagree, and it doesn't belong in an academic text such as Wikipedia.Spylab 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab
 * Yep, and conservatism (by which you mean modern industrial state capitalism) supports massive state intervention in the economy, on behalf of large corporations and financial companies, much more like fascism.Felix-felix 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me!! This is why I lost control, JMable. THIS right here. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!! If I have to stop, they have to stop. Eh???--Francesco Franco 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, infuriating, huh? john k 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. This tiny radical minority opinion, confined to a miniscule percentage of that minuscule 5% of the world's population which is the US is, to my mind, OVERrepresented in this article and in many others. I'm strongly tempted to put a POV tag on it.--Francesco Franco 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * At different times, socialists, liberals, and conservatives have all built and maintained large social welfare systems. In Germany, the social welfare system, was, if anything, begun by a conservative (Bismarck), and the post-war form was also built by conservatives (Adenauer's Christian Democrats).  I'm so tired of this nonsense.  john k 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascism might (that's subjunctive!!) be closest to Socialism among the three given above, but 1) this doesn't make them identical or subsections to each other, 2) might be because the model of only 3 ideologies (created around 1800) does not fit with 20the century realities. And Conservatism is anyway subject to change. Just my two Eurocents. Str1977 (smile back) 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here in Italy, it was impossible (no, that's not hyperbole, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE) to get any of kind job, advance through the educatioanal system, etc., without a "racommandazione" from some political or bureaucrat. This post-war practice began under the right-leaning Christian Democrats and kept them in power (and the Communists and Social Democrats out) for over fourty years!! The first large-scale privatizations of many industries took place under the ex-Communist governments of Massimo D'Alema, Guiliani Amato and Prodi (ex-Christian Democrat). The idea that Alcide de Gasperi and company were really fascists is a bit mind-boggling. --Francesco Franco 12:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the argument is that De Gasperi and company were really socialists. john k 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, anyway, the libertarians, Radicali Italiani, over here have long-since abandonded the hopelessly intrusive and Statist right and joined the left, folks. (--Francesco Franco 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Continental Radicals and Liberals share only superficial similarities with U.S. Libertarians, who are a strange breed unto themselves. Aren't the radicals rather like the Liberal Democrats in the UK?  (Or, at least, how the Liberal Democrats used to be before Labour moved right and stole all their ideas?) john k 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question. I'm not clear about the Lib Dems. Thanks for the link. I will respond further on your talk page so as not to completeley sidetrack this page again.--Francesco Franco 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One may argue whether or not fascism is a form of socialism, but one must be ignorant of the ideology to believe socialism does not belong on the list of related ideologies. (JoeCarson 13:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Apartheid
Some of the apartheid related articles (e.g. History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era) have a tag identifying them as part of WikiProject_Fascism. Fair enough, in my view. Yet there is no mention of apartheid era SA in this article at all. Why is that? Paul Beardsell 03:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they should not have that tag since there is nothing about apartheid itself that relates it to fascism. I've removed the tag from that article. - DNewhall 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

An apartheid state does not necessarily have to be fascist, perhaps. The main difficulty in determining this comes with defining fascism. But in the case of the South African apartheid regime I would have thought it fitted as many of the definitions of fascism as did 1930's Italy. State control of "essential" industry. Focus on an external threat. Personal liberty sacrificed to the cause of National security. Authoritarian society. What aspect of Italian fascism would you say South Africa in the apartheid era lacked? Paul Beardsell 06:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It lacks totalitarianism, corporatistic economics, anti-Communism, militarism, radicalism, and (arguably) rule by a small select group operating in the name of the people. - DNewhall 06:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

-

Leaving aside the faults of the current regime and concentrating on South Africa's apartheid era:
 * Totalitarianism: No black votes. Liberal party disbanded when inter-racial parties banned. Communist party banned. ANC, PAC and other parties banned. End Conscription Campaign and many other bodies banned. Newspapers banned, other newspapers closely monitored with news censored. "Immoral" and many political books banned. Many people "banned" from publication or from association (house arrest). BOSS and "security police".  Detention without trial as long as 180 days renewable by a magistrate.  Other than that(!) opposition by moderate White parties tolerated.
 * This doesn't seem to qualify for totalitarianism. Authoritarianism, maybe, but weren't there actual opposition parties in apartheid South Africa?  Weak, powerless, opposition parties, sure,  but they were tolerated.  Even the Liberal party was tolerated for 15 years.  The South African regime had some totalitarian characteristics, but was not totalitarian by any reasonable understanding of the word. john k 10:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right: They weren't quite "total" enough to be called totalitarian.  But then is absolute "totalitarianism" a necessary condition to be correctly labelled "fascist"? Paul Beardsell 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mussolini and Gentile are in some cases considered the founders of the concept of totalitarianism and referenced it a lot in their writings. - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Corporatistic economics: Telecom, railways, steel, electricity: All state owned and either de facto or legal monopolies. Other examples existed. Operated effectively as arms of the state.
 * Corporatism is more than just state ownership of business or monopolies as it also denotes a specific method for dealing with trade unions. - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-communism. Fanatical!  The minister of Justice could just name someone a communist and they were effectively banned.  Communist party banned for decades.
 * Militarism: Two years national service by White males followed by 2 month tours for 10 years.  Repeated military excursions into neighbouring countries.  Long protracted and "secret" (not reported in SA) invasion of Angola.  Military budget higher proportion of GNP than most other countries.  Security Council - essentially a committee of the State President, Law & Justice, Police and Defence ministers together with military leaders - ran the country for years.
 * Radicalism. Wasn't tolerated!  Which is pretty radical, if you ask me.  Strict conformity to party line.  "If you not with us you're against us" logic.
 * So, by not being radical, they were radical? - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't any of that count? Paul Beardsell 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 20% or less Whites had all effective power. Afrikaners, 60% of 20%, dominated those.  So, a racial and language elite.
 * The existence of a racial elite doesn't seem terribly fascistic to me. Apartheid South Africa was horrible, but I don't think fascism is really the right term, although there was certainly fascist influence. john k 10:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a fairly good handle on "apartheid". What I am struggling with is "fascism".  It seems to me that if you're going to be this rigorous with apartheid then Mussolini gets close to escaping the fascist tag also!  Paul Beardsell 13:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest looking at major sources on fascism - Robert Paxton's a good start, or Stanley Payne, and see the characteristics they identify. If we want to include South Africa, we should find a good scholarly study of fascism which includes it.  that the National Party was influenced by Fascism is, I think, indisputable.  I'm just not sure whether the regime itself was actually fascist.  Was it explicitly anti-liberal?  They seem to have tolerated a fair amount of quasi-liberalism, or, at least, a pale imitation thereof.  There was also not much of a personality cult - there was more of an oligarchy of uncharismatic party leaders, wasn't there? john k 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How? There is a pretty well-set definition of fascism that all scholars seem to agree on. By definition Mussolini and his party were fascist since they are the originators of the movement and the mark on which all other parties are compared (it's like arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist). - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the future, then, whenever someone says "fascist", the words "like Mussolini" will flash through my mind. I hope you aren't leading me astray.  Paul Beardsell 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of work on comparative fascism. I think trying to locate the Apartheid regime in that context is the way to go, rather than trying to identify it as fascist based on our own understanding of it.  I'm sure there's literature that discusses a connection, I'm just not certain that South Africa is actually described as a fascist state. john k 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that the apartheid era South Africa articles are no longer part of WikiProject_Fascism the pressure is off: We don't need to demonstrate South Africa as having been fascist to maintain the integrity of WP.       Paul Beardsell 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist"
Above it is held that saying Italy in the 1930's was not entirely fascist is the same as "arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist". But some do so argue. It would only be a contradiction in terms, not necessarily a real contradiction. E.g. some Thatcherite beliefs are not things Margaret Thatcher ever said and might be ideas with which she would quibble. Is fascism, therefore, what was practised in 1930's Italy, or has our idea of what that term means evolved? Paul Beardsell 11:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I wonder if you haven't been reading too much Edmund Husserl lately. LOL!! (I'm afraid only the the philosophically-instructed will get that one). But this is interesting:  Italian fascism was not fascist, Trotski was not a Trotskiest, Stalin was not a Satlinist, Soviet Communism was not Communist, democracy is not democratic, Darwin was not a Dawinist and Intelligent design is not theological. The other day I hear an argument to the effect that fundamenatlists are not fundamentalist. "Words, Words, words"...Humpty Dumty said: "A word means whatever I want it to".--Francesco Franco 08:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Communism section
It is all well and fun to talk about fascism and Anti-Communism, but this section talks more about the communist reaction to Fascism, not why fascism is anti-communist. Intangible 00:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Less complaining and more editing makes Wike a strong encyclopedia.--Cberlet 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, there is simply not much in fascist ideology that makes it anti-communist or anti-marxist. Sure Hitler and Mussolini made political statements that attacked the socialists and social-democrats, but this does not make those statements part of fascist ideology. It is easier to note that fascist ideology is anti-liberal, because it attacks individualism (both economic liberalism and political liberalism). If you want to talk about how anarchists waged a war against "Spanish fascists," there is an article for that, namely the Spanish Civil War. It is not this article that needs to concern itself about that. Intangible 03:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a simple statement that anti-liberalism and anti-communism have been common features of fascism and people can follow that up themselves. The section as it stands may be interesting, but has no particular place in this article. I will do this edit in a few days unless there are good arguments here against. BobFromBrockley 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, the political statements of Hitler and Mussolini are fascist ideology. Mein Kampf is full of disparaging remarks against Marxism (much more so than remarks against liberalism, for example). Fascism is inherently anti-Marxist because fascism views the nation as the primary unit of social organization, while Marxism holds that "all history has been the history of class struggle". This clash of ideas (nation vs. social class) was extremely important to both fascists and Marxists, and they invested considerable time and effort to argue against each other on this subject. Indeed, fascism defined itself to a large extent as "the movement which is fighting Marxism today" (direct quote from Mein Kampf, chapter VII). Anti-communism isn't just a random aspect of fascist practice - it is a core tenet of fascist ideology. After all, fascism was born as a reaction against communism.

The section as it stands may be incomplete, but the right solution is to expand it. -- Nikodemos 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we shoyld mention that communism gave rise to fascism, isnt that what Hitler said in Mein Kampf? Krishan sood

Please make edits in a more collaborative way
Totally rewriting this article in one sitting is certainly bold, but on a page this controversial, such aggressive and uncollaborative editing is not going to be acceptable. Please edit one section at a time and then discuss it here. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that totally rewriting an article in one sitting is not a good idea, and as anyone can see, I I did no such thing. I mostly reorganized sections to put similar topics together, and did other minor corrections to wording and formatting. I did not alter the intent or meaning of the content. Also, I did edit one section at a time, and explained my changes in the notes and on the discussion page. My reasons have been clearly explained. Also, making wholesale blind reverts to edits that are clearly explained and visible to anyone who chooses to look at the edit history does not seem to be in the spirit of making edits "in a more collaborative way." Spylab 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Spylab: Please stop this nonsense. Your aggressive and uncooperative editing style is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Please edit one section at a time and seek actual substantial discussion. If you do a wholesale rewrite again, I will seek to have this page locked.--Cberlet 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously do not understand Wikipedia policy. There is no rule about making many edits in the same day, especially if those edits are productive and clearly explained. And I repeat, I did edit one section at a time, as anyone can see in the edit history. If you actually look at the edit history, I hardly did any changes to the writing at all. Most of the edits were improvements to formatting and topic organization. Judging by the admin process being used in other articles, I predict that your request to have the page locked because of my edits will fail. If you have any specific objections to any of my edits, please address them. As far as I can tell, your only objection is that I did several edits in one day. Perhaps I should seek to protect the page from your unjustified counterproductive blind reverts. Spylab 01:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please learn how to indent comments. 24 edits in four hours is unreasonable on a controversial page. Please read this note that is posted at the top of this page:
 * Subject lines are not actual discussion. I am not making blind reverts. I am asking that you have some maners and edit collaboratively.  I read your edits, and have disagreements. Make them one section at a time, and we can dicuss them.--Cberlet 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will indent my comments on talk pages the way I choose. None of my edits have been controversial or have made any substantial changes to the content or meaning. They are mostly common housekeeping and copy editing matters. You are, in fact, making blind reverts because your reverts are not based on the nature or content of my edits, just the fact that I did many edits at once (as I have seen many people do in articles without backlash). I suppose I again have to remind you that I did, in fact, make my edits one section at a time. Please outline your disagreements to my edits (or reverse those specific edits) instead of making counterproductive wholesale blind reverts. Spylab 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will indent my comments on talk pages the way I choose. None of my edits have been controversial or have made any substantial changes to the content or meaning. They are mostly common housekeeping and copy editing matters. You are, in fact, making blind reverts because your reverts are not based on the nature or content of my edits, just the fact that I did many edits at once (as I have seen many people do in articles without backlash). I suppose I again have to remind you that I did, in fact, make my edits one section at a time. Please outline your disagreements to my edits (or reverse those specific edits) instead of making counterproductive wholesale blind reverts. Spylab 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini cites
Please note that it is not proper to cite an Italian Encyclopedia for which there is no direct English translation. There are two official Italian government translations of the basic text, but they differ: I am restoring the properly cited quotes.
 * Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.
 * Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.


 * Fair enough, but the one very long Mussolini quote should be shortened, because direct quotes that long are not considered acceptable encyclopedic style. And if the quotes I pasted from another article are unacceptable, then they should also be changed in the Wikipedia article that I copied them from.Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo-fascism links list posing as an article section
I moved the list of links from the neo-Fascism section into the "See Also" section because that's where lists of links are supposed to be. The neo-fascism section had no substantial content other than links to other articles, so it didn't even qualify as a section stub. The only sentence in the neo-fascism section said something along the lines of here are a bunch of links related to neo-Fascism. Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions
The dictionary definitions of fascism should be removed, because dictionary definitions are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Dictionaries and other encyclopedias have no accountability because they are written by anonymous groups of people who don't have their names atttached to the definitions.Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Spylab
I respectfully ask that you consider the possibility that your very high evaluation of your own intelligence and editing skills gets in the way of collaborative editing here on Wikipedia?--Cberlet 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 04:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It really is meant as respectful advice. You seem to ignore any possibility that your tendency toward arrogance, bullying, and aggression is disruptive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. What is it going to take to get you to take a moment and be self-reflective? Can you accept the possibility that other editors have something valuable to contribute? Some of you edits are very good, and some of them border on incompetence and sloppiness. What's that about?  Your pace of editing does not appear to be healthy. It certainly is not constructive or collaborative in some cases. Have you thought about just taking a break now and then?--Cberlet 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use colons to indent comments. Please note the following text posted at the top of this page:
 * Actual discussion means more than simply posting demands and threats. Please discuss actual content with actual collaborative discussion. Please edit with a scalpel not a meat cleaver.--Cberlet 13:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we all need to grow up here don't we? We need to use this page to discuss making this article on a very important political ideology not worrying about one and others edting skills, if you are unhappy about somethng simply change it dont have a big fight about it!! --Krishan_sood13:47 10 December 2006 (GMT)
 * You should probably know, Cberlet, that Spylab was up to this same type of disruptive, arrogant behaviour at the socialism article a while ago. Not a single editor supported his contributions&mdash;in fact, three opposed them&mdash;yet he continued to engage in edit warring.  Basically, he has a history of refusing to moderate his position and of ignoring the opinions of other users. -- WGee 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You should probably know, Cberlet, that Spylab was up to this same type of disruptive, arrogant behaviour at the socialism article a while ago. Not a single editor supported his contributions&mdash;in fact, three opposed them&mdash;yet he continued to engage in edit warring.  Basically, he has a history of refusing to moderate his position and of ignoring the opinions of other users. -- WGee 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Not all editors disagreed with my edits. And of those three who did disagree, some of them only partially disagreed. And besides, that was a very long time ago. As anyone can see by my edit and talk history, saying I have "a history of refusing to moderate [my] position and of ignoring the opinions of other users" is an innacurate statement. Spylab 11:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 *  Really now, Spylab. I might have let this discussion stand without adding my own personal views... but after that last line, I really cannot let it pass without comment. Is it possible you've somehow already forgotten your very similar and quite recent editing blitzkrieg over at Neo-fascism and religion?? You seem to have gone straight from that massive round of edits to your next onslaught, here, without looking back. In fact, I suspect you never even saw the comments that I posted at Talk:Neo-fascism and religion back on Dec. 1. So here's most of what I had to say, seeing as it's just as pertinent now as it was 2 weeks ago.


 * My two cents: Too many edits in too short a period. Better to undertake an editing project of that scope with a degree of collaboration and consultation. No doubt the "bulldozer" approach saves a lot of time (for the person doing it, at least) -- but using a more collegial ("Wikipedian") approach is more likely to produce good results in the long run. (I would have thought that Iraq/2003-6 had demonstrated that "Shock and Awe" was overrated... :)


 * To be sure, Spylab has accomplished some good results with his -- I believe the word is, "Herculean" -- effort. But it leaves behind a new array of issues that will need to be dealt with.


 * It should be apparent that I was endeavoring to be restrained and diplomatic in my comments. But given your obstinate refusal to take heed of gentler pleading, I can only conclude that it was a wasted effort. Perhaps you have personal issues that you need to deal with. (I won't violate your privacy by inquiring as to what they might be, but I will observe that the extreme rate of editing recorded in your edit history when I checked two weeks ago does suggest certain possibilities.) With that, I will say no more on the subject.


 * Please take our comments to heart, and make a serious effort to develop a more cooperative, and less antagonistic, approach to editing. Cgingold 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)