Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 27

= September 27 =

Defining characteristics of Fascism
There is a list of characteristics of fascism (here, followed by criticism), that has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, and is frequently posted by people claiming (or implying) that the UK or US is fascist. Are these characteristics a valid definition of fascism? I know they are all common in fascist regimes, but I'm not convinced they are unique enough to fascism to define it or to define something as fascist. Is this list of characteristics generally accepted as valid by scholars specializing in this field? Or are they just a list of unpleasant right-wing traits that people are using to claim people they don't like are fascist? (From my reading on both Wikipedia and conventional textbooks and encyclopedia, and I've always thought the more significant defining characteristics were totalitarianism, exultation of the state/nation/race (including requiring total loyalty to it, and the view that against/supremacy over rival states/nation/races is both desirable and the driving force of history), and supreme power being vested in a charismatic leader who supposedly represented the will of the nation). Iapetus (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article titled Fascism, and more relevant, one titled Definitions of fascism. We have no way of telling you whose opinion is correct, though you are not prevented from reading those articles to reach your own conclusions.  I find the very first sentence of the article Definitions of fascism to be most relevant to your research, however.  -- Jayron 32 11:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Wikipedia has articles on Fascism. I even read them before posting here.  I asked the question because I was wanting to know if there had been any notable scholarly analysis on Britt's definition (which I would have thought there might be, given that it seems to be a popular meme in internet discussions).  None of the linked articles discuss Britt's definition specifically (there is a brief discussion in the talk page of Definitions of fascism, but that's just one person holding it up as the "gold standard" definition, and another person disagreeing).  Iapetus (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the latter. It's just anachronistic, basic-b*tch--liberal nonsense. Asmrulz (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To be distinguished from accusations of communism, which is anachronistic, basic-b*tch--conservative nonsense. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To quote George Orwell, 'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."' - and that was in 1946! See our article Fascist (insult) for a full list of things that Orwell had heard described as "fascist" - the full Orwell article is worth reading, as it gives potted summaries of the different descriptions of fascism, and then rejects all of them with the conclusion that while fascism is definable, no definition exists that could simultaneously satisfy conservative thinkers (who would reject the idea that patriotism and appeal to tradition are key parts of fascism) and socialist thinkers (who would similarly reject the idea that nationalization and centralization are at its core). Smurrayinchester 09:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Czech Rep., Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, and the EU
After these countries became independent in the early 1990s, they immediately started seeking membership in the European Union, and eventually joined it in 2004. So they left a union and as soon as it was possible entered another union. Granted, the EU is a looser union than the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were, and granted, steps towards Euro-Atlantic integration would be beneficial for these countries, but this meant that they remained truly independent for just over a decade. All of them also joined NATO the same year, except Czechia, which joined it as early as 1999. And public support for these memberships was in general very high in these countries. Didn't anyone in these countries think they should stay a bit longer on their own? In parallel, one of the reasons why Norway is reluctant to join the EU is that is has been independent only since 1905, so even a century on their own is too little for them. --Entegratör (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Countries don't care how long they are independent. Countries don't think, so they can't care. Humans living in those countries may care, and if they like keeping to traditions, they may have a stronger preference for independence the longer the country already is independent. Although I couldn't care less, even though my country has been independent since 1813 and part of the EU since its founding. Independence is not something you want to enjoy for 10 or 20 years, and centainly not something you want to enjoy for 100 or 200 years, as humans don't live that long. You want it permanently, or you don't. But here it's mostly about money. Norway is very rich, so it would have to pay a lot to be a member of the EU. Slovakia, Czechia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are relatively poor, so they gain a lot by being in the EU. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to say "Norway is very rich, so it would have to pay a lot to be a member". Norway is already a member of EEA and is paying most of what it would pay as a member. The difference is, I guess, that EEA membership was not up for referendum, whereas EU was.
 * Personally, I feel the prevailing perception at the time was that the EU invited us to take a seat at the table, and we are free to leave when we want (UK will be testing the practicality of that in the next few years). Soviet Union, on the other hand, forced us into the back of a van and sped off. With that memory of how "staying a bit longer on their own" worked out, no wonder neutrality is not as fashionable this time round. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Have a read of Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1944), Baltic states under Soviet rule (1944–91) and Sovietization of the Baltic states. Not really comparable to joining the EU is it? Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)