Talk:Fascism/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Fascism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Seeking consensus

Seeking consensus implies a conversation, not a deluge of text.--Cberlet (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, you are not paying any attention to the note at the top of the page about seeking consensus before making substantial edits, and other than posting personal attacks and POV claims that represent only one narrow view on this contentious topic, you are not engaging in meaningful discussion. Furthermore, by making up to 50 edits per day, you make it impossible for any other editor to have any meaningful input into the page. Please discuss this here.--Cberlet (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And how is labeling it "Nazism" rewritting history? That what it was called and that's the name the editors choose for it's repective article. Putting in Nazism links directly to the article while in other for National Socialism to link to it you have to do National Socialism|Nazism. But going though that effort it seems you are the one with the agenda, by linking Nazism to Socialism. Bobisbob (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote on Lead

There are two competing leads (let's define it as the first three paragraphs) being proposed. The older consensus version here and the newer Gennarous version here. Please indicate if you support or oppose the the newer Gennarous version.

Oppose --Cberlet (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Oppose but I the think the current Italian fascist section and the sections on other fascist ideologies can stay -- Bobisbob (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we carved out a chunk of Gennarous's section on Italian Fascism and re-created the Italian Fascism page? Then User:R-41 could take a crack at expanding it? It is well-written, but the page is already way too long.--Cberlet (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Bobisbob (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll contact R-41 and ask. :-) --Cberlet (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should vote on lead, especially because Gennarous is blocked from editing for a week. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The above is an obviously fake discussion between Chip Berlet and Chip Berlet. I for one (and only one) support Gennarous's version. The systematic whitewashing in this article of any relation between fascism and socialism is akin to Stalin calling anyone who became a political enemy a "Troskyite" and a "fascist." If fascism and socialism aren't the same thing, it's a difference of degree and context, not ideology. --Anacreon (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Italian Fascism

The excellent section on Italian Fascism by Gennarous on the main Fascism page here has been plonked onto a recreated Italian Fascism page with additional material from the older, mostly uncited, page. Let's go passionate advocates of this page--have at it! After a few days, I will see if others want to reduce the size of the section on Italian Fascism here on this page.--Cberlet (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Lead

I thought the idea was that we do not change the lead (in my mind the first three paragraphs in this entry) without first seeking consesus. I have restored the lead from before the edit wars. Please, please, please discuss content changes for the lead here first. See the note at the top of the page. --Cberlet (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary, the first sentance of second paragraph is partially redundant (it repeats part of first paragraph), innaccurate in part and unsourced. I think it should be deleted. Mamalujo (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping work this out here. I agree it is redundant and that needs to be fixed, but I believe it is sourced at the end of the paragraph. What precise wording is not accurate?--Cberlet (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the sentance itself is without citations. If it has support it should have citations appended to the sentance itself so it can be verified. It's also written in a very ambiguous fashion so that it can give a false impression. It says "usually based on" and then at the end of the series of words it is supposedly based on it has "and/or". Fascism does usually exalt nation or race/ethnicity, but culture and religion, where is the authority for that? Do "Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on...religious attributes"? Where is the source for this assertion? Even if there is one, should it be in the intro, because there is much authority contrary to that assertion? Specifically, some scholars consider fascism a type of anti-religious or non-religious "political religion" which competes with traditional religion. There is a strong anti-religious strain to fascism and it is often a competitor with religion. Granted there were the "clerical fascist" movements, but many scholars reject that classification altogether. And where is the authority for the assertion that it is usually based on cultural attributes? And what does that vague term mean? For these reasons I think it is innaccurate or at the very least misleading and should be deleted. I've made my effort here. At the very least, if the assertions aren't sourced soon, I will delete it. Mamalujo (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

At some point a number of citations were moved to the end of the paragraph. Some of the current citations at the end of the paragraph support the claims in the sentence you dispute. If we put citations after every concept, it becomes difficult to read the lead. Your understanding of the concept of "political religion" (Gentile: sacralization of politics) is mistaken. Clerical fascism is a well-established category, especially for the Romanian fascist movement. Fascist culture is hardly an obscure notion. Perhaps we can reconstruct the citations for each claim some other way. Remember, we are supposed to be representing the major scholarly views and substantial minority views for a contentious subject. At the very least we can start stacking citations together into a single footnote for each sentence as is being done on other pages on Wiki. Much easier to read.--Cberlet (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked the article history back to Nov. of last year and it has never been sourced since then. Moreover, I've never seen such a statement in any definition of fascism from a reliable source. I'm deleting it. I think I've more than justified doing so. If sources for it arise, we can discuss putting it back in, but I don't think that will happen.Mamalujo (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful, Mamalujo, if you were a bit less agressive and demanding about the righteousness of your views and a bit more cautious and cooperative. This is a controversial page, and you did not give otehr editors enough time to comment. Don't be a bully.--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. Sometimes I get a little overzealous. My feelings were just that the sentance was plainly flawed and without sourcing and I was glad to talk, but it seemed as if the talking was going to go on and on. I will try to be more amicable in resolving issues in the future. Mamalujo (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Information Overload

There are some great additions to this page, but the length and detail is way overboard. We need to start moving whole blocks of text to the various exisiting subpages. Please think about what can be moves, and where. The section on Italisn Fascism clearly should have the entire bottom moves to the Italism Fascism page. Anyone want to help?--Cberlet (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that sections "Italian Fascism", "Other variations and subforms" and "Distinguished from Para-Fascism (Radical Right)" should be briefly summarized here, while rest of the content should be moved to related pages. -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The para-fascism section could be abridged some, but I think the variants and subforms should not be. Unlike para-fascism, Nazism and early Falangism were true fascism (although a small minority may disagree about Nazism). The greater detail is appropriate in an article about fascism itself.Mamalujo (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and capitalism

I don't think it is a good idea to say the fascists opposed capitalism. They certainly did not oppose busniess or private property. Saying they opposed laizze faire capitalism would be better. Bobisbob (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy first sentence

"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with…"

Is the article about the term or the concept?
In the form "fascism" it presumably refers to an ideology or a practice, not a "movement". A movement can be "fascist" but it cannot be "fascism".
Further, are there examples of mass fascist movements that are not ideologically rooted?

That said, I don't have a particular proposed rewording, but I'd welcome one. I suspect that "mass movements" can be moved out of the lead sentence and that later in the lead we can say that there have been numerous fascist mass movements and regimes. - Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I improved the lead sentence, so fascism is defined as an ideology, not as a "term". However, the sentence is still clumsy because it is way too long. On my computer monitor, the run-on sentence is three lines long. Surely the topic can be summarized in a shorter sentence.Spylab (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely headed the right way. I'll take it another step. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would look to the sources used in the lead you would noticed that for example Britannica defines fascism as a "political ideology and mass movement". Please refrain yourself from original research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you are determined to have a lead sentence that is almost unreadable. I don't have the patience to fight over this. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Political spectrum: undue weight

This section seems very tendentious. First it proposes the "Third Way" view. Then it rejects the view of fascism as being on the right before reluctantly conceding it partly back with the quoted phrase "gravitating toward the extreme Right".

As far as I know, the predominant scholarly consensus is that despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force. I believe that this section as it stands gives undue weight to a minority view while failing to adequate present the dominant view. - Jmabel | Talk 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have long had a problem with these discussions. The root problem I think is (1) political positions do not easily fall along a one dimensional line; I do not even think they easily can be plotted along three or four dimensons; and (2) what people mean by "right" and "left," when these terms have meaning, can vary from time to time and country to country. I personally prefer to say that fascism is a form of corporatism, which was a common response to a particular crisis in capitalism in the 1930s; that corporatism took many forms in the 1930s (the New Deal, Stalinism, Populism) that differed in a variety of ways owing to the specific political history of the country in which they took shape; that different forms of corporatism at times formed alliances and at times were antagonistic to one another; that whether one considers a given form of corporatism (e.g. fascism) left or right depends as much on your own politics as on any objective features of that form of corporatism. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a minority point of view (yours) not shared by most scholars, whose perspective Jmabel has adequately resumed. Tazmaniacs (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Tazmaniacs. I don't doubt for a moment that several active Wikipedia contributors and numerous other people dissent from the view I describe as "dominant", but our goal here should not be to represent the consensus of Wikipedia contributors active in working on the article, it should be to represent the consensus of scholars writing on the subject. I have no problem at all with the dissenting views being present in the article, and I agree that there is only a weak consensus on the subject. But I have an enormous problem with the article failing to state the dominant, prevailing scholarly opinion and to present it as such. This is clearly a "high importance" article. Many students, in particular, will come here to get an overview of this important topic. We should not be using this article as a venue for our various polemics on the topic. It should be a well-balanced introduction to the topic.

I personally abhor fascism, but you won't see me adding anti-fascist diatribes to the article. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an opinion piece. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel; in regards to predominant scholary consensus who is it that allegedly claims "despite "Third Way" rhetoric, fascism in power functioned rather consistently as a right-wing force"? As far as I'm aware (owning numerous books on the subject) that is not the scholary consensus at all. The consensus, developed by respected scholars of fascism who write in a manner which is not bias to any interest group such as Roger Griffin, Hamish McDonald, Roger Eatwell and Zeev Sternhell all recongise fascism as a "Third Way" as the references show.

The only dissenters I'm aware of who seem to think fascism has absoutely no leftist connections and is merely a radical right system are street level socialists who want to put as much distance between the movements as possible. This of course does not come from educated people in a position to write books. For example, even the foremost scholary expert on Fascism, and a former member of both the Communist Party and then Socialist Party of Italy, Renzo De Felice doesn't try to "cover up" its socialistic origins and third way status. This is a man who has wrote a definitive seven volume piece on Mussolini. - Gennarous (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that Tazmaniacs read my comment as a personal statement. When I said "this is my view" I do not mean that this is my personal view about fascism. The personal views of editors are irrelevant to articles and I won't use this page as a soap-box for my personal views about fascism or fascists. I was describing what I consider a very notable scholarly view of fascism, and one which I find useful for understanding 20th century history. It has no particular impact on how I make my own political or moral decisions, or view the decisions of others. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no respectable scholar denies that Mussolini et. al. were on the left when they were young. I think that if you look back a few years to when I was active in this article and related articles you'll see that I added quite a bit of material about the left origins of (especially) the Italian Fascists. But being an ex-leftist does not inherently mean you are not on the right. Look at David Horowitz, or Walter Winchell. Not to say that either of them are anything like fascists, just that they are examples that one's politics can migrate.

Similarly, I don't think any respectable scholar denies that fascist tactics were heavily influenced by the left. But the political spectrum is not about tactics, it is about ideology. Again, to take examples from my own country, the Christian Coalition borrowed tactics from the Civil Rights movement and even from Saul Alinsky, but it didn't mean that they were not on the right, just that they were tactically innovative within the context of right-wing politics. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my point was not that Fascism is of the left, nor that it is of the right, and insofar as they are notable any debates in reliable sources concerning this question should be included in the article. I was pointing out that there is another approach to examining Fascism both in its historical context and comparitavely. I do not think the two approaches are mutually exclusive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and religion, redux

I notice that the section currently oddly named "Fascism and Religion" (shouldn't "religion" be lowercase?) makes no mention of Romania's Iron Guard, also known as the "Legion of the Archangel Michael". The latter name indicates the strength of their ties to religion, and I would think that any definition of "fascism" that isn't confined to Italy would include them. Any reason for the omission? - Jmabel | Talk

Now remedied, but how can you have a statement "Similar to Ayatollah Khomeini's Shi'a Islamist movement in Iran…" when you cite no source later than 1970? - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian fascism

Gen, I removed the text from the Italian fascism section because it's already in the Italian fascist article. We need to summarize the section as much as possible and leave the detail to the main article. Don't accuse me of "covering up fascism's involvement in the government." Bobisbob (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and do what you want with it. But I think the Italian fascist article needs to be expanded. Bobisbob (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascism & Conservatism

Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton Excerpts:

Page 22 "In this book I use liberalism in its original meaning, the meaning in use at the time when fascism rose up against it, rather than the current American usage noted above. European liberals of the early twentieth century were clinging to what had been progressive a century earlier, when the dust was still settling from the French Revolution. Unlike conservatives, they accepted the revolution's goals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, but they applied them in ways suitable for an educated middle class. Classical liberals interpreted liberty as individual personal freedom, preferring limited constitutional government and a laissez-faire economy to any kind of state intervention, whether mercantilist, as in the early nineteenth century, or socialist, as later on. Equality they understood as opportunity made accessible to talent by education; they accepted inequality of achievement and hence of power and wealth. Fraternity they considered the normal, condition of free men (and they tended to regard public affairs as men's business), and therefore in no need of artificial reinforcement, since economic interests were naturally harmonious and the truth would out in a free marketplace of ideas. This is the sense in which I use the term liberal in this book, and never in its current American meaning of "far Left." Conservatives wanted order, calm, and the inherited hierarchies of wealth and birth. They shrank both from fascist mass enthusiasm and from the sort of total power fascists grasped for. They wanted obedience and deference, not dangerous popular mobilization, and they wanted to limit the state to the functions of a "night watchman" who would keep order while traditional elites ruled through property, churches, armies, and inherited social influence."

"More generally, conservatives in Europe still rejected in 1930 the main tenets of the French Revolution, preferring authority to liberty, hierarchy to equality, and deference to fraternity. Although many of them might find fascists useful, or even essential, in their struggle for survival against dominant liberals and a rising Left, some were keenly aware of the want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."

Page 8 "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

Page 102 "In a situation of constitutional deadlock and rising revolutionary menace, a successful fascist movement offers precious resources to a faltering elite."

"Fascists could offer a mass following sufficiently numerous to permit conservatives to form parliamentary majorities capable of vigorous decisions, without having to call upon unacceptable Leftist partners. Mussolini's thirty-five deputies were not a major weight in the balance, but Hitler's potential contribution was decisive. He could offer the largest party in Germany to conservatives who had never acquired a knack for the mass politics suddenly introduced into their country by the constitution of 1919."

"The fascists offered more than mere numbers. They offered fresh young faces to a public weary of an aging establishment that had made a mess of things. The two youngest parties in Italy and Germany were the communists and the fascists. Both nations longed for new leaders, and the fascists offered conservatives a fountain of youth."

"In sum, fascists offered a new recipe for governing with popular support but without any sharing of power with the Left, and without any threat to conservative social and economic privileges and political dominance. The conservatives, for their part, held the keys to the doors"

Page 140 "Even if public enthusiasm was never as total as fascists promised their conservative allies, most citizens of fascist regimes accepted things as they were. The most interesting cases are people who never joined the party, and who even objected to certain aspects of the regime, but who accommodated because its accomplishments overlapped with some of the things they wanted, while the alternatives all seemed worse."

This is a respected source, and provides a good source of information on fascism's stance on conservatism. --Qualcuno75 (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above source clearly supports the statement. How about sources that goes against the clearly stated above that fascism allied and aided conservatism. I also have another source in addition to above that fascism arose as a response to the growing power of liberalism. If you dispute anything, either provide a source or tag disputed unsourced statements with a "citation needed". --Qualcuno75 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever one's personal opinions on Fascism, you must admit that a quote like this "Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital" which is used by Paxton and shown in the discussion board above, is very opinionated. Every author has biases which others must recognize and point out. Fascists in power were indeed very much in favour of conservative social values and made alliances with conservative political forces on these points, but aside from social values, fascists were much different in other areas to conservatives. The provision of social welfare programs by fascist states was more progressive than even those of liberal states of the time which rejected social welfare programs. Secondly, Paxton's conclusion does not take into account that fascists in Germany and Italy both condemned reactionary politics. In addition, Reactionaries in Europe during the French Revolution rejected nationalism as being a threat to established monarchies and states not formed on national boundaries. Unlike reactionaries, fascists fully embrace nationalism and in Italy, much like liberals had desired, fascists pushed the monarchy into a figurehead position while Mussolini effectively became the ruler of Italy. Reactionaries rejected revolutionary politics and looked down upon civil violence while fascists supported revolutionary politics and violence. Unlike Paxton says, fascists were not just endorsed by elites, as in many countries they did have significant popular support, and elites supported them largely as a means to counter the rise of communism, while on other issues, elites and fascists often squabbled. It appears to me at least that on social value issues, fascists in power were indeed very conservative and anti-progressive, while on other political issues, especially economic issues, fascists ranged from centrist to even progressive. It is these differences that make it necessary to discern that fascism is a unique movement of its own, which I will admit is closer to reactionary in its social values than many other political movements, but deviates from reactionary politics in other areas.--R-41 (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Argentina in the 70's. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Columbia

This article is missing a sub-section of fascism in Columbia from late 40's to the 1950's. Neutralaccounting (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issue: Comparison of Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies to fascism

In one section on fascism's position on religion, Ayatollah Khomeni's religious policies are compared to that of fascists based on the idea that Khomeni's demand for strict obedience to religion. This is a very controversial claim. There have been many fundamentalist religious movements that have advocated strict obedience to religion, such as the Puritans who were known for persecuting non-believers. But strict obedience to religion even with persecution does not automatically equate to fascist stances on religion. I'm not sure as to what the editor was trying to point out, but I want to clarify one thing: some editors may point out perceived anti-Semitism in Islamist government in Iran as demonstrating "fascist" religious policy, but bear this important point in mind, fascism does not always promote anti-Semitism nor does a fascist movement require any xenophobia to be fascist, i.e. Italian Fascism opposed anti-Semitism and racism until pressured to endorse them by Germany in the late 1930s. A lot of references and explanations would be needed to effectively demonstrate why Khomeni's religious polcies should be equated as similar to fascist religious policies.--R-41 (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are refering to one sentence comparing comparing Khomenini movement to the Iran Guard.

The fascist movement in Romania known as the Iron Guard or the Legion of Archangel Michael invariably preceded its meetings with a church service and "their demonstrations were usually led by priests carrying icons and religious flags." Similar to Ayatollah Khomeini's Shi'a Islamist movement in Iran, it promoted a cult of "suffering, sacrifice and martyrdom."

Which actually doesn't mention "obedience to religion." The idea that religion and fascism (or fascist tendencies) are not mutually exclusive and often fit together quite comfortably in a political movement, was advanced by Said Amir Arjomand, (Turban for the Crown : The Islamic Revolution in Iran, Oxford University Press, 1988, p.208-9) (maybe by others as well).

Resemblences between Khomeini's Islamist revolutionary movement in Iran and fascist movements discussed by Arjomand and others go well beyond "obedience to religion," and include devotion to messianic leader, military expansionism, strong antipathy to leftists, intollerance of opposition whether violent or non-violent.

You may be right that many scholars of fascism do not accept this idea, but then again we are talking about a sentence not a subsection. BoogaLouie (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

But Khomeni opposed a key policy that all fascists promote, nationalism. Khomeni declared that nationalism was a flawed ideology which divided the Muslim people along ethnic lines. Unlike fascist states, Iran since 1980 has allowed political plurality with multiple political parties contesting elections (though these are accused of being fraudulent), while fascist states promote one-party rule and declare their opposition to democracy. There are many dictatorial regimes that are intolerant to leftists and opposition figures, we can't label them all fascist. Iran is totalitarian in the sense that it is a theological state with an all-powerful supreme leader, but not a fascist state because it rejects nationalism and it holds elections to demonstrate that the government is democratic, which no fascist state claims to be.--R-41 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war has started over fascism's attitude towards conservatism

There is an edit war over whether fascism opposes conservatism. From what I've examined, fascism opposes some elements of conservatism while it is supportive of others. Unfortunately every time I try to post information on the general social policies of fascism, someone keeps removing them, including an anonymous user who vandalized the section by removing it completely on the false claim that the section on social policy was original research. In it mentioned that fascists have typically endorsed a number of social conservative policies. I listed a number of references that showed Italian Fascism's positions such as a reference for the Fascist government's law that banned abortion, as well as having a reference for the Fascist government's decision to outlaw homosexuality, as well as others. Another editor added important points with references on fascism's appeal to men behave in a heroic masculine manner. Now this being said, I still believe that debate is still open as to whether fascism opposes other parts of conservatism. But this is debated, as one reference on this page by historian and scholar Robert Paxton has claimed that fascism largely served the interests of reactionaries. On the other hand, fascists claim to oppose conservatism. Some believe this is true, others disagree, and note that fascists have typically allied with conservative political forces when rising to power. It is a debated issue, fascism has individual traits in social policy that I mentioned before that were conservative, but also others that were more progressive. But once again, sadly a user has removed material that they disagreed with and claims that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. I urge other users to be aware of this edit war, and actively find referenced information that can clarify this dispute.--R-41 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the view that fascism does not oppose conservatism, is that the view is a fringe view, or a minority view at best. The mainstream view is that fascism, as far as a simple left-right spectrum is concerned, is sui generis. It incorporated elements of both left and right, and perhaps curisously, both revolutionary communism and aristrocratic conservatism were its close cousins. For this reason, it competed with communism for the same proletariat supporters and, at times, both domestically and internationally cooperated with the far left. By the same token, while it attracted sometimes adherents from the far left and criticised Marxism for not being sufficiently revolutionary, it also garnered adherents from the right and, particularly, as it gathered power it often became less revolutionary and found support in the establishment. The social policy section is rank POV pushing and ignores scholarship which is contrary to its editor(s) POV. For example, it paints the Nazi position on abortion as socially conservative, when the actuality couldn't be farther from the truth. Abortion wasn't limited as a morally unacceptable afront to the dignity of human life. Rather, it was encouraged and even forced among "non-Aryans" or by "Aryan" women who were carrying the child fathered by another race. This was not socially conservative morality but rather the racist eugenics and social engineering which was found among the left in the U.S. and Europe and mostly originated in the American left with such advocates of racist euginic abortion and contraception, Margaret Sanger and Paul Popenoe. There is myriad authority pointing this out, even some of the authority that is cited in the section. The section engagages in synthesis combining portions of various sources to say things that the sources (at least some of them) do not say. The section cites Dagmar Herzog but only for facts which would support the erroneous thesis that Nazism (and fascism generally) are socially conservative. A review of Herzog's cited work states: "On the question of how one would characterize the Nazis--prudish or licentious--her conclusion is ambiguous. The Nazis promoted an odd mixture of liberalism and conservatism." The same review goes on to say Nazi "propaganda sometimes encouraged such behaviors as pre- and extra-marital sexual relations, unwed motherhood, and divorce". The review also points out how Herzog notes that the Nazi's position on homosexuality was not at all conservative but rather stemmed from a leftist eugenic scientism. For this reason, the section misrepresnts sources, engages in OR, SYN and is highly POV, not to mention plainly factually erroneous. The Encyclopedia of World History specifically states that fascism is not socially conservative. I am going to appropriately tag the section until it can be fixed. Personally, I think it would be best to lose the section altogether (but I suspect that won't work) because fascism did not have uniform consistent social policy and the section would only be a POV magnet and a venue for POV pushing.Mamalujo (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave clear examples of references which show that Italian Fascism passed laws that banned abortion, birth control and homosexuality. Since these are disputed on whether these instances show social conservative policies, then the judgement will be removed, but I still personally think these demonstrate social conservative values. I think it is important though to recognize that a major scholar and historian like Robert Paxton views fascism as reactionary.--R-41 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A rather unusual statement is in the section on social policy now that says there was "nothing new" about fascist policy on abortion and birth control and that it was only unique in regard to racial eugenics. The reference given is page 80 in The Fascist Experience in Italy by John Francis Pollard and the user has provided a rough link to Google Books for the book. However the overview on Google Books has page 80 missing, as can be seen here [1]. So the user is going to have to provide clarification for this and provide a quote on what the page said. Furthermore the statement appears immediately after the section on Italian Fascism which appears to indicate that the criminalization of abortion and birth control in Italy was "nothing new" and that the ban on homosexuality was "nothing new". I don't understand what "nothing new" is supposed to mean if it is addressing the specific context of Fascist legislation on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, after all in the case of Italian Fascism, the government was not continuing bans on abortion, birth control, and abortion, but enacted them. I believe the editor was saying that in the general context there is "nothing new" in the sense that indeed other political groups opposed abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, and indeed these are not unique fascist policies, but other than pointing this out, I don't understand the relevance of the point. After all one could say that there was "nothing new" in fascism as a whole as all beliefs and policies derive from or evolve from other beliefs and policies. Furthermore, if Pollard said that there was nothing new in regards to these policies with the exception of racial eugenics, it is mistaken to use this in regards to Italian Fascism as Italian Fascism did not have racial policies until pressured to in the late 1930s by Nazi Germany. While such policies on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality by Fascist Italy were not new in an ideological sense, as I said before the Fascist government delivered legislation that was not in existance prior to it coming to power, so this is not a continuation of previous policy.--R-41 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If I may put in my 2 cents, I been in an email conversation with Roger Griffin. I asked him about fascism and conservatism. He said that fascism does have elements of conservatism but in a futuristic sense. That is when a conservative realizes he/she cannot go back to an idealized past to restore the values he/she longs for to overcome the decadence of the present society he/she is forced to try to realize them in an idealized future and becomes a revolutionary (hence Revolution from the Right). This would be the conservatism that fascism endorses. But you don't have to take my word for it. Email him yourself. It's easy to find. Bobisbob (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I'm not disputing that. I'm more concerned with new content being added. One reference claimed to provide evidence of fascist policy not being conservative, but the reference was just a small summary of fascism which had no material at all that said that fascist policy was "not conservative". If a multitude of well-known and non-partisan (i.e. not deliberately biased) scholars claim that fascism is a right-wing revolutionary movement, then this should be investigated. I admit for one that I do not like fascism due to my democratic-leanings and the negative affects I see as it causing on society such as expansionism which leads to war, but my beliefs are my own, and I am attempting to be as unbiased as possible and have been trying to seek out sources that show both sides of the argument.--R-41 (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Roger Griffin said to you in an email conversation, but he wrote an article about fascism for Encarta. [2] In it he states that anticonservatism is one of the three main elements of all forms of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 14:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

He clarified that he meant restorative and reactionary conservativism but not the type of conservatism described above. Bobisbob (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that fascism sometimes banned abortion does not at all make it a conservative policy, that is merely a gloss of an editor's personal opinion. In fact, in all of the dozen or so sources I looked at about the battle for births, every single one of them talked about increasing the population or growing the number of fascists, none of them mentioned moral opposition or concern for the rights of the unborn child. This is leftist social engineering (like China's one child policy), not at all conservatism. Also, Nazis actually expanded abortion in some contexts, even making it compulsory (as communist China has also sometimes done). Contrary to the assertions made above, the Encyclopedia of World history (a teriary source, not the opinion of a single author such as Griffin) does explicitly say that fascism is not a socially conservative perspective. The attempts to color it as such are POV and, even worse, counterfactual. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that fascism sometimes forces abortions on "undesirables" doesn't make it leftist either. Their concern was limiting other races not reproductive rights. Just because China has a social engineering policy (which is different) does not make The Nazi's eugenics leftists it is social Darwinist. Eugenices was embraced by people on different politcal spectrums. And fascism not being socially conservative does not conflict with it not being entirely anti-conservative. Bobisbob (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misread me. I'm not saying fascist policies are leftist in general. I was objecting to the previous edits on abortion being used to characterise them as conservative. The point is their policies did have aspects of the left and right. However, social engineering and eugenics did and does tend to find much more support on the left. They are definitely not conservative policies, and that is point. If the social policies section had not been edited pushing a POV that fascist social policies were conservative, we would not even be having this discussion. BTW, I did call it leftist social engineering here on the talk page, and I believe that is what it was. But that is merely my view and I did not put the word leftist in that context in the article. Mamalujo (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bobibob, the racial policies of the Nazis were not leftist, they were based on social Darwinism which does not have a specific place on the political spectrum. Calling the fascists' policies "leftist social engineering" appears very biased. Political ideologies of all across the political spectrum have at one point or another attempted social engineering of some sort. Mamalujo should present the quote of the source Encyclopedia of the World History that says that fascism is not social conservative. Furthermore, the section that says that the Nazis were opposed to homosexuality based on scientific notions. This may be officially accurate that the Nazis claimed their views were based on scientific conjecture, but this appears to one of a number of examples of the Nazis' use of pseudoscience to justify their dislike of homosexuals and their persecution of homosexuals. After all the Nazis used so-called "scientific" means to determine who was a suspected Jew by measuring the noses of people. The Nazis picked and choosed what scientific analyses that were deemed acceptable to their pre-existing racism and anti-Semitism while disregarding scientific analyses that went against their views and destroyed literature opposed to their political views. True science involves debate, the full evaluation of hypotheses and their flaws before these hypotheses can be made theories, and even then, theories are subjected to thorough evaluation to decide whether they should be kept, altered or abandoned based on the number, degree, and severity of flaws within them. By repressing all dissent and dictating what were scientific findings are, the Nazis were practicing pseudoscience a.k.a. false science. Xenophobia was why the Nazis opposed Jews, homosexuals, and others, the use of science was not the creation of these views but a means to justify them.--R-41 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The source says: "It was not simply an assertion of dictatorial or military rule, nor was it a socially conservative perspective..." I think that's pretty clear and explicit. Forgive me if I'm not assuming good faith, but I think to avoid these edit wars and protracted discussions, contributors need to stop using fascism in its sense as an epithet and trying to smear some unrelated point on the modern political landscape. The mainstream consensus is that fascism, although incorporating elements of both right and left (it is National Socialism after all), was anti-liberal and anti-conservative.Mamalujo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an important note to remember about the term National Socialism. The term was not created by Hitler, the ideology was based on Anton Drexler's combination of ethnic nationalism with the rejection of capitalism. Drexler was a genuine national socialist, he was locksmith who was known to associate with workers and personally urged them to endorse nationalism and anti-semitism based on claims that Jews controlled the financial system. Drexler wanted both a nationalist and socialist revolution, though like Hitler he was conciliatory to the middle class and promised that they would benefit from the party's socialist policies. While Hitler thought on similar lines, he personally demanded that the party be called the "Social Revolutionary Party" which did not appear explicitly socialist, until he was pursuaded by others to name it the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler was opposed to Drexler and Ernst Rohm's demands for a socialist revolution to go alongside a nationalist revolution. Under Hitler's influence the party followed Mussolini's class collaboration views which rejected socialist revolution. Under Hitler's guidance the party moved away from focus on urban industrial areas to gain workers' votes to spreading efforts to the countryside to gain the support of farmers. And from the information in my university course on totalitarianism and my own readings, on the subject of supporters for the Nazis, German farmers at the time tended to be more conservative, and more receptive to anti-communist beliefs. In fact in my course on totalitarianism I and fellow students learned of how when the Nazi election campaigners met with farmers and wary middle-class citizens, they toned down leftist rhetoric and even declared that the Nazis' position on nationalizing private property only was meant for the confiscation of Jewish property. Leftist Nazis grew distant from Hitler after 1933 for failing to deliver a socialist revolution, this was especially the case in the S.A. Then Hitler violently purged the socialist wing of the party in 1934 by killing Rohm and many other left-wing Nazis. Workers lost the right to strike under Hitler's rule. Literal national socialism was destroyed in the party in 1934, after which the party was completely fascist-dominated, which meant class colaboration instead of socialist revolution, bans on worker strikes, and scrapping the Nazis' original declared opposition to private property, and abandoned its original hostility to industries. Real national-socialists in the Nazi party included Drexler, Rohm, Gregor Strasser, and for a period of time Joseph Goebbels. Now this is just my opinion, but I tend to think Hitler continued to have the term "socialist" in the party's name and left-wing sounding propaganda after 1934 just to avoid being accused of being a hypocrite after adhering to a party that had a strong and influential leftist faction up to that point. Some sources have indicated that Hitler in private despised socialism entirely. One footnote in this article which is linked directly to Mein Kampf claims to say that Hitler saw social welfare negatively as being used by the weak and degenerate to prop themselves up. A number of non-socialists associated with the party, including powerful and wealthy elites: Erich Ludendorff, a Prussian Junker (Junker essentially means aristocrat) supported the Nazis, Herman Goring, another high-placed Junker and also a monarchist associated with the party. In summary, I see pre-1934 Nazism was a mix of genuine national-socialism and fascism, post-1934 Nazism was dominated by fascism which is not socialism, but a different ideology all together.--R-41 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

A while ago someone removed socialism for the list of thing fascism opposes by noting Roger Griffin's writing about Fascism form a new type of socialism. Well that same scholar says that fascism is not completely anti-conservative and writes about "conservative revolution" and it's relationship to fascism in Chapter 6 of "Fascism and Mordernism". Therefore I have removed conservatism from the above list. Bobisbob (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with your edit but I also removed claim that was put in the lead to balance claim about fascist opposition to conservatism. -- Vision Thing -- 16:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OR with regard to the Fascist Negations

The fascist negations, anti-communism, anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism, are a longstanding part of an exhaustive definition of fascism which has general consensus (although many prefer a shorter but consistent definition). I think that to reword or remove one of those three elements is OR. There may be some that disagree with the forulation as part of a definition of fascism, but that can be said about many parts of every definition, and the article intro recognizes that. There have been repeated edits which fiddle with the accepted statement of the fascist negations. I think such edits are blatantly OR. I would suggest that we list all three negations (not two of three - which misrepresents the scholarship on the subsect with a specific POV) in their ordinary wording (not some SYN or OR reformulation by editors). Can we get a consensus on this so we can have a stable intro.Mamalujo (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not original research, fascism's anti-communism and anti-liberalism is well known, and backed up by many sources, while its anti-conservatism is debated, such as by notable scholars like Robert Paxton who claims it is reactionary, and Paxton has written a number of books on fascism, and his works are considered worthy enough to be used in university courses, as I have read his work. I have mentioned Paxton's view of fascism as being reactionary before and another user has mentioned that another scholar who believes that fascism is a modernist revolutionary conservatism, and there are other scholars who believe that fascism has catered to conservative elements for support. Please forgive me for this sounding as a personal attack, but I believe Mamalujo that you are not taking into consideration the evidence by other users. These views as a whole may be mistaken, but the reasons they give to prove this are important to analyze. It is not that I am saying that "fascism is only conservatism and that there is no other possibility" but I and others have indicated, with evidence, that fascism's supposed commitment to anti-conservatism is debatable, which means that it is not certain to say that fascism is entirely anti-conservative. Also fascism was not entirely pro-conservative, but this is not only indicated by Mussolini and Hitler loyalist fascists but also fascists who disagreed with decisions made by Mussolini and Hitler which these fascists themselves deemed as catering to conservative and right-wing politics. These groups included the "Intransigent" faction of the Italian Fascists who were frustrated with Mussolini's decision to support the monarchy and his decision to reach out to the Roman Catholic Church, when they believed that fascists should overthrow the monarchy and weaken the Church. Italian historian Philip V. Cannistraro's collection of information on Fascist Italy in his large book called The Dictionary of Fascist Italy, claims that Italian Fascism became divided between the more left-of-centre Intransigents as mentioned earlier and a right-of-centre faction which Mussolini endorsed for many years that advocated conciliation with more conservative elites such as the monarchy, the Roman Catholic Church, and landowners via the abandonment of previous staunch opposition to property rights, all of these were means to consolidate support and power. I would argue that after Mussolini was overthrown by the monarchy, the more left-of-centre policies undertaken in the Italian Social Republic when he was reinstalled in power for 2 years by the Germans indicated a final reversal back to many original and Intransigent Fascist positions which were anti-conservative such as nationalizing property and murdering wealthy landowners, but this is an assumption by me, and a reference must be found for that. In Germany the Strasserists Nazis saw Hitler as selling out to the right-wing when he purged the S.A. of leftist Nazis and negotiated with conservative-minded elites such as the Prussian Junker (aristocrat) dominated German officer corps which remained intact under Hitler's rule, along with claims by Strasserists that Hitler did not deliver a genuine national-socialist revolution, but instead just a nationalist revolution which they claim occured in 1933 when Hitler rose to power. I invite anyone to investigate the claims I have made such as on Google Books, and I am certain that anyone can find information to back up these claims, and I will gladly provide sources for this information if inquired.--R-41 (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You say that the anti-communism and anti-liberalism are well known and backed up by many sources. The same is true about it's anti-conservatism. And what anyone knows who's read about this subject is that the three are virtually always stated together. The fascist negations are listed as the usual three in Payne's A History of Fascism, Political Science and Political Theory, Griffin & Feldman's Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Renton's Fascism, A Fascism Reader, The Culture of Fascism, and The Radical Right in Central and Eastern Europe. I think it's fair to say "many" scholars see fascism as opposing these ideas. "Many" does not mean "all" or even "most". If your read up on the subject they are often referred to as the "typical" or "classic" fascist negations. That is one of the reasons I think it is OR to alter the usual formulation of the negations. If you want to point out some disagree, I think that's O.K., but to delete the usual statement of this idea because you have one scholar who disagrees is not acceptable.Mamalujo (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

But I have mentioned that internal forces in fascist movements such as the Intransigents in the Italian Fascist party and the Strasserists in the Nazi party claimed that the movement had conceded key policy planks to conservatives. The murder of Rohm who demanded socialist revolution, is commonly seen as Hitler conceding to the conservative Prussian Junker dominated officer corps, which Rohm opposed. Furthermore, Hitler banned the right of workers to strike when in power, and allied with big businesses to build up Germany's war economy, further concessions to the right-wing. A number of Intransigent Italian Fascists were bitter that Mussolini had not overthrown the monarchy but instead stood beside it. Mussolini did not deliver on his promise to nationalize property and instead allied with landowners, Mussolini did not deliver women the right to vote as he had promised, but instead took away the right to vote for all people, Mussolini allied with the Catholic Church after he had said he would not. Intransigents were frustrated about this. Thus a number of scholars claim this indicates that fascists paid lip-service to anti-conservatism, while allying with conservatives to push through key parts of their agenda. Declared anti-conservatism was largely a means to rally leftist-minded people to their largely militarist nationalist agenda, in order to make the movement a mass movement. Evidence that Strasserists and Intransigents saw their fascist movements as slanting to the political right is a good indication of why claims of fascism being "completely" opposed to conservatism are flawed, as governments, fascists sought alliance with conservative political forces. Fascism was however opposed to elements of conservatism, such as opposition to regional-minded or provincial-minded conservatism, opposition to conservative demands at the time for increased power for monarchies, and opposition to all democratically-minded forms of conservatism. This being said, policies undertaken by fascist governments have been seen as slanting to the right by both external opponents of fascism, and critics inside fascist movements. However, fascism as a whole is not a far-right ideology as some have claimed, it is typically in power an authoritarian and totalitarian centre-right movement with both social and economic policies taken into consideration. The Nazis may be far-right on the social scale if the Nazis' scientific reasons for their social positions are considered pseudoscience as a number of scholars have claimed.--R-41 (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just leave the argeed upon negates (liberalism and communism) by themsleves in the main text and let possible negates be discussed in the section (like in the political spuctrum section). Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Eco-fascism

Is there room here for a topic on eco-fascism or environmental fascism? I think there is definently scope for it given many countries are forcing climate change laws on people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.231.252 (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascist foreign policy

I noticed that under the search-word on wiki: World domination. It seems Fascism does not seek that as an overarching objective. It should be mentioned, because the popular belief is that it was precisely world domination that was the idea of Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.183.65 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Does KKK belong in this article?

Should KKK be in this article, even in the parafacism section? I know the klan has had association with neo-fascists but that doesn't mean they are fascist. Communists, monarchists and other nonfascist groups have also made common cause with fascists in the past. The sourcing in the KKK section also seems kind of weak. I think we need a solid reliable source, preferably a scholar of the subject, that says they are fascist or parafascist. Thoughts? Mamalujo (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare the relationship between the KKK and Nazis to the relationship between the Nazis and those other groups. They are nearly indistingushable, at least today. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The current section on para-fascism is extremely misleading. In the opening paragraph it defines para-fascist movements as "anti-liberal, anti-communist inter-war movements" that "typically eschewed radical change and viewed genuine fascists as a threat." It is also mentioned that "parafascist states were often unwillingly the home of genuine fascist movements which they eventually suppressed or co-opted." This applies to Austrofascism, the Estado Novo, and the 4th of August Regime, but not the KKK, Baathism, or Islamofascism. Indeed, these latter three movements don't even fit the basic requirement of being "inter-war movements". Post-WW2 accusations of fascism are a dime a dozen; just about every post-war dictator in the world has been called a fascist by someone or other. We should limit the parafascism section to interwar movements, as the opening paragraph says, and we should add some interwar movements that are missing, such as the Romanian Iron Guard. -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The answer is No. The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No one objects to deleting the KKK? Unless there are serious objections, let's delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The intro, again

The third paragraph in the intro is out of place and poorly sourced. It is out of place because it launches into a discussion of the economic features of fascism, which is a controversial subject to say the least. I could try to balance it by adding opposing views, but the point is that controversial assertions about fascism do not belong in the intro. I will move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the appropriate place in the article, which is to say the "economic policies" section.

And this brings us to the second problem with that paragraph, the fact that it is largely unsourced. First, I challenge the use of the phrase "Soviet-style" in the first sentence. The USSR did not invent price controls or wage controls; I'd like to see a direct quote from the source being used to support the sentence in question. Second, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and will therefore be removed. -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I wanted to move the sourced parts of the third paragraph to the Economic policies section, but then I saw that they were already there. It appears that someone in fact moved them up to the intro, while adding words and phrases not supported by the sources in question. -- Nikodemos (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you specify what do you find controversial besides the phrase "Soviet-style"? -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As I explicitly said above, everything in the paragraph following "Fascists in Germany and Italy claimed that..." is entirely unsourced, and should therefore be removed. The first three sentences of the paragraph are sourced, but I dispute their relevance for the intro. Notice that they are copied almost word-for-word from the "economic policies" section (the exact same sources are used twice: [3], [4] = [5], [6] = [7]). That section contains numerous other cited statements with sources. Why copy these three statements in particular and not any of the others? For that matter, if we're going to copy arbitrary statements from sections of the article and move them to the intro, why not do the same for nationalism, position on democracy, or militarism? -- Nikodemos (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Spectrum

"The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration, while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of statist nationalism." This statement implies that there is a lot of common ground between fascism and socialism, which is highly contentious. There is no similarity between the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party of France or the New Labour Party of Britain and fascist movements. --The Four Deuces (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that members of the Social Democratic Party of Germany were called "social fascists" by communists? -- Vision Thing -- 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Their point was that both fascists and socialists supported capitalism and were therefore no different from liberals or conservatives. It says more about the communists' position on the political spectrum than the fascists'. --The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Nader on Fascism

Ralph Nader defines Fascism as "government controlled by private economic power". ^[1] Elsewhere he also uses the term "Corporate Fascism". While this has nothing to do with the dictionary definition, and may be considered demagoguery, I think the use of this definition is enlightening, because it helps explain why so many people link fascism with the far right and laissez faire economics.

I'm not sure how to integrate this viewpoint into the article, or perhaps it would go better on an entry such as Economics of Fascism. Is anyone else up to it? Sharkey (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that this definition is helpful. Although fascist governments are "controlled by private economic power", so arguably are most other governments. Fascism has other aspects however that differentiate it. If fascism is defined so broadly, it loses meaning. --The Four Deuces (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fascist Movements Were Socialist in Nature

Mussolini was a committed socialist and the National Socialists i.e. the NAZI's were obviously also socialists. The communists in Germany were constantly switching sides and becoming national socialists in the beginning. The reason that fascists are called that and ignorantly thought to be "right-wing" is because of the split between Moscow and other countries such as Italy and Germany, that Stalin, using Marxist prophecy, labeled as "other" and "right wing" in order to maintain some control of the movement after the idea of workers across the world uniting died philosophically due to things like nationalism and cultural differences. Fascist movements were explicitly socialist in their doctrines. The fascists expropriated wealth and nationalized or socialized (the two words are synonymous ) big business to the state, etc , etc. This is not complicated at all. Fascists fought for control of the left not the right. Fascism is not the antithesis of communism at all. That is imported soviet propaganda language in essence not a true analysis of the doctrines. JohnHistory (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Whose view is this, and what are your sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you disagree with? Let me put it this way, if the state is not socialist in nature - it can never be fascist. JohnHistory (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Look up socialism and you will see that fascist countries employed socialist tenets in the running of the nations. Mussolini was a committed socialist, even saying that socialism was in his blood. JohnHistory (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

They are simple questions, but I guess I mus repeat them: whose view is this, and from what source does it come? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No no, I believe it was more complex than that. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisbob2 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mussolini may have said he was a socialist in the past when he was a socialist, but he changed his position, becoming a nationalist and a corporatist. Look at how Mussolini himself talked about the role of fascism twentieth century in 1932: "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century".^[2] Mussolini explicitly identified fascism with tending to the right, socialism is not a right-wing movement, so it is not applicable to Mussolini's own statement about fascism. National socialist versions of fascism on the otherhand declared themselves to be left-wing. So there is no single definition for fascism's scale on the political spectrum and it is not universally socialist, and "socialism" without a prefix usually refers to international socialism, which all fascists oppose because they do not agree with the internationalist class struggle being the most fundamental issue in society which international socialists believe. The Nazis, "National Socialists" believed in the nation as being the most fundamental issue in society, and claimed that the German nation and race was being persecuted by capitalism, communism, liberalism, international socialism, etc. which they claimed were part of a Jewish conspiracy. Original Nazi party founder and leader Anton Drexler genuinely believed in national-socialism, while Hitler in practice did not deliver on hardly any of socialist measures in the Nazi Party's 1920 Programme such as abandoning its commitment to of major nationalization of private property, Hitler purged the party of most genuine national-socialists in 1934 when he had Ernst Rohm and other left-wing Nazis killed. Instead Hitler adopted Mussolini's successful corporatist economic system that kept private property while intervening and nationalizing areas where private enterprise was failing. Corporatism as defined in the Italian Labour Charter of 1927:"The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation," then goes on to say in article 9 that: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management." This encourages the dominance of private enterprise in the economy except in limited instances where private enterprise fails. It is acceptable to mention "national socialism", because it is a specific variant of fascism. Fascism certainly borrowed ideas of state intervention from socialism, such as fascists' social welfare, but that doesn't mean that fascist social welfare is automatically socialist. Keynesian economic and political reforms created social welfare states in Western Europe and North America, including the United States, which continued to support capitalism, so again, borrowing policies from socialism does not equate an entire ideology with socialism.--R-41 (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What you think of as the "right" in american politics is something totally different then what the Stalin and Mussolini were talking about (and he specifically says he is a socialist, and Gregor Strasser - one of the idealogical founders of the National Socialists said - "We are Socialists" of course it is more complicated then socialism as an abstract term but so is fascism and every form of socialism because it does not form and exist in a vacuum. The "Right" in america are individualistic in nature, often characterized as religious in outlook. these two things, and the concept inherent in them of a small government are fundamentally at odds with tenants of fascism which are socialistic ( socialization of industry, secularization even destruction of religion, etc, etc) Mussolini was a dedicated socialist. he never renounced socialism - he writes about realizing that the idea of marxism - were not applicable in terms of marxist idea of the destruction of nationalism. again, the right wing of socialism (which using Stalin's terminology, remember Stalin called Trotsky a "right winger" also. anyone stalin disagreed with in the socialist world became "right-wing" . so be careful throwing these terms around) would still be socialists even under your incorrect view of the term "right". I will change the article later when I have time. JohnHistory (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Here's the main point, since the article lists all the things associated with fascism (nationalism, etc etc) then it should invariably have socialism too. though I believe these movements were socialist in nature to a high degree, for you to say that it shouldn't even be mentioned in the long list of things "assoicated" with fascism in the intro is very illogical. JohnHistory (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

To whoever requested it here is the full quote and the sources. This should be enough proof. how could it not be? I'm bringing facts from the horse's mouth while this article is chalk full of garbage - yet it is I who is challenged. ironic.

Here is the full quote by Mussolini and the source. mussolini was a socialist his whole life - he just realized that the idea that nations shouldn't exist was ludicrous and impractical. mussolini - like hitler- saw men of all strata's fighting in WWI this made him realize the power of nationalism etc.

[(ALSO, RIGHT WING SOCIALISM IS STILL SOCIALISM AND DEFINITELY HAS NO CONNECTION TO CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENTS(individualism, religion, etc)]

In response to fascism being labeled by Stalin "right -wing" (right wing socialism that is) Mussolini emphasizes his opposing view in the following passage from Heaven on Earth by Muravchik page 148- citing The Life of Benito Mussolini by Margherita Sarfatti on page 263...

"You hate me because you love me love me still" addressing Italian Socialists..."whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. SOCIALISM IS IN MY BLOOD."

after being forced to resign from the socialist magazine Avanti (mainly because of his support for WWI and embrace of nationalism) mussolini said "you think you can turn me out, but you shall find I will come back again. I am and shall remain a socialist and my convictions will never change! They are bred into my very bones." JohnHistory (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Please provide references for evidence if there is such an ideology of "right-wing socialism". Even so, we must think of what kind of socialism did fascists advocate. Some times fascist were indeed very socialistic in a statist sense such as by nationalizing large numbers of industries, other times they were very right-of-centre economically, advocating minimal government interference in the economy where the fascists deemed there was no need of government interference. This could be seen as third way socialism which advocates a mixed market. But then there is another issue, national-socialistic fascists recognize class fault lines, but their solution is not like that of traditional "socialists" (international socialists) who advocate a victory of one class over another, but instead seek to avoid class competition and conflict by promoting unification into a proletarian nation, this is national-socialism, which is much different than traditional "socialism" which is international and focused on promoting the interests of the lower class and restraining the upper classes. Also I am not denying that fascism has adopted socialist elements (i.e. use of proletariat and bourgeoisie in fascist political language) just as I am not trying to insinuate that fascism is completely associated with conservatism. Furthermore, let's be realistic about the topic here. I am reading a book right know that investigates multiple arguments on fascism by multiple scholars, THEY CAN'T AGREE THEMSELVES on whether fascism is right-of-centre, left-of-centre, or centrist in nature. So please do not assume that one side is correct, because another side will present many good arguments in return. All we on Wikipedia can do is only rule out ones that do not fit with information provided from many reliable sources (i.e. someone saying "democracy is fascist", "conservatives are fascist", "liberals are fascist" or "communism is fascist" etc), and we must be specific on what fascists supported and opposed. For instance it is a fact that many fascist movements openly advocated "national socialism" which should be pointed out in the article but saying that they just supported "socialism" alone is too vague and will become confused with people thinking of international socialist viewpoints. Now, what fascism is seen by many scholars as advocating is totalitarian nationalism fused with corporatism. Corporatism is socialistic to the extent that it advocates a significant role for state intervention into the economy to protect national interests along with officially allowing organized labour to negotiate on an equal level with managers. National-socialist fascists like Hitler emphasized the socialist aspects of corporatism in propaganda. BUT, there is another element, corporatism protects private property, protects the right to gain profit, and in fascist doctrine, corporatism is not to intervene in the economy when private economics are functioning normally and sufficiently for the economy. Mussolini himself stated that he wished that he had of called Fascism corporatism instead, as it accurately described the policies he was undertaking. Critics of fascist governments' use of corporatism including dissident leftist fascists (such as "intransigent" Italian Fascists and Strasserist Nazis) themselves claimed that it unfairly favoured business, landowner or national economic schemes in expense of workers' needs and that this amounted to concessions to the political right. These are what "intransigent" Italian Fascists and Strasserist Nazis believed, not just opponents of fascist ideologies as a whole. There were internal squabbles in fascist movements between left-leaning and right-leaning members, one of which in 1934, saw Hitler purge the party of all radical leftist Nazis who were promoting a socialist revolution to follow the nationalist "revolution" (Hitler being appointed Chancellor) including Ernst Rohm and threats on the lives of far-left Nazis like Gregor Strasser (whom you mentioned earlier) during The Night of the Long Knifes. A number of leftist Nazis remained, such as Joseph Goebbels, but original Nazi far-left policies as supported by ardent national-socialists like Anton Drexler and Rohm in 1920 such as mass nationalization of property were scrapped under Hitler's guidance when in power. Instead the Nazis followed corporatism as Mussolini's regime in Italy had done. Also back to Mussolini's statements, it is well-known that Mussolini was a political opportunist, he changed his position on issues repeatedly and radically. Mussolini in 1926, he spoke of the need to promote the interests of the Italian race, then said he opposed the very concept of race in 1934, when relations with Hitler's race-focused regime were bad, and then Mussolini reverted back to promoting the interests of the Italian race in the late 1930s through the 1940s. In the early 1930s, Mussolini spoke with a Jewish Italian intervier in 1934 on the issue of racism to assure Jews and others that he was not a racist like Hitler, then in 1936 when he was forming an alliance with Germany, he denounced Jews as a "ferocious tribe". He presented himself as a hero who would fight for workers against exploitation while he presented himself as a rational moderate on economics to the middle-class and businesses. Mussolini tried to be all things to all people in different ways at different times. It should be noted that I mention in the article that Mussolini claimed he was "right-wing" in 1932 and then "left-wing" somwhere between 1943 and 1945. That's opportunism and I don't know how one can claim that Mussolini was coherantly left-wing or right-wing from his statements. Perhaps political opportunism itself should be considered a part of fascism as an ideology, as this would show in one single section the variating positions that Mussolini and perhaps other fascists had.--R-41 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. 71.192.116.68 (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

But a type of socialism advocated by a number of fascists is mentioned, that is national socialism. As I have said before we must clarify this because "socialism" with no prefix almost always refers to international socialism. Furthermore not all fascists were socialists, a number in the fascist movement were former anarcho-syndicalists who were drawn to a nationalist version of it, which is national syndicalism. Other fascists had no socialist, syndicalist, or leftist past, such as Francesco Coppola. Thus it is not just associated with socialism, but with syndicalism, and non-leftists.--R-41 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

JohnHistory, everything you have written is a waste of time because you are providing your own interpretation based on your reading of primary sources. Nothing you have written is relevant to the article because it violates our WP:NOR policy. R-41 has also written much informative comment but with respect, it is not helpful. This page is to discuss improvements to the article. Edits to the article have to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and most salient here, WP:NOR. I urge you to use your time in a way that will actually help improve the article. This means organizing significant views from verifiable and reliable secondary sources that are not yet represented in the article itself. When you guys can agree on how best to represent and organize your accounts of these views, and where to put them in the article, your knowledge will be transformed into actual contributions to the encyclopedia. Woudn't that be a good thing? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SirRubenstein, you are the one who asked for the source to the mussolini quote, then I give it to you and you say "this is irrelevant" and can't be included, etc. What? JohnHistory (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

And by the way, to finish answering your question of whose view this is - it's MUSSOLINI'S VIEW! JohnHistory (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

There is always an opposite to every view such as the claim that Mussolini was exclusively and totally a socialist. Originally Mussolini was a Marxist, but he abandoned it because he saw it as unpatriotic to Italy. Afterwards as a fascist, Mussolini was a "socialist" when he needed to be a socialist (i.e. to attract working class supporters, such as by promising organized labour a role in the corporatist economic system), he was a defender of private enterprise and opposed workers' strikes when he needed to get the support of private enterprise, Mussolini was a defender of the monarchy when he needed the support of the monarchy to attain power. This is opportunism. Mussolini officially believed in race in 1926, officially opposed the concept of race and racism in 1934, then officially supported race again along with racism in 1938. Mussolini opposed the monarchy in the early 1900s, supported the monarchy from 1922 to 1943, then opposed the monarchy again in 1943. Mussolini claimed he promoted "left-wing" policies in 1919, then he claimed he advocated "right-wing" policies in 1934 (declaring the "Fascist century" to be one tending to the right), then Mussolini claimed he was a leftist again in 1943. Mussolini defended property rights and in the late 1920s and mid 1930s Mussolini defended private enterprise as being superior to public enterprise in most instances. In some areas Mussolini was indeed socialist in nature, such as by promoting a significant role for the state in economic affairs. But these socialist qualities were not like traditional international socialism, as they claimed to be focused on creating a strong proletarian nation, not a strong proletarian class. In other areas Mussolini seriously diverged from socialism all together such as declaring the supremacy of private enterprise to public enterprise. Overall Mussolini claimed to be all things to all people, he was an opportunist. I would gladly mention that fascists engaged in socialist-sounding dialogue to attract supporters along with their appeals to private enterprise under a section of "political opportunism" under fascism, as opportunism best describes this effort to attract socialists in organized labour along with capitalists in private enterprise into one unifying movement.--R-41 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Really badly written article here

This article is bad. I would rewrite it but I am too lazy now. The whole intro is wrong. there were several fascist governments and they had differences and the intro seems to dwell on something other then the doctrine which is what this article should be about. otherwise it's all just allusions to the holocaust and Germany. JohnHistory (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Fascists did engage in class warfare. The speech that attracted adolf hitler into the National socialists was a speech entitled "how to destroy capitalism". If you want me to get more sources of how Stalin labeled people in the socialist world "right" such as he did with Trotsky I can but you it should not be that hard to find. Again, to mention so many things related to fascism and then to omit socialism is not, well, right. JohnHistory (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

I have to agree with JohnHistory, though he's not trying very hard to fight against what seems to be the consensus on this article. The article really is terribly wrong, and frankly I think it has been compromised by left-wing ideologue Chip Berlet, who seems pretty active in the edits. To exclude the idea that fascism is inherently socialist is just wrong. What I'll call Berlet's Consensus is a perfect illustration of the word "fascism" in current usage. It simply refers to something that the utterer of the pejorative doesn't like. I believe George Orwell notes this in his "Politics and the English Language." At any rate, Berlet's is a deeply personal and blunt application of the word is most unhistorical, except as it serves to illustrate the uselessness of the word today. However, Wikipedia is in the business of providing a general view, not a contemporary, partisan position paper. It is an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. And frankly, this entire article takes at face value the Soviet assertion that the fascists were right-wing and the opposite of everything that socialism represents, which is simply bold and untrue propaganda. The difference between fascism and international socialism is internationalism. And that's pretty much it. This article also completely fails to account from the remarkable similarities between the logic of nationalistic, non-militaristic or even non-nationalistic, non-militaristic social and progressive causes and the logic of fascism. Indeed, fascist regimes were, and are champions of these causes. This article pretty much ignores that. I have read the entire discussion page, not including archives, and I feel I have to point out how bad this article is. I am not trolling. I am starting a discussion in the hopes that other like-minded people will respond and take action. --Anacreon (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what do we do now since like you said there appear to be vested interests here (what's new, right) I agree, as you know, that to exclude socialism (at a minimum) is blatantly not honest - especially when you list things associated with Fascism in the intro. This is really not complicated. The problem with just saying "national socialism" is that that terminology exclusively conjures up NAZI's and misses the role that socialism in general played in these movements. in other words, people read national socialist and they think simply nazi. this article, which was worse a week ago believe it or not, really is just a stand in for the word "evil" by folks on the left. They are not honestly dissecting fascism - to the point of even dismissing my quotes from Mussolini stating how committed a socialist he was. JohnHistory (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

I mean, this article even associates "mysticism" with fascism. Is mysticism also listed under the marxism article -marxist prophecy? Many nations use national myths to mobilize the public - the communists did this. My point is there are so many weird things associated with fascism in this article while missing the 800 pound Guerilla of Socialism sitting across the table from us. JohnHistory (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Completely agree. Unfortunately, there is no honest desire on the part of the most eager editors of this article to have it reflect reality. The best we can do is register our complaints here in case someone decides to read the bottom of a really long edit page. I don't have the time or patience to involve myself in a Wikipedia edit war. --Anacreon (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism has national socialist elements within within it. This is along with NON-socialist political roots, such as syndicalists, anarchists, and people outside of the political left. So fascism's socialist roots are mentioned I don't understand why it is deemed unacceptable by some to say that fascism has "national socialism" within it but yet it is of utmost urgency to the same users to declare that fascism is "socialism" with no prefix, and believe me the knowledge of the prefix is VERY important here. National socialism is exactly the specific form of socialism advocated by Hitler and other fascists. If you look at the article National socialism, I mentioned not just Hitler and the Nazis but how Italian nationalist Enrico Corradini expounded national socialism with the concept of a proletarian nation. Fascists FULLY OPPOSE international socialism and international socialism is what people are commonly referring to when they say "socialism" with no prefix. International socialists were arrested and murdered by fascists and these did not only include Marxists but social democrats. Furthermore socialism is not always deemed a prerequisite to fascism, just look at these statements by Mussolini:

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. - according to the section "What is Fascism?" in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932, written by Fascist philosopher Giovanni Gentile [9]

And there is Italian Fascism's declaration that it is focused on nationalist collectivism and statism but specifically states that Italian Fascism is NOT socialist and NOT left-wing, but that it is a unique movement to itself. The "800 pound gorilla of socialism" which some users mentioned as fascism being has just ceased to exist. Like I have said before, fascism certainly has socialist elements to it just as it has syndicalist elements to it and even capitalist elements on the Italian Fascists' notion of the general superiority of private enterprise over public enterprise. These socialist, syndicalist, and capitalist elements are fused into the economic ideology of corporatism whereby labourers and businessmen are to be on equal grounds, class conflict is to be avoided and replaced by class collaboration must negotiate with each other, but that abdication from this negotiation, especially through labour strikes is strictly forbidden under Italian Fascist corporatism. To Johnhistory I say this, look carefully, the "800 pound gorilla" staring you down in the eyes is a Frankenstein monster-type, with sections of socialist skin, syndicalist skin, laissez-faire skin, statist skin, and a predominantly nationalist-oriented and obsessed brain.--R-41 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of KKK section

The KKK has nothing to do with fascism. If you want to discuss "Racism" then I could see that but to include the KKK in an article about fascism shows a lack of understanding of the fundamentals here, as well as a deficient knowledge base since the KKK were not fascists. They were white racists much like thousands of other groups of one race or another hating the other in history - not fascists. JohnHistory (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Racism is not a tenet of Fascism, it was a part of National Socialism, however, specifically in Germany due to the anti-semitism that was already present in the culture. The Italian fascists, for example, did not practice killing jews at all and refused to turn any over to the Germans until they were taken over by the NAZI's in 1943. Spain is another example of that. Spain refused to take part in WWII. each of these three countries practiced their own form of fascism.

Dachau, the German concentration camp, had the largest organic farm in the world. The nazi's were always into vegetarianism and helped pioneer the whole grains movement, along with the Green party movement which was started in nazi Germany. why not have discussions of PETA (the nazi's were heavily into animal rights, and seriously considered mandating vegetarianism for all Germans. At least those are accurate links not the KKK. By the standard set here those are higher relevance. JohnHistory (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory

Did you even read the section? The KKK wasn't put on there simply because it's racist but because of it's connection to Nazi groups. The two groups have become greatly allied and are almost interwined in many cases. And connections between PETA and the Nazis are "real" and the KKK connection isn't? Sorry but there is no alliance and exchange of ideas between Nazis and PETA so your comparisons are just red herrings that add nothing of importance. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the KKK does not belong in the article. They have had fascists among their members (such as Nazi skinheads), but I checked several of the sources and did not find a single one which called the KKK itself fascist. Mamalujo (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I put it back. The fact that the Nazis and fascists had a profound influence on many Klan groups is well known. Also the KKK has a far more profound connections to fascism than some of the groups already here. Bobisbob2 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been removed as original research, unless it can be sourced by a reliable sources, (not including the Anti-Defamation League whose reliability is questionable and only cites links with nazis and white supremacists), that they are linked it doesnt belong here. We need reliable second party sources that cite it clearly with no synthesis. Links to nazis belong on the nazi page. --neon white talk 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Peronism belong in the article?

I checked about a half dozen of the top sources and either they didn't mention Peron or Peronism at all, or briefly mentioned it calling it something other than fascism. We all know that fascism is an epithet and a political football, so editors of this article need to be particularly rigourous about requiring reliable sources, otherwise this article is going to be loaded with every movement or government that has had this label thrown at it. The idea that it is fascism is either a novel or fringe idea, and thus it does not belong in the article. I'm going to remove the section, if good sourcing is cited (doubtful), I won't object to it being reincluded.Mamalujo (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Peronism like other forms of LA populism should be discussed in the article on corporatism, but not fascism (unless as you checked a major source discusses Peronism). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Role of corporatism is overstated

Griffin specifically states that corporatism is not a core element of fascism. Payne notes that although many fascists did incorporate corporatist economics, the German National Socialists explicitly rejected them. In light of this, a statement in the intro that fascism is a corporatist ideology is blatantly erroneous. I think a better approach would be to term it third way economics or something of that sort. Payne in Fascism: Comparison and Definition lists as one of the goals of fascism a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist.Mamalujo (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Corporatism is not overstated, it was the principal economic policy of fascism. Mussolini himself said that he wished that he had of named his movement of "Fascism" "corporatism" because he believed this was a major defining element of fascist policies. Corporatism is a fusion of socialist and capitalist ideas. I find the real problem is that there are so many people who want to label fascism as "socialist" or "capitalist" involving its economic policies when in reality corporatism is what it is. And what does third way advocate economically? An economic system between capitalism and communism, and that is corporatism. Now the question arises "But did all fascists support corporatism?" Take a look at Nazi Germany, it may have been "national socialistic" in its opposition to monarchism, its hostility to the dominance of conservative Prussian Junkers (aristocrats), and certainly in its deep hostility to finance capitalism which it accused of being a "Jewish conspiracy". But Hitler was no fool to complaints against overly statist socialist policies, especially those made by his idol Benito Mussolini who by the time Hitler was in power was advocating a mixed-market economy, allowance of a large degree of private enterprise and protection of private property. Hitler abandoned the revolutionary socialist doctrines of the Nazi party adopted in 1920 which called for massive nationalization of property among other radical things, and adopted corporatism which was more popular than the statist socialist economic policy that the Nazis endorsed in 1920. The Nazis formed a "National Socialist Business Organization" to go along with their labour organization the German Workers Front. So this is very corporatist. Ireland's fascist movement called itself the "National Corporate Party". Unfortunately when some people see the word "corporatism" and information saying that fascists wanted to fuse business and union members into "corporations", some people see this as fascists forcing organized labour into business corporations. This is not the case, "corporation" in the corporatist context means an organization that is supposed to join business and organized labour interests together to ideally produce negotiation and avoid class war.--R-41 (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources which explicitly say that corporatism is a core element of fascism? -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have MANY sources which say that corporatism is a core element of fascism. Including information provided in books made by number of major scholars on the subject such as Roger Griffen and Stanley Payne. Just look at all of these references for corporatism being a KEY component of fascism:

- - - Brewer, Ebenezer Cobham; Room, Adrian. Brewer's Dictionary of Modern Phrase and Fable. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. Pp 228.[10]
    - Adams, Ian; Dyson, R.W. 2003 Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Routledge. Pp 179. [11]
    - Griffiths, Richard. 2005. Fascism: 1880-1930. Continuum International Publishing Group. Pp 120[12]
    - Griffin, Roger (editor). 1998. "Fascism, neo-fascism, new radical right?" - by Diethelm Prowe. International Fascism: Theories, Causes and the New Consensus. London: Arnold Publishers. Pp. 309. (Speaks of corporatism, nationalism and totalitarianism as being key elements of Fascism. On corporatism as a key economic policy that transcended multiple fascist movements in Germany, Italy, Romania, Spain and others. The quotation says that fascism advocated "An institutional structure of 'representation' reflecting functions and duties in politics and the economy, such as corporatism, designed to eliminate traditional material interest group conflicts, building on some mythical past of co-operation and obligation.")
    - Payne, Stanley G. 1995 A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconson Press. Pp. 330[13] (Speaks of Fascism in Japan as corresponding with "nationalist corporatism".)
    - Johnson, Larry. 1995. Ideologies: An Analytical and Contextual Approach. Broadview Press. Pp. 210.[14] (Claims among other things that fascism involves "extreme nationalism, statism, corporatism...")--R-41 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore it is vague to say fascism is "totalitarian and nationalist" as totalitarianism described separately does not explain what totalitarian values fascism promoted. Fascists were specifically totalitarian nationalists and corporatists, as the foundation of the state was to be based on the nation held together through class collaboration of a corporatist system which fascists believe will promote the interests of the nation by mutually supporting business and labour interests.--R-41 (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny that corporatism is frequently a part of fascism, that is undeniable. It is not however a core component of fascism. There were fascists who were not corporatists and today there are neo-fascists who are not. The cites provided above just say that a specific movement was corporatist (i.e. Italian fascists, blueshirts, Japanese fascists), they don't assert that it is a core component. In fact, some of the authorities R-41 cites specifically say that it is not a core component. For example, Payne’s A History of Fascism cited above says: “Most fascist movements espoused corporatism, beginning with the Italian prototype, but the most radical and developed form of fascism, German National Socialism explicitly rejected formal corporatism” (p. 10) and “Economic corporatism of the Italian kind was rejected by Hitler because it implied at least a degree of genuine autonomy for some of the constituent parts.” (p. 209) Also, Payne notes that Primo de Rivera and the Falange rejected corporatism (pp. 260-261). He also points out that not just the Nazis but other fascists, national syndicalists and national socialists in Spain, France, Japan and elsewhere rejected corporatism as being “too capitalist or too conservative” (pp. 463-464) More specifically to the point, Griffin’s Nature of Fascism explicitly says “corporatism…is not a core component of generic fascism.” Plainly, not all fascists were or are corporatists. That is why I think the section should be on "third position economics", noting that facists take such a position and were either corporatists, national socialists or national syndicalists. Mamalujo (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then what does Third Position economics mean. Corporatism is the third position between capitalism and communism. Bear in mind that Griffen is one source, I have found six sources. People are taking the names of these movements WAY too literally. I mean seriously ask yourself was the National Socialist German Workers Party truly representative of socialists when it had aristocrats like Hermann Goering and Erich Ludendorff supporting it, was it truly representative of workers when it banned workers' strikes and trade unions, was it even truly representative of the nation when it excluded Jewish Germans. Hitler probably was originally a genuine national socialist on economics, but when the Nazis campaigned on major nationalization of private property and advocated a national-socialist revolution of workers, they did not win votes, the conservative National German Peoples' Party won the nationalist vote instead. When Mussolini rose to power, he became very popular, his corporatist economics was popular outside of Italy and outside of fascist ideologies, such as by liberals and social democrats such as through Keynesianism. By the time Hitler rose to power, he supported corporatism and opposed the far-left wing of the Nazis which continued to support far-left socialist economics and promoted a socialist revolution, these Nazis included Ernst Rohm and Gregor Strasser. Hitler violently purged the far-left of the Nazis in 1934, killing Rohm, forcing Gregor Strasser to flee the country. So let's review what the "National Socialist German Workers' Party meant when it was formed: It wanted a nationalist and socialist revolution and wanted massive nationalization of property. Thus in the 1920s it claimed to be a revolutionary nationalist and socialist movement, which advocated far-left policies BUT by the 1930s, it DID NOT want a socialist revolution and IT DID NOT advocate massive nationalization of property. It never overthrew elite elements in German society, such as the Prussian Junker German officer corps which the Nazis claimed they would replace but it remained intact, it maintained close ties with big businesses and got SUPPORT from big businesses, it protected private property. All that was left of a socialist-leaning platform by the 1930s was social welfare and even Hitler was distasteful to social welfare, believing that the weak and degenerate abused the system. So the huge pillars of the party's revolutionary socialist ideas in its platform in the 1920s agreed to by Anton Drexler, Ernst Rohm, Hitler and others were gone by the 1930s. Assuming a name as a definition of its ideology or purpose is the same as assuming that People's Democratic Republic of Korea means that the country is democratic and run on behalf of the people, which MANY would dispute. I know what some people see fascism as a form of "socialism" or "capitalism" based on their own political views. Well I am a social democrat and I do not see fascism as socialism or capitalism, it is inbetween. The Nazis I believe had a pre-fascist period of 1919 to the mid-1920s and then split internally into a fascist faction (led by Hitler who admired Mussolini and the Italian Fascists, adopting their salute, etc.) and a genuine national-socialist faction (led by Rohm) from the mid 20s to 1934. After 1934, with the radical leftists purged, Hitler put through a corporatist ideology which was accepted by businesses in Germany. We could turn this into a battle of semantics of what Hitler said. But look at what Hitler DID and why he DID IT. Hitler needed the support of the business community to have the country rearmed, and did not or could not put through the 1920 platform which was economically far-left that the Nazi Party was founded upon which was unacceptable to the business community.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Third Position economics means, I believe, something broader which would include corporatism. Corporatism is not "the third position between capitalism and communism", it is a third position, one of many. For example, national socialism is a third position which is not corporatism. You say that Griffin is one source, and you have found six, but you haven't. I've read the cites, they do not say fascism is corporatist, they say a specific facist movement is corporatist. You say to "ask yourself was the National Socialist German Workers Party truly representative of socialists". Well the sources say that it was quasi-socialist, involved significant government control of the economy (particularly finance), and it rejected corporatism. While I appreciate your analysis of the issue, your analysis, as well as mine, is beside the point. What is important is what reliable sources say. What I've noticed the most is that the sources overwhelmingly say that fascist economics were subordinated to other matters and were adaptive. When they needed to nationalize they nationalized, if it made sense to act as capitalists, they did that. I think Payne sums it up well when he says the economic goal of fascism was a new national multiclass economics which is either national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist. Payne also explicitly says ""No point remained less clear in the doctrines of most fascist movements than economic structure and goals. To make fascism synonymous with corporatism is obviously incorrect since only a minority of Italian fascists espoused corporatism before Musolini's compromise with the monarchy and fusion with the nationalists." (see here). Payne, and most other reliable sources, say that fascist economics were adaptive, varied and subordinated to the state. The precise articulation of what they were was usually left unclear. (see previous link at top of page 10). Thus to say fascism and fascists were corporatist is incorrect and goes too far. In goals they weren't always corporatist and in practice they weren't either.Mamalujo (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material re expansion of the welfare state, etc.

I've reverted a deletion of a subtantial amount of sourced material re expansion of the welfare state and other similar matters. These matters are not controversial and are well recognized. For example, as noted in the social welfare section of the article, the Italian government expanded from about 500,000 to a million jobs in 1930 alone, And health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940. Both of these statements are sourced as was the earlier general statement in the article which was deleted. The other matters deleted are likewise sourced and well established. Mamalujo (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

But according to Richard Evans' Third Reich in Power this was not the case for Nazism. In addition "anti-capitalism" is debated. The text about price controls and private property is already down below in the economic section and we need to keep the lede more general and less details. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you quote what Evans says for Nazism? -- Vision Thing -- 20:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What Evans said? It is simply incorrect. The national socialist government created a huge welfare state (with a ballooning public debt).Valois bourbon (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See section on social welfare, there is a page cite. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mamalujo is right. Expansion of welfare state was a key policy of fascism. Also, if it was part of Italian fascism it was definitely part of fascism, because there is no consensus that "fascism" has some broader meaning. Nevertheless, it's true that it was part of national socialism as well.

Please go on, Mamalujo.Valois bourbon (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of fascism section is totally out of control, changed everyday, solution needed through a discussion and vote

The definition of fascism is changing EVERYDAY. When capitalist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say on economics that "fascism is a type of socialism" when socialist-leaning editors edit this page, they typically say "fascism involves capitalism". Well I am a social democrat and I reject that fascism as a whole is either capitalism or socialism, it is inbetween. As of now the article says fascism involves capitalism, I expect that tommorow it will say fascism involves socialism. This outlook ignores the other sides of the argument. So I say let's debate it right here on the discussion board and vote on an acceptable definition.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My four closely similar proposals as a solution: 1) "Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology committed to being a Third Position alternative to capitalism and communism." 2) "Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and corporatist ideology committed to being a Third Position alternative to internationalist capitalism and socialist ideologies." 3) "Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and Third Position ideology committed to being an alternative to capitalism and communism." 4) "Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist and Third Position ideology committed to being an alternative to internationalist capitalist and socialist ideologies." These definitions take into account the arguments that fascism advocates corporatism and Third Position along with others that say that not all fascist ideologies promote corporatism. It takes into account fascism's opposition to declared opposition to specific ideologies, one definition being more specific the other being more general. I invite others to provide constructive criticism to the possible definitions I have posted and post their own definitions. We will then debate them, remove inaccurate material and synthesize a definition that may not be able to answer define every element of fascism as that is constantly debated among scholars, but instead a definition that includes what fascism definately includes and excludes what is highly debated.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a corporatist ideology. Fascists were sometimes corporatists. Both Griffin and Payne say explicitly fasicism is not definitively corporatist (see above). We had a stable definition and intro, just leave corporatism out of the first sentance. It is mentioned later in the intro as a frequent element, however, the literature is clear that it is not a sine qua non. That being said, I think your third option is the best, as the other three seem to be erroneous. Still, I believe we had an earlier relatively stable intro which was fine. Mamalujo (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Debate and vote on definition of fascism is the only solution left to solve edit war, as for me I'm finished with Wikipedia

I have finally had enough of Wikipedia. I have doen so much, posted multiple sources, debated with good will and intelligence, and yet no one listens or cares. They want to say "fascism is socialism", fascism is capitalism", and on and on. I had my falling out with Wikipedia on a number of occasions but when people have DELETED my well-sourced information to promote their views to which they provided NO SOURCES, that was the last straw. Scholars refuse to accept Wikipedia because of the POV pushers and vandalism and I am retiring from Wikipedia, I doubt I will ever return, its just a never-ending addictive viscious cycle, if you don't quit you'll be hooked to it until the day you die and NOTHING will be learned. But my last advice for any good-intentioned users on this article is this: you are going to have to debate and prove wrong the radical individual POV pushers and provided MANY (such as 20 or more) reliable sources to prove them wrong, plus you are going to have to have a vote on the issue. If that doesn't work then Wikipedia truly has become a dead-end. I've wasted enough hours trying to help, and I have completely had it with the B.S. Thrasymachus sophist-types on Wikipedia who believe that winning an argument is by humiliating people and screaming at people in anger who disagree with you. What the web really needs is a "Scholarpedia" where actual scholars debate and come to conclusions, as it seems that most of the average Joes or Janes out there are highly opinionated and have little content to back them up. I hope those few intelligent users who are open to different opinions prevail. Good bye.--R-41 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you aren't actually considering the arguements of others and are too dug in to your position to see when it is mistaken. I am not arguing that fascism is capitalist or socialist, only, as the sources say, that its economics are broader than exclusively corporatism. Mamalujo (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations lacking page numbers

Why is it that so many of the citations are lacking the page in the source where the fact can be found. Doesn't Wikipedia policy favor in line citations to the page in the source so the fact can be verified? I have even seen multiple times in this article where a source is cited to a specific page or pages and the cite is changed to a different format and the page cite is deleted.Mamalujo (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Fascism

Is this relevent?

Nazis arrested and killed thousands of Catholic clergy (18% of the priests in Poland were killed), eventually consigning thousands of them to concentration camps (2600 died in Dachau alone).[106] Although Jews were obviously the greatest and primary target, Hitler also sent Roman Catholics to concentration camps along with the Jews and killed 3 million Catholic Poles along with three million Jewish Poles.[107]

Were the Catholic Poles killed because they were catholic or because of their Polish ethnicity?? Is there any evidence they were killed because of their religion? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, seems to be argumentative. Maybe wait a bit to see if anyone can explain it, otherwise, I'd delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

“Authoritarian” v “Totalitarian”

It simply isn't coherent to insist that scholars clearly agree that fascism is intrinsically totalitarian only to to turn-around and admit that they don't. In fact, the fascists as they came to power didn't universally preach totalitarianism, even the Nazis didn't try for totalitarism until the Second World War was well under way. And note, for example, whence Giovanni Gentile was coming when he was assassinated. —SlamDiego_←T 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple sources say that fascism was totalitarian, not just authoritarian. SlamDiego, you are completely inaccurate when you say that the Nazis did not pursue a totalitarian state until the World War II. The Nazis banned all opposition political parties in 1933, after Paul von Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler consolidated his power as a dictator over Germany, in 1935 the Nazis enacted the Nuremberg laws which imposed anti-Semitic racial laws across Germany, in 1936 the first concentration camp of Dachau was opened up, all publicly-employed workers such as teachers had to declare their loyalty to the Nazi regime, the education and media system actively promoted Nazi ideology in the 1930s, and throughout the 1930s Nazi ideology and symbolism became the symbolism of Germany itself. So you are completely mistakened when you say that the Nazis didn't try to become totalitarian until World War II. Fascism in general attempts to gain total control over society and attempts to reshape society. Slam Diego, you are saying that this is not the case. I have explained that in the case of Fascist Italy some authors have claimed that it did not succeed in becoming fully totalitarian. But my source said that Fascism INTENDED to become totalitarian. Many sources show that there was a clear publicly known attempt by the Italian Fascist movement to establish a totalitarian state, they openly declared their desire to form a totalitarian state. Most sources show that Nazi Germany established a totalitarian state. I have provided a source that shows that the Romanian fascist movement, the Iron Guard, intended to establish a totalitarian state. There have been many authoritarian nationalist regimes in the world, many have not been associated with fascism - because they do not seek to regiment society into followers of the nation it is the totalitarian nationalist aspect of fascism that instills this enforced collectivism of society to the nation, that controls the media to promote the fascist movement, that utilizes education to promote loyalty to the movement and to promote the ideals of the movement. Put simply, fascist regimes want to have total influence over people, thus "totalitarian". They are not just "authoritarian" because they are not interested in merely maintaining a status quo or restoring a society to a previous status, but want to reshape society completely. Authoritarianism is only one aspect to totalitarianism which involves ensuring that the movement is obeyed and not overthrown, but indoctrination is also another key element of totalitarianism utilized by fascists, which authoritarianism alone does not automatically endorse. If this is disputed, I invite people to provide good references to disprove this.--R-41 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

- First, multiple sources say virtually anything; the pretense that multiplicity is universality is disingenuous. Second, you are taking “totalitarian” to mean extremely oppressive, but it means something beyond that. Exactly as the Wikipedia entry for totalitarianism presently declares, “regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life”, There were, in fact, many things that various Fascistic states never attempted to regulate, and in the case of Nazi Germany, the extent of state control of the economy was increased dramatically after the war got under way. I've given you one very straight-forward counter-example to your logorrhoetic fulminations: Giovanni Gentile, one of the most significant intellectual architects of Italian Fascism, argued for the release of anti-fascistic intellectuals. That is plainly not the action of a totalitarian. —SlamDiego_←T 20:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  - If you want to know who some of the multiple sources include Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne, and Bruce F, Paulley, all renowned researchers on fascism. Paulley's book Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini: Totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century was a book that I read for first year university, in a course that studies totalitarian ideologies which included fascism. Paulley is an academic and an international scholar. Secondly, you claim that multiplicity of sources means nothing, multiplicity means nothing if there is an equal multiplicity of reliable sources to challenge them. I have not seen a flood of sources that say that totalitarianism is not an aspect of fascism. Totalitarianism is a key aspect of fascism which is widely recognized by multiple well-known and renowned scholars. I admit that there are some scholars who think that totalitarianism is not always achieved by fascists, but I even have given a source in the totalitarianism section of the article that explains in the instance of Italian Fascism that while Fascism may have failed to form a completely totalitarian state, it actively pursued the creation of a totalitarian state. Totalitarianism can have authoritarianism within it, but authoritarianism alone does not explain the policies of fascist governments attempts to redesign society such as through indoctrination, eugenics, promotion or censorship of certain forms of art and/or culture, etc. Authoritarian states do not interfere as much in this manner as totalitarian states. Slam Diego, I have presented multiple sources that show that totalitarianism is part of fascism and have explained that a well-known scholars such as Griffen, Paulley, and Payne are among the sources, the onus is on you to provide sources that disprove these scholars claims that totalitarianism is a key element of fascism.--R-41 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    - Again, multiplicity is not the same hing as universality, and a flood of words isn't going to change that. No one here has claimed that fascism barely met the bar for authoritarianism; it certainly often went beyond that. But the bar for totalitarianism is, again, “regulat[ing] nearly every aspect of public and private life”. Many authors (including Richard Pipes) have noted that the reason that the Italian and German economies could fairly rapidly transition back to market-based economies, whereas things have been more difficult for Russia, was that the former states left the outlines of private property largely intact, while the aspirations of the latter had led to the collectivization and nationalization of far more. —SlamDiego_←T 10:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      - Stop with the personal attacks, I'm sorry if you are offended by me utilizing a number of words to defend myself, but you have no reason to be angry, I have every right to defend my points just as you do. To respond to your point about the Nazis and the economy, the Nazis intervened in the economy to redirect it to preparing Germany for war before the Second World War, which allowed Germany to amass a large and mechanized army from 1933 to 1939 and create a large air force in four years from 1935 to 1939, which did not exist prior to this. To create such a huge military in such a short time involved major government intervention. The argument for fascism being authoritarian nationalism is usually based on those who include Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal as fascist states, but many dispute whether these two states were truly fascist due to their very conservative and far less interventionist measures in cultural and social affairs. All I am asking for is for you to challenge Griffen, Payne, and Paulley's claims that fascism aims to establish a totalitarian movement by providing sources from a number of well-known scholars that says something like "not all fascist movements intend to form totalitarian states". These scholars that I have mentioned all say that it's intentions are totalitarian in nature, there are university courses across the world that specifically study fascism as a totalitarian movement. This is a mainstream view. Plus, let's give some time to let other people put in their imput.--R-41 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        It's no more a personal attack than telling an physical assailant to stop engaging in physical assault. Do not confuse bluntness with anger. You indeed have every right to defend yourself; you don't have every right to pour a sea of rhetoric onto the page when something far less would have exactly as much real content. Your actual real content is no more than that there are a large number of authors whose opinion is that fascism always aspired to totalitarianism. This is far from a universal opinion, however much you might label it “mainstream”. And since totalitarianism is a sub-type of authoritarianism, we do not reject that view by simply claiming that fascism was authoritarian; we simply refrain from embracing it. —SlamDiego_←T 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between two separate arguments here: The argument that Nazi Germany and/or Fascist Italy were totalitarian and the argument that all fascists everywhere are totalitarian. It's certainly true that the majority of historians agree with the first argument, but do they agree with the second? I doubt it; the sources don't seem to support that view. Since this article talks about the general use of the word "fascism," including many movements and countries besides Italy and Germany, I think the term "authoritarian" is more appropriate. -- Nikodemos (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree there is are separable questions here, but more than just that one.

Given that regime R was always fascistic and could be claimed to have become totalitarian, did it always aspire to totalitarianism (or is this simply an expression of the dynamic about which v. Hayek famously wrote)?
If the leadership of some fascistic regime always envisioned a totalitarian regime but the rank-and-file did not, is the movement totalitarian?

—SlamDiego_←T 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notable Fascists?

I noticed Barack Obama is listed. I may not like his socialist tendencies, but I'm not sure he could accurately be described as a fascist... FusionKnight (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama is NOT a fascist. Obama is a liberal. Fascists oppose liberals. End of story.--R-41 (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There are two distinct concepts labelled “liberal”. Fascism was certainly opposed to classical liberalism. But the term “liberal” in America now refers to an ideology whose definitive expression was the New Deal. And, in its early days, New Dealers such as Roosevelt and Stuart Chase (who literally wrote the book, with A New Deal (1932)) were open admirers of Mussolini. It's not inconceivable that Obama will prove more a classical liberal than a New Dealer, but it's highly implausible.

The point isn't that we should label Obama a fascist; it's that your argument against doing so is founded on equivocation and confusion. —SlamDiego_←T 06:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the wikipedia editors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.35.244 (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fascists oppose liberals. End of story." That is the essence of everything that is wrong with this article. It is political claptrap, and not objective in any way.--Anacreon (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed him again. It was an obvious piece of vandalism. R-41, you didn't have to delete the entire list to remove Obama. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the list was trivial but as long as it is accurate it will be fine.--R-41 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Payne citation supports 'revolutionary'?

I support the deletion by Spylab, of the sentence declaring fascism to be revolutionary.[15]</ref>
I contend that revolution and revolutionary is incorrectly used in this context; revolutionary, elsewhere on this page,(appear to have been removed) and on other pages(notably, Francisco Franco). For the moment, I shall confine my discussion to the above material and the material it links to.
The citation of Payne, to support that Fascism is revolutionary: The citation is from his book, but Payne himself says nothing, in the cited passage, to the effect of Fascism being revolutionary, let alone it being a requirement of the definition of fascism.
The mention of fascism in the cited text is not a written opinion of Payne's, it is a quotation from Renzo de Felice. Renzo does not say that fascism is revolutionary, he says -italian- fascism was revolutionary. He then goes on to say -German fascism- wasn't revolutionary, thereby obliterating the argument that fascism is revolutionary.
Payne: "...analysts...distinguish between the two faces of Fascism. The first, in certain undeveloped countries, had the goal and also the effect of accelerating modernization, while the second, in Germany and certain other countries, was regressive and fundamentally anti-modern.
Renzo de Felice, the foremost historian of Italian fascism, largely agrees with this approach. He views Italian fascism as having progressivist and revolutionary origins, stemming from the French Revolution, while regarding Nazism as antimodernist and regressive."
In my first draft to explain the edit I ended up not having to make, because Spylab did it for me, I theorized that this inconsistency was based on poorly cited OR assertions that previously existed on the page; it is less explicable now that they have been removed: "I believe what has happened here is that the editor has in good faith attempted to validate what is already on the page: assertions that fascism is revolutionary. While this might in many cases work out fine, in this case he is replicating what appears to be WP:FRINGE, inasmuch as it is not only not a theory accepted by the mainstream, but not asserted by the author of the citation.
Attention must be paid to the possibility that the page already includes unfounded assertions, when seeking to replicate the assertions of the page, especially in the lead."
Anarchangel (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

I am concerned that the article may be growing too long. A lot of useful information was added in recent months - most of it by R-41 - but there are also many unsourced assertions, and some information is duplicated in several different parts of the article. I believe a degree of reorganization is needed. -- Nikodemos (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you leave the definition to short and inconcise, people will be claiming that all kinds of governments are fascist. Without mentioning Third Position (fascist opposition essentially to capitalism and communism), we can define communist Robert Mugabe as a fascist for his nationalism, perhaps even North Korea could be defined as fascist if "totalitarian nationalism" is the ONLY prerequisite for fascism as North Korea supports the rejoining of the South to it and is nationalistic in its negative view towards Japan due to historical antipathy due to prior Japanese occupation of Korea. Fascism is a specific brand of totalitarian nationalism, one that declares itself as an alternative to capitalism and communism. There are other totalitarian nationalist ideologies that have allied with communists in the past such as the Baath Party in Iraq which allied with local communists for many years.--R-41 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that a concise definition might fit a great many regimes doesn't falsify it. It is perfectly coherent to hold that, while the regimes that labelled themselves “fascist” have come to an end, the underlying order of fascism has become wide-spread. Nazi Germany shows that a regime that labelled itself fascistic was able to form an alliance with a regime that labelled itself communist, we have certainly seen individuals and groups who have migrated from one camp to the other, and many (such as Eugen Weber) have held that the fundamental antipathy was far more to classical liberalism than to communism.

I don't here argue that the definition is indeed too long. But this article should not be written to protect any regime from the label “fascist”. —SlamDiego_←T 06:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of B.S. has been added to the intro which misrepresents the sourced information I added. One sentence says "Derek Benjamin refers to it as a totalitarian nationalist ideology", JUST HIM!!!, that's total B.S. look at the sources, there are multiple sources. Plus what regime did Nazi Germany ally with that "labelled itself communist". If you are meaning the Soviet Union due to the partitioning of Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, you are completely overlookin overt anti-communist ideology of the Nazis and the fact that the Nazis within two years invaded the Soviet Union. Communists and fascists DO NOT GET ALONG. I have acknowledged that there are movements and people who clearly are fascists despite not declaring themselves fascists, such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire whose Popular Movement of the Revolution was totalitarian, nationalist, anti-communist and anti-liberal in nature, and regimented society. More unusual additions have been claiming that fascism imposes "severe regimentation" of society. What is severe supposed to mean? It's a criticism, and its POV; "major", "significant", or "large scale" regimentation is more appropriate. Many sources show that fascism advocates itself as a third way or third position to capitalism and communism, not just a fringe group of scholars.--R-41 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As you know, finding a source for an opinion with which you agree is not the same thing as documenting that opinion as fact. Capital letters don't change the fact that self-identified fascists and self-identified communists have got along when it has suited their purposes. Their rhetoric doesn't somehow cancel their other behaviors. And, once again, you are attempting to substitute verbosity for coherence. —SlamDiego_←T 05:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascist leaders met with leaders of liberal countries as well as communist countries, both of which they opposed. You are correct that fascists made deals with people they disagreed with for strategic gains, but this does not mean they are in alliance. Hitler and Mussolini smiled and shook hands with Neville Chamberlain in 1938, it doesn't mean they are were friends, it was posturing, two years later Germany was bombing London and Italy was invading Egypt. Hitler made a promise to Poland that he would not invade during the 1930s, just look how truthful that agreement was. The same is the case for the Soviet Union, more posturing for strategic gain, the two countries had claims on Poland, they agreed to divide it, but is that alliance? The Soviet Union was in a proxy war with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy during the Spanish Civil War and moreover, Germany invaded the Soviet Union two years later. We should not forget either that in the fascist states, suspected communists were interned and in the Soviet Union, suspected fascists were interned. Communists and fascists engaged in vicious street battles in Germany and Italy during the 1920s to 1930s. These behaviours show the antagonism between communists and fascists, rather than mere lip service to opposition to each other.--R-41 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You are writing utter nonsense. The concept of alliance does not demand permanence or even long-term. So long as the fascists made deals and abided by them for some time, they were in alliances. —SlamDiego_←T 05:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was not writing nonsense. But alright, I will accept your argument that strategic alliance with communists does not elliminate fascism, with the case of Poland being taken into account. But I would like it if you to provide sources for your points of fascists allying with communists. Could you also add to the discussion what governments you think are fascist to the article that are not in the article so that they can be discussed?--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One wonders how you can think that a claim that is transparently false is not nonsense. But I'm glad that you admit that it was false.

As to naming countries; I regard that as exactly backwards. Before any regime was labelled as “fascist”, there were people self-identifying as fascist. Fascism is identifiable in terms of the policies advocated by self-declared fascists before they came to power, and then in terms of policies that they put into effect when they were in power. After those policies are appropriately identified, then it is reasonable to identify fascists more generally (self-identified and otherwise) in terms of effecting the same, defining policies. If the conclusion that results from that approach is that only the self-identified fascistic regimes were fascist, then so be it; if the conclusion instead is that most or all present regimes are fascist, then so be it.

An alternative approach — which I do not favor, but which might be the best result obtainable on Wikipedia — would be to treat the many different uses of the word “fascism” as if they are somehow all equally legitimate, and try to create an exposition of which parties use it in what way. In that case, the lede would have to basically declare little more than that the word was applied with multiple meanings (or, often, not so much a meaning as an emotive effect), and then there'd be a section for each of the major uses, and perhaps a combined section for the minor uses. —SlamDiego_←T 04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I was speaking about the length of the article as a whole, not the introduction in particular...

But on the topic of the "third position" feature of fascism, I need to point out that any attempt to find a comprehensive definition of fascism is likely to fail. The best we can do is quote the various different definitions used by different authors. -- Nikodemos (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by “a comprehensive definition”, but I would agree that an optimal article would not try to scoop-up all the uses to which the word “fascism” has been put into a single abstraction. Although I am not sanguine about the chances for the article in Wikipedia to handle thing better than passably, I think that an optimal article, while certainly having a disambiguation link to “Definitions of fascism”, would identify and focus upon the historically primary concept. Certainly, Wikipedia ought to have an article, under some title, about that historically primary concept; and the best title for that article is a bald “Fascism”.

A major problem, of course, will always be somewhat like that over at “Christianity”, where the concern of some editors is to defined-out some parties because “Christianity” is seen as a term of praise; here, the concern of some editors is to define-out some parties because “fascism” is seen as a term of abuse. —SlamDiego_←T 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, going back to the length of the article: R-41, you have added a large amount of content (which is a very, very good thing), but I think the article could use some summarization and restructuring to reduce the number of sub-sections. Please let me know when you are finished adding content so that we may work on structure together. -- Nikodemos (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise over authoritarian and totalitarian nature of fascism

How about this as a compromise "Fascism is a highly authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology that seeks to form a highly-centralized autocratic, single-party government of a country led by a dictator, which seeks large-scale indoctrination and regimentation of society...". If "highly authoritarian" is identified along with totalitarian and subsequent description of how fascist states operate it recognizes the level of state control over society and recognizes the goals of multiple fascist movements such as Italian Fascist, Nazi, Iron Guard, and Japanese fascists' attempt to form totalitarian states, while at the same time leaving open room for debate over whether Franco's authoritarian nationalist rule in Spain can count for fascism.--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't like that definition, for the same reasons you mentioned above: It is far too vague. I mean, any authoritarian movement seeks to form a highly-centralized autocratic, single-party government of a country, [possibly] led by a dictator. What makes fascism different from any other dictatorship? That's what we need to say in the lead. Too often we fail into the trap of giving a definition for fascism that basically amounts to "fascism = dictatorship." -- Nikodemos (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

KKK again

If Baathism and Francoism can be put in "alleged fascisms". Then certainly the Klu Klux Klan is worthy of being on the list. It has had more profound connections to Fascism/Nazism (as least compared to Baathism). Also the comparisons of Saddam to fascist reigmes are uncited you could easily say Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot are alleged fascists too. 207.118.232.73 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the "parafascism" section ended up full of post-WW2 movements again. They need to be removed from this article and placed in neo-fascism. -- Nikodemos (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Political spectrum

Previous version of this section was a consensus one. This section is arguably the most controversial in the whole article, so please discuss major changes to it on talk before editing. -- Vision Thing -- 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the reason for my edits is because I believe the section should be organized as follows:

Introduce the controversy.
Present the views of those claiming fascism to be right-wing.
Present the views of those claiming fascism to be left-wing.
Present the views of those claiming fascism to be centrist or "third position."
Present the views of those claiming fascism to be none of the above.

As it stands, the section is not organized that way; I believe it is confusing. Furthermore, I have the following specific objections:

It opens by listing off the previous political views of some people who became fascists. This is a horrible way to start; we should begin by presenting the issue. Also, unless the sources explicitly say that the previous political affiliation of those fascists has some relevance to fascism's place on the political spectrum, the whole paragraph is OR. After all, most of the authors of the Black Book of Communism are former communists.
The second paragraph lists the views of several scholars of fascism in no particular logical order. This needs to be cleaned up. Also, my version added some scholars who were not there before.
The third paragraph talks about "many economists" and cites only von Mises. This is weasel wording. At most it should say "economists of the Austrian school." Also, the fascist manifesto should only be mentioned if someone said that it had some relevance to the position of fascism on the political spectrum.
The issue of fascism's position on the political spectrum is related to, but distinct from, the issue of fascism's relationship with other ideologies (socialism, conservatism, liberalism, etc.) A source saying that fascism is conservative or socialist cannot be quoted to support the idea that fascism is right-wing or left-wing respectively, because that would be implying that conservatism = right-wing and socialism = left-wing, which is OR and POV (example: if we accept Mises's definition of socialism AND Mussolini's definition of right-wing, then socialism is right-wing).
We should mention multi-axis political models at the end. Not everyone agrees that "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningful political categories. -- Nikodemos (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos. His new version (with my few extra improvements) is much more encyclopedic and organized, and does not harm the meaning or factual accuracy in the so-called consensus version (I don't remember there being a poll). The older version had all sorts of problems.Spylab (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section could be reorganized, but I don't agree with all your content changes.

When place of fascism on political spectrum is discussed early political beliefs of its main ideologues is regularly mentioned. For example, in The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell issue of Mussolini's political roots is extensively discussed.
I agree with your changes to second paragraph, except with removal of Gregor's view. If his view doesn't belong to second paragraph it should be moved to other paragraph, not removed completely.
Mention of Fascist Manifesto is same as a mention of Doctrine of Fascism. Same standards should apply, and when we are at Doctrine of Fascism you deleted part of the quote which says: "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." – in my view this part is of equal importance as the first one. I agree with your point about many economists.
Then this section should be renamed to Political spectrum and relationship with other ideologies because these issues are closely related and not always separated by authors who talk about fascism.
I would mention multi-axis political charts in the first paragraph because they are somewhat related with controversy about proper place of fascism on political spectrum. However, such content should be properly sourced to avoid OR.
Two claims you introduced ("Fascists sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a third position that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether. They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term leftism for their enemies.") are not sourced.
Sentence "The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right." is factually wrong. All major scholars of fascism agree that matter is far from clear cut, pointing to both left and right influences. -- Vision Thing -- 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that right/left does not apply to fascism, but no mainstream scholar considers it "left wing." There are several issues that need to be clarified here: whether a scholar is using a proposed universal standard for left/right, or whether we are talking aout a distinction made by Italians, Germans, etc. in the 1930s. But the statement that there are "both left and right influences" is unhelpful. Whether a movement is right or left is not determiend by its influences. marx was influenced by hegel, that does not mean he was an idealist. People on left and right have at different times used the same tactics, same arguments, or have sought to mobilize supporters from the same social groups. The only way out of this is, when describing a group as left or right, to clarify what the speaker in question meant by left or right. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that right/left distinction is useless, and should be avoided when possible. That is why I proposed to rename section to Political spectrum and relationship with other ideologies, to give at least some meaning to left/right classification. -- Vision Thing -- 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I intend to respond to your points in more detail later, but for now I just want to talk about your first point. I'm sure that many historical facts are regularly mentioned in discussions of the place of fascism in the political spectrum. Mussolini's biography is no doubt mentioned every time, for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean that any fact mentioned in a book about the political spectrum location of fascism is directly relevant to the matter. It is OR to draw your own conclusions from historical facts. A historical fact should only be mentioned in the political spectrum section if an author says that this fact is evidence for an argument he is making about fascism and the political spectrum. Does Zeev Sternhell say that fascism is left-wing because of Mussolini's political roots? -- Nikodemos (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascism vs Conservatism?

It says in the article that fascism opposes conservatism, I think it should be deleted or changed. it makes snese that fascism is incompatible with capitalism, but conservatism? See, what I mean is, fascist regimes seem to have endorsed traditional values and so forth. That is why I think this part of the article should be modified.

^ http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for
^ Adams, Ian; Dyson, R.W. 2003. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Routledge. Pp 178.[16]

[1] ttp://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for

[2] Adams, Ian; Dyson, R.W. 2003. Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Routledge. Pp 178.[16]

[1]

[2]