Talk:Fascism/Archive 21

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt quote
I mistakenly wrote in an edit note that the quotation in the following paragraph did not mention the word fascism, but I stand by my deletion of the quote because there was no reference proving that he actually said that. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt defined fascism in a famous quotation-- "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: Ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." If anyone can find a reference to back it up, feel free to re-add the quote)Spylab (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Point 4 of the original post: Fascist Italy didn't ban all Trade Unions. They banned all except the Fascist Unions. They didn't persecute or beat or arrest anyone for being members of Trade Unions, why would they? 86.138.150.107 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

Lead
Note to Nikodemos. The first paragraph is cited to specifric authors. If you cannot cite the page of the cited author's book on which your claims are validated, you have no business changing the lead.--Cberlet (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the lead is that it is far too vague. Fascism is defined as an authoritarian movement that subordinates the interests of the individual to something; which is to say any authoritarian movement at all. I'm sure all citations support this, because fascism is indeed an authoritarian movement. The point is that we need to say a bit more about it rather than just the fact that it is authoritarian - even if that "little bit more" just notes the difficulty in finding a definition. -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

Alright. I have compiled a hybrid definition based on the definitions given by Paxton, Griffin and Passmore. I have deliberately avoided mentioning the relationship of fascism to any other ideas or ideologies, as those are inevitably controversial. Tell me what you think. Also, I have another definition in mind in case it will turn out to be impossible to reach consensus:
 * "Fascism is a term used to describe a type of authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements; the precise features needed for an authoritarian nationalist movement to qualify as fascist are a matter of controversy among historians."

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Then why not seek consensus rather than just inserting your version, Cold Porcelain? The newer majority scholarship shifts the focus from the loss of individual rights to the primacy of the homogeneous collective in its struggle for rebirth after a period of decline. Your version is outdated. --Cberlet (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try that on someone more gullible. I'm not that easily deceived and manipulated. Cold Porcelain (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources have been given to support our definition. Furthermore, this definition includes yours, because placing the nation or race above all other sources of loyalty implies placing the nation or race above the individual (among other things). I suggest you read the wikipedia guidelines before you say that "there is nothing to argue about," and I suggest that you try to work towards a more constructive compromise. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you expect me to compromise. I'm not going to compromise the source. It says the interests of the individual is subordinated to the interests of the nation. This is the same way Mussolini defines it. You might not like that definition or think you have a better one but that definition exists and is cited. Cold Porcelain (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The loss of individual rights doesn't exclude the primacy of the homogeneous collective, in fact they are complementary. -- Vision Thing -- 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. The point is that the loss of individual rights is already implied in the term "authoritarian," and that fascism places the nation (or race) above everything, not just above the individual. -- Nikodemos (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "authoritarian" does not elucidate the collectivist fundamental of the ideology. Cold Porcelain (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * Characterizing fascist or neo-fascist movements as "third-way" is a really easy mistake to make, but nevertheless a serious one. "Third-way" is a popular approach to economics employed by many liberal Western governments today that seeks a mix of interventionist and free-market attributes. This often comes off as support for neo-liberal market structures, something that traditional fascist philosophy is in fact very much opposed to. The correct term for modern fascist economics is "Third-Position", which also opposes the extremes of either laissez-faire capitalism or communism, but in a nationalist and corporatist way. An easy way to remember the difference is to keep in mind that "third-way" is a centrist approach, defined as neither left nor right due to its moderate nature. Third-Position, on the other hand, is a syncretic movement, which is neither left nor right not because it is moderate, but because it incorporates elements of the far-left and far-right in an attempt at ideological reconciliation. I'm going to go ahead and fix this mistake, if that's alright with everybody.--Apjohns54 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

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

Cbartlet also listed Payne, Fritzsche, Laclau, and Reich as sources but no quotes or page numbers are given for them. -- Vision Thing -- 19:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Laqueur quote says: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right". (p. 223.) "gravitating toward the extreme Right" is not the same as "the extreme Right". So that doesn't support Cbartlet's interpretation especially when we take into account what Laqueur said on page 13: "Fascism did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either. In many respects, fascism was not conservative at all in inspiration but was aimed at creating a new society with a new kind of human beings."
 * Eatwell quote: "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak" (p.39) – how can this be used as a source?
 * Griffin part from summarized section says: "Griffin (1991, 2000) also does not include right-wing ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described fascism as "Revolution from the Right" (2000), pp. 185-201." - on the page 50. Griffin says: "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good ground for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own "beyond left and right."


 * I was very careful to not claim that fascism is simply a right-wing ideology, I wrote:
 * According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, but fascism, especially once in power, has historically attracted support primarily from the political right, especially the "far right" or "extreme right."[ref]Laqueuer, 1996 p. 223; Eatwell, 1996, p. 39; Griffin, 1991, 2000, pp. 185-201; Weber, [1964] 1982, p. 8; Payne (1995), Fritzsche (1990), Laclau (1977), and Reich (1970).[end ref] (See: Fascism and ideology).
 * This is totally supported by the scholars I cited.--Cberlet (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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

And btw, most scholars do not agree on an accepted definition of what fascism means. It has been used as a pejorative term for 60 years for most honest scholars to take an objective look at it. Most people who use the word fascism today are not using a definition which is supported by historical facts but are only making an ad-hominem attack because they have no better arguement (just listen to modern day talk radio... :)  ). 69.179.56.199 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There can´t be no doubt that fascism is a RADICAL right-wing movement. It has indeed some points in common with radical left-wing movemnts for instance the idea of collectivism and most importantly the self-conception of being YOUNG & REVOLUTIONARY. But in the essentials the ideologies of socialism and fascism are strongly diverse! In fact they were ( are ) enemies! BTW: The Neo-Fascists/Neo-Nazis STILL consider themselves as being extreme right-winger and tradionally they sit on the right-side of the parlament. --82.83.151.157 (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Maybe make IF a disambig page, create a new page on Fascism/Nazism comparison, and move the text from IF around to other entries. I have been trying to figure out the split and merge templates for complicated proposals.  Tough sledding, clearly written by geeks.--Cberlet (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha! You are so mean!...by the way, i agree with the split; it's absurd not to have a specific article. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 06:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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

Bias
This article is extremely bias. Especially the Fascism and Religion section. True fascist governments are never atheist, atheism is a characteristic of communism. All fascist governments have endorsed a religion strongly. Hitler and Mussolini were devout Roman Catholics, both of them paying their Church tithes until the day they died. Mussolini endorsed the idea of Italy being a glorious Italian and Catholic empire. Hitler wished his Third Reich to be a strongly Christian nation, especially of the Catholic and Lutheran varieties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebenundamerika (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are patently wrong and multiple reliable sources demonstrate that. There were numerous fascist atheists.  Mussolini was originally an atheist and was originally quite anti-clerical.  Hitler had abandoned his faith before his teens.  Tomas Garrido Canabal was a rabid atheist.  The fact of the matter, and this is well sourced, is that fascists at various times in various places ran the spectrum of religious belief and disbelief.Mamalujo (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt he could be a truly "rabid" athiest. Rabid conveys intenisity, but the particular word rabid also has negative connotations, often of fear, a subliminal thought relative to this topic. Just thought i'd mention that, you are clearly biased, and because so, your ability to make an accurate judgment of this situation/information is compromised. Just thought it was interesting, because of the article topics relevecence "This article is extremely bias" (top line, current article). I also noticed other bias, the turn Anglosphere, I thought, was not as accurate as Western World. I didn't know how to present an argument, only edit. I still don'. Carnathan (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

"millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race"

This is claimed in the intro, despite the fact that, Benito Mussolini explicitly stated the following when questioned on the subject of race; "Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. [...] National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

Or how about an other gem of "liberty", "freedom" and "democracy" from the men who are after all, your "founding fathers" and you honour them in great memory such as the Jefferson Memorial. "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

A while back I wrote on this page the following: I have another definition in mind in case it will turn out to be impossible to reach consensus:
 * "Fascism is a term used to describe a type of authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements; the precise features needed for an authoritarian nationalist movement to qualify as fascist are a matter of controversy among historians."

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

Reverting without discussion
While several of us editors are actually discussing changes to the lead, it is disruptive and tendentious to simply revert the lead back to a particular controversial version. Please play well with others. We are actually making some progress and new wording through consensus. Happy 4th of July!--Cberlet (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Proposal for new lead
Gennarous proposes the following: Fascism was both revolutionary and traditionalist, opposing the class war philosophy of communism, instead supporting class collaboration.
 * Fascism is a political system which commonly promotes statist nationalism, and government-directed economic practises such as corporativism and national syndicalism. Fascism emerged in Italy during the 1920s following a period of social unrest, providing a Third Way and alternative to the popular socialist and capitalist movements of the time.


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide; he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, life which should be high and full, lived for oneself, but not above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after."

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

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

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

British Union of Fascists
Although the BUF and Oswald Mosley are mentioned elsewhere in the article, I think they deserve specific inclusion here in the Variations and Subforms section. A new(ish) book on the subject is Stephen Dorril's excellent [ http://www.amazon.com/Black-Shirt-Oswald-British-Fascism/dp/0140258213/ Black Shirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism] (Penguin Global, February, 2008). Clocke (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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