Talk:Fascism/Archive 23

Current US empire heading towards Facism?
Why isn't there a section about the superpower US and it's current embracement of Facism? If these bail-outs, and Obama's 100% Wall Street political cabinet arn't proof enough of Facism, what more would it take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.101.190 (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The talk page is for improving this article. WP is not a newspaper with op-ed pieces in it. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Red fascism
Weird that Stalin isn't or Soviet Union until the death of Stalin isn't mentioned at all. Though this is often discussed and called either red fascism or similiar. So it would be a good thing to cover the other side of fascism as well, Googe books&scholar gets some nice references for the beginning, though I am not able to do that now, so I started a section here at the talk page. --Pudeo⺮ 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should we add Stalinism, though? Just because Trotskysts and other Marxists call it "red fascism?" Stalin's regime - apart from its oppressive, statist, and militarist nature - had nothing to do with fascism as we know it. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris holte (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to work on this page, and give it a crack. I have several books that take a historical approach and use the words of the original Fascists, and I'm going to see if I can't make this page make sense without either speaking for modern day Fascists and their apologists, or for those who want to use the Concepts of Fascism to advance present day political views. I'm going to start mercilously deleting some real garbage in this text. But first I'm going to add some real content. All this talk about left or right is anachronistic or even propagandistic garbage. Better to let these people speak for themselves. They told the world they were a "third way." They were, like the Communists, among the first to use modern advertizing techniques to brand themselves (and rebrand themselves when necessary) and they were defined more by who and what they opposed than any particular defining characteristic except Corporo-Syndicalism, authoritarian discipline (Fascii), and the influences of both romantic philosophy, and highly cynical notions from Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Machievelli.


 * Good luck -- we finally trimmed a lot of the material which was here only a couple of months or so back, and were trying to get the other material not directly related to the topic out. It is down in size about 20% from the peak. It could easily be cut another 20%. Collect (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

scope of article
At some point, the article will have to use a definition of "fascism" which is not just "I don't like it" in nature about any perceived "bad political group." The current melange makes no objective sense. Should it be used to cover all examples of "oppressive, dictatorial control" as one dictionary definition has it? Or should it be restricted to authoritarian governments using strict central economic authority" Or to all governments having a strong nationalistic aim? Or to any government or movement which may be racist in nature? Right now, the answer is unclear -- with a lot of groups labelled "fascist" which have no relationship to any single definition of the word. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, many people try to put governments or individuals under the "fascist" label simply to discredit them. The problem in defining fascism is that it borrows a number of ideas from other ideologies. Political partisans from the left, right, and other political areas point out certain parts of fascism to make accusations against others such as to claim things like "ah, statist socialism is fascist because it involves major government control" or other claims like George W. Bush is fascist because of authoritarian aspects like wiretapping and detainment policies at Guantanamo Bay as well as his nationalistic manners in the lead up to the Iraq war. The problem in defining fascism is two fold: 1) People either want a a precise definition or 2) People want a broad definition. Both have consequences, too narrow of a definition is often accused of being politically correct, too broad of a definition is accused of having no focus. We must always keep in mind why various ideologies are referred to as "fascism", and that is because of their similarities to the original capital-"F" Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy which was a highly authoritarian nationalist-oriented government which sought the expansion of power of the Italian nation as well as the expansion of territory for the nation. The Italian Fascist regime was hostile to political ideologies and systems which it deemed as restraining the power of the nation, such as communism which opposes nationalism in its goal to establish an international proletariat society, Italian Fascism was hostile to democracy due to the history of political instability of democracy in Italy, Italian Fascism was hostile to liberalism due to its emphasis on individualism which fascism saw as detrimental to collectively unifying the Italians under their national identity. Many governments may utilize nationalism in affairs, but fascism is embodied in holistic nationalism which is the central policy plank of fascism. The Italian Fascist regime created a single-party state led by Mussolini as an effective dictator of Italy, the Fascist government of Italy demanded absolute obedience to Mussolini and the Fascist regime, any form of opposition to the government was seen as treason. These are key aspects to fascist regimes, some may see this as POV for me identifying the role of dictatorship and authoritarianism in fascism, but these are important aspects of fascist governments, but like I mentioned earlier not the only aspects.--R-41 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually taking shape
My imagination, or is the article finally showing some sensible order? Collect (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does appear to be getting into better shape, I have found a reference by the scholar Walter Laqueur, which explains the "fascist minimum" or minimum attributes required for generic fascism which is much like the attributes which are already generally agreed upon by many other scholars. But it also defines the anti-conservative element in a satisfactory manner saying that fascism opposed the aims of conservatism to restore previous establishments while fascism sought to form a new elite, this combined with other sources I believe can show that fascism showed opposition to conservatism alongside communism, liberalism, and other ideologies and political systems. Now that I have thought over the introduction though, I believe that totalitarian should be identified along with authoritarian, as fascists themselves identified forming a totalitarian state as one of their main objectives. Authoritarian should be identified as the primary prerequisite however because a number of fascist states failed to form totalitarian states. I think that this introduction will be acceptable for the time being: "Fascism is a term used to describe both the Italian political movement of Fascismo and ideologies affiliated to or closely resembling it. Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems which are perceived to be causing national decline or decadence as well as preparing a nation for armed conflict with other nations to defend itself and often to territorially expand a state to allow the growth of a nation. Fascism established a single-party state where the government is led by a dictator who directs a nation towards a collective unity by rejecting individual self interests, rights, and liberties to the collective interests of the nation as defined by the state." I can provide the Laqueur reference for this as well as other references to support this definition. I think this definition described in this section is more precise than the one currently on the page as of me writing this.--R-41 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "authoritarian" is sufficient for the lede paragraph -- we can have the "totalitarian" part (which is not an essential requirement of fascism) discussed in a later paragraph.  "Economic, political and social" covers pretty mush the gamut of problems - they can be separately dealt with later.  And the part about war is also not apparently a requirement - WWII was a long way from Mussolini's mind in the 20s.  Amd the term "dictator" could be supplemented to include a small cabal or junta - I think most people understand that a single-party state is not very open to debates .  I agree that the collective nature of fascism is a key to its definition, for sure.  I'd still like to see the article get down to around 100K in length, and there is a bit more left to prune. Collect (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, since totalitarianism is a sub-case of authoritarianism, there is no need to write “an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology”. (If totalitarianism were somehow contrary to authoritarianism, then there would be a good case.)
 * One hardly imagines that fascism would see itself as irrelevant if it were to end decline and decadence; it envisions itself, rather, as an order of persistent desirability. Hence “focused on solving economic, political, and social problems which are perceived to be causing national decline or decadence” is at best questionable in the definition.  It would almost certainly be better to instead (in the lede) generally identify what fascists saw as social problems, and especially what means they would use to cure and to prevent such problems. (A liberal might quite agree with a fascist that it would be bad for a particular sort of person to have children, but strongly disagree about forcible sterilization.)
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole issue of Eugenics and politics would make for a lengthy article indeed. As I understand it, "disunity" was what the fascists thought they were opposing, in the belief that a strongly unified national government could run things better than a government with many disparate voices.  "Trains running on time" might seem trite, but a lot more accurate than some of what has now been removed . Collect (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright the word "totalitarian" will be removed from the intro, but its role in fascism should remain discussed in the article.--R-41 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just want to make sure the lede is a short summary of what the reader will find discussed, not a full list of everything in the article . Collect (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My points here are not that the article should discuss nuts-and-bolts in the lede, but
 * that the lede shouldn't hand-wave in reference to social problems, but should give some indication of what fascism regards as a problem;
 * that often the distinction between a fascist and a liberal is not in what each regards as a problem (though, indeed, there are differences at that level), but in what each regards as an acceptable response to the problem.
 * —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral Decay post WWI - Pendulum movement...?
The ability of Nazism and Facism to develop were in part the result of the moral decay that ocurred in Europe especially Germany after WWI and the fall of the Monarchs and the class structure ?

In reference to Marlene Dietrich, documentaries have alluded to this, who was apart of the cultural decay scene of the times....

This is not currently part of this listing and should be included to improve the article.

Google books shows some information on the 'moral decay' post WWI

Seems this is not included.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be condensed, unsourced material needs to be sourced or should be removed
The article is much better than it has been, but it still is dragging out too long. For instance, the section explaining examples of fascist movements is taking up large amounts of space, I think that the section has to be condensed down to describe only essential matter such as why the particular political movement is deemed fascist and which scholars agree or disagree, the main articles on those political movements are where viewers should access in-depth information. Secondly the "fascist minimum" section is becoming too long and there are too many subsections. It should be split up into three parts: 1) social policy which includes only confirmed generic fascist elements such as nationalism, fascists' social interventionism, and mixed economy; common social views; 2) economic policy such as class collaboration, economic nationalism, and economic planning; 3)foreign policy such as nationalism (in the form of irredentism and expansionism), militarism and common foreign policy agendas such as anti-communism and anti-internationalism (i.e. opposing the legitimacy of the League of Nations). The section on religion is the worst section of the article, it contains various patches of information from a variety of sources about multiple individual fascist movements while not definatively explaining what or if there is any coherent generic fascist stances on religion. The section on religion talks about the Iranian Revolution twice, one reference to compare the current Iranian theocracy to a fascist movement that existed in Romania forty years earlier and other reference on the Iranian Revolution to claim that fascism moved to endorse religion. Whatever one's personal views are on the autocratic nature of the theocratic government of Iran it does not identify with the common trends of fascism - i.e. it is not a single-party state, the leader of the Iranian Revolution from 1979-80, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, from what I have read did not endorse nationalism as fascism does and said that nationalism was causing the Muslim world to be divided.--R-41 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk
Is not RS as it traces back to "freepedia" which traces back to ... WP. (see WP:RS) Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

sections which need trimming or removal
At this point, Francoism which is described in the article as being not fascist likely does not belong in the article. Also sections from "Social Darwinism" down to "economic policies" are odd as they all pretty much state that fascists do not agree on them  making them orthogonal as issues. Ditto the Racism and Religion sections -- if the topic is not generally associated with Fascism as a topic, it does not really belong here. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference, which is from a book called "Fascism in Spain", says that Franco was not a '"core" fascist', but that he was "pro-fascist", lead a fascist party and ran a fascist government. In any case the section is is called "Early Falangism (Spain)" which was a fascist movement. As for the other sections, it is not important that all fascists agree. So I would keep. By the way I hope I was not impolite toward you. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two sections -- I am referring to the one labeled "Francoism" not "Falangism." And having an article which says "Some are in this camp. Others are in that camp" rather makes it clear that those sections represent beliefs NOT held in common, which makes the inclusion here worthless.  Collect (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I have combined falangism and francoism. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And the francoism is deleted as "not fascism." When something is "not" something, it hardly belongs in the article, no? Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than the reference in the article to francoism, is there any reason why you do not consider it to be fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um -- what do you mean by "it"? If the sources say it is not "fascist" (and a lot of sources point out how pragmatic Franco was, not adopting the official fascist tenets, etc.) the mention of Franco as last of the Falange leaders before merging with monarchists seems adequate. Collect (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you mentioned what tenets he did not adopt that meant he was no longer considered fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The article makes it clear -- the old Falangists felt quite abandoned when he linked with all the other parties, including monarchists. Spain engaged in no "nationalist" activities.  Franco specifically dissolved the Falangist Party in 1949. Spain did not engage in any wars, nor establish an outsized military etc.  And established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism).  Therefore he was the last of the Falangists, and destroyer of Falangism.  An interesting sort of person who did not align hismelf with Germany or Italy in WWII. Collect (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He did not destroy the Phalange. He replaced the Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista with the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista.  He was nationalistic, maintained a strong army, suppressed other parts of Spain and fought to maintain a colonial empire.  He supported the Axis powers in the war, while remaining officially neutral.  He did all this in order to protect Spain against the "Judeo-masonic-Marxist international conspiracy" (his words).  And he only chose Juan Carlos as his heir in order to destroy the legitimacy of the King of Spain.


 * I think it would be helpful if you added to the article the reasons why some scholars considered him not to be fascist and note how widespread this view is.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I stopped at the idea that Franco worked on building a Spanish colonial empire. He was not allied with the Axis powers for a start.  And Juan Carlos was also 31 when he was named heir to the throne. The king had died in 1941 and had been deposed in 1931, so I do not see how his legitimacy was harmed. His father, Juan of Bourbon, Count of Barcelona,  was "pretender to the throne" but renounced his claims after Juan Carlos was crowned.  And this is relevant to the article on Fascism in what manner? Collect (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between building and "maintaining" an empire, which is the actual word I used. Franco gave support to the Axis powers without actually declaring war or as people said then "neutral on the side of Germany". After the war Spain was refused membership in NATO because it was a fascist dictatorship. Juan Carlos was only named Franco's heir after he swore allegiance to fascism, and the legitimate pretender to the throne was by-passed.

Anyway the section on Falangists makes no mention of the Spanish Falange after 1937, although it continued to govern for another 38 years. It would be helpful if the section explained, with proper sources, what happened during that time, whether fascism ended in Spain or if not how fascism developed in Spain during those years.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You asserted he "supported the Axis powers."  Spain was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides, as it was less tied to any side than was Switzerland.  (History of WWII is a lot of fun -- a lot of what people know ain't so (see Josh Billings) Spain was not refused NATO membership because of "fascism" unless you just want to use it as a handy pejorative.   Spain was a dictatorship, but not all dictators are "fascists" except as a pejorative epithet.  Juan Carlos never "swore allegiance to fascism" and that bit is totally unsupportable.  In fact he dismantled the dictatorship -- which someone who :swore allegiance" would not be apt to do.  The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne.  And the Falange ceased to exist in 1949 -- which means you think that somehow we are being lenient on Franco even though we clearly state his position in the article?  There is more than enough to explain the Falangists, which is what that section is intended to do. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Spain 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. Do not confuse Spain with Portugal, another dictatorship that was allowed membership because it had been trully neutral during WWII and was not considered fascist. Juan Carlos was only able to become king after swearing allegiance to the Movimiento Nacional, and was expected to uphold his oath. (Like Mussolini, Franco had been unable to abolish the monarchy.) The Falange did not cease to exist in 1949, but continued until 1975, although after 1949 it formed part of the Movimiento Nacional. But is the assertion now that fascism ceased to exist in Spain in 1949? The term Pretender does have a precise meaning, but it should not be confused with the more common use as some who makes false assertions, e.g., someone pretends to be someone he is not.

The article does not properly explain when Spain ceased to be a fascist state. I am not asserting any opinion on the matter, merely pointing out that this is an omission from the section, and it would be helpful to have a properly sourced explanation.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Spain was legally neutral, and the British, French and US liked it that way. Salazar, moreover, was almost identical in his dictatorship or more so than Franco.   The Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain, so making a pejorative editorial statement otherwise will not advance the article.  Franco is mention Falange, and also the break with the old line Falangists.  And note that I used "pretender" in a precise and correct manner.  As  for a date ... I would posit when the Falange party officially got swallowed up is as good a date as any. Collect (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Spain was legally neutral..." Yes, but the statement it 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. "Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain" is incorrect. It was the official party, and no other parties were allowed. There was no "break with the old line Falangists". If the word "pretender" is used properly, then the sentence "The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne" is a non-sequiter. What year did the official party get "swallowed up"? (It still exists.)

I would be interested to know where all this misinformation comes from. Could you tell me in what source this all appears? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been through this. Juan was the pretender to the Spanish throne. Absolutely correct. And the current article specifies the break with the old line Falangiss -- so I am unsure precisely what this is proving.  Calling the current article misinformation is interesting -- if you have solid reliable sources to add material specifically on "fascism" then present them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling the section on Spanish Falangism misleading, merely pointing out that it does not state when (i.e., the year) Spain ceased to be fascist and what specific changes meant that it was no longer fascist. The statement that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" is misleading. If he did not want "continued authoritarianism" he would have allowed the rightful pretender (i.e., the rightful king) to become king rather than chosing someone of whom he required an oath of allegience to the Movimiento Nacional. I don't know why you are asking for "reliable sources" because I am not editing the section, merely pointing out that it is incomplete. If you have any sources, it would be helpful. Thanks!The Four Deuces (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia, By William Bridgwater, Contributor William Bridgwater, Published by Viking Press, 1953, 1092 pages" states Franco dissolved Falange in 1942.  apparantly causing the "authentic Falange" to oppose him.  has Franco negotiating with monarchists in 1942.   has Franco declare Spain a constitutional monarchy in 1947.  The US signed a treaty with Franco in 1953 (making NATO membership actually moot).  And so on. If you wish to use the "all dictators are fascists" usage, this is not the article to do it in.  In terms of a recognizable ideological fascism, the end was somewhere between 1942 when the "authentic" Falange appeared and the arly 1950s when the Vatican took control of schools etc. Collect (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh -- and "rightful king" is quite debatable when his dad was ousted. There is, for example, by that standard a "rightful king" of Romania.  It only counts when you can get the throne.  I am sure somewhere there is a "rightful czar of Russia" and a few hundred rightful kings of England ... Collect (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There appear to be a lot of discrepancies in your recent posts in the discussion and what appears in preceding discussion points. You say, "If you wish to use the 'all dictators are fascists' usage".  I clearly said " Portugal, another dictatorship ... was not considered fascist".  In fact I am not arguing about whether Spain was fascist, merely stating that the article refers to Spanish fascism but does not state when it ended.  For all the article says, Spain could still be a fascist state.
 * My reference to Juan as the "rightful king" was in response to your statements that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" and that the term "'pretender' has a precise meaning, and Juan was the 'pretender' to the Spanish throne." Obviously you were confused about the term "pretender" and thought that it meant his claim was illegitimate, and are now backtracking by bringing up pretenders to defunct thrones. By the way, there is no "rightful" king of England, let alone hundreds.  The English crown was merged with the Scottish crown and the rightful monarch is Elizabeth R.
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Obviously" in this case was wrong.  And there are a number of lines which assert claims to the English throne.  BTW, the "Scottish Crown" is not the same as the "English Crown" and was worn by QE II at least once.  And you can ask Sean Connery about whther he considers her to be Queen of Scotland. Collect (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing The Crown with the physical Crown (headgear). I'm sure lots of people claim to be the king of England. Lots of people claim to be Napoleon. You may be one of them. It proves nothing. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is seriously off topic for the talk page.  is one salient view of the Queen as "Queen of Scots" as far as the SNP is already concerned.  Napoleon loonies are not the same as people who have may legitimate genealogical evidence that they are a superior line to QE II's.  Collect (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Concept of Fascism is wrong
Fascism is a part of Third Position. Fascism is a multi-racial ideology. Your idea of what Fascism is is totally wrong. Fascism is an actual Ideology, and not simply a tyrannical state! Mussolini allowed for more freedom than you americans have today with your so-called "liberal democracy"!! Especially since your president is trying to ban guns, ban free speech, and tax the poor and middle class...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the Talk page here is for discussing how to improve the article, not for debates as to what Fascism is -- we have already pretty muched reached a consensus on that. Collect (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You list Fascism as promoting wars against races as an ideology point... Fascism is a multi-racial movement seeking to unite ALL under its banner! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this this User:Josh Dean Roy continues his uncivil, impolite attitude which is assuming bad faith by other users, a request should be sent for him to be immediately banned. He appears to have no idea what he is talking about. Mussolini was an opportunist who talked out of both sides of his mouth and changed his views to fit the situation. Just look at these two vastly different quotes by Mussolini, one is racialist in 1928 and the other is anti-racialist in 1934:


 * "[When the] city dies, the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers [...] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race." Benito Mussolini, 1928.


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


 * So it depends on which quote one wishes to use, the racialist one which stresses the importance of race in 1928 or the anti-racialist one that denies that race is real in 1934. The two quotes speak for themselves - Mussolini was an opportunist who was neither a committed racialist or anti-racialist. But if you look at quotes from the 1920s to 1940s, the Italian Fascists spoke of race existing more than not. The difference between Italian Fascism and Nazism was that the Italian Fascists were not as obsessed with "racial hygeine" and purity as the Nazis were.--R-41 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the claim by User:Josh Dean Roy that fascists somehow promote the unity of races and not, just look at this quote by Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco:
 * ""Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict." Alfredo Rocco"


 * Italian Fascism had strong currents of anti-Slavism, anti-Asianism and anti-black views within it. Anti-slavism was directed particularly towards Yugoslavs, various reports made by Mussolini's personal emissaries in the 1920s accused Serbs of being "atavistic", accused the alliance of France and Yugoslavia as being under the influence of "Grand Orient masonry and its funds" and even one anti-Semitic insult against the Serbs for being part of a "social-democratic, masonic, Jewish internationalist plot" . There was anti-Slav Italian Fascist propaganda as well, see here: and . Mussolini himself is known to have hated black people  These may not make the Italian Fascists devote "racialists" like the Nazis were but they certainly do not interested in uniting all races and were very xenophobic.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abviously, the american who wrote the above needs to actual talk to us Europeans before writing an article entry that is full of it! Fascism is supported by Whites and nonwhites! Mexico and Hardy Lloyd are two good examples for the americans to look at. Stop your two-way thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the Third Position Movement, which Fascism is apart of, is made up of Whites and nonwhites. I know you americans like to bash any ideology which doesn't fit into your two-way thinking, but there is a world outside of the ""United" "State""! You people are using emotion, which goes against WIKI's rules!! Try reading Evola or Hardy Lloyd or Mussolini's books or websites based in Europa or the NFP of Mexico...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And, race and racial-seperation are both promoted and have no conflict with multi-racial thinking...! Hardy Lloyd, for an example, has been networking with nonwhites mostly even though he is a White Power Skinhead! About 80% of Mr. Lloyd's associates are Mestizos!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Fascism and Creativity
Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Whereas Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"The New Left-wing Fascism"
For some reason the term the "new left wing fascism" is used in the section defining fascism yet appears no where else in the article. Although alternative and non-mainstream theories should be presented they should always be described as such. Moreover, whoever wrote this section appears to have absolutely no understanding of fascism or political theory for that matter. The summary of the sources shows a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the original sources and therefore it has been removed.

By the way, a search for the "new left-wing fascism" only returns this site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22new+left+wing+fascism%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Although Wikipedia should present non-mainstream views, it should not be their origin. People who have non-mainstream views should develop some support for them (e.g., peer-reviewed papers) before including them in WP articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors are not quizzed on c.v. to see if they are knowledgeable -- the aim is ti properly represent all the secondary sources available. There was a lot of discussion about that section, and your bold changes are improper. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

People actually read read these articles for information and it is a disservice to them to provide misinformation.

By the way Mosely should not be mentioned using his honorific title. In the New York Times, which you mention, people are initially referred to by their full names, and their titles are used in subsequent references. E.g., "Oswald Mosley", then "Sir Oswald" for future references. Notice that they would apply this rule consistently, e.g., "John Smith", then "Mr. Smith". I notice that the NYT times recently does not use British titles. Look up Paul McCartney, Anthony Hopkins, Conrad Black. Also http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DB143CF931A2575BC0A9679C8B63 In fact although you are referring to the NYT MOS, you are misapplying it and it is irrelevant anyway because the article does not follow the NYT MOS. However, errors in style are just irritating, and are trivial compared with providing fundamentally flawed, misleading and incoherent misinformation.

Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting claim about NYT MoS ...  "the Times uses courtesy titles in news stories."   "Sir Oswald Mosely."   "Sir Pswald Mosely."    "Sir Oswald Mosely."  Paul McCartney specifically does not like being addressed as "Sir" so thta is not a vlaid comparison.   and a bunch of other NYT articles do call him "Sir." As do  and a raft of others.   And in today's NYT . I fear you overstate what the NUT style guide has in it.  Collect (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. But notice that they also use Mr., Ms., etc. and this WP article does not. Why are you even bringing up the NYT MOS? It's not even recommended for academic writing. Why not use the MLS style book? And why look at examples of what NYT does instead of referring at their style book? But you should be consistent. Roger Griffin is not called "Mr. Roger Griffin" in the section although he is also from the UK and is probably entitled to that title. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. I showed that you misstated NYT practice. When you make a claim so easily disproven, it is clear you did not fo your reasearch. Collect (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are totally ignoring what was said, which was that (1) you have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. (2) However do not try to figure out what is in their stylebook by reading the paper, look at the stylebook itself. (3) Also, the article Fascism does not follow the NYT style book so it does not matter what the style book says anyway. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Left-wing fascism" again
I have removed the incoherent comments on the new left wing fascism as there is no commonality specific to fascism in the topic, I wonder just what relevance it has. Adding material which is not really related directly to Fascism seems to be quite misleading and one might reasonably deduce the section has nothing at all to do with fascism. We ought to focus on what is in common, and this side stuff really does not belong. Does this make sense? As for "left-wing" being in any way peculiar to fascism -- not only were many fascists not left-wing, many totally non-fascist nations are or were left-wing (I would suggest parts of the US were "left-wing" at exactly the same time as Groupuscles were, and there is evidence that leftism may well persist in China, and definitely does in large parts of Africa. The more clearly we can define "Fascism", the better this article can become.  Thanks!  The Four Deuces (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are the only one pushing your own ideas in that section. The material went through a consensus buidlking first -- and you seem to think you are consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You missed an opportunity there, Collect. Deuce was trying to show how clever and funny he is by using sarcasm and mimicry. All you had to do was say, OK, we'll leave in the abortion eugenics stuff and so we can also leave in the 'new left-wing fascism' bit as well! (What's so NEW about it?) I reorganised this bit highlighting the Nazis use of abortion etc but also saying in the second paragraph that it wasn't a universal tenet. Definitions again - core tenets aren't universal in every single case tenets. Those policies were certainly core to the Nazis. Mdw0 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus about adding the incoherant context-less gibberish about so-called left-wing fascism to the political spectrum section. You, Collect, are the only one pushing those ideas into that section, and you still can't explain what the term actually means. The only reason it has stayed there is because you keep re-adding it.Spylab (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The material is fully sourced using accepted RS standards. Calling stuff you do not like "incoherent gibberish" is not any way to edit.  And since the term is used by learned people in the field, it is not up to us to say it does not exist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not proven that the term has any direct link to actual fascism. You can't even explain what the term means, and why it is relevant. You keep re-adding it without any consensus.Spylab (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Are the sources used "reliable sources" per WP:RS and WP:V? Do the sources use the term "left wing fascism"?  Are the authors recognized in their fireld? That is what WP:V requires.   If you feel they are not RS, then simply go to RS/N and see what others say. But to call what experts have written "incoherent gibberish" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is about the place of fascism in the political spectrum. You have failed to demonstrate how the term "left-wing fascism" has relevance to that specific topic. You have failed to demonstrate that you understand what the authors mean when they use the term.Spylab (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. The section states that historians have placed types of fascism on the left, right and center -- which is exactly what is shown. Clearly some historians have placed at least one type of fascism on the left, which is what the job of editors on WP is -- to present material which is VERIFIABLE.  See WP:V.  Collect (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The historians place left wing fascism on the right of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It look's like we have found consensus on removing the new left-wing fascism from the political discussion section. I for one will revert any attempt to re-insert it and hope other editors do as well.  For anyone interested in the subject, it has its own article which needs attention, and they should work on it.  Personally, I found Horowitz's article hard to follow (although Bales was clearer) and look forward to someone putting it into plain language.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. REMOVING fully citred material from an article is contrary to WP guidelines. That you do not understand simple declarative sentences in reliable sources does not mean you can delete them. Thanks!  Collect (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I reversed a recent edit to the abortion eugenics etc. section. There should be consensus on major changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Race from Core Tenets
I'm thinking the sections on social Darwinism and eugenics, abortion etc. ought to be more closely attached to the Race and racialism section which is now separate from the 'Core Tenets' section. With the examples shown from Brazil etc, its difficult to use race policy as a sweeping tenet for all fascist groups. Also that new section thrown in at the beginning about the origins of Italian Fascism simply doubles up on the section below it. Its out of place and overly long. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem as I see it, is that too many side issues were tacked on without regard to their actual relationship with any core prnciples associated with fascism in general. Collect (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what it says in Italian Fascism is correct: "there is no agreement about which aspects of structure, tactics, culture, and ideology represent the 'fascist minimum' core". It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph for "Core Tenets" which notes the problem and identifies usual tenets of fascism, properly sourced. Different writers may disagree, so it might help to have several sources. I've always thought of fascism as relating to parties that claimed to follow fascism, and all these parties have either died out or (in a few cases) transformed. And fascist ideology is not on the same intellectual level as conservative, liberal or left-wing ideology, so you wouldn't expect the same level of coherence or consistency in fascist tenets. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whilst, for some odd reason, I consider a "tenet" to be a core holding of a group. Thats what comes from using dictionaries . Collect (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point is that if something is not remotely a tenet, it should not be in the article as being one.  Consistency is what a tenet is. When folks have completely different tenets, it is unlikely that any of those "tenets" are related to this article about them.  Collect (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The individual parties had tenets. Many WP articles are about groups where individual members do not necessarilty share all attributes but those attributes are discussed nonetheless. I refer to the Cat article as an example. Some cats are domestic, some are feral, but the article does not omit this because neither attribute is common to all cats. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Each party (Nazi etc.) has its own section for that sort of stuff. The issue is whether a common section on Racism makes any sense when there is zero correlation betwween racism and fascism per se. By the way, "feral cats" are "domestic cats."  "Felis catus" has been domesticated for a long time -- "feral" only means they are living on their own and not in a household. Cat deals almost exclusively with "shared characteristic" and does not have the "this subject is actually unrelated to cats"-type section which Racism is to Fascism.  Thanks for pointing out the difference so clearly. Collect (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, your definition of "tenet" is inaccurate, it need not be either "core" or "of a group". And domestic means being in a household. Their ancestors were domesticated, which is why they are called feral and not wild.

Some of the sections are about attributes that are not common to all cats, e.g., "Fondness for heights:  Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching". Apparently it is not true for all cats, but is there nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that fascists are totally split -- if the Cat article said "cats love heights but half of cats are afraid of heights" then you would have a parallel.  Or "Cats have short hair except for the ones with long hair" which is where Racism is here.  As for pedantry -- "tenet" means "a holding (of a belief)"  If fascists all have different tenets about racism, I doubt you could call racism a core tenet using any definition of the word!  Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it is not a core tenet of fascism, but it is a core tenet of some fascist groups. Do you think that the heading "Core tenets" should be changed or how do you think racism should be classified in this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It should be dealt with appropriately under each fascist group if applicable, and not be placed as though it represented a general attribute of fascism. Collect (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All fascist groups claimed to follow Italian fascism although they all modified the ideology. So I think we would want a section that shows to what extent they did this, which is what the "Core Tenets" section does or tries to do.  If they had nothing in common (like an article about the political parties of Italy) lets say then I would agree.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cite for "all fascist groups" with reference to racism and Italian fascism? Unless of course we remove the Nazi's as not following Italian fascism entirely from the article. And the Falangists. And the Romanians. etc.  Erm -- how many fascist nations claim to adhere to the Italain Fascist tenets?  I would love to see a RS on that. Collect (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Race policy is strongly associated with fascism in general, so it should be dealt with on that basis, but it should be separateed out from the core tenets simply because there are a number of groups who believe it is irrelevant. Isn't that a fair compromise?

I dont think the Nazis ever claimed to be following the Italians. Just because we use the Italian name to describe this particular political type doesn't mean they follow the Italian model. Mdw0 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with dealing with each version of fascism in its own section as already exists rather than having a totally confusing version which then has much of its content simply repeated later in the article? Note that much of it is repeated now. Collect (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, because overt race policy is a trait of fascism, although not necessarily a core tenet, it should be dealt with on that basis. Racism isnt a side issue when it comes to fascism, and it needs to be dealt with as a trait of fascism, but not a core tenet. Fact is that section is already there, I just think the information on social Darwinism and racisl policy should be underneath it, rather than in the core tenets section. I would've thought you'd be happy enough with racial policy being removed from core tenets, but even that change doesn't satisfy you. I may be wrong, but it seems you're looking to hide any reference to racism amongst fascist groups. It should be dealt with in an overall sense, both its nature in fascist groups both now and in the past, and the fact that it can be something of a stereotype because not all are or were racist. Its all very well to deal with each group's individual traits, but the article has to be predominantly about what fascism is overall, and if racism is an issue, and it is, then it should be dealt with clearly. I would've thought having that section would be an opportunity to make your point about non-racist groups in the clearest manner. What exactly is confusing about having Racism and Racial policy as a section underneath Core tenets? Any repetition can then be removed from the individual groups. To me that would be LESS confusing.


 * With regards to the cat analogy, if cats are known for loving heights and having short hair and catching mice, then those facts should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned that a sizable proportion of individuals don't exhibit those particular traits. The Nazi version of fascism is probably the famous, and most emulated. Modern day fascists are generally known as Neo-nazis, not Neo-fascists. Mdw0 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A distinction was drawn between "core tenets" of fascism and "common traits". I think the problem is the title - it assumes that there are common tenets when in fact there are only common traits. I suggested (above) that the section explains this. So change the title or qualify the subject and then everything is clear. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me any form of government where racism has never been a "trait"? Communism? Capaitalism? Socialism? Feudalism? Anarchism? Monarchy?  I suggest still that racism in any given country should be dealt with in that country's section.


 * Using the first example, Communist writings (e.g., the Communist Manifesto) did not advance racialist theories and Communist governments did not have racist laws, did not teach racialism in their schools and had no racial requirements for government positions. In fact Communists in America were early advocates of civil rights for African Americans.  On the other hand, most fascist theorists (e.g., in My Struggle) advanced racialist theories, fascist states passed racial laws and openly practiced discrimination.
 * By the way, I have never heard of any anarchist governments. Can you provide any examples?
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Racism and tribalism are not unheard of in Communist governments - see DPRK, USSR (which formalised racism to a fine art), and others.  In fact any nation which requires your internal documents to list your legal ethnicity seem a tad racist, no?  Vietnam definrtely has racism regarding the mountain tribes, etc.  And I did not hear of CPUSA standing up for the interned Japanese in the US in WWII -- eh?  Japan still has racism against the Ainu -- you missed that one.  In fact I can not find a single place where "racism" has been entirely absent in world history.  Current anarchy? Try Somalia inter alia.  Collect (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism was never part of Communist theory and never "formalised". Racism practised in individual Communist states was indigenous and was not the result of the countries becoming communist, and the countries did not co-ordinate racial policies. So there was no connection between racism in the USSR and in the DPRK, while there was a connection between racism in various fascist countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was formalised -- ask people from there. As to see their ID cards. "Communist theory" was slim -- "Communist practice" was clear. I am glad you accept the DPRK example.  Note also in China that a person is "registered" into a race on their documents, and I would submit the acts in Tibet do qualify as "racism" as do acts in Mongolia and other areas of China.  Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only Anarchist governments I know of were in Spain in the 1930s, although there was debate as to whether anarchists in government are still anarchist. The Anarchist units in the Spanish civil war also had problems with disciplne and organisation, despite their reputation for being good fighters. The collectives created were a marked improvment in indistrial and agricultural output as is evidenced in many countries who use socialism and communism to fast track their development. However there were problems with more naturally advantaged areas having surpluses and poorer regions getting poorer, also problems with local despots and committees entrenching their power.
 * And Somalia? Most of Africa pre 1880? No racism? Wow! Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Racism isnt a trait of those other systems, Collect, merely the reflection of racist individuals who do pop up everywhere. Its not an overriding stimulus for policy, certainly much less nationalism or authoritarianism. In any case, whether or not other systems exhibit occasional nationalist or racist tendencies is irrelevant - its whether fascists do so. Facists are known for being racist and many exhibited and exhibit racist policies, so the racism issue must be dealt with. Can you possibly deny that, Collect?? Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And so it was in fascist countries -- pretty much unrelated to the core tenets of fascism. Note the examples given of fascists multi-racial countries -- surely their existence disproves "core tenet" ab initio! Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Manifesto of Race and the Nuremburg Laws show that racism was central to fascist thought. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The mainfesto of race article says "Until the actual publication of the official Manifesto of Fascist Racism, biological racism, as it was understood by National Socialist theorists, had literally no place in Fascist doctrine. Thereafter, the Fascist position on this subject became increasingly confused.     Fascists, and most Actualists, were opposed to any racism that shared significant properties with the racism of Hitler's Germany. In that context, persons who had long been dismissed as lacking any significance, made their reappearance among Fascist intellectuals." and the Nuremberg laws were strictly Hitler's fantasy. Nothing about a "core tenet" of anything at all. Collect (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The section on racism isn't in the section on core tenets - your case there I think is made. Its in its own section. Actually that information on the Manifestos should be in the article. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Manifesto was alluded to but I edited the article to include it with a hyperlink. I notice that Ian Adams devotes a whole chapter of "Political Ideology to "Racism and Fascism" so having a section on racism in a fascism article isn't totally off the wall. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ony7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=Racism+and+Fascism+ian+adams&lr= The Four Deuces (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Disorganised banner at top still required?
The whole article's looking a lot better, people. Its not perfect and the debate will go on, as it should, but the article's been been reorganised and improved, its clearer and reads better and seems more neutral and balanced, but that just could be my biased opinion. Anyone disagree to removal of the top banner? Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still a lot of marginally relevant and irrelevant material to go -- like the Racism section which is totally unrelated to any tenet, and is admittedly not related to fascism in general, but which remains in the article. And some other stuff. I feel the article on Fascism should actually be on Fascism and not on every attribute which can be slid in <g regardless of its actual relation to Fascism. Collect (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the banner refers to structure. If you look at the contents, it could probably be better organized.  Do you have any ideas on that?  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the structure's fine. What the word means should lead, then the core tenets, then other facets and aspects, then examples. Mdw0 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but there seem to be a lot of sections and subsections (e.g., "Origins" following Italian fascism). But I am not opposed to removing the banner.  The Four Deuces (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take the banner out if there's no further support for it on Friday. Subsections are details in the overall structure. I diplomatically put that Origins dump of information there rather than remove it totally. Originally it was first in line. It requires some severe editing back though. Mdw0 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Added fascism's opposition to non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements
I just added this point about fascism opposing non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements to show that fascists were not only opposed to communists but other labour-minded movements and ideologies that they deemed a threat to national unity, as fascists persecuted social democrats and other non-Marxist labour organizations based on these points.--R-41 (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing material that is a synthesis of multiple sources
Alright, I have changed the lead sentence by removing the synthesis and instead have added multiple references which speak of fascism's radicalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. I have also removed other material that was a synthesis of multiple sources. Are these changes acceptable so far?--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the tags off, but I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with mentioning disputes over the definition in the intro is that there are many disputes over definitions in politics. The disputes about fascism are many in regards to where it stands on the political spectrum. The article already addresses those disputes later on. The issue of the definition itself is not much different than the definition of other political topics, as they often have varying interpretations. But the article is organized in a good way now where it states what the clearly known facts are, such as: 1) it is nationalist 2) it is authoritarian 3) it is radical 4) it advocates a single-party state 5) it is social darwinist...etc. I believe that specific definitions by a number of well known and established scholars on the subject should be included in the section of the article called "Definitions". The section already has quotes by Stanley Payne and another author, adding a few more detailed definitions by other prominent scholars on fascism would be useful for this article.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading up on the topic, I am rather unsure that "Social Darwinist" is a salient core part of fascism. It is generally regarded, in fact, as a pejorative term in itself.   At this point, I would suggest we not make it one of the main points of Fascism, lest we end up with the forty-five things which fascism is against .  The more careful we are, the better this article can become. Collect (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I too am not sure whether social darwinism is core. But what do you mean, it is pejorative? I fail to see how it is more pejorative than, say "conservative."  Many people oppose social darwinism; many oppose conservatism.  That does not make these words pejorative - obviously those who are proponents of social darwinism or conservatism think they are good things, even very good things! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is pejoritive because no person or group identified themselves with social darwinism. It was a term popularized 50 years after the death of Herbert Spencer by Richard Hofstadter in a statist polemic, and applied retroactively to people he disagreed with. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - thanks for explaining. How did followers of Spencer identify themselves? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A list of what fascism opposes is necessary, but it should be condensed
What fascism opposes is necessary to be identified in the article because a number of its negations are important parts of its ideology, especially its opposition to communism, democracy, individualism, and pacifism.--R-41 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The list comprises a rather full spectrum of just about everything else. One can describe a "tomato" in a grocery store without saying it is not a banana, an orange, an artichoke, an avocado etc. . I would further state that since we already establish it is "one party" that people will figure out that it is not democratic. And since we say it prepares a nation for war, people can figure out that it is not pacifist. Collect (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like having a clear full list of the negations at the front of the article so that there is no confusion by the reader of what generic fascism is commonly opposed to, as I have encountered many editors who do not have a full understanding of what fascism is opposed to. I am concerned that leaving out some from a list of negations because they are mentioned briefly earlier in the article, may be seen as not including key ideas in the negations. I agree that list should be condensed as much as possible to essential negations.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascism opposes anything which is contrary to the perceived absolute unity of the nation, thus it opposes most "liberal," "conservative" or "democratic" movements, religious sectarianism, and totalitarian movements such as "communism."  Somewhere near that?  Collect (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolute national unity along with the growth of the population and power of the nation is the goal of fascism. Internationalist ideologies and concepts not designed to the nation's interests are opposed by fascists. It's nationalist nature is why there is no clearly universal fascist ideology, but generic fascism does exist in that general structure of government, economic policy, and foreign policy are quite similar. On the issue of the position of religious sectarianism, Italian Fascism became pro-religious only after long-standing disputes between the government of Italy and the Vatican were solved by the Lateran Pact, then the nationwide religion of Roman Catholicism in Italy was deemed helpful to unify the nation. In Germany, religion was more carefully appealed to, due to the Protestant and Roman Catholic divide in Germany, in which Hitler only appealed to either Christianity as a whole in Germany or promoted his anti-Semitic "Positive Christianity" which claimed that Jesus was the son of God, but was not a Jew, so that served Hitler's anti-Semitic and nationalist purposes in that he hoped Germans could rally to Positive Christianity because of its anti-Semitism.--R-41 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascism word is used as a general insult (good sense9 in many countries-Meaning is distorted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
It's important to specify that fascism is against "classical liberalism," rather than just "liberalism." It's classical liberalism that the fascists rallied against. That's what they were referring to when they spoke of "liberalism." If you look at the economic program of modern liberalism, with it's rejection of laissez-faire in support of regulation of the means of production and a welfare state it's very similar to fascism, so it's misleading to say that it's simply against "liberalism." Many Heads (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't.Spylab (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. "Liberalism" did not yet mean what it does today in America. In Europe, liberalism still has the classical meaning, as support for free markets. There is no doubt that the fascists were referring to classical liberalism when they spoke against liberalism. They certaily were not condemning the welfare state or mixed economy, which modern liberalism supports. Many Heads (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not it isn't. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant references (bolding mine): Notice that none of those quotes specify that fascists only oppose classical liberalism, so please stop using spin to push your opinions.Spylab (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 90. "All fascisms were antiliberal and anti-Marxist, but they were also anticonservative, inasmuch as they did not want to submit to the old establishment, but to replace it with a new elite."
 * 2) Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122. "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism."
 * 3) Maier, Hans; Bruhn, Jodi. Totalitarianism and Political Religions. Routledge, 2004. Describes fascism as involving "anti-liberalism, anti-communism..." and "anti-internationalism".
 * "Liberalism" there is not referring to modern liberalism. It's referring to classical liberalism, which outside the US is simply called "liberalism." Since this is a worldwide encyclopedia with a large US readership, it needs to be made clear that we're not talking about modern liberalism, or what liberalism means today in the US, but classical or laissez-faire liberalism. Many Heads (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The three references say liberalism, period, not classical liberalism, modern liberalism or any other specific type of liberalism. Stop trying to spin the references to fit your political agenda.Spylab (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What's my political agenda? My agenda is just to get these terms straight. We can't be complete morons here; we have to use a little brain power and realize that when some sources refer to "liberalism" they're not referring to New Deal liberalism but traditional liberalism. There is no doubt that modern American liberalism is not supportive of free markets, but regulated markets. It's traditional liberalism that supports laissez-faire. I'm curious what you think my "agenda" is. Many Heads (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources just say liberalism, you can interpet that to mean classical liberalism all you want but it's just OR. All forms of liberalism endorse individual liberty and that's what fascism opposes most about liberalism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we have to look at context. Usually when a source refers to liberalism, they're referring to traditional liberalism, not modern American liberalism unless otherwise specified. Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience, so we need to speak in universally recognized terms. Fascists were opposed to laissez-faire. It's classical liberalism that upholds that, not ALL liberalism obviously. In addition, I gave a source for "classical liberalism" explicitly. There are many more that I can bring in. Many Heads (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources could easily mean by "liberalism" meaning individual rights you don't know. I never said that all forms of liberalism favor laissez-faire but that they all favor individaul freedom and yes there is a difference. Individaul freedom is the most universal term for liberalism and that's what fascists oppose the most. The liberalism link leads to the article which says this


 * Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1]


 * So we don't need to specify Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that's true they could be referring to individual rights, but that would be "political liberalism," and would be referred to as such. What fascists oppose is both political liberalism and economic liberalism, and that's what "liberalism" when it refers to classical liberalism entails. Many Heads (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The references say fascists oppose liberalism, period. End of argument. Stop trying to spin them to fit your blatant libertarian laissez-faire capitalist agenda.Spylab (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We mustn't be idiots. You have to look at context and be aware of how terms are being used. Many words have multiple meanings. Modern liberalism was obviously not around for them to be opposed to it. They were opposed to classical, or traditional, liberalism. Modern American liberals support something akin to social democracy. Just as this article points out, Fascism provided the model for social democracy. Obviously Fascists would support what modern liberals supports. Mussolini even expressed admiration for the New Deal, saying it resembled his economic system. So let's not be idiots. When sources are referring to liberalism, they're using the term in the classic sense. Given that, it's helpful to make it explicit to the reader that we're not referring to modern American liberalism. Many Heads (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone please stop with the insults. First of all I agree that fascism was hostile to laissez-faire capitalism, fascists repeatedly declared their opposition to this. However it is inaccurate to say that fascism was only opposed to classical liberalism. Like Bobisbob2 said, all liberal ideologies promote democracy, individualism in the form of ensuring individual rights, as well as promoting checks and balances on government power. Fascists deem democracy and individualism both as decadent and flawed concepts. Fascism rejected the imposition of limits on government power and claimed that individual rights were too excessive. Mussolini may have said he admired the New Deal but that doesn't mean he supported social liberalism, Roosevelt's social liberalism still was democratic and supported many individual rights which fascists abhore. Also, John Maynard Keynes had developed interventionist economic policy ideas around World War I's end, prior to the existance of any fascist government, but he was only seriously taken into consideration by the time the Great Depression hit. Furthermore the claim that fascist corporatism was a model for social democratic and Keynesian economic systems is flawed because corporatism also predated fascism and the fascist verson of corporatism was condemned by the political left for being corrupt and for continously favouring business interests over labour interests. Lastly, fascism did not provide the model for social democracy. I don't just say this because I myself am a social democrat but that social democracy predates fascism and by its very name, its invocation of support for democracy makes it in fascists' view a decadent ideology. Here's a quotation by Japanese fascist Seigo Nakano, an avid supporter of both Hitler and Mussolini, defining Hitler's and his opposition to social democracy: "Hitler understands the absolute evil of social democracy, based as it is on a parliamentary system whereby everything is decided by the majority. The parliamentary mechanism is manipulated by a boss who does not need talented parliamentarians because it is more convenient for him to gather around him those who are weak, dependent, or untalented, and manipulate them through pressure, bribery, or by involving them in dishonourable machinations." (Fascism, editor: Roger Griffin, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 125.) By claiming "admiration" as evidence of support of something, one could make the argument that Hitler's expression of admiration in Mein Kampf for the symbolism, propaganda, and revolutionary nature of Marxism would make him pro-Marxist, when in reality the opposite was the case.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The economic system social democrats favor is very close to what fascists favored. Control of the means of production for the public good, including some nationalizations, a welfare state, mandatory social security, government controlled wages, etc. Aside from economics, calls for national service (a la the social democrat Obama). It's too be expected. They're both collectivist ideologies. Many Heads (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obama is not a member of the Social Democracy party, he is a member of the Democrat Party. Anyway, you make several claims.  I ask: According to whom? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a member of the Social Democracy party to support social democracy. It's first and foremost a philosophy, not a party. As this article points out "Politics professor Stephen Haseler credits fascism with providing a model of economic planning for social democracy." By the way the Obama administration wants that nation service to be mandatory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ Tell me that's not collectivistic/ fascistic. Many Heads (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Liberalism which Fascism had to compete with most significantly was classic liberalism, not what yanks call Liberalism. Italian Liberal Party (historical) were the dominant force in Italy before Mussolini and the Fascists came to power and in todays context they are viewed as a conservative liberal party. Currently they are part of Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia to give some perspective. Lazzaratron (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Liberalism supports democracy, fascists denounce democracy as decadent and a failure. Social democrats do not ideologically support the expansionist, imperialist, and militarist nationalism. Social democrats were supressed by Hitler. Mussolini, Hitler and other fascists opposed modern liberal views on social issues, they forbid homosexuality, considered abortion by the people of their own nation or race as a crime, they do not believe in that all people are born equal but that people have to prove their worth by supporting the collective interests of the nation, they do not support equality of opportunity - if you were not a member of the fascist movement or if you showed any opposition to the movement you could be imprisoned, killed, or at the very least not be able to gain employment; multiple fascists defined women's primary role in society as a mother and reduced the number of women in education. So fascism is opposed to more than just classical liberalism, but liberal social views, liberalism's inherent support of democracy, and liberalism's support of individual rights. With the exception of support of government interventionism, fascism negates almost every aspect of liberalism. As I quoted earlier, Japanese fascist Seigo Nakano described social democracy as an "absolute evil". Fascism is extremely authoritarian, it does not tolerate democracy or any opposition to the fascist movement, no genuine liberal or social democrat can be fascist with their support of democracy. Government interventionism does not equal an association with fascism, government interventionism has existed for years prior. Mercantilism long prior to the existance of fascism utilized government-owned companies. In my country of Canada our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, a democratically elected conservative politician from the late 1800s used huge government interventionism in the economy to create railways across Canada, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s also enacted strong government interventionism in the economy such as by creating greater regulation of the economy. I am sure no one would be willing to say that government regulation utilized to end child labour and pushing to create a minimum wage as Theodore Roosevelt's government did is somehow "fascist" in nature. So government interventionism by no means equals fascism, it's the combination of aggressive militarist and collectivist nationalism; the single-party state led by a dictator; support of political violence and repression of political opposition; along with government interventionism which equals fascism. Fascists demand absolute support of their government and movement, no political opposition is permitted. No liberal or social democrat supports anything close to this highly authoritarian and violence-supporting ideology, the closest ideology in terms of authoritarianism, support of utilizing violence, and support of government interventionism is the totalitarian Marxist-Leninism of the Soviet Union, but with Marxist-Leninism's absence of aggressive nationalism and due to fascist rejection of communism these movements are divergent.--R-41 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in the last section. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example for someone who utilized government interventionism while not being similar to fascism was a very poor choice. I did know that Roosevelt supported nationalism and imperialism to a degree but I have recently been reading the historical analysis book Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right by Anders Stephenson for a university course I am taking which shows that Theodore Roosevelt was very militaristic and a racialist. So I retract my earlier statement above about Theodore Roosevelt, he is a very BAD example. Still he still believed in democracy, and the book also mentions that advocates of militarism,, nationalism, imperialism, and racialism in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were not only those associated with those advocating bigger government but also people who advocated laissez-faire capitalism as a means to promote ingenuitive and strong nations and races while destroying incompetent and weak nations and races. Fascism is in the realm of such militarist and expansionist nationalism being promoted through an authoritarian single-party state which makes it unique, as expansionist and militarist nationalism alone has been promoted by democracies at various points in history.--R-41 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has read Mussolini and Hitler should recognize that both versions of Fascism primarily opposed the classical liberalism of their day, which could not have anything to do with opposing a modern liberalism that wouldn't exist for at least another generation. I would hope that our WP entries have enough common sense to maintain historical perspective. This would also mean recognizing that Fascism's primary complaint with Communism was that it was a competing brand of collectivism in the turf war of the day over Europe. Again, historical context matters.--Arationalguy (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To equate Nazism and Fascism with American liberalism requires the kind of willful, self-enforced ignorance that modern Reagan/Thatcher conservatives excel at.
 * Apparently, the support of modern liberals for the enfranchisement of minorities (particularly Jews) and its stark contrast with Hitler's "final solution," makes no never mind to Jonah Goldberg and his ilk.
 * Nor is modern liberalism's support for women's rights and feminism, somewhat unlike the Nazi view of women needing to stay at home and watch the babies, apparently worth mentioning.
 * Or modern liberals' support for international institutions like the League of Nations, UN and ICJ, belief in multilateralism and the value of diplomacy, which again would seem to clash with Nazi belief in unilateralism, expansionism and militarism.
 * Finally, it's worth noting that modern liberals believe in striking a balance between labor and management - and, given the inherently stronger position of businesses, combined with the disasters wreaked upon the country by sixty years of Gilded Age inequality, they tend to lean more towards labor.
 * That's not even close to economic policy under the Third Reich. Hitler abolished the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining, and unions; passed laws requiring the previous employer's consent before workers could apply for a new job; and under him, real wages in Germany decreased by 25% from 1933 to 1939.  Hitler supported businesses unwaveringly against unions - which is somewhat like what FDR did I suppose, except FDR supported unions against businesses.  And when Hitler had to choose between his working class supporters in the SA and his newer, middle-class and business supporters who were afraid of communism, leftists and social chaos, well, you got the night of the long knives.
 * (As for the alleged similarities with Communism, the economic difference is huge; fascists supported a cooperative relationship between government and business, with each supporting and propping up the other, in sharp contrast to the commies' "nationalize, nationalize, nationalize" policy).
 * If in spite of all the above you can still honestly say that modern liberalism is "very similar to fascism" economically or otherwise then congratulations - you live in a hermetically sealed universe of facts in which black is white, up is down and Richard Nixon is not a crook. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not a component of said universe.  The opinions of Jonah Goldberg and others will be recorded, but not as fact. 147.9.230.37 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this isn't the place for long rants (very brief ones perhaps) about your take on the topic. We all know there are many sides to this issue. Please try to contribute to how we can represent the topic in a encyclopedic way. Goldberg is, in fact, notable, and his view would deserve proper treatment as well.--Arationalguy (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Which collective?
I thought it was nation or race, as the article previously said. Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mussolini was fascinated by the "Roman Empire" and sought to re-establish it in Africa, Trieste (Ljubljana) and the Aegean Islands. He called Victor Emmanuel "First Marshal of the Empire" etc. Postage stamps featured the Fasces (ancient Roman symbol of authority), Roman ruins, and a Romulus and Remus statue.  Lots of other stuff if you need it . Hitler was similarly fascinated by Frederick the Great, issuing stamps in his honor, using old German imagery wherever possible (and possibly making him enjoy Wagner more). "Reich" means "empire" and he used the imperial imagery in his speeches as well.  ,  etc.  ,   and so on.
 * Cites added to article. Collect (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not question that Mussolini wanted an empire. I am asking where specifically he says that in Fascism the "collective" that the individual must submit to is the "empire" (rather than "nation"). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of "empire" is not attributed to Mussolini there as a quote, thus no need to cite Mussolini saying that, the fact about Mussolini referring to "empire" is, moreover, in the corpus of the article. As is the reference to "reich" (empire) under the Nazis. The lede refers to fascismm, not just to Mussolini's words at all. As such, the lede fairly represents the material in the article, which is what is required of it. Collect (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question: Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources say the groups were centered on the "empire" in each case. They do not need to use the word "collective" which is in the lede for a wikied reference to collective, and the meaning is quite clear -- the Italians promoted the Italian Empire per cites for lede and in body of article and the Germans promoted the Reich (empire) and Aryan race per cites in lede and cites in body of article as well.   Would another word than "collective" make more sense to you?  I viewed it as an adjective-used-as-noun  indicating a group of people with a common "collective" interest.  E.g. "of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together: the collective wishes of the membership."   Collect (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain one can find dozens of sources on fascism that say that for Italian fascism it was the nation that is the collective in question. Collect seems to be pushing bizarre idiosyncrasies into the introduction. john k (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, they do need to use the word "collective," or you are violating NOR. No one is disputing the Fascist's imperialist aims. But empire was only one facet of their project. Another was the construction of a collective identity. The point is not to use another word for "collective." The point is that you shouldn't change a sentence the subject of which is the "collective" and the object of which is which kind of collective. There are all sorts of ways different people imagine or construe collective identities - "collective" is not an aggregate, it is not just some group of individuals taken together; in this context it has a particular meaning. If you want to add a sentence about their imperialist aims, fine, but let's keep the sentence on the collective and the sentence on the empire separate. In Fascist thought the collective is not identified with "the empire" it is identified with the nation. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence to the original and accurate form. Collect, I think the point you wish to make is already made in the second sentence. If you feel it needs elaboration, I certainly do not object but your point was related to the second, not third, sentence. That said, I think the second sentence is sufficient and think elaboration belongs in the body. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal. The cites for the fascists being interested in "empire" are solid. Thanks for pointing this out! Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring what I wrote, or do you really not understand? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that fascists are interested in empire. The point is that fascists were also interested in subordinating the individual to the collective, and that for Italian fascists that collective was the nation. Whatever the Italian fascists may have thought about empire, it does not pertain to this issue. john k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources are RS. The claim was precise and accurate. Removing it because it does not fit some definition you prefewr is contrary to writing a genuine article. The fact is that in both Italy and Germany, the concept of empire was strong and part of the "collective."  The nation of Italy was --- the Italian Empire. The nation for Germany was ... the German Reich.  Simople. Cited. Censored from an exact sentence in the lede despite the fact they are in the body of the article.  Thanks -- looks like you have your own playground here. Collect (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. You already said that the sources you are talking about do not use the word "collective." They are talking about something else. You are either violating WP:NOR by making your own synthesis between two distinct issues, or you do not understand the issues. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * um -- the deleted sentence with cites did not use the word "collective" anywhere in it. Thus making any requirement that the cites refer to "collective" odd. The cites specifically supported the sentence literally with no OR at all. The Italian Fascists backed the Italian Empire (vide Mussolini section as well) and the Germans backed the Aryan race and German Reich. Both precisely backed by the cites given, and "collective" does not appear in the cites nor in the sentence which refers to the cites.   I agreed with you that "collective" was an odd term, and so did not make any claim at all about "collective" in the deleted material. I actually would have figured this would not be astounding to anyone. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. The deleted sentence did not have the word "collective" in it because you deleted the word "collective as you said you would when you wrote, "Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal". Please see WP:OWN  You do not own this article.  Wikipedia is a collaborative process.  You thin when you change someone else's work that is always an improvement, and when someone improves your work it is "censorship?"  Please calm down, hysterics are not going to help.  As I have made clear, no one doubts that the Fascists and nazis had imperialist aims, this is covered by the second sentence,  The third sentence is about the relationship between the individual and collective.  Your edit claimed that the "collective" in this point is empire, and as you admitted, your own sources do not say that.  That violates WP:NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? I made an entirely new sentence and did NOT remove "collective" so I fear you are a tad errant here. And calling people "disingenuous" when you make an errant claim is ... welll ... you know. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the question if "collective" refers to state, nation, race or empire, it is usually understood by the most-recognized scholars that Italian fascism claimed submission to the state as its upmost priority (lots of Mussolini speeches goes this direction; as well as the coining itself of the word statolatry), while nazism rather claimed submission to the Aryan race. Both were of course "imperialists", and Italian fascism of course referred to Ancient Rome, whilst Hitler spoke of a "Thousands-Years Reich"; but this is secondary in respect to this questions. You will find references in any of the most acclaimed books about these movements. Lapaz (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Latter-day Fascism?

 * The term I came up with describes militarist regimes and far-right governments established after WWII, the likes of Juan Peron in Argentina ruled from 1943 to 1955 was described borderline "fascist" by the U.S. department of state at the beginning. Peron was an admirer to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and he dreamt of creating and ruling over a militarist nationalist regime when he takes power as he did in a 1943 army junta. But Peron was known to have socialist outlooks on the socioeconomic welfare of the Argentinan people and was a promoter of a new ideology "Justicialism" he called it as a moderate position between Socialism and Capitalism. Should we get an entry to the article about modern-day governments based on anti-Communism, Ethnic nationalism, military juntas and right-wing extremes thought to resemble Fascism of the Mussolini kind or Francoist influence? + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.36.5 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem is that once we open that door, every group which is "not nice" gets inserted. If we add a group, we should be quite sure is is genuinely "Fascist" in origins and philosophy.  Collect (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that equating fascism with not nice is a slippery (and sloppy) slope, but I think that the important point here is that fascism was one form of corporatist regime, and there are other forms of corporatism (like the New Deal and Peronism) that are not fascist but that share corporatist features. Many states (including the USSR) experimented with corporatism in the 1930s and 1940s as a response to the Great Depression. This may be a point worth developing in the article, as it puts Fascism in a larger historical context - fascism as one possible response among many to certain challenges, especially the Great Depression, facing many other regimes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Intersting thought. Not long ago this article had, indeed, been a catchall for all "not nice" organizations and movements. I would not like to see it degenerate back to that level.  I would, moreover, say that Huey Long proffered a closer "fascist organization" than FDR's New Deal was initially set out.  Perhaps a series of articles -- one on "Fascism and economics," dealing with the deliberate creation of cartels within fascist economies; one on "Fascism and religion"  dealing with "religious cartels" (i.e. Putin's Russian alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church in seeking to marginalize other churches) etc., one of "Fascism and empire" dealing with establishment of "greater Slobbovia" (apologies to Al Capp), and so on?   Collect (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about Huey Long - but my point wasn't really to say that FDR or Peron were close to Fascism, but rather to make a point out different forms of corporatism, Fascism being only one (and that does not mean that all corporatist regimes are "close" to Fascism) and how different forms of corporatism (including Fascism, but including other corporatist regimes that were decidedly not Fascist) were appealing in many different countries in the 1930s and 1940s.  All of this of course should be developed in the corporatism article, not here - but I think more could be said here about the historical context for Fascism involved challenges that confronted many other countries at the time, and that many countries - and leaders -  generally considered to be ideologically (and by many morally) antagonistic - e.g. FDR's USA, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's USSR - all experimented with different forms of corporatism for solutions.  As to the series of articles you propose, my suggestion would be to forward them as sections of this article and as the article grows longer open a discussion on spinning off ceertain sections as independent articles, this has ben done elsewhere. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If we place them here, there is a real risk of having people add everything they do not like as "fascist." By having relatively controllable other articles, such ought to be preventable. As for "corporatism" there is a legitimate claim that the current "bail outs" with concommittent strictures on those getting the money is actually "corporatism."  Wanna have this get to be like the campaign articles? .   Even if the new articles are only 10K long each, that should work well.  Collect (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Well, ultimately, it really does not matter what I do or don't want - anything that is a significant view relating to Fascism, that comes from a verifiable source, should go into the article (this would include views about Fascism and corporatism, but certainly couldn't include views about corporatism and the Brown or Obama governments. By the way, I do not quite get the point about "putting everything they do not like as 'fascist'" like you I am opposed to that, but the issue is what verifiable sources for significant views have to say about Fascism, including Fascism in the historical context of the 1930s, and Fascism compared to corporatism.  Corporatism is not a dirty word, some people may like, it, some may not, but it has a definition generally agreed upon by political scientists and the question is, what regimes to mainstream political scientists consider corporatism, not whether anyone likes corporatism or not.  There are always some people who wish to put their personal views into articles, and it doesn't matter what the article is on.  The bottom line is not what any editor thinks is good or bad, but what are the significant views from verifiable sources, in this case, political scientists and historians who are experts on Fascism.) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the proposed "Fascism and empire" article is marginally covered already here -- so I think that would be an interesting sandbox project for me. Would you like a "Fascism and Corporatism" (or "Fascism and Economics"?) article dealing with similarities and differences between the two? Neither would really fit as a section in the curent article as structured, I think. Then we could do a one paragraph summary for this article, with link to the more inclusive material?  Or would you prefer "fascism and religion" which I suspect will be a bear to get into shape?  If you still feel the sandbox articles could fit entirely into the main article, then we could discuss that further when they have some shape, no?  I do want to make sure that the material is pretty well formed before we get people gluing everything else into them . Collect (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not discouraging you, but I would like to see what other editors active on this article think - some people who have commented here know far more about 20th century European history than I do, some have PhDs in history, or Politics, i would like to see what they think. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per egalitarianism as a WP tenet, I am unsure that it requires special expertise to find reliable sources for such limited articles, and that, in fact, using "expertise" is discouraged per WP:RS . I would also like to use some of the books on my shelf and trace some of this back to 19th century concerns -- which is where anything about Italian concerns has to start.  Irredentism is clearly part of the total issue of Mussolini and Fascism. Collect (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 'nous sommes toutes egals" was wrong -- it is 'nous sommes tous égaux" -- Sorry. Collect (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the evidence that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism?
There is a claim that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism. Please provide sources. An author that something is related to fascism is very controversial, so the author's intentions and views on social democracy will have to be taken into perspective, i.e. an author with a personal distaste towards social democracy is very likely to be an unreliable source.--R-41 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't need evidence. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about what's sourceable. It is sourced in the article. It doesn't state it as if it's true but that it's true that that author holds that opinion. It gives his name. Many Heads (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the stranger precepts of WP. It does not mean, however, that we need to treat it as a common opinion. Collect (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Don't need evidence. Wikipedia is not about truth, but what's sourceable." That's not a valid argument, there are such things as BAD sources with no credibility, i.e. books claiming Holocaust denial when a gigantic volume of data shows otherwise, political propaganda, and just plain inaccurate material which can be easily disproved by other sources. One source for a claim is not good enough, a critique of the claim - if available - should be acknowledged. On this article we have had political partisans claiming "fascism is capitalism" and then an opposing group saying that "fascism is socialism", they cobble together weak arguments and fiercely deny anything to the contrary. The reason these partisans do this is because they refuse to accept that an ideology with a bad reputation can have anything to do with their own political views which they naively believe could never be associated with an ideology with such a bad reputation. As I am a social democrat, I admit that I will naturally be critical to claims that social democracy is linked to fascism, but I refuse to blindly put my political views into my arguments - that's why do not accept a common leftist argument fascism is a "far-right" ideology, evidence shows it had a number of leftist ideas. Fascists advocated social welfare, so as a social democrat, I acknowledge that that is a similarity, but that does not mean as a whole that the two ideologies are one and the same. Furthermore I accept that it is possible that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas from fascist governments, such as the corporatist economic model of Sweden under social democratic governments, but evidence is needed to prove whether it is related to fascist corporatism or non-fascist corporatism. I'm not asking for some kind of "absolute truth", all I am asking for is a wide range of sources for controversial claims.--R-41 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

one possible way to reorganize this all
1. "What is Fascism? (and not trying to use definitions -- they do not sere to make this very comprehensible at all?    a. etymology (history of fasces here) 'in unity there is strength" "dictator" as ancient concept  b. Mussolini's view of fascism (he was the one who coined the term after all)  stress on unity of the community (in Italy's case, the empire and nation)  the recreation of a nation's greatness through such unity  c. how people have extended the meaning (including use as epithet for anyone one does not like)

2. "Fascism" during WWII - the Axis powers (possibly including how each matched Mussolini's view) a. Italy, Empire and Italian Social Republic (il Duce's last stand) b. Germany and Hitler (racism in Germany not found in Mussolini's views), German Reich 1. Austrian National Front c. Japan and its "Imperial Rule" with stress on empire and unity of purpose

3. Fascism and Corporatism a. definition of corporatism b. Ireland c. Spain d. Portugal 1. Brazil e. other "corporatism" movements

4. Fascism as it relates to other issues a. Religious unity (hence include anti-semitism in some cases) b. Governmant control of the economy (central planning) eliminating all sorts of side issues, I hope ... such as "political spectrum" which basically has no conclusions, "core tenets" which is currently a catchall (gosh -- "eugenics" is specifically related to fascism as an issue? "gender roles"? Most of these issues appear, frankly, to be totally unrelated to whether a nation is "fascist" or not -- this is just a convenient place to stick them in?)

5. List of fascists (trimmed -- folks have been on this list because of "I don't like him"-itis.

first draft -- think it would work? Collect (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should do anything too drastic just yet like totally re-writing the article. We've already made major changes which have made the article, in my view much better. I think the introduction section is the best it has ever been in a long time, it is concise, to the point, identifies what fascism's orientation is, what its goal is, how it governs, what it negates, and from the edit history of this page, there is not too much outrage over the list of negations so I think we have found the essentials. The Fascist minimum section should be reorganized using the information there already, unless it is not backed up by reliable references.--R-41 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not know why Brazil is under Portugal ::.... I do not know why Brazil is under coporatist ... I do not know why corportist does not include the new Deal and Stalinism. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 19th century, Portugal's capital was Rio . The two nations are bound by not only language but history.  I am unsure that "corporatism" needs extended mention in this article however.  Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No. you are being imprecise and misleading. First, Brazil established independence from Portugal in 1822 - pretty early in the 19th century - and they are quite separate after that.  You might as well put the US under the UK, because they were bound by language and history .... 200 years ago.  Second, we are not talking about language, we are talking about politics, and corporatism is an entirely 20th century phenomenon.  The Stado Novo may be considered corporatist, I am not completely sure.  Perhaps Vargas's regime was also corporatist, I would also want to see sources for this.  But certainly Vargas was not a puppet of Portugal and Brazilian politics during tis period were not dictated by or subordinate to Portuguese politics. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Misleading? Last I checked, 1822 was in the 19th century. The story of Pedro I (Pedro IV of Portugal) and the intertwining of the nations well after 1822 is fascinating reading, to be sure. How many countries have their king become king of the parent country after independence?  His son was of course well known for his interest in the telephone on his visit to the US Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, while his sister was queen in Portugal. HArd to get much closer . They also share a language, and political speeches were in that common tongue.  Enough to link the two to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How many countries keep the same monarch after independence? Well, let's start with the sixteen of the Commonwealth realms. ;-)  Really, it's not all that remarkable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazingly enough, the British Commonwealth is considered to be a group of related nations. As are Brazil and Portugal, which was, if I recall correctly, the point at issue?  Collect (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people are easily amazed; I suppose that it's a function of naivete. Before we proceed, let's note that the British Commonwealth and the Commonwealth realms are not the same thing.  In any case, no one has denied that Brazil and Portugal are related; and no one has even denied that The United Kingdom and America (without a shared monarch) are related.  The question is of just what is the nature of these relations.  I don't plan to stake-out a position as to the answer, but I did and do note that your treatment of shared monarchy as peculiarly indicative just doesn't work.  There's been a lot of it and there still is a fair amount of it.  Let it go, and make a better case. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to try and fix the core tenets section by organizing it like this: Economic policy (Class collaboration, third position, mixed economy), Foreign policy (Militarism), and social policy (authoritarianism, indoctrination, nationalism, positions on men's and women's rights and role in society, and their opposition to homosexuality)--R-41 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Social policy appears quite orthogonal to fascism -- I am quite uncertain that gender and abortion issues have any more than an extremely incidental correlation to fascism, if any. "Nationalism" should be under the "militarism" (or vice versa) and "authoritarianism" is not so much a "belief" as "how it operates."  Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fascists openly promoted themselves as authoritarian, so it is an important point to reference, in fact I recently found a quotation by Nazi Joseph Goebbels who was essentially describing the Nazis as being associated with fascist states, but the Nazis did not like to use the word fascist because that would ascribe them as being followers of an ideology of a foreign country, so Goebbels described the Nazis as being supportive of "authoritarian-nationalist State concepts" and condemned Bolshevism and democracies for "their joint hatred of of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts of State and State systems."  So Goebbels here illustrates that fascism recognizes itself as authoritarian and nationalist in nature. The quote demonstrates the important role of authoritarianism in fascism. I am also quite surprised that our definition of fascism on Wikipedia so perfectly correlated with what the Nazis described fascism as, as I had not seen this quote prior.--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Authoritarian nationalist" and rebuilding glory = Putin and a lot of other "left wing fascists" to be sure/ Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

use of "Sir"
Sir Oswald Mosely is customarily referred to with the "Sir" vide the WP article on him. The NYT used the "Sir" as a rule, and WP generally follows its lead. That specific title is rarely elided, and has been in this article for a very long time. You may well not like him, but he had the title. Collect (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the United Kingdom, people of different ranks are accorded different titles (I am using the term "title" in a broad sense), and it is entirely proper that we use these titles when referring to them. However it must be consistent.  "Mr." is also a title, customarily but not correctly applied to all men with no higher title, but it is not used at all in this article.  The NYT procedure is to refer to a person by their full name (omitting title) when first mentioned then by their title and last name for further references (in the case of royalty, baronets and knights it would be their first names).  However it appears that in this article people are referred to by their surnames alone, with titles omitted.  I see no reason why we should single out baronets for special distinction in this article.  Curiously the NYT refers to Conrad Black in a recent article as Mr. Black, rather than "Lord Black", showing that they are ignoring UK titles altogether.  In any case they would never call him "Conrad, Lord Black".  Persons' full names and titles are normally only used in highly formal circumstances.  The Four Deuces (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Usual WP practice is to use titles where they are generally used in sources. As "Mr." is virtually never used, it is not generally used in WP.  Where a person has a specific title by which they are commonly known, that title is used in WP articles.  His title was hereditary, not honourary, as he was a Baronet.   "Lord" for Black was a life peerage = honourary.  And I would note that people in this article are not generally referred to by surnames alone.  Collect (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For WP usage see Manual_of_Style_(biographies) which makes the distinction between honourary titles and ones of a heridarty knight or baronet, etc. "This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. ... Correspondingly honorific titles should not be deleted from inline usage for a particular person unless there is consensus it is being used excessively inline as an honorific rather than a title. "  Which seems fairly clear indeed. Collect (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see any distinction between hereditary and life peerages or knighthoods in that section. My reading is that in some cases, e.g., Father Couglin and Mother Theresa where their titles are commonly applied to their names that it should be used but that does not apply here. Of course it is appropriate to use these titles in lead sections of articles about titled people. Also, I do not think that adding the title provides any useful information to the article, particularly when it is not clear that the title was hereditary. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not clear? Um -- it is not OR to figure out that the SIXTH Baronet is a hereditary title. Did you not look at the Moseley article?  Per WP MiS, it is clear that hereditary titles are not just honourary ones, and should be mentioned at the first occurence of a name.  Collect (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that it is not clear in the Fascism article that Mosley was called Sir because he held an hereditary title. The policy to which you refer states "should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person", which is clearly referring to articles about the person.  Also, as I already mentioned, I do not see that the policy makes any distinction for hereditary titles.  And Black's title while not hereditary is not honorary either.  He is entitled to sit in the House of Lords.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)It is not needed that the article say it is hereditary -- any more than "Queen Elizabeth II" needs a parenthetical statement "the title Queen is hereditary." And the MoS specifically makes the distinction -- ought I copy it all here in bold face? I would be glad to, but I would hope it would not be necessary. At least you grant that his title was clearly hereditary, I trust. (appending) I trust you are aware that Black can not to sit in the House of Lords?  he is currently imprisoned, and Labour wishes to "de-Lord" him. Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you notice that in the National Post article you reference, which was actually founded by Black, he is referred to as "Conrad Black" when first mentioned and subsequently as "Lord Black", which follows the NYT style. I cannot find any use of the word "hereditary" in the WP MOS and the term "honorary title" refers to titles awarded to foreign citizens which are not recognized in their native lands, e.g., Bob Geldoff, Colin Powell have "honorary knighthoods".  And the fact that Black is currently unable to sit in the Lords and the fact that a future law may lead to his expulsion in no way affects his current membership.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Note: honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. "  "This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria."  "Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title."  A;;; seems pretty clear -- and the National Post article conforms neither to WP MoS not NYTMoS.   Collect (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The section you are quoting is guidance for articles created about people, not for articles that mention them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And where does it say "Follow this guideline, but only on articles about a specific person, but not anywhere else"? Collect (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not say but not anywhere else because it is providing guidelines for articles about individuals, not guidelines for other articles, which is why it is included under Manual of Style (biographies). (Please note it says biographies.)  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting parsing -- the term "biography" in WP includes all articles which have biographical material in them, as I trust you knew. The MoS is divided into sections for purposes of making it easy to find material, not for the distinction you appear to propose.  Would you claim that BLP doies not apply, for example, to material in this article related to living people? Collect (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course BLP applies, but the guidelines for writing biographical articles are specific to them. Otherwise whenever someone was mentioned for the first time in any article, we would list full name, post-nominal intials, academic degrees and dates of birth and death.  If people want this information they can follow the piped links.  But it is really bad style to refer to people by their title and full name except on a formal list of guests or patrons etc.  Even then it is normal to use all persons' titles, including Mr. if appropriate.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Common practice at WP is per MoS -- use of title as specified above. That you wish to have a different standard here is interesting, but not too relevant. Collect (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect I disagree that the WP MOS dictates the use of some British prenominal titles when titled persons are mentioned in various articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Manual_of_Style_(biographies) by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oswald Mosley, Baronet
Collect has stated that because Oswald Mosley was an hereditary baronet that out of respect to him we should refer to him in the article as "Sir Oswald Mosley". My opinion was that Wikipedia should not give special status to British or any other titles. If we call some people "Sir" then me must call other people "Mr.", "Ms.", "Dr.", "Professor", etc. This conversation can be read above. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The MoS specifically draws the distinction between inherited titles and "Mr." and the like. If you wish to discuss the MoS, you should do so on the talk pages involved.  So far, I have not seen your input there. "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics"  and "Sir" for a Baronet is is not an "honorific."  Baronets outrank all Knights.   Collect (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, what makes you think it is not an honorific? According to MoS "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles". --84.13.68.135 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Try reading the full distinction between Knight (a non-heritary title) and hereditary titles. "Honorific" refers to a "courtesy title" -- such as "Lord" or the like.  (see Naming Conventions) The WP MoS for "biographies", like all WP material relating to "biographies" applies to all articles where the person is mentioned. BLP, for example, applies to all articles where a living person is mentioned, not just the "biography."    If you really wish discussion, go the the MoS talk pages. Collect (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Knights of the Garter, of the Thistle and of St. Patrick all rank higher than baronets. Some knighthoods are hereditary, e.g., the Green Knight, while some baronetcies are not hereditary.  The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Knights of the Garter etc. are not standard "Knights" -- Prince Charles, for example, is a "Knight of the Garter." It is an "order" in and of itself.  There are currently, AFAICT, only six who are not titled otherwise (one, John Major, is Guardian to the Princes William and Harry) and so on.  A huge total of two non-titled members of the Thistle.   And zero surviving members of St. Patrick at all .   Dead people do not rank very high, do they?   And the fact is that the person in question is an hereditary baronet, so the claim that some baronetcies are not hereditary is absolutely and joyfully irrelevant.  Next time you wish to make a big deal about something, make sure it still exists at least. Coming up with a total of six people who would officially be "knights" outranking a Baronet is grasping at straws entirely. Collect (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By your logic, since Mosley is also dead he does not rank very high, does he? However it would be helpful if you use terms like "most" or even "almost all" instead of "all" in your arguments when exceptions exist.  In any case the British honors system draws no distinction between hereditary and non-hereditary titles.  The title "Esquire" btw is hereditary so by your logic gentlemen referred to in these articles should be referred to using the prenominal title of "Mr.".  I am a little confused by your views.  Are you saying that baronets should be called "Sir" but knights should not or that only hereditary baronets should be called Sir.  And should hereditary knights also be called Sir?  Does this rule extend to their wives and/or former wives who have not remarried?  Do we continue to use these titles after the subjects have died?  Do we extend this usage to continental orders of chivalry?  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And at the time he died, your "exceptions" were still in the single digits .  "Esq." is commonly used by attorneys in the US, and is not considered a title.   The title "esquire" which you aver is hereditary, isn't. "Today, however, the term may be appended to the name of any man not possessing a higher title (such as that of knighthood or peerage) or a clerical one." as WP states it. Collect (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all perfectly interesting, but the MoS does not seem to make exceptions based on how a title was acquired or how highly the title-holder ranks. --89.240.156.98 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it does. Note that the folks with honorary stuff get initials after the name, not a title before it. Hereditary Bart. is not an honorary title. Collect (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why are you telling me this? The MoS has a guideline against using honorific titles inline. It doesn't appear to matter that the title is inherited or that it is aristocratic or that it is non-honorary. Are you confusing "honorary" and "honorific"? The two are not the same. OM's title is honorific, although not honorary. --89.240.156.98 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The title Esquire is in many if not most cases hereditary, most often when individuals are granted coats of arms, which are hereditary, they become (if they are not already) Esquires and the rank is then passed on through the male line. The term "honorary" refers to the granting of titles, e.g., Bob Geldof, Colin Powell, to persons who are not entitled to use prenominal titles, which is why WP policy states that prenominal titles should not be used in their biographies.  It does not mean not hereditary, although in many cases it is not hereditary.  American citizens of British ancestry may apply for the honorary award of a coat of arms.  The use of the title "Esq." in the US or its misuse in Commonwealth countries does not alter correct usage.  Incidentally, barristers in Commonwealth countries are entitled to use the title Esquire and it appears that Americans have continued this practice long after independence.
 * However I agree that this issue is best discussed elsewhere. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed this in the wrong section yesterday:
 * BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He ought to be called "Sir Oswald Mosley" the first time he is mentioned, and then "Mosley" thereafter. It would be ridiculous to call him "Sir Oswald," and I don't think we generally do that with anybody - we don't talk about "Sir Robert" for Peel or Walpole, nor do we refer to Russell as "Lord John" (although his contemporaries certainly did.) john k (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that only apply to articles about them? Otherwise we's have to go through every article when the honors list is updated or a peer or baronet passes his titles on to his or her heirs.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Firstly, we refer to people by their titles only during the period when they held them.  We don't call the British prime minister during the American Revolution "Lord Guilford," nor do we call the British foreign secretary during the Congress of Vienna "Lord Londonderry."  We speak of Disraeli, rather than Beaconsfield, before 1876, and of Pitt, rather than Chatham, before 1766.  There are some articles where we don't do that, but they should be changed.  Mosley inherited his baronetcy well before he became a fascist, so it's perfectly appropriate to refer to him in the first instance as Sir Oswald Mosley.  Do you think that we should speak of the last peer to serve as British prime minister as Robert Cecil?  Should we call Byron George Byron?  I simply don't understand this objection. john k (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some articles refer to individuals' memberships which would have to be updated, e.g., an article about a newspaper would have to be updated to show that the managing director had been elevated to the peerage. I do not think that that Wikipedia requires that articles use persons' titles provided they are British and rank as baronets or higher. Very few people actually understand the British honors system. I remember watching CNN interview "Lord Jeffrey Archer" about the death of "Princess Diana", the daughter-in-law of the "Queen of England". There are several ways that contemporary newspapers handle titles. In some people are referred to by their full names less title but are then referred to by their titles and either Christian or surname (with titles including Mr.), or by their surnames alone. Some newspapers apply titles on first mention to people of a certain rank on first mention then continue using the title, while other newspapers only use the title on first mention. (Examples: the Globe and Mail, The Toronto Star, The Independent, the New York Times.  I realize that some historical figures are invariably referred to by their titles, e.g., the the Duke of Wellington.  Today, the Duke of Westminster, the late Marquess of Bristol and Lord Longford and members of the British Royal family are generally referred to using their titles, not their family names.  (Note that the their titles are different from their surnames, they are better known by their titles, although the Duke and the Marquess were both referred to by the names on their birth certificates when they appeared in court.)  But I see no reason why WP should give special status to people who have British titles.  I note that European and other foreign titles are rarely used, e.g., Count Ignatieff, Edler von Mises.  The Four Deuces (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why
Someone has removed my question about Fascism's point of view towards disabled people (why?).

(86.148.145.120 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Fascism has no specific attitude towards disabled people. Collect (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mobutism
I don't see why Mobutism is included in the article. There were numerous similar post-colonial regimes. Peronism and the Lebanese Phalange have more obvious connections with fascism, but they are not included. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lebanon is clearly included. "Falangism was significant in Lebanon through the Kataeb Party and its founder Pierre Gemayel.[255] The Lebanese Falange fought for national independence which was won in 1943; they became significant during the complex and multifaceted Lebanese Civil War which was largely fought between Christians and Muslims.[256]"   Peronism certainly could be listed parallel to Mobutism, I would suppose.  Collect (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I missed that. (It's under the section for Spain.)  I think the inclusion of Peronism was debated at length.  What I was wondering though was why Mobutu is included but not e.g., Idi Amin, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Duvalier, Somoza, Suharto, Chiang Kai-shek, to name a few.  The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know there was a thing called Mobutism. personally I thought he was a self-serving thug.  Anyway, is there any' scholarly literature that links him with Fascism?  The new Deal seems closer to Fascism than Mobuto. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many you name differ in key respects from being "fascist" and if we are not careful we will have vandals trying to add Bush and Blair to the list. Can we keep to fairly clear-cut cases?  I found just enough possible sources for Mobutu not to instantly rule him out here, but we likrly should discuss it.  The others suggested are pejorative fascists only for sure. FDR's "Blue Eagle" was, indeed, on the ragged edge, but FDR pulled back on it.   Collect (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well please give us your sources and explain how he differs from other third world strongmen. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong game. Show me how the other dictators of the world all happen to be "fascists." Note the definition of fascism we arrived at to avoid having the pejorative use take over the article.  Collect (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mobutism was very similar to fascism, Mobutu's Popular Movement of the Revolution (MPR) became entrenched in a single-party state in Zaire and pursued a radical and authoritarian nationalist agenda of purging western culture from Zaire while promoting local Zairian culture. I added this for no pejorative intentions whatsoever. The MPR's political agenda was entrenched into the constitution of Zaire and Zaire's flag was the same as that of the movement. I added a source which directly says that Mobutu's agenda was highly similar to fascism, but notes that it was difficulties in implementing their agenda which prevented the state from being able to gain complete control of the country. This is the source The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A People's History written by Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja in 2003. Pp. 165 of this book specifically states that Mobutu and the MPR pursued an agenda which was highly similar to fascism. Mobutu and the MPR called Zaire a "parti-etat" (a "party-state") and exactly like multiple fascists, rejected both capitalism and communism while promoting a "national revolution" in which he led the country as a dictator and was seen as the "father of the nation" and a warrior leader (very militaristic). Youth were indoctrinated into the MPR like fascists did and with the same principles that fascists had. Lastly, because Mobutu stayed in power for about thirty years under this single-party totalitarian system in Zaire, this combined with the ideology's close similarities to fascism means that this ideology is VERY important to be examined. I list Mobutism not because Mobutu was a dictator (as there are many in history) but because of the authoritarian, nationalist, single-party state combined with anti-communism and anti-capitalism which was officially promoted by Mobutu and his party.--R-41 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the article that lists dozens of countries that have been single party states. All of the countries on this list claimed to be anti-capitalist and the non-Communist countries were anti-Communist as well.  The description of Mobutism could also apply to most of the examples I listed above.
 * But even if Mobutism is very similar to fascism, it is WP:OR to draw your own conclusions and enter them into this article. The only reference to fascism in your source says "The drift toward fascism...that [Frantz] Fanon had feared did not materialize".  However Franz Fanon wrote that "fascism has triumphed for half a century in Latin America", The Wretched of the Earth (1961), so his definition of fascism is wide.
 * BTW, ever notice how the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada looks like the Canadian flag?
 * P.S. Collect: Nope!.  Same game.  What applies to Mobutu applies to ALL AFRICAN DICTATORS is not a rare cavil, so please avoid orthogonal points.  Thanks! 
 * The Four Deuces (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not engage in hostile behaviour again, User:The Four Deuces or I will immediately report you to an administrator for uncivil behaviour the next time. You and Collect have engaged in vicious arguing on this talk page for too long anyway, it is about time for an outside intervention to break up the edit warring on the talk page between you two. Furthermore Mobutu is not like all African dictators as you claim Four Deuces, that statement is extremely biased and dismissive. The reason is because you refused to take the author seriously, his judgements about certain governments in Latin America may not be as irrational as you think, there were unusual regimes in South America which had strong similarities to fascism. In addition, when one thinks of it, Mussolini could himself be considered "just another dictator" amongst the great mass of dictators in history who just used different phrases, perhaps that is indeed what Mussolini himself is. But look at the obvious and striking similarities between them: the single party state of the MPR that supported "national revolution", "authentic nationalism", anti-communism, anti-capitalism, a middle position between capitalism and communism, and lastly that preached literally preached that Mobutu was Zaire's "Messiah" and that the MPR was Zaire's "Church" all are in a combined manner, extremely fascistic. Mobutu was a corrupt man whose agenda failed, but this does not mean that his political ideology should be discounted, Mussolini's regime was in many respects, an abysmal failure that failed to live up to its agenda: i.e. Mussolini failed to create a strong military, he failed to mobilize Italy's industries for war, and Mussolini never created a fully totalitarian state, the monarchy remained, the aristocracy remained, the Church remained, and private enterprise remained. Mussolini's Fascist regime Italy in terms of strategic importance is practically seen as a joke, if Mussolini's regime is a joking insignificant and a failure in terms of achieving its objectives one to some, don't assume that Mobutu's regime is somehow incapable of being fascist, like Mussolini it had official intentions and these intentions were very close to fascism as noted in a book, but like I indicated in the article, not exactly the same. Please do not go on a tangent about multiple ideologies that may be similar to fascism as well, I get what you are trying to say. I would suggest that instead of trying to prove if I am wrong, try to find out if what has been posted is accurate or what constructive suggestions you may have to address the problems you see with the info on Mobutism in the article, that is far more positive, more thoughtful, and more respectful than merely criticizing my efforts. But I do have an important question (albeit rhetorical sounding, but one which I would like a rational answer to): if a radical, authoritarian nationalist single party state led by a dictator for almost thirty years who purges non-domestic culture, restricts political opposition and attempts to indoctrinate people to a political party and leader as in Zaire may not be considered fascist despite its close similarities, then please tell me why it is not an important example of para-fascism as I have listed it as and as an author has noted?--R-41 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After considering what has been said, I think I will remove the Mobutism section for now, in spite of its close similarities to fascism. I suppose we shouldn't fill up the para-fascism section with all the "maybe" fascisms in the world, but only the ones that are so close (i.e. Austrian Fatherland Front leader Dollfuss and Francisco Franco literally meeting Mussolini.)--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not dismissing your opinion, you may be absolutely right. However, The Congo from Leopold to Kabila does not state that Mobutism was fascism. "African party states were authoritarian rather than totalitarian" (p. 165). But this is not the place to determine what fascism is. The article is supposed to present the reader with academic opinion about fascism, indicating what theories are most accepted. I refer to Wikipedia's policy:
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

The best source for Mobutism = fascism would be a book about fascism. Using Nzongola-Ntalaja's book as source would be selective. If Mobutism is fascism, then it is likely it is not the only example of post war fascism. The book says the regime "acquired all the characteristics of personal rule then found elsewhere in Africa: a one party dictatorship under the authoritarian control of a single individual" (p. 141).

I will answer your question, although I giving my own opinion (which may be wrong) and hope it does not generate endless debate. Fascism is a middle class reaction against their perceived loss of status, which demonizes ruling elites, the poor, minorities and foreigners. It is a mass movement that organizes as a political party in order to compete in parliamentary elections. The party however continues after power is attained and operates as a parallel government, because existing institutions like the army, the courts and the church remain as rivals. Mobutu was a military dictator imposed on The Congo by Belgian and American intelligence without local backing. The party was organized later in order to assist the regime. Fascists attempted to advance the nationalistic interests of the countries that they ruled, while Mobutu ruled to advance foreign interests.

BTW my comment to Collect was phrased in the same manner as numerous comments he has made to me and you have never commented on them or suggested you would report him to the authorities.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some people think that criticism or presentation of an opposing argument is hostile, vicious, uncivil and biased. I always wonder what these people would do if they evercame across any seriously offensive argument. If you can't handle a bit of superior argument saliently presented to you, (as I have had happen to me a couple of times here, hence my continuing interest) then you may as well join those you're discussing. Mdw0 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion
Just thought I'd add something uncontroversial about the cosy Catholic relationship with Franco and the Nazis but it was promptly removed. I wonder why? PS I also removed some rubbish that was there about "3 million Polish Catholics and 3 million Polish Jews were sent to concentration camps" (the reference given was a Catholic website!) Zombie president (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PPS It was my first ever contributtion so it would be great to get an answer. CheersZombie president (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First requirement is a "reliable source" which backs up anything you write in an article. Note all those footnotes? Each one (hopefully) has material in it to precisely back up what it is a footnote for.  Ones found not to be actually right tend to get removed as soon as they get spotted.  Second requirement is "NPOV" -- this does not mean nothing controversial gets into an article, just that where two sides exist of an argument, each side must be represented in the article.  I suggest you read WP:RS to see how cites get used, and why not all websites are considered "reliable" for WP usage. Thanks!  Post on my Talk page if you have any other questions -- too often newcomers get sent thoudsands of words when if we knew what they wanted to know, a short answer would do fine <g>.  Collect (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks Zombie president (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism article
Gee, look at Wikipedia's article on left-wing fascism. It doesn't say anything about fascism being a left-wing ideology, and it also contradicts Collect's supposed argument that that the Frankfurt School promotes left-wing fascism and that Horowitz claims that fascism is left-wing. I won't bother pasting sections here; just click on the link and read it there.Spylab (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, WP articles are NOT RS for WP zarticles. And GUESS WHO has just edited there? WOW! Sorry, pointing to an article you just edited as proof of anything fails miserably. As does insertion of claims that the "left wing fascists" named by Horowitz and Bale were "right wing" as an example of WP:SYN and WP:OR -- and even WP:UNTRUTH when the cite does not even have "fanchin" mentioned in it at all! cited as a source on Fanchin does not even has his name in it once. Now can we just let it be that some people call something "leftwing fascism" without trying to falsify that fact? Thanks! (Example of edit just made there: The term has also been adopted by conservative American political commentators to describe extreme or intolerant forms of leftist ideology. The term is also in increasing use in contemporary thought to explore unusual hybrid alliances characterizing late 20th and early 21st century political movements.  Collect (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim that the Wikipedia left-wing fascism article on its own was a reference. However that article has its own references to back up its content. Also, if you actually look at the edits I made to the article, you will see I did not alter the meaning at all, just did general copy edits. I'll have to get back to you about the Fanchin reference. The link probably went to the wrong page than the one I meant.Spylab (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * READ WP:OR and WP:SYN before you try interpolating your own opinions into precsely written sentences. And calling a left wing fascist (so called by Bale or Horowitz) a "right wing fascist" does not help any editor or reader here.  As I have said, I am fully willing to add cites. And using YOUR OWN EDITS to back your own edits <g> that is not going to work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't insert my own opinions. I used the description far right because that is the term used in those people's own Wikipedia articles. If you dispute that term, then perhaps you should remove it from their articles. As for the Fanchin reference, I'm not sure what happened there; I can't find what I thought I found before.Spylab (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP articles are not valid cites for WP -- mainly because ANY editor can change them around. And if that SAME editor is using his own edits as a cite, how valid can it be? And citing something which ain't there is a teensy bit iffy. Collect (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Some readers might find it confusing that the political spectrum section now has a large discussion about the new left-wing fascism, but there is no reference to it anywhere else in the article. Nor is there any mention of neo-fascism. Even more confusing that most of the discussion of the new left-wing fascism is about their influences not their members. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try reading the AfD on "Left wing fascism" -- that was where a decision to merge would have been possible. Collect (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a merger. However, one cannot fail to notice that the article describes various fascist groups, e.g., Nazis, Italian fascists, phalangists, all of which have their own articles, but totally omits any discussion of the new left-wing fascism, except under the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OTOH, the other way is to remove the sections dealing with movements which may-or-may-not-be fascist. Each basically has their own current article (many in need of strong editing, by the way).  And removing stuff here which is true of some groups and not of others -- making inclusion of a lot of it not necessarily accurate for all fascists. Collect (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with merging content from the left-wing fascism article here is that — as the referenced content in that article shows — there is disagreement/contradictions about what the term actually means. Some use the term to describe socialists who have characteristics similar to fascists (such as authoritarianism, violent methods and/or anti-semitism (or at least alleged anti-semitism) and/or team up with neo-fascists for certain goals; others use the term to describe far right nationalists who team up with pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamist and/or pro-Arab groups against Israel and Zionists (which doesn't necessarily mean they have leftist sympathies, just that they work with so-called non-white people to fight their perceived common enemy); and others use the term to describe Third Position-type neo-fascists because they have some leftist views. There don't seem to be any reliable references showing that left-wing fascism is an actual movement or ideology, or that anyone calls themselves a left-wing fascist.Spylab (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I note the word "disagreement" above? As I have iterated, there is indeed disagreement about what is, and is not, fascism, and where, if anywhere, fascism is, or whether (as many note) different fascisms are all over the place.     And one problem is the current tendency by some to use "fascist" as a pejorative epithet rather than as a descriptor of "authoritarian nationalism."  Collect (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least there's agreement that fascism is an actual ideology and movement, and that there are some widely recognized basic characteristics. The same cannot be said about the term "left-wing fascism", which seems to be not much more than a sloppy, poorly defined label and pejorative epithet.Spylab (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. The sources do not use "left wing fascism" as a "pejorative epithet." It is used to state that authoritarian nationalist movements are found in the left wing, and is used by experts int he field. Unless of course you wish to assert your c.v. is better than that of those using the term in the RSs used? Collect (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SUBSCRIBE TO PEWDIEPIE