Talk:Fascism/Archive 3

accusations

 * This outlandish bullshit from "User:WHEELER" seems familiar. Am I the only one who suspects that this is JoeM? 172 20:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 172, I think profanity won't help here, though I certainly don't agree with WHEELER any more than you do. I do think, however, that JoeM was far less intelligent about his beliefs -- WHEELER seems to have read widely in the classics, which I never saw from Joe M. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my language. Is it possible that User:JoeM has been reading up on the classics since his hard-ban? Hum, that's unlikely - to say the least. Just in case, ask him if he wants to invade Brazil and China, and destabilize France and Canada? 172 20:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

one step forward, two steps back...
The all time worst way to introduce a newbie into the fray is by suggesting he is a hard-banned user, back from the grave ;) I had it done to me here on the wiki as well, and I'm still pi$$ed off ;) Anyways, as I keep saying, the pefect article is one where "every reasonable, informed person can agree with what is written". Now, that doesn't mean we all think its the very best possible way to say it, but as long as we can agree on the facts, we have done pretty well. Or will have done well, after we get done fighting about each others politics. A side note meta - issue, I'd like to have a place where wikis can legitamately debate politics, religion, and what-have-you, since I have noticed no end of desire for that here and elsewhere. Heck, I like to discuss them as well, but w me its not much of a debate, since all the reasonable, informed folks agree w me anyhow ;P p.s. lets play nice!!! Sam Spade 21:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not a debate forum. The extent of my contributions on this page is guide to the scholarly literature on the subject left languishing in Talk:Fascism/ archive1. 172 21:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Creating new archive for this. For a guide to the academic literature, see Talk:Fascism/suggested readings. 172 21:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you did exactly, nor why you did it, but I NPOV'ed your formatting, and added Wheelers book into a new section at the top. Sam Spade 23:09, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * If you're not familiar with any of these books, then you shouldn't be editing this article. 172 23:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I am a rightist I am also a reactionary.

"Patriarchalism, with a relative (functional hierarchy, harmonizes best with the traditional mentality of Catholic nations, which are demophile but not democratic. The Catholic "progamme" is probably best expressed by a Spanish saying:  Tener un hijo,          Plantar un arbol         Escribir un libro ("To have a son, to plant a tree, to write a book").  Here we find the synthesis of patriarchalism, agriculture and artistry---a perfectly "reactionary" pattern.  (Compare with Mussolini's Un libro e un moschetto--fascista perfetto "a book and a musket make a perfect Fascist":  intellect and the old Petrine curse--brute force." Liberty or Equality pg 186

I am sorry. Wheeler
 * All right, this is offensive. I've been civil to you WHEELER -- I admit, suspicious, but I didn't pretend to know exactly who you are, and even when I suggested my understanding of your stance, I invited you to correct me and accepted that correction.  You've already informed me erroneously of assumptions you thought I was making.  Now you are questioning my faith, which frankly has me outraged.  How dare you presume to know my relationship with God?  I never said you could not have a religion.  All of us here with faith must be careful that our faith does not damage our ability to be neutral.  All you need to do is accept that this is not a place for proselytism.  I expect an immediate apology from you for attacking my faith.  I am not free of bias, but I am committed to NPOV writing, and where I am biased, I hope good editors will correct me (Sam and 172 are two such editors).  I have asked you to commit to NPOV and you apparently refuse.  Have I understood incorrectly? Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I am completely obedient to NPOV. You accuse me of bias. You are just as judgemental. I quoted directly from Mussolini and you deleted the post. Sam Spade reposted it. Now who here doesn't have NPOV. You deleted a direct quote from Mussolini and the HIS definition. 172 deleted my direct quotes from Hitler's own mouth on the Nazism site. Who here has bias. Not me. I am just using direct quotes. Everybody is deleting my direct quotes. Why, because my direct quotes conflict with your bias. Who is calling the kettle black? I am sorry I offended anybody.Wheeler 23 Mar 04 730pm
 * I removed your quotation because I thought such an important change needed to be discussed on the talk page first. I have said many times that I am willing to have a quote posted, as long as it is a quote we can all agree to.  You have, as yet, not responded to my invitation to post the quotation here and work to compromise on a version that will please us all.  You do have a bias which you admitted -- all of us have bias.  I have not yet heard from you that you are committed to setting aside your bias here as much as possible and working towards consensus and NPOV, which will almost certainly involve an alteration of some of your additions to the article.  I apologize if you feel I have dealt unfairly with you -- such was not my intention.  Nothing that I did, however, in any way justifies your assertion that I am a fundamentalist materialist without religion.  Your apology is very general and seems more tacked-on and begrudging to me than an actual admittance that what you said was wrong: I do accept your apology, however, in the hopes that it was in fact more sincere than it appeared to me.  I return, then, to insisting that you express a desire to discuss things here, reach an NPOV consensus that pleases us all, and post that consensus to the article: I do not yet see that you are willing to do so. Jwrosenzweig 00:46, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am being constantly told that "religion damages my ability to be neutral". Can I say to someone that one's marxism does not damage one's ability to be neutral but religion does. Does one's political persuasion of socialism and/or marxism damage their ability to be neutral? If religion does, then the rules ought to be the same for marxists.

I do not see the rule in Wikipedia that says before one posts to a site it must first be posted in the talk section. If that is true. Then why don't we have the same rule for deletions? Consistency is the criterion of truth. you want me to post first in the talk section but you want to delete without any consensus in the talk section. I don't understand these inconsistencies.Wheeler 745pm


 * Wheeler, you seem to be clear enough about your own heavy bias towards the right wing and evidently feel a strong need to defend this position as the side of good. Since fascism is not the side of good in your mind (I agree), it cannot be associated with the right wing in any form. The edit I saw did more than just add a few quotes from Mussolini; it biased the article towards pleading fascism is left wing (in a fairly inconsistent way as the edit was partial). The article now starts straight off with a discussion how Mussolini defined it as left wing and collectivist (the latter word I've mostly seen in Objectivist rhetoric, but it may be more widespread), and repeats later (in broken grammar) that fascism is never right wing. Could it not be that your apparently heavy interest in declaring fascism as left wing introduces a slight bias in the article?


 * A solution might be to move the discussion in the article into a section on "Fascism, left or right wing?" (and then say it has aspects of both), and leave the rest of the article unpolluted by this debate. Right now the article says it's clearly left wing and allied itself with the forces of conservatism, for instance. Do you think it should be edited to remove that mention as well? Or might fascism have had something to do with the forces of conservatism sometimes? (for instance, president Hindenburg, or, say, the German army) Martijn faassen 01:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the left vs. right discussions into a single section, where I hope the different POVs will work towards some kind of NPOV statement. Myself, I've noted that many American regard Fascism as being a left-wing phenomenon, much to the bafflement of Europeans who see it as a right-wing one. I think the answer is that a 2-dimensional political spectrum of some kind is needed to sort this argument out. -- The Anome 01:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Political Compass
http://www.politicalcompass.org/


 * I gave this link a bit earlier today, but it seems it could use a second viewing. Don't call me a spammer, darn it! ;) Sam Spade 01:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. I archived alot earlier than would normally be necessary because the page grew so fast. We were over 32K and wheeler told me he can't edit big pages like that. Sam Spade 01:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Nolan chart is good too. -- The Anome 01:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, awesome, tnx. Thats almost identical to the link I gave too, putting fascism and communism together, w libertarianism opposite, and Left/right being in regards to economics, not to civil rights. Very cool. Sam Spade 01:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mussolini
I directly quote Mussolini who says himself that he is collectivist and Left and some people disagree? Mussolini was pretty politically savvy. He ought to know where he stands. What's the disagreement?

"Marx is also behind French socialism, which produced Sorel, who in turn is admittedly the spiritual father of the young socialist Mussolini, the admirer of Hus. And Mussolini influenced Hitler." (Liberty or Equality, pg 211)

"All these philosophies are anti-Catholic, anti-monarchical, anti-traditional; they look solely to the future, want to build a new society, and are 'dawnist'. They are opposed to the freedom of the person and are collectivist; ...and they all favor the rise of an omnipotent state.  They are materialistic, and claim to be 'progresive'.  All of them have their affinities with the French Revolution.  The whole bitter struggle among them is desperate and pitiless on account of its fratricidal nature.  They do not see in each other strange opponents but competing heresies with a common origin." (Ibid) Wheeler 830pm


 * I love your quotes man :). Focus on the awesome quotes, and avoid pi$$ing people off excessively, and I think you'll make a splendid contributer here. Nothing is quite so nice on the wiki as citations and verifiability (except maybe civil discourse ;) Sam Spade 01:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you believe I actually reverted 172? I'd better put something on his talk page to warn (him). :-) People said I should look here to see what else Wheeler has been doing. Well, I think possibly he'll work out. 172: let's give Sam Spade, Wheeler and Jwrosenzweig some time to muddle out a middle road. If they don't manage (but I think they will), we can always fix or revert the article back then. Kim Bruning 11:45, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been on this site long enough, so I'm kind of hardened and cynical. This User:Wheeler seems to be a fanatic, and I don't see why we need to give his loopy polemic and POV fiction any credence whatsoever. It's best to stomach an edit war, which will result in the protection of the last stable version - the version up before this nonsense made its way into the article. That was the only way to save Great Depression from degenerating into sheer nonsense under similar circumstances, I recall. 172 11:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have enough on my hands as it is. I'll have to strategically withdraw from this battle. (And it would have been my first edit war too!) Kim Bruning 13:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I think any mention of "left" or "right" should be removed from this article unless they are used within a narrow historical context. Those words have no universal meaning; they are defined by the politics of a particular society at a particular time, and even then they are still often inadequate for describing political views and coalitions. Attempts to link fascism to the left or right are just demagoguery. What Mussolini said about being on the left is meaningless... he was a politician, and politicians say whatever makes the people like him. Also, I like the introduction that is attached to the "left/right" article. I should have realized that there was an edit war going on here and just stayed away... AdamRetchless 15:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with the definition from the Horse's mouth? I fail to see How Mussolini's own definition of what Fascism is POV?

What we have here is what Ayn Rand talked about, the rewriting of history to serve Marxists. The Hiding and obscuring of facts. I fail to see how Words from the originator and coiner of the term Fascism is POV.

A Socratic on Nationalism is Fascist
Socrates: I see that your definition of Fascism says that it means fascism is nationalism and ethnism. Am I correct?

Wikipaedia: Yes, that is correct.

Socrates: Is this the same for all societies that promote nationalism and ethnism?

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: Then I take it that the Japanese in the 1800's who were terribly xenophobic and nationalistic and ethnists were actually Fascists??

Wikipaedia: UMMMM

Socrates: The Boxer Rebellion in China with its drive to push foreigner out was also by your definition Fascist?

Wikipaedia: Yes. Yes, All governments and movements that seek to push out foreigners and support their own racial group are Fascist.

Socrates: Then I take it the Aztecs were Fascist also? As goes for the Zulus of South Africa? As for when England pushed out all the Jews in 1243? AD? As for Spain that kicked out all the Jews? These governments were all Fascist then?

Wikipaedia: yes.

Socrates: What it looks like is that you are taking a term created in the 30's and reapplying it throughout history?

Wikipaedia: Yes.

Socrates: So, all along people have been practising Fascism and they didn't know it?

Wikipaedia: That's right.

Socrates: Do geese and ducks flock together?

Wikipaedia: I don't know.

Socrates: Have you ever observed nature how birds of a feather flock together and that the geese pick on the ducks to shew them away?

Wikipaedia: No.

Socrates: But by your definition of Fascism seems that Nature is Fascist too?!?

Wikipaedia: That seems to be right.WHEELER 16:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The is in response to Anome your quote: "Myself, I've noted that many American regard Fascism as being a left-wing phenomenon, much to the bafflement of Europeans who see it as a right-wing one."

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is an Austrian Aristocrat. Born and raised in Europe. He is an European.WHEELER 16:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well your forms of reasoning might be truely strange, but you are not exactly crazy, and I think you'll get there under your own steam somehow. It might be a Good Idea not to use the socrates form like you're using now though. The idea is to actually *wait* for the other people to answer themselves. Else you're not really holding a discussion eh? Oh, right, why are you on to something? Well, apparently fascists were quite fascinated with nature, especially things like natural selection and survival of the fittest. The science of eugenics was especially beloved by the Nazis in germany, which has led to this particular science becoming somewhat discredited as a direct result. Kim Bruning 18:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(If you're wondering where some of the ideas of eugenics went? Well, there's a much more friendly philosophy these days called transhumanism. Kim Bruning 18:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC))


 * That atheistic nonsense isn't friendly to anyone. Sorry, nothing personal but the banging together of atheism and eugenics that is transhumanism makes me want to smash something ;{ Sam Spade 19:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In Response to Kim: Greek philosophy is based on Nature. The Doric saying, "Birds of a Feather Flock together" is based on looking at nature. Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all used references from nature to prove points. They extrapolated and abstracted from nature, the mechanical sciences and the medical sciences their philsophical methodology and principles.198.108.150.2 18:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kim's belief that your imitation of Socratic dialogue will not be a very helpful discussion technique here. For one thing, it sets up a ridiculous straw man in place of the actual opinions of editors at Wikipedia.  Secondly, if someone walked up to me in real life and asked me to discuss something, and then stood there asking questions but answering them for me before I had the chance to respond, well.....I'd think it was strange, surreal, and perhaps even interesting, but I know I would not consider it a discussion.  You have to be willing to consider other viewpoints than your own in order to be successful in reaching a solution here.  Fascism is a human phenomenon, and therefore, like all human phenomena (in my opinion), the best definition of it will tend to be more complex, rather than less.  You are arguing for a very simplified definition of Fascism that I believe overlooks many elements of Fascist ideology.  No one here is suggesting that geese or the Aztecs were Fascist -- we're just suggesting that people we know were Fascist (like Mussolini) describe Fascism in such a way that it incorporates ideas from the right and left, and it looks down on both the right and left with apparently equivalent disdain. Jwrosenzweig 18:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)  P.S. While I hold the Greek classics in high esteem, we must admit that Aristotle and the rest made some very faulty assumptions and conclusions regarding nature.  They were brilliant, but science has proved that simple observation and intuition are not infallible guides.

archiving
am I gonna have to archive this page twice a day, or what? Sam Spade 19:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am going to work you hard Sam.
 * From 172"A revert war may be the only way to keep out this bullshit that'll make Wikipedia into a laughingstock among any serious historian of modern Europe out of the article."

I would like to point out the attitude of 172. Truth is not the object of this person. What is important is that "We shall not be the laughingstock of the Europeans. Ayn Rand talked about this in Fountainhead.  Only the ones with the truth had the ability to stand up and not care for anything else.  Socrates was the same way.  Our duty is to truth.  Not how someone should view us.  Truth is practically synonomous with Knowledge.  Truth is "the faithful representation of reality".  172's attitude is not about the search for truth it is about being politically correct and pleasing somebody else.

Plato created the dialogues to portray the character of Socrates. He created such a stir in the city. Young men would follow just to listen how he made his interlocutors look like fools. He used the principles of Identity, Non-contradiction and consistency. The Athenians of his day were lawless. As they were lawless in the physical realm, they were lawless in the metaphysical; in their minds.

Consistency cuts to the heart here. People change the rules to suit them, not conform to the rules. Socrates caught them because they changed the metaphysical rules all the time. As they were in the physical so they were in the metaphysical. Socrates forced them to see the error of their ways thru consistency and the other principles. Notice the obedience of Socrates to the rules and, then, his physical obedience not to escape the death penalty. Microcosm/macrocosm.

All I did was point out the major inconsistencies in the definition just like Socrates would do. The rules of knowledge do not change.WHEELER 01:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * WHEELER, I feel as though you're still avoiding my desire to compromise with you -- you don't respond to me. Are you willing to discuss the Mussolini quotations so that we can compromise on how to select representative language?  Are you willing to follow NPOV (I haven't seen you yet agree that you will)?  Are you willing to accept the deletion or alteration of edits you've made to the article if the consensus on this talk page is in favor of doing so?  I think much of your material can stay, but I want assurance from you that you're committed to the collaborative process here before we dive into it -- otherwise you'll just revert the changes we make once consensus is reached.  Please do respond. Jwrosenzweig 16:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"if the consensus on this talk page" This is a quote from above. Truth is not up to majority vote. This is not how we define things. I am committed to the rules of logic and definition. Where the evidence leads is the direction I go. The being gives off evidence of its character. I look for the characteristics.

Are we here to make reality conform to us, or do we conform ourselves to reality?

The decision has already been made to delete. What can I do? Let me ask this....If this is a world wide encyclopaedia, and in the current definition, you have just described as the Socratic has pointed out, that Fascism is Nationalism, Would a Japanese Scholars accept the position that their Culture has always been Fascist?. Can we get a Japanese to comment on this.

Right now as it stands Fascism is Nationalism and Ethnism. We made Fascism the genus of Nationalism. Nationalism and Ethnism are the species of Fascism.

Fascism=Nationalism. I thought that since Nationalism and Ethnicism existed for a long time that it has always existed in every culture, clime and place. Nationalism=Nationalism. Nationalism is always been there. There is no disputation on my part that, Mussolini and Hitler were both nationalists or ethnists. But this in in the nature of every human being.

"we can compromise on how to select representative language?" what does this mean? Hide facts and obscure language? Let people speak for themselves. Herbert Hoover wasn't shy about it. Truth offends. That is the simple truth. If there is good reason to change something, yes, I will change but the change must be towards the truth. I cannot agree with obscurantism. Yes, I see how my writing Mussolini is Left and Collectivist before the actual quote is POV. I understand that now. I was wrong. Attach a Quote section to the Definition of Fascism, I can go for that. All evidence must be presented to the people. Judgement rests on knowledge, Decievement rests on ignorance. If our job is to be encyclopaedists, then we are to be professional to have the trust of the people. Truth brings trust. We have a duty to perform and that is "the enlightenment" of the people we serve. I give you this much, there can be no agenda involved but the Agenda of Truth.WHEELER 17:22, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * WHEELER, I am a little confused, so I will tell you what I am hearing from you, and you can tell me if I am wrong. You seem to be saying that you do not wish to follow consensus and collaborative editing because you believe they will lead away from the truth.  If I am wrong, please explain how you support consensus and collaborative editing.  If I am right, I humbly submit that consensus and collaborative editing are the only acceptable methods of building articles at Wikipedia, and your refusal to work on building this article towards a consensus that pleases all of us (more or less) would not be acceptable Wikipedia practice.  You say you will only agree to changes that lead towards the "truth".  I hope you understand that many of us here disagree with you, at least in part, concerning what the truth is about Fascism -- if the only changes you will accept are those that bolster your perspective on this issue, that is not actually consensus-building.  I understand that you feel you are being unfairly targeted by other editors here, but I have to know you're committed to Wiki practice before we can make any progress. Jwrosenzweig 18:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't hear him saying that, nor do I see him rejecting consensus at anytime. I am similarly biased in favor of truth, and I do see room for compromise. The compromise is that POV's can be included, so long as they are expressed as a POV. On the other hand facts which can be cited can also be included, stated as truth, and with a citation. Thats all I ever saw wheeler do, other then rile you all up on the talk page. So what if he likes socratic dialogue, and finds his greek heritage to be of great import. If you find wheeler hard to communicate with, I agree w you. But I clearly don't agree that he is rejecting consensus, nor intends to, and I also am uncertain as to what this concensus is, since I didn't know we had reached any. Sam Spade 20:40, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam we haven't reached any consensus because I still feel as though I can't communicate with WHEELER -- every time I ask a simple question (do you agree to work under NPOV, for example) I am hit with quotations, original research, and occasionally Socratic dialogue that serves only to mischaracterize my beliefs and leave me wondering what the answer to my question is. Given what WHEELER has been saying here, a comment like "If there is good reason to change something, yes, I will change but the change must be towards the truth." coming from him makes me believe that he will only accept edits that accept his assertions about what is true: for example, that all humans naturally love their own race best, that all forms of government not fully right-wing are socialist, that the right-wing is not an ideology but simply the true and natural way of seeing things, etc.  I agree with you that POVs can be included....what I am seeing is an editor who believes that the only good agenda is the truth, and whose definition of the truth is his own very specific POV.  Until he agrees that NPOV is his guide here and that he is willing to talk about how his quotations are biased in their selectivity (and how we can find a quotation that better represents Fascism to everyone's satisfaction), I think we'll be spinning our wheels.  Sure, we all want the truth to surface, but because we are each biased concerning what we believe the truth to be, we have to let NPOV be a guide.  I haven't heard him accept that yet.  It's starting to make me frustrated, as I've asked the question about 6 times, and I feel that consistently evading it is the same as rejecting NPOV openly. Jwrosenzweig 21:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Mr. Jwrosenzweig: Right now as both the Fascism and Nazism sites show an extreme POV of the Marxists. It is the Marxist that define Fascism as solely nationalistic and ethnic. The Fallacy is why did Mussolini coin the term "Fascist" when he could have used "Nationalist". Your attempts at immediate delete shows YOUR POV and you accuse me. And all this is that I will be prevented from adding any thing to the article. You are setting up the straw man by painting me into a corner; that seems to be your purpose. I proved my points. I used a direct quote from the Doctrine of Fascism which you won't accept. Your POV is quite evident in that you obscured sources!

You claim my bias on selectivity. How come the only quotes from Hitler and Mussolini allowed on the two sites are where they talk only of nationalism and their anti-Marxism. That is bias Sir. There is one standard for me and another for you.WHEELER 14:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Fascism/suggested readings
This is a NPOV travesty. I am upset by 172's attempts at censorship, and failure to function in a NPOV manner, nor to utilize wikiquette. I see resolving this subpage, and learning to behave decently towards wheeler as our top priority here at this time. Sam Spade 17:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. If that bothers you, wait until you hear this: I get to indoctrinate impressionable youths in Marxist academia for a living. 172 17:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Plant a Tree in Israel
 * Sites