Talk:Fascism/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Clarification needed for the use of "radical"

What does "radical" mean here? Radicalism (historical)? Political radicalism? Both of these almost universally refer to left-wing politics in the world at large (and even in the Anglosphere); I would avoid using the word "radical" here--it has very specific historical connotations. How about using another term? Even fascists themselves might contend with the label "extremist." Although two sources are cited here that use the term "radical," I'm dubious mainly for the following reason (aside from the fact that they are both published in the USA, one of the few cultures that uses the word "radical" so loosely). In the definitions of "fascism" in the following major online dictionaries (which are about as unbiased as we can get), the word "radical" is utterly absent: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism), Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism), Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism; which is based on a variety of other sources, including the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries), and the Cambridge Dictionaries (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/fascism). Wolfdog (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article begins, "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism." Since this is only one possible definition, it should be attributed in the text, followed by an explanation of what the author meant. TFD (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I haven't looked at the sources, but radical would generally be more neutral than extremist, and is more commonly used with respect to political movements--whereas extremism is applied to more fringe-ish groups. That's just my impression.

One other personal observation would be that fascism originally grew out of more localized syndicalist movements. The values they espoused were "radicalized" and misappropriated at the national level, ascribing a sort of 'localism' to national politics. The problem was that syndicalism was to a substantial degree (if I real correctly) based on regional economic and industrial circumstances, which doesn't (and didn't translate to the national level in any recognizable form. You should read the syndicalism and national syndicalism articles. Syndicalism, in particular, is generally described as being a leftist movement, which was later influenced by nationalists.

In that sense the world view of the fascists--in Italy, at any rate--could be seen to be more delusional than extremist. So radical probably is more appropriate for use in describing their politics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the term "radical" is used to mean they wanted far-reaching change, and is used to describe their authoritarianism and nationalism. It is pretty standard to refer to groups to the right of the mainstream as "radical." See all the books about it.[1] TFD (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But again, these books come from an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Elsewhere, the term "radical right" is an oxymoron. Also, the first paragraph of "Fascism" talks about how its "right"-ward (i.e. far-right) position is somewhat disputed. As I initially asked (strengthened by our arguing here), why don't we use a more clarifying phrase or word, instead of "radical"? However, TFD, your first comment here also makes sense to me. Wolfdog (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all the books on the first page of hits are about Europe or Israel. If you are interested in how terminology to describe the Right varies between U.S. and European scholars, I recommend, The emergence of a Euro-American radical right, pp. 10-11.[2] TFD (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant that they appear to come from American authors and publishers. Your link offers a good historical description. Again, for the purposes of clarifying further, why don't we put "radical-right" in the first sentence, or is this due to the fact that the "right" part is still in question? Wolfdog (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of how they were 'radical' is that they perceived themselves as unconventional and at the fore of a political movement that was both rooted in tradition but also ahead of the prominent paradigms of capitalism and communism.

Syndicalism has a fair degree of affinity with aspects of socialism applied in a regional scope, while fascism was opposed both to international proletarianism (i.e., communism) and international capitalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of "radical" is fine. Using radical to simply mean advocating large scale change is not a "loose" use of the term, even outside of America, here in Britain that is exactly what radical means. I'll grant the OP it is used more often to refer to left-wing than right-wing movements, but that doesn't mean it has leftism packaged into its definition. I think it's enlightening to consult the dictionaries on the definition of "radical" because while they all mention extreme or far reaching change or view, none specifically tie this to left-wing views. Here is the initial definition from Merriam-Webster:

having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people

actually later on in its "Full Definition" Merriam-Webster even uses the term "the radical right":

d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

what about dictionary.com? the third definition is:

favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Finally, I have a HarperCollins dictionary here (Collins Shorter Dictionary and Thesaurus ISBN 0 00 470907-1) and its fourth definition is:

person of extreme (political) views

No mention anywhere of any necessary association with any particular political views, it just means views favoring drastic or extreme change, in whatever direction. I think "radical" is the appropriate term to use, and as Ubikwit said, it is more neutral than "extremist". It may be used more often to describe the left than the right but I don't think that is ever inherent to its definition, even outside America.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point in using the term "radical-right". That would seem to simply mean "radical and on the right" which would be redundant since the lede already deals with how Fascism fits on the traditional left-right spectrum.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We use the term because it is generally used and understood. See etymological fallacy. If you want to know the origins of the term, see The New American Right (1955), which contains the article where the term was first used. TFD (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "radical right" is used only once in the article, and in a very specific context, i.e., "By 1909 after the failure of a syndicalist general strike in France, Sorel and his supporters left the radical left and went to the radical right".,/br>

I basically agree with the IP that the use of radical in a general sense is more appropriate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is the etymological fallacy. The sources do not say that they were radicals, it says they were radical right. Similarly if a source said the Socialist Party of Italy were conservative socialists, it would be incorrect to call them conservatives. TFD (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've clarified the sentence in question. I would appreciate any improvements. I'm not too sure whether the term 'radical' is NPOV, but I've left it in until further discussion. Thanks.180.158.80.214 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the new version is a step in the right direction, but 'radical' should be omitted.Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the term "radical right" should not be used? TFD (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Right vs Left Wing

Both terms have different meanings in different countries/eras. They are relative terms only. What was right wing by 1934 German standards (e.g. socialism) would be considered left wing on the political spectrum in early 21th century US politics (or 1934 for that matter). Therefore, they serve to obscure rather than elucidate. The subject can be addressed using clear language that explains what fascism/fascists did and said. ProfJustice (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem in using descriptive language to present what RS say about the topic. There is a prohibition of using WP:OR to make such characterizations without support from RS. This not an article about the relative use of terminology in different places at different points in time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, in 1934, socialists and Communists were left-wing, while conservatives and fascists were right-wing. The terminology remains the same today. TFD (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So would we be justified in saying "right-radical" as a clearer term than merely "radical"? Wolfdog (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This use is not philosophically rigorous. Due to popular misuse and misunderstanding, these terms have been used to mean everything and nothing. There needs to be a clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.14.40 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 January 2014

Yeah, well that was my original concern. Wolfdog (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to not use terms just because some people do not understand them or misrepresent what they mean. Where are you getting your information about what right-wing means? TFD (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be more beneficial to use accurate terms that people can understand, since this is an encyclopaedia for average people, not just political experts.Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement to the recent change here Hendrick, so I think you should self-revert----Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well lets discuss now then. What about it needed to be reverted?Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph asserts that "fascism is usually placed on the far right," but then adds that some people find this problematic. So what do we go with here, for a first sentence: what the majority says or not? Wolfdog (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Before we discuss the lead--which is a summary of the article--where are the sources to support the POV you are trying to push? I have already pointed to a coupe of pertinent issues related to the assertions being made. And the cryptic responses of TFD don't justify your proposed edits. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase together "Radical Right" is admittedly oxymoronic, but since it has been adopted by the academic community to denote certain Right-Wing populist ideologies, it has to be used by Wikipedia. The phrase may be silly, when evaluated objectively, but it's not the job of individual WP editors to "debunk" the academic sources. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing cryptic at all. When expressions are widely used by experts, it is a fallacy to question the individual words that make up the expression. For example "soap operas" are not operas, and aren't soapy. But that is no reason not to use the expression. TFD (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So, are we agreeing on "radical(-)right" then? Wolfdog (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you either drop the left-right elements completely, or you bottle them all up in one section to discuss it explicitly since there are opposing viewpoints offered by experts in the field. IMHO, the left-right spectrum on Wikipedia (and generally) is incoherent anyhow. For example, if you look at the Left-wing politics page, racism is identified as a right wing characteristic. However, if you go to the Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics section, it's filled with left wing enthusiasts like Shaw and Keynes. Also, nationalism was noted to be a feature of left-wing politics in the early French Republic, but otherwise is claimed to be a right wing characteristic; the Italian syndicalists mostly gravitated to nationalism as a means of kick-starting the rise of capitalism and the subsequent inevitable proletarian revolution, i.e. their nationalism was a means to a left-wing end, though it took on a different logic as they embraced it. Noting the remarkable similarities between Lenin's revisionism and Mussolini's, not to mention the sheer number of dyed-in-the-wool Marxists that shaped big "F" Fascism - why isn't Leninism considered right-wing and Mussolinism left? I think this mostly has to do with the collapse of socialism with WWI and Lenin's subsequent claim as Marx' true heir, followed by the Comintern's tendency under Stalin to call everything they didn't control "fascism". Also, I think it would be worthwhile (and experts in the field would probably agree) that the Italian Fascist model was different enough from the German National Socialist model that a separation between these two should be made clear and not run together so badly. Italian Fascism was never nearly as racist, anti-semitic, or bloodthirsty as German National Socialism, and the philosophical pedigrees were mostly separate, e.g. Hegel, Marx, Engels, Michels, Bergson, Sorel, Gentile, and Corrodini on one hand, and Herder, Fichte, Volkism, Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, and van den Bruck on the other. Ehusman (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Heard it all before. If your argument were reasonable then if someone said to you that a party is left-wing, you would have no idea whatsoever what they might happen to advocate. They might even be a party you would vote for. Incidentally the eugenics policy advocated by Fabians but never carried out by them, only by right-wing governments, did not involve race. In fact it was a mainstream view supported across the political spectrum except by Communists, who saw it as bourgeois ideology. TFD (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article on a complex socio-historical phenomena. The question as to whether racism is right or left is not an issue that has a degree of WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS to make it WP:DUE. Moreover, there is ample text (and even more available) that examines the historical development of the political movement with respect to affinities to both left- and right-wing ideologies.

Accordingly, the POV that the political movement or the historical development thereof should be characterized solely as "right-wing" or "radical right" is unsupported.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact the article on left-right politics does not say racism is a right-wing characteristic, and that is not why fascists were considered right-wing. In any case we go by what sources say not by what we believe. TFD (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

it appears several editors agree "right-wing" is controversial. perhaps you should take up the debate in the appropriate forum as including/keeping it here appears problematic. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to waste the time of even more editors. TFD (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Third position", etc

Apparently the abovementioned term is used by post WWII neofascists. For future reference, I found the text for the related edits in a publication by the following scholar, who has published several books on the topic Philip Morgan.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Famously" is POV

I deleted the word "famously" from the following sentence because that adjective is opinion, not a neutral fact.

Maurras famously stated "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well :made glove fits a beautiful hand"

The word "famously" is not part of a quote, nor is it presented as one person's opinion, thus it is misleading and does not belong in this article.Spylab (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are either trying to assert that the edit "...famously..." doesn't accurately paraphrase "Maurass's famous pronouncement", or you didn't check the source, as I asked you to. The source states, "Maurass's famous pronouncement "a socialism liberated from...", which can be seen here on p.60, as per the refcite

I don't agree with your removal of other sourced material or refactoring, either. I request that you self revert and discuss each point.

Need I remind you that this article is under a 1RR restriction?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fame is a matter of fact not opinion. TFD (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fame is in the eye of the beholder. Someone or something can be famous worldwide or in one country, culture, field of study etc, at the same time as being totally unknown to others. In this situation, it is highly opinionated to claim that the person "famously" stated that sentence. Famously to whom? I doubt very many people are familiar with that Maurras quote, or even know who he is, outside of specialized academic circles. Spylab (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not in a position to be making such subjective judgments, as per WP:RS. And frankly, I'm not interested in hearing them anymore.

You have deliberately contradicted the directly refcited statement published in RS, and then tried to defend that. You are wasting peoples' time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable source" does not mean every single word in the source is reliable. That quote is not famous by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't understand the need to pretend that it is.Spylab (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with a number of the edits you've made, so with the exception of the deletion of orphaned ref, correction of refcite, and addition of c/e tags (at least you didn't question the fact that the statements are sourced this time), I'm going to manually restore the page again and we'll discuss each of the questionable edits you've made before you make them again.

For starters, there is already a dedicated article to political economy under fascism, so there is no need to start the article with drab abstractions that don' inform the reader of how and why fascism adopted the ideology it did. That is based on history, and conveying the historical background and progression of the development of ideas, etc. is what the brief section on this page should focus on in order to set the stage for the reader's further exploration. I would agree that the content could be better integrated and copyedited, but the historical progression and factors that motivated developments are what should be presented before an abstract summation of the results.

Once more, unsubstantiated questioning (i.e., assertion of unsourced pov against academically sourced pov) of the fame of Maurass' statement is preposterous, and a violation of WP:RS and WP:DUE. The only thing "dubious" about that text is the tag you added today.

Here, too, he matter is of great importance to the development of the fascist ideology (and one reason that the statement was famous then and is among scholars today), but for some reason you seem to be intent on belittling the significance of that. Furthermore, this is related to the issue of the relation between nationalism and socialism in fascist ideology that many have attempted to obfuscate and mischaracterize over and against what RS say, as the numerous related threads on the Talk page demonstrate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My edits have not violated any Wikipedia policies. They have all been made in good faith and are within all of Wikipedia's guidelines. I suggest you read the entire WP:RS, because it does not claim that 100% of what appears in a reliable source is reliable. The quote in the disputed sentence doesn't magically become "famous" just because one writer, regardless who that writer is, declares it to be. Please stop mischaracterizing the content and motivations of my edits and I will try to do the same for you. See WP:NPA.Spylab (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Maurras was a major figure, and I don't want to dwell on this at the moment as I don't have time, we'll see what anyone else has to say about calling that statement famous. I did go through the political economy section and the related "main article" to come up with the following proposed revision. Note that the past tense has been adopted uniformly throughout, as is generally the case in the related articles. It too complicated to treat extensively, but starting with Italy and Mussolini, who actually wrote things on the topic that secondary sources specifically address, seems to be what the article calls for. And concepts such as "autarky" should be mentioned. I've simply copied or paraphrased a couple of passages--one also citing Morgan--from two other articles to make the narrative coherent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty minor point here but I agree with Spylab that, as a matter of editing principle, we have to be careful about judgmental and subjective descriptions such as "famously", whether they originally appear in an "RS" or not. In any event, I'm not sure what it really adds here and the text here would hardly suffer from losing it. N-HH (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be less defensive about the term if there hadn't been so much useless discussion about fascism and socialism here; i.e, that a number of users have attempted to assert that fascists were socialists, collapsing both in a sense.

Another point is the use of metaphor in the statement, along the lines of Marx's much more famous quote "religion is the opiate of the masses". The glove metaphor probably partly accounts for its renown. Here is another academic source that directly quotes it in its entirety. What is most important, I suppose, is that the statement be integrated with respect to the discussion of fascism vis-a-vis socialism and nationalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Corporations

"Fascism Is Government by Corporations." -Benito Mussolini

When Corporations control a government and overrule the will of the people, that system is Fascism (also Corporate Fascism).

Italy in World War 2 (European War 2) is the primary example given; but few consider that the United States in WW2 was also a corporate state - fascist state. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually ruled in favor of "Corporate Personhood" and subsequent constitutional personhood even before Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and continually up to today. Today, the courts continue to recognize corporations as "persons" to be tried and protected as such. In 2011, Republican (GOP) candidate, Mitt Romney defended the corporate government(fascist) establishment saying, "Corporations are People, My Friend!" When Environmental Responsibility Advocates appeal to the Legislative and Executive Branches of federal government, Oil Corporations simply outspend them, to maintain the ecological chop-shop the corporations want. Limited Liability Corporations (LLC), are a primary example of how corporations take no responsibility for their ecological effects, and keep all their profits. The Citizens take full responsibility under the Constitution and local laws, so if a corporation is a "person," they should be liable for their impacts, the same, but are not. Monsanto, the top Agricultural Gene Modification corporation in United States is a great example of what corporations can get away with in a Fascist system. Monsanto enjoyed favor in the administration of George W. Bush (2000-2008). And, even Barack Obama in 2012 signed legislation that was called the "Monsanto Protection Act" to protect the influence of the corporation amid public outrage. Fascism is not a relic of a past time. It is with us today in United States, perhaps as much or more than in Mussolini's rulership of Italy.

When Money is ruled by the Supreme Court as Speech, and Corporations are ruled as People, this is characteristic of government ruled by Corporations. Corporate government is Fascism. U.S. "Globalization" is an attempt to spread "Industrialism, Corporatism/Fascism, and Debt" to other nations as a means to control them. The current Corporate globalization attempt from U.S. is what George H.W. Bush famously called the "New World Order." If Democracy is called "For the People, by the People," Fascism is "For the Corporations, by the Corporations."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.224.56 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2014

Mussolini was not referring to corporations as the term is normally understood today. See corporatism for an explanation of his meaning. Having the churches run health, welfare and education for example is corporatism. TFD (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The word Corporazione in Italian denotes a professional association, and should be translated as Guild. Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It has that meaning in English too, although it is more often used today to describe limited liability companies. TFD (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, but in Italian it has only the meaning which I wrote above. Today the word is often used in a pejorative way, to describe powerful professional associations which don't want to open to the free market and fight to keep their privileges and power. Incidentally, one of the major problems of today's Italy. Alex2006 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Proposed text for "Political economy" section

The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists). Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).

Early fascist economic policy in Italy pushed the country towards the "corporative state", with the idea of integrating the interests of all parts of the economy into a class-transcending national unity. The trade unions, which were a significant component of Italian fascism from its radical syndicalist roots, were eliminated, and “Syndical Laws” promulgated mandating that each industrial sector could have only one trade union and on employers organization to negotiate agreements, with the government acting as ‘umpire’.

In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.

In short, fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.

In discussing the spread of fascism beyond Italy, historian Philip Morgan states

Since the Depression was a crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third-way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'. As Mussolini typically put it in early 1934, "from 1929...fascism has become a universal phenomenon... The dominant forces of the 19th century, democracy, socialism, liberalism have been exhausted...the new political and economic forms of the twentieth-century are fascist'(Mussolini 1935: 32).

While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit. In particular, fascists denounced capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property which fascists supported; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity.

Fascists governments advocated resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation in order to secure national solidarity. While fascism was opposed domestic class conflict, it was held that bourgeois-proletarian conflict existed primarily in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations.

Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part. The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone. Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940.

The Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or "National After-work Program" was one major social welfare initiative in Fascist Italy. Created in 1925, it was the state's largest recreational organization for adults. The Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras. Membership of the Dopolavoro was voluntary, but it had high participation because of its nonpolitical nature. It is estimated that, by 1936, the OND had organized 80% of salaried workers and, by 1939, 40% of the industrial workforce. The sports activities proved popular with large numbers of workers. The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organizations in Italy.

The enormous success of the Dopolavoro in Fascist Italy was the key factor in Nazi Germany's creation of its own version of the Dopolavoro, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or "Strength through Joy" program of the Nazi government's German Labour Front, which became even more successful than the Dopolavoro. KdF provided government-subsidized holidays for German workers. KdF also lent its name to the original Volkswagen ("People's Car"), a state-manufactured automobile that was purportedly meant to be cheap enough to allow all German citizens to be able to own one.

While fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons. Fascists criticized egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They instead promoted social Darwinist views.

Adolf Hitler was opposed to egalitarian and universal social welfare because, in his view, it encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and feeble. While in power, the Nazis created social welfare programs to deal with the large numbers of unemployed. However, those programs were neither egalitarian nor universal, excluding many minority groups and other people whom they felt posed a threat to the future health of the German people.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You should mention how this differs from the existing text. I think the section should be re-written. It reads like it was written based on an individual viewpoint, then sources were found in support. For example the first source used is about the formation of the Spanish Falange in 1934. TFD (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire fist paragraph is copied from Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies, and the reference is not exclusively about the Spanish Falange, but is found in a section called "The fascist International"scroll up one paragraph to beginning of section, which starts with a discussion of Mussolini's writings from the 1920s onward in the context of a discussion of the spread of fascism in Europe, with 1934 Montreux Fascist conference being the conference addressed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the passage is a beard for the editor's(Ubikwit) POV(ie, fascism isn't a right wing ideology, it's left wing blah blah blah...). One just has to look at his/her other edits and comments to see a total lack of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.26 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

- The blah blah blah argument doesn't count right? I think you should have to make arguments like "Hitler gave full tenure to all workers, nationalized industry, mandated a living wage, mandated wages, gave assigned work, confiscated property, expanded nationalized medicine, enacted luxury and industry specific taxes" etc.. to make the argument. That would be more useful I think. Everyone is bias if you are being honest.

Berend quote

My addition by Berend was removed with a request to break up the quote. I didn't break it up specifically because it seemed to provide a concise but rather complete overview. I'm not sure either how WP:Weight plays in. In any case, I'll simply paste it below in case other editors want to weigh in regarding reinstating where it was, or in the history section, or adding specific parts back into the article. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Berend provides an overview of Fascism as follows in its emergence in France, Germany, and Italy at the end of the 19th century:

Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged. This ideology relied on extreme national fundamentalism and subordinated both citizens and their individual human rights to the "eternal interests" of the nation. It was hostile to other nations, aggressively demanded the rights of the nation, and rejected the existing, Western-dominated world order and values. It advocated and attempted to create a strong, authoritarian state that was intensely antiliberal and antiparliamentary. It developed a cult of charismatic leadership that drew on irrational sources for its strength and power. Rejecting class differences in the national community, it sought to establish a homogeneous, communal, collective society, which would realize a "national socialism" in its struggle against the West, against international finance, and against the society's alien elements (such as minorities and other races).

It is poor style to have lengthy quotes in articles and best to merely summarize what they say. Could you please tell me what information this passage provides that is not already in the article? TFD (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

perhaps we could summarize as, Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged...which would realize a "national socialism"... Darkstar1st (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? TFD (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(shrug) I'm not overly concerned with how best to shoehorn it in if there is concern. As for poor style, I agree in principle but disagree in this context. I have no doubt that the material in the passage exists throughout the article. But this provides an excellent summary of the main ideas of fascism from a reliable source. This, combined with a few other sentences, could provide a reader with an overview of what fascism is without having to rummage through the entire article. That's why I put it where it was. However, the lede does provide an overview (although perhaps not complete).

As an alternative suggestion, perhaps this could be used as a note at the bottom of the article instead of including it in the text itself? Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly noteworthy in that passage, frankly, as everything said in it is presented better in the article. Adding it would serve only to dumb down the article from its present state.

If you find anything noteworthy in the book, please find the proper context and appropriate language with which to include it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]"

Just because Cyprian P. Blamires says so? How is Cyprian P. Blamires' word is the gospel of what fascism is? He doesnt even have a Wiki entry. Basically you are just cherrypicking quotes about what you want fascism to be. Thats very subjective.KevinFrom (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The way that the policy of reliable sources work is that well-respected texts such as the World Fascism Encyclopedia that was contributed to by 500 of the world's leading fascism experts are considered reliable for facts unless better or more recent sources are found that contradict them. In this case however it's not clear whether the statement was made by Blamires or a contributor or whether it is a generally agreed fact or merely an opinion. Considering that it is sourced to p. 331 of Volumne II of the encyclopedia it could be cherry-picked. Whether true or not the degree of attention paid to it may not justify its inclusion, particularly in the lead.

If you want other editors to work with you, you should be less confrontational. I did not add the material and am no more responsible for its inclusion than you are. Let's wait and see if there are any comments supporting or opposing its inclusion.

TFD (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I would suggest this section is misleading as written: although the ultimate origin is Latin fasces, it suggests that the National Fascist Party named itself in order to be associated with the authority of the ancient Roman office of the Lictor when the immediate origin of the name was Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The association with Roman imperial power came later. Paul S (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source to cite in reference to that point, please integrate it into the section, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism, however, Led's view on this matter is 100% correct.[24]" That last part is rather odd, particularly because none of the cited sources are written by Led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.31 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalism, that has now been corrected. TFD (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian fascism

Bulgaria in the past to the present, the Bulgarian non-Turks and novel peoples have made printing exploitation assimilation and exile, Religious cultural political bans everything Bulgaria large population reduction migration as a result of application b of the Attack party recently gained continuity and rising fascist movements, increasing the pressure on the Turks and novels..1989 exile Turks,Attack party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Fringe source

This edit uses a fringe source which does not meet reliable sources. I reverted it an so has another editor. Please discuss before restoring.

TFD (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ooops. My apologies. I am sure this is a tough page to moderate. It was written by an academic sociologist with good credentials so I thought it might be of use to readers here, especially since it's easily accessible to the public. It does me no harm, though, if you guys don't like it. Again, my apologies. Tcrackcrack (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally the weight that should be assigned to opinions is that which they receive in reliable sources. So unless the views he presents are routinely quoted in standard texts about fascism, they lack weight for inclusion. The other problem is that he is not a noted expert on fascism, therefore his blog is not itself considered a reliable source. Note that in his blog he complains that the history books have been written by liberals deliberately causing confusion. TFD (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to take you attention but in the article Fascism no description Fascism is a ... Sorry form my English , You must correct right way this description: Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a Nation state of nationalism that took its name from radical authoritarian nationalism [1][2] in early 20th-century in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Belankins (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Article is a complete whitewash

Italian fascism directly originated from Benito Mussolini's Socialist party. He was anti-Catholic, opposed to the free market and was for state control of the means of production dictated to existing oligarchies. There was nothing remotely conservative or, to use the original term, liberal about his party. He was left wing by any definition of the term as was his eager disciple Adolf Hitler and American admirer Franklin Roosevelt. 204.195.42.156 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Being so flat out wrong about the basic meanings of words is becoming par for the course here and won't raise any eyebrows anymore. I'll just suggest that maybe you owe the late President Roosevelt an apology and that you might like to read a mainstream history book instead of fringe websites that abuse language to give misleading impressions to their gullible readers. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say. Little of what you say reflects facts in reliable sources and none draw the same conclusions you do. TFD (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be caught up in the notion of the left-right spectrum providing any useful meaning. Going by a historically informed understanding of what is left and right, fascism and communism would both be on the left and conservatism on the right. Going by the modern usages, fascism is on the right, communism on the left and conservatism at the center. This should make it easier to understand when reading things described along the left-right axis. 50.24.188.180 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

Regarding the line in the first paragraph of the article:

"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum."

This statement is factually incorrect- Fascism in a political analysis is usually Left Wing: pretty straightforward Considering the article itself refers to the Socialism of the Fascist states, most Nazi propaganda condemned capitalism and the banking system (as well as being the National Socialist Workers Party) etc.

It has become a bias political theme to associate authoritarianism with the right wing (clearly I dispute the sources cited, but Socialism in all its forms are left wing- so unless someone can explain the impossibility of right wing socialism (especially far right) this line should be either corrected to either identified with the left wing, or removed all together.

Postgradpolitics (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has already been discussed many many many times. If you want to bring it up again go right ahead but past consensus shows it isn't going to happen, especially if you provide absolutely no reliable sources to back up your claims. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted a welcome message that will you guide you to policies and guidelines for editing articles. Mainstream sources do not support your position and you would need a reliable source to back up the change. TFD (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

According to Britannica :

Quote "Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated many parts of central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and that also had adherents in western Europe, the United States, South Africa, Japan, Latin America, and the Middle East. Europe’s first fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, took the name of his party from the Latin word fasces, which referred to a bundle of elm or birch rods (usually containing an ax) used as a symbol of penal authority in ancient Rome. Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from each other, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation."

This is a helpful and accurate definition of Fascism and clearly states the policies that fascist parties have in common. The use of left and right is ambiguous in the lead at the moment. I propose that we add this into the lead and remove the reference to left and right until better evidence can be found. Thank you.

People1750 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources, not tertiary sources. TFD (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the Britannica lead reads far better than the one here, and I agree that it almost certainly provides a clearer and more concise explanation of what fascism is than WP's rather rambling offer. That said, in addition to the problem with relying on tertiary sources, it offers no justification for removing the reference to fascism and the right, not least because the Britannica page clearly identifies fascism as being of the right. You and the few editors who turn up every two months to argue the point may not like it, and it may even be "wrong", but that is the way political science defines and classifies these things. N-HH talk/edits 10:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2016

"Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" "Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[39]" Can we make up our mind please? There is no reason that the former should even be in the opening paragraph. There is already a section dedicated to where fascism falls in the political spectrum, and to have that sentence in the opening paragraph is redundant, if not misleading. The opening paragraph should be as objective as possible and should not contain topics which are still under debate (eg. where fascism should be placed on the left-right spectrum). Bweazel (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree Position in the political spectrum is an important aspect of ideologies and there is no debate in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that where this ideology falls on the spectrum is important, that does not mean this debate is settled. I don't think any serious person would argue that it is settled. I read above that someone comes in here complaining about this almost every month, and rightfully so in my opinion. The sentence I'm complaining about is flirting very closely with containing weasel words. "Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]" So then we're saying it's usually placed on the far-left by others? By whom is it placed on the left? How often is it placed on the left compared to being placed on the right? At the very least, the article should note how hotly debated this topic is, and there isn't a single mention of it as far as I've read. The section 'Position in the political spectrum' opens by presenting fascism as a very ambiguous term that no one can seem to agree on, yet at the very first of the article, we have it listed as 'usually' being placed on the far-right? By this rationale, I can cite two sources of academics who think fascism belongs on the left, and I should be able to write an identical sentence with the words left and right flipped, and append it after the sentence that is currently in the first paragraph. So like I said, it is redundant, it conflicts with subsections within the article, and the term 'usually' is vague. Thanks for your welcome and your tips, by the way. Bweazel (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view."

The objective of WEASEL is to stop editors from providing undue weight to fringe views, such as the view that fascism is not right-wing.

In any case, you need consensus in order to succeed in this request.

TFD (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Did Mussolini ever call Hitler a Fascist?

Did the Italian press of the period refer to Hitler or Franko as fellow Fascists? Did the German and Spanish press of the time call their own governments Fascist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.71.184.236 (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

to some extent yes they did -- but keep in mind that Berlin-Rome relations were often strained before 1938. I recommend browsing Jan Rüger; Nikolaus Wachsmann (2015). Rewriting German History: New Perspectives on Modern Germany. p. 249ff. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Emmanuel_III_of_Italy - link

122.105.148.96 (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre 20th Century

Shouldn't there be something about the political situation of fascism before the 20th Century? For instance could Henry VIII or the Borgias be regarded as fascists in retrospect? Slightnostalgia (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody calls them that. Fascism is a group activity and I can't think of any examples in the RS before 1900. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination could Henry VIII or the Borgias be called fascist. deisenbe (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't most of the Borgias kill Jews for instance? And they were all tyrants. I know fascism is stronger than anti-Semetism, but it's a rather daft to say that the Borgias and Henry VIII were not fascists. All political views need to start somewhere. Slightnostalgia (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to identify ancient people using modern political labels. The movie Spartacus for example has leading characters who can be identified as conservatives, liberals, social democrats and communists. And modern ideologies draw on ideas from antiquity and the Middle Ages, including anti-Semitism. But modern ideologies and particularly modern political parties originated in the modern era. Fascist parties for example were mostly set up following the First World War in reaction to the changed social, political and ecnomic landscape, although a few pre-cursor parties had been set up as early as the late 19th century. If you want to continue your argument, you will need to show reliable sources that draw the same conclusions you do. As for Borgia, I can see parallels with modern liberals and conservatives as well. TFD (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How can not asking anyone's opinion be a form of liberalism? Doesn't make sense, 4D. Could Absolute Monarchy be regarded as fascism? We need a political philosopher round here to write a new section really. Slightnostalgia (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We would need sources that describe it as such. Please direct us to these sources if they exist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

D'Annunzio and Slavs

Re: [3], it appears that @2.39.188.155: is removing the line "This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs – especially Slovenes and Croats" without a source. I'm not involved in this topic area so a more experienced editor should probably weigh in, but from a look through sources it appears there are numerous examples (other) of sources primary and secondary suggesting D'Annunzio "declared war" on South Slavs. Intelligentsium 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know someone could "declare war" on an ethnicity! Perhaps you mean D'Annunzio was declaring war on THE STATE of Yugoslavia. The fact this namesake means "South-Slavic land" is completely incidental. I have never heard about the Legionari hurting Slavs - trust me, if such a thing happened, I'm sure there were many people pointing it out. ;) Please forgive me if I refrain from checking your sources. I am afraid they may be biased in an unpleasant way. Kind regards (actually, no). --2.39.188.155 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

D'Annunzio during the Fiume's occupation was not Fascist: actually, he was a rival of Mussolini. Alex2006 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So, are you working on the "dispute"? Why should my completely legit edits be undone, while you're not even bothering to reach your pathetic consensus on them? Fuck off. --2.39.188.155 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism and conservatism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right, far left within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Fascists believe that liberal conservative democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

My explanation, we all due respect conservatives alone are not the sole source of fascism in the EU or USA but I feel that someone edited the upper portion of this page to make it look as though only far right types could be fascist yet proof exists on the far left and is not just limited to the FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration policy at times. Therefore I added the words far left in several locations, that is the only change requested. There has been a continuing internet argument that fascism is only on one side and plenty of proof exists to the fact it exists on both sides of the aisle, I feel the edit was a smear on conservatives in general and I've seen both sides engage in such tomfoolery and it's not an accurate reflection of the facts. Also, I'm not asking for this paragraph to be included, I simply want editors to understand my thinking and I'll be glad to cite more sources. Thank you.

My source:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determine.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

Juggernautz (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Your source is fringe and does not reflect the opinions of informed sources. There are many serious scholars of fascism. I recommend Kallis' Fascism Reader which provides articles from most of the foremost scholars on the topic representing a range of views within the mainstream. Incidentally, while I have found sources that Johnson gave Perkins a copy of The Corporate State, I can find no evidence that it was ever published or that Raffaello Viglione ever existed. Can you provide details of the book's publication? TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Race for more power

There was an older version that explained Race was something the Fascist used for political power by playing the races off one another thus more power for the state, and by disenfranchising a segment(s) of the population of a nation. I thought that was more accurate (of the past or present) I guess it got memory holed.207.119.215.206 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016

Please change

Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

to

Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional Europeanleft–right spectrum.

because European political structures are significantly different than American. IE Right wing Europeans are still significantly to the left of the American right wing.

Alephbell (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. Regardless, "Right-wing" is still an appropriate descriptor, whichever spectrum one uses. GAB^gab 20:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Auschwitz in See also section

With all due respect to all those affected by the Holocaust, I think it's a tad melodramatic to put "Auschwitz" in the "See also" section. The racial policies of Nazi Germany are mentioned in only a few sentences in this article, and there are no mentions of Facism in the article on Auschwitz. They're related, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:1008:0:C46B:F7C5:3EBA:586F (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that both that and Slavery are slightly random inclusions. And even if it was going to include something related to the Holocaust, why single out Auschwitz? N-HH talk/edits 10:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Now it's Buchenwald. Can someone remove this ? I have never read anywhere that anyone claims Italy participated in German concentration camps. The photo and paragraph are obviously ill-intentioned smears. I might just as accurately put photos of Khmer Rouge atrocities under the Richard Nixon page, just becaause he dealt with Norodim Sihanouk. It's ridiculous.210.22.142.82 (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not a forum

Jeebus! This page is getting messy. I'd just like to remind everybody that this is not a forum for chewing the fat or giving opinions about the subject. It is for discussing improvements to the article and giving opinions, supported by evidence as well as argument, about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Position on the political spectrum

Please read the archives, this has been discussed to death. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

Fascism vs Communism/Socialism.

 The definition of Fascism is contentious.  Ayn Ryan lexicon contents that since WWII leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy between communism and fascism.  "Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism." CaptRJB (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

First off, please suggest an edit in the form of 'change X to Y'. Secondly Ayn Rand would not be close to an expert on this topic. Thirdly, please read the archives, this has been discussed eleventythousand times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean since before not after World War Two.[4] This article does not even mention the Communist definition of fascism which, as Rand pointed out, some moderates were attempting to revive in 1968. TFD (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This man-versus-state view has to do with liberalism in the European sense of the word and libertarianism (Ayn Rand is an icon for some libertarians). How about adding a section to explain this? --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Mussolini quote

From my talk:

Hello Alex! I ask you protect my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=history English users can not understand Russian on normal level. Good source is used in the article. Thank you! Ivano Capuler (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ivano that the question of relations between fascism and Marxism ideologies is a very interesting topic. But just one random citation from Mussolini sourced to a Russian website is not something that must be in the article. We might need a good secondary sources that refer to this citation when narrating Fascism topic. As a native Russian speaker I can confirm that hrono.ru has good reputation and in the articles related to Russian history we consider it as a reliable source. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree that a secondary source is required to explain the meaning of the quote. Dottori said that he believed Marx's theory of historical materialism and Mussolini said it had a great influence on him. It sounds like he was trying to get the artist on his side. It would be interesting to see whether he said the same thing to his big business backers. TFD (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, assuming this is the specific edit being referred to, apologies but it's also incredibly badly written. And I agree that we shouldn't be pulling out one-off comments like this, out of any context. Just because something may be true, it doesn't mean it has to be included. And of course there's already quite a lot of (convoluted) material about fascism's relationship with socialism and Marxism. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Ivano Capuler, valid source, accurate translation. I disagree it is random, one-off, or out of context. Random would be a quote about fishing, one-off would be if Il Duce had not praised Marx on other occasions, out of context would require imply the editor has read a complete translation, or speaks Russian, neither is the case, correct N-HH? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to know what the context is to know that there must be context to the comments. You also have no idea what language skills I or anyone else has. Since you asked, I can speak some Russian actually, although I have not looked at the source in question. I can certainly write better English than that found in the content you've popped up to defend, as you so often do when anyone comes up with any random, one-off – sic – statements that appear to back you on your mission to equate socialism and various forms of right-wing extremism. N-HH talk/edits 07:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it can be confusing to people with limited language skills since every fascist of the 20th century referred to himself as a socialist. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually none of them did, but this isn't the forum for conducting original research based on primary sources. TFD (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

TFD, the national socialist were not fascist? What about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Mussolini, in the face of the total collapse of the system [bequeathed] by Lenin, Stalin has covertly transformed himself into a Fascist. A. James Gregor, The Fascist Persuasion in Radical Politics, Princeton University Press (1974) p. 132. See Red fascism. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mussolini's statement is clear: socialism does not work, so Stalin [like Mussolini himself] abandoned it for fascism. However, few observers would agree with Mussolini on that including you. TFD (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that someone is sincere when they refer to themselves as something. In terms of facts, statements and self-proclaimed labels remain as such and making direct assumptions from them can constitute logical leaps, especially in the context of regimes that were involved in propaganda. Anyway, Wikipedia in itself focuses not on the factual but on reliable references :p --JamesPoulson (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

A misprint?

In the "Definition", instead of: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism" shouldn't it be: "One common definition of the term focuses on three concepts: the negations of liberalism, communism and conservatism"  ? (The omission of "fascist" is deliberate - a self-reference in a definition is not very helpful.) HarDan (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Something definitely weird there :p . A negation of a negation is an affirmation? --JamesPoulson (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody Knows Anything About Fascism

This recent article titled Nobody Knows Anything About Fascism may have a few things to add as the subject is not clear for quite a few people. --JamesPoulson (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an editorial by Michael Ledeen attacking Robert Kagan's definition of fascism. Neither men are experts in fascism. It's basically an argument between two neoconservatives about whether they should support Trump. TFD (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It might be interesting for someone looking at modern politics in the US, but I agree it's probably wouldn't add much to an encylopedia entry on fascism. Also, on another point, I'm not sure the recent addition of a lengthy new section contrasting fascism and communism is really needed. This page is long and discursive enough already, and tends too much towards commentary on fascism, eg through "criticism of .." content, rather than explaining what it is. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, on another point, I'm not sure the recent addition of a lengthy new section contrasting fascism and communism is really needed. This page is long and discursive enough already, and tends too much towards commentary on fascism

How about adding a new Talk section to cover this point?

Talk:Fascism#Can we get a better definition? and Talk:Fascism#Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016 indicate there is a need for a contrast (or absence of) to be established according to different points of view and the subject is a source of heated debate online.

fr:Comparaison entre le nazisme et le communisme does this between nazism and communism and there is a Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism on the English Wikipedia.

What do you think of having separate pages for commentary and comparisons? --JamesPoulson (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If we going to have a comparison, we need a secondary source that identifies what most scholars seem as similar and dissimilar rather than have a whole bunch of quotes of different people (such as Mann and Rand) who were not experts in the field. The main comparison was the Cold War "totalitarian theory." That should be mentioned along with information about the degree of its acceptance and how views have changed over time. Also, while comparisons of Stalinism and Nazism are relatively simple - both regimes occurred during roughly the same period of time, although Stalin ruled longer, both Fascism and Communism had such a wide range of varieties that comparisons are difficult. TFD (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

That is most likely the goal that sought with the last article linked and a proper analysis would probably require a point by point comparison that avoids false dichotomy.

Observations by Mann and Rand could be qualified as commentary. Two sections on this talk page have expressed disagreement as to what is put forward in the article so I simply put this out there along with other views with references. It's up to them and you to decide what is to be done: either leave it, consider a new article or simply remove the content :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

They only qualify if they meet weight, in other words in they have attracted attention in reliable sources on fascism. Kallis' The Fascism Reader, which has articles by most of the leading fascism scholars, mentions neither person. TFD (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

From an academic point of view. Must this mean that other views must be completely eclipsed from Wikipedia when for example Ayn Rand and the views she put forward are widespread among liberals and libertarians? An encyclopedia as a comprehensive reference work would cover subjects in a broadly or complete manner although obviously not to the point of being overdetailed. --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That's what policy and guidelines say. I think those rules are good because most readers want to know what the most accepted opinions are. Sometimes fringe theories, while rejected by experts, become popular among laymen and they deserve mention. Trutherism and birtherism for example. But first we need to establish that they have attracted attention by experts (who renect them.) Otherwise we are providing parity. Rand's views on fascism can be included in her own article. Rand's views are only of interest in understanding her and her followers. TFD (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

Vietnam and Cuba don't have anything equal to Fascist so that comparrison is wrong 58.187.161.159 (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: I think the current wording acknowledges it is incorrect usage - "Contrary to the popular use of the term...", and the point of mentioning these countries here is not to say they are fascist but to make note that they have been incorrectly called fascist as an insult Cannolis (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)