Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism/Archive 2

This is the archive of the discussions of the WikiProject_Fascism from Nov. 24th, 2005 to Dec. 15th, 2005.

Definition of Fascism
I would like to offer a fourteen point definition of fascism that has been developed from the careful study of fascist regimes over the last century. Laurence W. Britt is the scholar responsible for compiling this list. Perhaps these points are a better or worse description than the current six point test - I feel that they give a more complete picture of what fascism is. Of course, one could side with George Orwell, who felt that the word had lost all meaning and usefulness. In either case, fascism seems to describe what is going on right now in the United States. -- Dschor 20:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
 * 2) Disdain for the importance of human rights
 * 3) Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
 * 4) The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
 * 5) Rampant sexism
 * 6) A controlled mass media
 * 7) Obsession with national security
 * 8) Religion and ruling elite tied together
 * 9) Power of corporations protected
 * 10) Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
 * 11) Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
 * 12) Obsession with crime and punishment
 * 13) Rampant cronyism and corruption
 * 14) Fraudulent elections


 * I'm going to disagree with most of the points on this list. I think it's very vague and inaccurate. Personally, I believe that Kevin Passmore has produced the best description of Fascism in his book "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" for Oxford University Press. His research into the matter is impeccable and gives arguments for different sides before giving a solid justification for his definition (pg. 31). This definition is also similar to those presented by Ernesto Laclau and Roger Eatwell and is the definition I use to define fascism. However, 90+% of my criticisms are simple refutation by historical evidence so this definition should play very little (if any) part in my criticisms.


 * 2. Disdain for the importance of human rights is a characteristic of many totalitarian governments, not just fascist ones. Sadam Husein disregarded more human rights than could be said of some fascists yet he certainly wasn't a fascist.


 * 5. Saying rampant sexism is a defining characteristic of fasicsm is blatantly incorrect. Many fascist parties had strong support from feminist organizations and certain feminist goals were part of the Fascist party's original goals (but then of course so was a dedication to democracy). Sexism was only a later result of making women more productive for the nation and possibly appeasing conservative groups. It is quite concievable that a fascist party could operate in an entirely different way if they believed it to be more productive for the nation to do so.


 * 7. Many countries are obsessed with national security. Yes, the fascists did care deeply about national security but that was mostly in regards to their goal of controlling every aspect of the nation. The same could be said about any national issue.


 * 8. I wonder where this comes from but it does not seem to have any real basis. The Fascists were opposed to the Catholic political parties at various times and the church to a degree. I can't seem to find any references of "religious and ruling elite coming together" in the different fascist movements.


 * 9. This is partially true. The Fascists protected buisnesses so far as they were beneficial to the welfare of the nation. Although, many buisnesses were reorganized, all buisnesses were forced to join the fascist "corporations", and some buisness leaders felt betrayed by the Fascists. Laissez faire capitalism would "protect" companies more than fascism's corporatism I think. I'd say the fascists regulated buisness more than protected it.


 * 10. This is like the sexism one: historical evidence says otherwise. Labor was one of the main target of the Fascists for voters. Their goal was to provide a "right-wing" alternative to socialism that would persuade the workers to vote for them. After gaining power the unions that were fascist were merged into the corporations while the others (usually socialist/anarchist/generally left leaning) were eliminated. However, workers's rights did take a backseat to the perserverance of the nation but saying that largescale oppression of labor is a common definition for fascist movements is just wrong.


 * 11. This is another one of those points that seems directly contradicted by historical evidence. Many intellectuals of the period advocated fascism. In fact, the entire fascist movement in Romania came from the students and professors of the universities and many Nazi leaders were influenced by anti-semitic writings of "learned scientists" and professors of the period. Also, both Hitler and Mussolini funded art projects. Heck, fascism was widely regarded as the ultimate form of government by the futurists in Italy and many futurist artists had posts in the Fascist government.


 * 13. Cronyism? Sure. Corruption? Possibly, but nothing immediately springs to mind. Any specific events that could back this up?


 * 14. I would have to see specific data on this but both the Fascists and the Nazi's were legally voted into office in the beginning. Afterwards, they mostly passed laws consolidating their power and making elections more or less unnecessary but, again, I'd have to see the data for this.


 * While I think that the current definition can be revised/expanded the points you list seem to have no relation on real fascist movements. Could you give us more information on where this information specifically comes from? EDIT: I found the article this is from. It can be read here: . The definitions presented in this article can not be seriously considered as a proper definition of fascism. The work is horribly POV and is designed with the express purpose to villify fascism. I'm making no judgement about the quality of the article or the views expressed in it but such a work can not be considered to be a neutral, scholarly work on the nature of fascism. - DNewhall

I've read Britt. I think he crafted his definition of fascism precisely as a stick with which to beat the present-day U.S. Republican Party. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion from Nov. 30th to Dec. 2nd debatting definitions of fascism in relation to the U.S. Republican Party have been moved to the bottom of the article under "Republican Party (United States)"

OK, I think we may need to change the definition of Fascism to be a little more stringent. While the current one works pretty well I believe it overlooks some things that would help people differentiate between fascist governments/parties and other totalitarian systems. As I have said before I hold Kevin Passmore's definition from Fascism: A Very Short Introduction in high regard (I also highly recommend the book, it's short, well researched, and small enough to leave by your computer for when you need it). The definition he uses comes mainly from the research of Ernesto Laclau and is compatible with the definition of renouned scholar Robert Eatwell (if you don't know who he is you need to read Fascism: A History right now). The reason I particularly like these definitions is that they are well researched and provide arguments for and against competing views on fascism using historical evidence before formulating a definition. Also, this is not meant to necessarily be a replacement definition but a framework from which to work on our definition.

Here is a modified version of Passmore's (and Laclau's and Eatwell's) definition of fascism from Fascism: A Very Short Introduction by Oxford University Press pg. 31:


 * 1) exalting the nation, (defined in historical, bioligical, religious, or cultural terms) above all other forms of loyalty, with the state apparatus being supreme.
 * 2) is reactionary in it's opposition of competing systems (socialism, liberalism, feminism, etc.) due to their focus on aspects other than the welfare of the nation itself.
 * 3) is organized in a mass, militarized party headed by a ruling radical elite and/or a single leader acting in the name of the people.
 * 4) engaging in syndicalist corporatism.
 * 5) implementing totalitarian systems.

As you can notice Passmore doesn't mention propaganda or violence explicitly. Violence could come from the militarization of the party but violence in and of itself he doesn't hold to be necessary for fascism. He also barely mentions propaganda at all in the book (I don't know of any references to it). I think he believes (and I'd probably be inclined to agree with him) in that violence and propaganda are not inherent in fascism but are simply a means for them to achieve their ends. Theoretically, a fascist party could obtain power without using either and they'd still be fascist. Also, socialists (or advocates of any other political system for that matter) are just as likely to use propaganda and violence to further their ends but we don't describe them as being a necessary characteristic for socialism. - DNewhall


 * True, Naziism (made up word? I dont know) is for all intents, a form of Fascism, and while Hitler's specific organisation resorted to violence, many descendent Nazi parties in the United States and elsewhere have practiced and campaigned with no violent action, granted they haven't been to successful, but who can be when your ideals were exposed as maniacal over 80 years ago?-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If implementing totalitarian systems is a requirement, then no group can be fascist until they have taken power. This would say that Hitler in 1932 was not yet fascist. That doesn't strike me as part of a useful definition. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a major problem - could just reword it to 'advocating' or 'aspiring to' implementation of totalitarian power. A couple of other points though:


 * there is, I think, an issue of the historical development of the term post WWII. Maybe can get around this by restricting the use of 'fascism' purely to 'classical' movements of the 30s, and separating everything else as neo-. This might help get to a more manageable definition, but on the other hand it does obscure at least some real life usage. Eg. this is 'project fascism' not 'project fascism and neo-fascism', and eg. the new portal page features the article on the BNP. I think rightly so - many people would call them a fascist party, though their strategies have moved on some way from classical fascism. I don't think you'll find many references to eg. corporatism or totalitarianism in their recent manifestoes.
 * you could say this is a marginal issue, but there's been an RfD discussion recently on 'National Anarchism'. Now in many ways this a bogus ideology, concocted as a fringe recruiting tool, or maybe an outright example of agent provocateurism. On the other hand it raises some interesting issues - as globalisation breaks down the solidity of the old nation-state model, maybe we'll see more mainstream ideologies that separate extreme nationalism from totalitarian statism? Also haven't there been antecedents to this kind of thinking eg. some individualist-nationalist strains in thinkers like Gabriele_D%27Annunzio, Julius_Evola or Ernst_J%C3%BCnger.
 * in short, my concern is that if we only use 'fascism' for movements that fit all of the classic motifs - nationalism, totalitarian statism, corporatism, reaction, mass party - we're going to miss how these tendencies have moved on in the last 50 years, and how they're continuing to develop. It would effectively be saying fascism died in 1945.Bengalski 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Clerical Fascism in Wikipedia
I come here to draw attention to the above. I warned some time ago that the WP was under attack, and I can , as this personalises so clearly in my WP history , only refer  anyone  there. Discussion on Alfred Rosenberg may show the relevance. I would greatly appreciate it if only logical users address this issue. Incidentally there is insufficient  report within Clerical Fascism, nor within the  linked  article. Someone must be allowed to repair this gap, if only by linking  NPOV reports such as I have tried to include. I do not appreciate bing the only one to be brought falsely to book over this. All who ignore this, do WP no favours. Active apologia and blocking of the history amounts to the presence of  Clerical Fascism in Wikipedia .EffK 10:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States)
Some anons, and now User:DSchor, keep adding the Republicans to List of fascist movements by country U-Z. I've reverted twice already. This fight was going to happen sooner or later, of course... - Stlemur 14:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The GOP as fascist? What a quaint conception, something out of the 1930s! 1. The GOP ridicules the national government: "Government is the problem, not the solution" proclaimed Ronald Reagan. Federal bureaucrats are routinely ridiculed by Republicans. 2. Loyalty to a single leader? Bush?? The Republican uproar over his choice of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows otherwise. 3. Using violence--like the gangs in Berlin in 1932 who beat up and assassinated their opponents. Americans have not seen party-sponsored political violence in 100 years (I refer to Kentucky in 1900). 4. The Republicans are pledged to reduce regimentation and repeal laws and regulations. Liberals complain all the time about this. 5. Syndicalist? Only two big-business figures are in the cabinet (one is there because he is Hispanic), and none on the Supreme Court. Likewise the recent heads of Federal Reserve have been technical experts not businessmen. 6. Implementing totalitarian systems? The GOP has been tearing down dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq. Richard Jensen Rjensen 04:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly the GOP is a fascist movement. Take a look at the evidence -

1. The GOP has co-opted the supreme court, thereby holding complete control of all three branches of government. The GOP holds that the federal government should dictate to the lower levels of government on all aspects of policy. The GOP has even made it clear that martial law is not out of the question, should the GOP determine that it is warranted. The GOP exalts the nation, and indeed a particular religion and culture, above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme. 2. While there may be occasional dissent within the party, on the whole, Bush is held to be infallible. He is exalted as 'our' leader, and as commander in chief, he is a symbol of worship for the GOP faithful. Those wishing to attend his speeches are, in fact, sworn to loyalty to this single leader. The GOP stresses the importance of loyalty to Bush. 3. The GOP has used violence, propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. The GOP has co-opted the national media through lies, intimidation and bribery, and has arrested 'enemy combatants' with no legal justification. The GOP has censored through intimidation, and has used violence in the form of federal agents to arrest and imprison (indeed, to kill) those who express opposition to the GOP's policies. The GOP has also used the federal government itself to produce propaganda for the president, the military, and the party, both directly and indirectly. 4. The GOP favors a vast array of legislation designed to regiment the social lives of the population, from banning certain medical procedures, to banning certain substances, to supporting various forms of state funded religious indoctrination (ten commandments, pledge of allegiance, school prayer, etc). The GOP also supports mergers and acquisitions, in order to provide for the regimentation of the economic lives of the citizenry. The GOP supports tax reductions for the wealthiest citizens, in order to concentrate economic might in as few hands as possible. 5. The GOP is unquestionably interested in corporate control of the means of production. The recently confirmed supreme court chief justice, Roberts, is a corporatist attorney, and the president and vice-president are both big-business figures themselves. The GOP is the party of big business, and has proven to be a very good friend of the military industrial complex for many decades. 6. The GOP has been creating a totalitarian one-party system in the United States, and worldwide, for some time now. The GOP removes governments when it proves convenient to the needs of the GOP. The GOP hopes to create a fascist totalitarian regime in the United States that will provide leadership for a worldwide totalitarian fascist government, for the benefit of the GOP.

The American Heritage Dictionary describes fascism as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

There is a succinct definition of the GOP.

Dschor 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an American and a leftist, I find it embarrassing that part of the American left is this shallow. Short dictionary definitions cannot be substituted for actual scholarship on a topic. I find the present president despicable, but if you call him a fascist, what word do you have left over to refer to actual fascists? Has he occasionally abused power? Sure. That's still a far cry from instituting a fascist state.


 * I forget who it was that said something like "the dark night of fascism is always about to descend on America, but somehow descends somewhere else." Anyone who claims that the US is a "totalitarian one-party system in the United States" has obviously never even visited a country where one was in power. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, because I was not a Jew... You know where it ends.
 * Fascism does not always announce itself - it is something that happens when good people do nothing. I call it as I see it.  Dschor 07:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Dschor, I am one of the Jews, and plenty of my relatives were killed by the Nazis, which is part of why I am offended when people compare a mildly repressive center-right government to fascism. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ugh, this is going to get ugly... Now, while I will admit the Republicans do have some traits that can seem fascist I see no reason to label them as fascist. Sure, I'll give you that the Republicans can be seen as exalting the nation (however not the same as fascists did), using propaganda (no violence though), stressing loyalty to a single leader (although this seems to be wavering), and social regimentation (to a degree) however Republicans are highly critical of anything the gets in the way of Big Business. The fascists felt it was necessary to control every aspect of the nation including business. You'll never see a Republican hold this view. Also, while they do have a majority in the federal government there are still Democrats around and the Republicans are not implementing totalitarian systems. As Rjensen said, the Republicans are too critical of the federal government to be really totalitarian. This has been a main problem for fascism getting a foothold in the U.S. since the American far-right is typically libertarian. So, while the GOP may have certain similarities to fascist parties they can not be seen as fascist nor is there any indication that they'll try to move towards fascism. - DNewhall


 * I hope this doesn't get too ugly. I happen to have lost a large part of my family to the Nazis as well, which is part of why I am concerned when people fail to notice the striking similarities between the rise of the Nazi party and the recent ascendance of the GOP.  Thanks, DNewhall for acknowledging that the Republicans exhibit a number of the traits of fascists.  If the only defense to offer for the GOP against a charge of fascism is that Republicans are critical of anything that gets in the way of Big Business, then you basically agree with my premise - and we are at the point  of arguing the details.  Although the GOP does not control every aspect of business, they basically control all federal government funding of private enterprise, and also receive immense amounts of funding from these same businesses.  They control business to the degree that it needs to be controlled to meet their present needs.  As for the implementation of totalitarian systems, it seems that the current government has made a wholesale attempt to gut the protections of our constitution, and to implement the totalitarian systems that you mention.  Homeland Security, and the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and other actions of the government seem to fit the totalitarian description precisely.  There is currently an ongoing effort by the GOP to destroy the power of Labor Unions, of liberal churches, and of political parties that oppose them.  The GOP has created a secret domestic military police force in the form of intelligence agencies, and has the power to conscript local law enforcement to their cause as well.  GOP propaganda has been saturating the media at least since the day the supreme court anointed Bush as president, and continues with increasing intensity.  The government can arrest anyone at any time, by simply declaring them an 'enemy combatant', and can hold them indefinitely.  Moreover, the GOP has been using terror at home and abroad to enforce their peculiar vision of reality.  There may be libertarian elements in the United States, but they are not the elements in control of the GOP at the present time.  The distinctions drawn between the GOP and fascist parties are very minor, and are rapidly being erased.  The GOP controls every branch of our government, and fits every point in every definition of fascism that one can propose.  Perhaps it is not yet clear to the general public that they are the American Fascist Party, however it seems that the label fits and that they are moving to consolidate their power.  I would love to be completely wrong about the nature of the GOP, but I cannot ignore their use of every fascist tactic available.  If it looks like fascism, and acts like fascism, it is probably fascism.  Dschor 19:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"The government can arrest anyone at any time, by simply declaring them an 'enemy combatant', and can hold them indefinitely." In principle, yes. In practice they've done this domestically, what, twice? Not that that's a good thing, but that in the scale of a country, it's a small thing. Do you seriously feel in danger of some jackbooted government thug coming through your door in the middle of the night because you are saying unpleasant things about the president? If so, get a grip. Wikipedia is an international effort, and there are Wikipedians who are living in seriously repressive societies. When Americans start fantasizing that is what we are up against here, it's an insult to those who actually are. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In theory, the government has only used this power domestically on two occasions. Unfortunately, due to the nature of these detentions, there could be many more that have never been made known to the public.  Perhaps setting the constitution aside is a "small thing", but I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that a jackbooted government thug can come through any door without evidence of any kind, and hold a citizen hostage at the whim of government officials.  I do not deny that there are places in the world where such things are more common than in the United States - what bothers me is that the United States is on the road to becoming less democratic, and more totalitarian, and most of her citizens don't seem to care that their country has lost her way.  The less the people care to fight totalitarianism, the stronger it becomes.  Supposedly the United States is 'spreading democracy'.  The reality is more along the lines of redefining democracy out of existence.  -- Dschor 09:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dschor, you have some good points there. A few more: Karl-Rove wants a one-party system.  George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield under President Ronald Reagan put Saddam Hussien in power by giving/selling him weapons (including chemical weapons). (installing dictatorships, though more likely out of incompetence than intention)  Propaganda in Iraq.  If you're not with us, you're against us.  Ownership society.  There is an alarming number of things in the direction of fascism.  The definition I would use rather, is being stubborn in one's POV and unreceptive/closed to any opposing facts and opinions.  Some people have praised Bush (and other republicans) for this, others criticized.  It is quite relieving, however, that since Tom DeLay has stepped down the loyalty to people rather than principle, that republicans have much prized as one of their virtues, has fragmented.  Notwithstanding this, however, and certainly prior to this, I think it can be said pretty confidently that the GOP has been moving in the direction of fascism at least since Gore v. Bush. Kevin baas 21:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This chain of conversation ceased and was resolved weeks ago, please limit your discussion to more recent topics. Also, before you contribute any further to the article I urge you to read WP:NPOV.-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 22:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Fundamental controls at Wiki
I just KNEW it would only be a matter of time before Wikipedia became an obvious target of the broad Left. The very existance of this particular site, and the editings of many others, shows that there is a desperate need to exclude active Reds from Wikipedia, just as it is important to exclude those pursuing a right-wing agenda. Wikipedia should not become a home for the dissemination of a Left-Wing view of the world or its history. Christchurch 18:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exclusion of any group simply on the basis of POV would be a complete disservice to Wikipedia. There is no "desperate need" to exclude a variety of viewpoints, so long as the edits made are in no way destructive, and do not detract from the usefulness of the articles in question.  Reverting changes made by other Wikipedians defeats the purpose of the Wikipedia as an open project.  There is a process in place for settling disputes among Wikipedians regarding the content of articles.  To claim a right to administer Wikipedia along political lines shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the reference itself.  Agreed: it is important to exclude those pursuing an agenda in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia.  However, there are mechanisms in place for doing so, and they do not include multiple reverts of an article without any discussion of the factual basis for the changes made.  Wikipedia is, and shall remain, a place where objective history can be recorded and improved through the contributions of Wikipedians of all political and personal persuasions.  However, it is unwise to point the finger at the messenger, rather than the message that one objects to.  Your allusion to "reds" is appreciated as a piece of levity, and shall be so noted. Dschor 22:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agreed with Dschor. And I note that it is hugely ironic that you are alluding to a 'desperate need to exclude active Reds from Wikipedia' on a page regarding Fascism! I hope you realise that it does not matter one's political persuasion, as long as they have a fair contribution to make. Cheers. Hauser 00:47 1 December 2005 (NZEST)

Perhaps there should be a category for fascist-supporting states, into which the US would certainly fit. No, America isn't as yet fascist, it has, however,supported just about every fascist state there has been, particularly in south and central America, but also including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. petepassword 13:31 12 May 2006

Discussion moved from "Definition of Fascism" to here

 * Even based on the general outline given by Kevin Passmore, the GOP would seem to fit the model of a fascist party. His definition is: "that ‘fascism’ is most usefully defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism. (55) A more discursive summary of the area of common ground would be that fascism is a revolutionary form of nationalism bent on mobilizing all ‘healthy’ social and political energies to resist the onslaught of ‘decadence’ so as to achieve the goal of national rebirth, a project that involves the regeneration (palingenesis) of both the political culture and the social and ethical culture that underpins it."  This seems to me what the GOP has in mind in carrying out the "Republican Revolution".  Perhaps there is some definition of fascism that I am unaware of that does not indicate the fascist nature of the GOP? --Dschor 11:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this necessarily describes the Republican Party. First, that definition quoted above is a bit too simplistic, page 31 has his full definition of fascism. Second, how is the GOP revolutionary? If for revolution you mean "the overthrow of one government and its replacement with another by those who are governed" (WordNet) then if the Republican Party is revolutionary then every new administration is a revolution. On page 31 Passmore doesn't use revolution as a word to describe fascism at all. Third, the last statement ("bent on mobilizing all ‘healthy’ social and political energies to resist the onslaught of ‘decadence’ so as to achieve the goal of national rebirth, a project that involves the regeneration of both the political culture and the social and ethical culture that underpins it") could be used to describe the Republicans (as well as any political party) but it, in itself, is not a determinant of fascism. Fourth, the U.S. Republican Party is definitely not fascist under Passmore's definition. The new elite must control a mass, militarized party. I don't remember any blackshirts threatening me when I voted for Kerry. Now here's the thing that shoots the argument down completely for me, the fascists "are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it". Any republican that advocated that would immediately be thrown out of the party for being anti-family and anti-Christian. The GOP is a conservative party, there's no refuting this, and fascism had a long history of acting against conservative parties, there's no refuting this either (although they often formed aliances as well but overall disagreed with one another stringly). So, how can the GOP be both? Fascisms radicalism firmly places itself outside of conservativism. Other statements that disagree are that they "seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or corporate system" (I don't see the Republicans doing that) and "access to ... organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristsics" (I don't see any instances of this going on, remember this refers to all organizations) and "all aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism" (the Republicans are nationalist surely but not ultranationalist and especially not in every policy they do). - DNewhall


 * The GOP is revolutionary in that they have overthrown one government in favor of a replacement, without regard for those who are governed. The impact of the GOP on the applciation of the US constitution, and the structure of the government, has also been revolutionary.  It is a fallacy oft repeated that the current administration has a legitimate claim to power.  Unless possession really is nine tenths of the law, the claim to legitimacy that the Bush administration has is tenuous at best.  An unprecedented intervention by the Supreme Court to install Bush, and immense voting irregularities to reinstall him hardly amount to replacement by those who are governed.  The GOP is a mass, militarized party, but there was no need to send blackshirts to the polls - the blackshirts were happy to simply 'count' the votes with machines provided by Big Business, for Big Business.  To paraphrase Stalin, it matters little who the people vote for - what matters is who counts the votes.  In this case that would be Diebold and ESS, among others, who clearly intended that the GOP retain power.  Perhaps intrusion into the lives of Americans will not impact your personal family, property, or religion, but the GOP has certainly had a severe impact on these institutions.  Our historic freedoms in this country have been eroding for some time, particularly in regards to property (which can be taken by the government for no reason, e.g. forfeiture, eminent domain).  More troubling is the infiltration of our universities and civil services by these fascist corporatists.  Not only have our major educational institutions and public agencies been compromised severely, even our public schools have been hobbled by the GOP.  Just because the GOP calls itself conservative does not make it so - and to say so is to deceive oneself.  There is nothing conservative about perpetual war, massive government debt, and endless pandering to corporate interests.  There is nothing conservative about using the Supreme Court and Electronic Vote Fraud to overturn the will of the voters.  The only thing the GOP seeks to conserve is political power - to be used in an ultranationalist campaign to remove power from the people, and provide it to their corporate cronies.  Fascism in the name of patriotic conservatism is still fascism. --Dschor 20:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that's not a valid argument against what I said. The definition I gave for "revolutionary" was "the overthrow of one government and its replacement with another by those who are governed", you said "The GOP is revolutionary in that they have overthrown one government in favor of a replacement, without regard for those who are governed". Your statement does not follow the definition. Also, you did not describe how the GOP is militarized (being war-mongering is not the meaning of militarism used here, here it means that the party is organized like a military). The "property can be taken by the government for no reason" is blatantly illegal so unless you can direct us to any proof of the government acting like this it can't be taken as true (and even then I don't see its relation to the GOP being fascist). The eminent domain issue is prickly because both sides blame the other. I've heard as many conservative pundits bemoan the ruling as liberal ones. I'm also confused about this statement: "More troubling is the infiltration of our universities and civil services by these fascist corporatists" because I can't think of any example of this and even then I don't see how it's relevent because the GOP is definitely not corporatist. Finally, saying that the Republicans are not conservative is just blatant false. The Republican party has run on a platform preserving traditional Judeo-Christian/"family" values since Reagan and have acted accordingly. The fascists made a point of declaring that those traditions must be thrown out if they get in the way of the power of the state and this is in Passmore's definition. Saying that they are just masquerading as conservative doesn't follow their voting record since they've acted as any conservative party would be expected to. - DNewhall


 * I fear this is drifting away from a discussion of the Definition of Fascism slightly, but I digress. Your definition for 'revolutionary' does not fit the facts of the GOP's recent rise to power.  I attempted to modify it into a parallel definition more closely resembling the revolution of which I am speaking.  The fact that the GOP is in control of the United States Armed Forces, and that the majority of military personnel are members of the fascist GOP, makes the need for further militarization rather quaint.  Nevertheless, the GOP has a military hierarchy, and has innumberable party members at the ready.  Their war-mongering is simply further evidence of fascism.  Property can be taken by the government in drug cases, and need not be returned, even if the underlying charge is utterly spurious.  In terrorism cases the situation is similar, but worse - assets and property that the government deems guilty can be seized, without so much as the need for a warrant.  I'm not sure how you missed out on the infiltration of corporate money and interests into our universities (perhaps you have not been to one lately?).  Many departments at universities now work closely with defense industries, corporate criminals, and for government agencies with nefarious aims.  It is relevant because the GOP is, like all fascist parties, a front for monied interests, that have the most to gain from the ultranationalism, suppresion of unions, and perpetual war that mark fascist regimes.  You have claimed that the GOP is conservative solely on the basis of a socially reactionary platform, and have failed to note that the GOP is decidedly radical when it comes to fiscal policy, military intervention, and constitutional interpretation.  Religion serves the corporate interest by maintaining a flimsy rationale for supporting the fascist state - for the sake of the family?  Hardly.  'Family values' is a phrase used to hide the dismantling of democratic traditions in the guise of 'conservatism'.  The GOP are a cabal of right-wing fascists, using religion and electoral fraud, combined with terrorism and perpetual war, to maintain control over the military, economy and resources of the world's sole (for now) superpower.  Just because they run on a platform of 'family values' does not mean they are not fascists.  Fascists are not concerned with the family, except insofar as it is a propaganda tool to maintain a firm grip on the imagination of the easily manipulated populace. --Dschor 10:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be quite frank. The arguments that the GOP is fascist, that it is a totalitarian regime, as well as your supporting arguements for these are exceptionally unfounded. Your arguments are full of direct disregard for the NPOV policy.  Wikipedia is an impartial resource dedicated to truthful, factual and verifiable information; not one for executing political agendas and rivalries.    The notion that the Republican party is fascist is a view solely held by opponents of the party and its views. Well informed neutral parties, as well as a vast majority of the left wing parties do not use fascism as a means to describe republicans.  The very issued statement in itself is an example of radical opposition.  I have to say, many of your arguements seem to be taken directly from the talking points of 'radical' left wing organizations such as A.N.S.W.E.R and Socialism: Now!. Additionally, and probably with the most importance, I ask you for your sources on all of your statements.  Universities working closely with defense industries? And what do you consider control of the US Armed Forces?  Perhaps you can enlighted us on some of their "radicality" when it comes to fiscal policy.  I am formally requesting that you cease this immense waste of wikipedia time and resource to further your political agenda, something that will obviously bear little fruit, in the name of Encyclopedic action.  Wikipedia has no place for personal agendas and bad faith bias.--OniOokamiAlfador 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's off topic, but U.S. universities working closely with defense industries is nothing new. Remember, the Manhattan Project, just for an example? Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory managed by the University of California? Here in Seattle, where I live, there's the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory, closely linked to the Office of Naval Research.

While I disagree with Dschor that this has anything to do with fascism, he's correct on this point. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, definitely. It's just that this has nothing to do with fascism. Also, I'm unsure if Dschor knows what corporatism means. He seems to be using it to mean the protection of corporate interests which is not what it means in this case. - DNewhall 10:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I probable should have referred to his other 2 connections as well, that being said, what is the support for those? Specifically "corporate criminals, and for government agencies with nefarious aims"--OniOokamiAlfador 08:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is the only part of my statement that you do not agree with, it still seems that the GOP qualifies quite handily as a fascist party. The ROTC is a government agency with nefarious aims, and one which is present at most universities.  Furthermore, if the very statement that the GOP is a fascist party is an example of radical opposition, then I am guilty as charged.  I do not support fascism, no matter who promulgates it.  To quote Bush, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."  Let's talk about fascism, and not accuse one another of wasting time and resources - after all, we can't possibly waste as much in a year as the GOP controlled government wastes in a second.  Wikipedia is a great place to discuss what Fascism is, and where it might be found today, in the hope of crafting an accurate description of the phenomenon.  What I am saying is not so radical - try searching the internet for "republican fascism", and you will find that I am not alone.  The original fascist party also called themselves republicans.  If you wish to make more noise on this issue, a new page can be found at Fascism (United States).  My hope is that this will help to focus energy in a positive direction, rather than allow conflict to distract from the Fascism project as a whole. --Dschor 09:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, just wow. Did you miss everything I stated up above or should I go through it again?  For the sake of time and clarity I shall reiterate.  Well, first, by dismissing my questions about your sources on those two issues, you are by proxy admitting that you have no reliable source and that the information is unsubstantiated.  Wikipedia is for an NPOV collection of data cataloging world history and knowledge.  It is to be impartial with no political bias or personal agendas.  You are not following this process in the least.  Promulgate means to make known; it doesn't even work in the context you used it.  Once again, you quoted someone, without a source.  Back to my original statements, many of your arguements seem to be taken directly from the talking points of 'radical' left wing organizations such as A.N.S.W.E.R and Socialism: Now!.  Both of which have been known for distributing a large amoung of unsubstantiated "propaganda" as one might call it. Some covert fascism maybe?  No, I'm not into that kind of mislabeling.  Furthermore, you didn't even site these arguements so they may as well have came from something evel less credible.  Recurseively, what do you consider control of the US Armed Forces?  Perhaps you can enlighted us on some of their "radicality" when it comes to fiscal policy.  Something you didn't answer.  Also, the GOP is a mass militarized party?  Do tell, I'd love to be enlightened by this... "Just because the GOP calls itself conservative does not make it so - and to say so is to deceive oneself."  Lets see, only about 99% of the political forces in america, including its most vivid opponents, see it as conservative.  Misuse of the english language doesn't exactly give you an authority on the definitions of terms.  I was called in by another party to mediate this issue and I see now that you are so firmly and blindly founded in your beliefs that it is not worh my time, maybe a mediation can solve this, though I doubt it.
 * ---Coonsider this a request for consent of mediation. Please answer promptly so that this matter may be resolved and we can get back to more important issues.--OniOokamiAlfador 10:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Promulgate has two common meanings: 1.Promote or make widely known 2. Put into effect by official proclamation (Oxford English Dictionary, 2005). Given the context, a reasonable person would infer the second meaning, rather than misuse of the term.  I admit to quoting without citation, although the quote in question is quite easy to locate, and rather well known (it is taken from Business Week, July 30, 2001).  I am unfamiliar with "A.N.S.W.E.R." and "Socialism: Now!", and do not see any need to address this objection, as my position is arrived at independently.  Control of the US Armed Forces has been ceded to the President by a misguided act of congress (107th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. J. RES. 114, October 10, 2002), providing for the use of military force at his personal whim.  "Radicality" in fiscal policy is a polite way to describe the profligate spending habits of the GOP during the last five years, adding two trillion dollars to the federal debt (http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2004-National-Debt-History.pdf).  I will 'coonsider this a request for consent of mediation' as soon as I understand what is intended to be mediated.  I do appreciate the satirical reference to my misuse of the english language.  I appreciate your emphasis on citation, and I am making an effort to provide sources - I am relatively new to wikipedia, and simply was unsure if talk pages required citation. --Dschor 12:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say talk pages require citation per se. But their purpose is to improve the article, and material that's to go in the article does require citation (though common sense is needed in interpreting this rule). Talk pages, IMHO, are not the place for long-winded persuasive argument; small amounts of that are tolerated in practice, but too much of it gets in the way of the talk page's main function. I think the current discussion is well past that point. --Trovatore 17:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding mediation: Mediation. My point is, if you indend to put any of this so called "information" in the article, you're going to need sources.  And while it is not really necessary to source statements on talk pages, if a source is called for you should be able to provide one.  Its pretty much a staple for any debate.  If you agree to the mediation an officially neutral party will come in and basically proctor this debate, ending it a heck of a lot quicker.  That being said I'm going to reiterate my stance on this issue once again.  The beleif that the GOP fits into the framework of fascisim is a political beleif of a small vocal minority.  From my experiences in political rallies, each side has a vocal minority such as this that puts misnomers on the other group.  As a matter of fact, the republicans have their own little group that would insist that that Democrats are facists, with an equally strong arguement as yours.  However, both these arguements are held by small vocal minorities with little or no unique qualifications, and are at key, to debatable and factually unsupported.  As a result,  the claim that either of the United State's two primary political parties are fascist is relatively unfounded, especially for encyclopedic purposes.  As long as this debate goes on I am going to have to recursively insist this.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedic database.  Enyclopedic knowledge tends to have a majority concensus among qualified parties as to its truth. It is the responsibility of every wikipedian to hold themselves to this high standard if they are to write and edit articles.  If you aren't willing to accept that and embrace the NPOV policy, perhaps wikipedia is not for you.  I dont say that to be abrasive, rude, or insulting; its just the way wikipedia is.  Anyone who wishes to edit articles really needs to step up and commit themselves to neutrality and accurate citation of sources.  There is precisely one and only one way that this arguement could make it into the article.  Cited as a heavily debated statement made by (a) specific group(s) of people.  In that case the objectives and political alignmet of said group, especially in relation to the the primary group(the GOP in this case).  --OniOokamiAlfador 20:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To all participants: The most important word in my last remarks was "long-winded". If you could find ways to express your thoughts more economically, it might be possible to discuss something other than whether the GOP is fascist on this page. --Trovatore 21:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like very much to do just that. Thats why I want to request mediatio so this gets rerouted so to speak and resolved quickly. My main point is, its not a valid article issue and should be considered such as a result of extreme lack of consensus, credibility issues, and the common trend of various political groups to throw the word at eachother negatively.  If anything regarding this issue should be documented in an article it is that.-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 03:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Writers linked to fascism"
I recently cut the following from Gabriele D'Annunzio: something like this belongs somewhere, but that was the wrong place. See my remarks, following.

[Copied from Gabriele D'Annunzio] Other writers linked to Fascism: [end copied material]
 * Louis-Ferdinand Céline
 * Knut Hamsun
 * Ernst Jünger
 * Wyndham Lewis
 * Vilfredo Pareto
 * Ezra Pound
 * Kurt Erich Suckert, 'Curzio Malaparte'

[Copied from Talk:Gabriele D'Annunzio] Recently added in the section on "Other writers linked to fascism":
 * Carl Pearson, Socialism in Theory and Practice (1884)
 * Benjamin Kidd, Social Evolution (1894)

I am guessing (on the basis of a web search) that Carl Pearson should be Karl Pearson. He was linked with eugenics, and Kidd was certainly a racialist (not an unusual thing in the 19th century), but how are either of them "linked to fascism"? Or are we going to say that all 19th century racialists and all eugenicists are "linked to fascism"? Seems to me that's writing history backwards. I am removing these pending an explanation. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The more I think about this section, the less I think it belongs in the D'Annunzio article at all. This should be either a category or list (or more than one category or list, with clear criteria), or perhaps an article. But it doesn't belong as a section of an article about D'Annunzio.

Besides what seems to me to be inappropriate placement, I have problems with the conception. "Linked to" is so vague. Wyndham Lewis, for example, embraced Hitler early on, but renounced him by the time WWII was approaching. I don't think Vilfredo Pareto ever in any way supported fascism (which was still pretty nascent when he died). I gather that Mussolini read him and liked what he read, but that's a very different kind of "linkage" than actively supporting fascism oneself. If we go the list/category route, we need to distinguish writers who actively supported fascism from those who the fascists embraced posthumously, and we probably need to differentiate those who recanted early (which probably argues for a list, rather than categories, so these distinctions can easily be made). -- Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on this -- perhaps mention of these writers can go onto Fascism page or something. In general, this article needs more updating. At one time I edited it to simplify some of the outdated EB phraseology, but it looks as though more chunks of 1911 text have been pasted in raw. mervyn 08:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to cut it from the article, and copy that material and this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[end copied material]

So here's our chance to act like a WikiProject instead of a political debating society: what do people think we should do with this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it might be of interest that the topic of artists and intellectuals with connections to fascism was explored in The Appeal of Fascism. —Morning star 15:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)