Talk:Fascism/Archive 13

Philosophical origins of Fascism in 'Actual Idealism.'

I find it odd that there is no mention of Fascism's attempt, by sanction of Mussolini's work of Giovanni Gentile's, to define Fascism by that theory given by them to their politics constructed to be without "presuppositions" in the meaning of Gentile's own philosophical stand-points on the reality of nature. That the material world, because it is external to perception, has no conceptual reality except known in the act of preceiving it, and thereby refuting Marxist Dialectical Materialism as an impossibility because it is disconnected from the realm of thinking. This "Fascist Idealism" also thereby justified all positions it had taken as they were similarly construed as a politic "without theoretical presuppositions or intellectualizing"; i.e. Democracy has no utility because it "presupposes" objectified conceptions held as tangible between divergent interest groups, the individual thinking of the external world was the nature of it's own being rather than an external material world so therefore the individual was not separate from the state. Social welfare for it's own sake "presupposed" an understanding outside of one's own thinking situation and therefore could have no reality or utility for persons, etc. So ultimately an entire form of orthodox Solipsism was created to compete with the Egalitarianism prevalent in so many of the other new political theories that were borne from Materialism. Nagelfar 05:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that the omission is because we have enough bad things to say about fascism without pointing out that Gentile, their house intellectual, engaged at times in freshman-level pseudo-philosophical wanking. -- Jmabel 07:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "at times," it seemed rather that he dedicated his entire career, very successfully before Fascism I might add, to what you call "pseudo-philosophical" without probably reading any dissertation by anyone about it's content except out of context elements floating about the likes of what I have here put down. If it was pseudo-philosophical, the whole work of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer & Nietzsche are too, since it directly amends and makes look foolish some considerations to the first three. Nagelfar 08:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hand me a gun so that I may shoot you in your head, and prove for you in all finity the death of any notions of Solipsism and Idealism, and the very Realism of Materialism. To any Neo-Platonic fascist of the Gentilian variety or other; the cave you dwell in is yours and yours alone. Welcome to reality . . . Capone Aug 15 04

For an encyclopedia I'm afraid the cave of knowledge is everyone's, so please bring value to present at this discussion. This isn't the place for discussion of which philosophy is the correct one, go be a materialist or realist and presuppose everything as external on a philosophy board where you can preach to the converted. What I am presenting is a suggestion only to add a non-point of view addition of the underlying philosophy which was very central to the entire development of Fascist policy, and there should be a segment tying in Actual Idealism, whose very belief structure extolled implementation of itself to society, to what was really nothing more than it's social manifestation called Fascism. Nagelfar 10:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What "everyone"? I hate when I contradict myself. Capone Aug 18 04

Even in Solipsism, which this isn't, all language terms exist don't they? So where-ever in your mind you see contradiction leave it to a philosophical debate board. Otherwise move beyond debate fillibuster and into the conversation of the concrete. Nagelfar 08:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Nagelfar, try writing it up in the article, but don't be surprised if you have trouble getting consensus. Radical solipsism as a basis for politics still strikes me as just plain silly.

As for the philosphers you tick off, some I know well, others not. I've probably read Kant at least as closely as the average philosophy Ph.D. (among other things, a seminar under Louis Mink on the Critique of Pure Reason and one under Paul Grice on the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals); I would say I know Nietzsche pretty well, although just from reading on my own; Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer I know only secondhand and would not presume to write about them in an encyclopedia.

Kant certainly was no solipsist. He did agree with the solipsists that we only know the universe through the filter of our own perceptions, but essentially argued that the universe is ordered in such a manner that (even on such matters as aesthetics and morality) we all ought to reach the same conclusions. Nietzsche's philosophy does not seem to me to have been (epistemelogically) solipsistic at all; on the other hand, he certainly believed that people's radically different natures and radically different situations in the world would lead to very different conclusions about philosophical matters.

I'm certainly not closely familiar with Gentile's writing. All I've seen is quotations in politically-related context. None of them ever led me to take him seriously enough to go read him. Please understand, this is not an inherent bias against reading philosophers associated with fascism. I have read quite a bit of Heidegger and am more than passingly familiar with Cioran. -- Jmabel 16:25, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

From reading two works on Actual Idealism myself, it is made clear that even though it has largely been associated with Solipsism, Actual Idealism is not in-fact Solipsism. If only because Solipsism requires an Ipsus or self by which it is egocentric, Actual Idealism sees such consideration of an ego as a presupposition and is more truly considered autologocentric.

Gentile's consideration about "reaching the same conclusions" as you put Kant's philosophy is to him a presuppostion outside thinking, it cannot be known what outside conclusions to one's act of thinking are, only what they appear to be about for others to the self. Take for example language between 'persons.' To Gentile it is not learnt, the meaning of language is synthesized arbitarily from perceptions the self is left to in reflection, a maieutic extension of idea trapped squarely within one's own thinking, seen in the same way as what Hegel saw happening interpersonally with an external reality which he called the dialectic of the absolute. To know that language could possibily be shared as the same common mind experience is impossible because of, using a term from physics, the "self-similarity" which forms a uniformity of verification with verification's requirements within one thought process alone. It must be understood that any such verification drawn from the meaning of anything in language is so drawn from one's own distinction of what verification means; thus the only source of uniformity of differences making verification is the self which has already defined the terms of what the verification is to be regarding for the identification of it as then an 'imagined' outside concept & it's self developed requirements for proof . Nagelfar 20:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am working on putting a detailed study by which every point of Fascism, rightly or wrongly, derived it's purpose from Actual Idealism, and I am trying to do so in as NPOV way as possible. However I work better when people put down there own ideas and immediate observations first which are obvious to them as maybe a person not thoroughly familar to the philosophy, if only because it would start from a point more obvious to the type of reader that this encyclopedia is directed toward; one who doesn't already know the facts about the subject. Nagelfar 20:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my earlier post directly above, I stated that rightly or wrongly Fascism derived its purpose from Actual Idealism. I was not clear in what I meant by "purpose", so perhaps sometime in the next few days I will be more clear in what I meant. Also, I apologize for making up the word 'autologocentric'. It seemed the best word for what I was trying to describe in contrast to the ego centered nature of my incoherent ramblings. Capone Aug 18, 1982

Also, why is there mention of the Nolan chart at all? This is not an article about Nolan OR Libertarianism - and besides which the Nolan chart is not even consistent in its own right where it is appropriate on the Nolan or Libertarian page as it compares theoretical models to models which existed. You just can't do this and I hope this idea will find some traction. Capone Aug 18, 2004

Actual Idealism is not Solipsism, move beyond your presupposition & ignorance. No conception (i.e. self) properly exists to the Actual Idealist. Logocentric has been a word used by authors for over 63 years relating to Gentile's work, and if you've educated yourself on this matter soever you'd know also that in context of Actual Idealism every word used formerly in Hegelian conception is prefixed further with "auto-" to differentiate it from Hegelian Absolutism. By Purpose I meant Purpose; It is to Fascism as Dialectical Materialism is to Communism, it's the philosophy and method that leads to it's complete reasoning. Erudition within the matters of which you speak could enhance your entire ability to communicate. Speaking in the tense of my person further may very well bring me to the point of needing to make a report of impersonation against you, if for the very fact that people may become confused and misconstrue your unlinked name being mine rather than my account. Nagelfar 08:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your empty threats will be met with laughter wherever you seek to pursue them. I never stated or implied that actual idealism and solipsism were the same thing. I signed my name and everyone knew the point I was making since the philosophical and logical short-comings of solipsism and actual idealism are made hysterically apparent with this interchange as proof. How can you presuppose that I am not you and you are not me in the first place? I/you can be really stupid sometimes, sorry. Since you say that solipsism makes no presuppositions, and you presented that as how you see things (instead of the divorced npov), you are now screwed because you cannot prove that you even exist. So why should we respect the ramblings of a non-person? Funny how this ideology loses any value when used as an applied science. As far as I'm concerned, you are to have me believe that you are simply an extension or projection of what's going on upstairs with me. You are really no different than a thought which is mine and mine alone to either represent, deal with, or ignore. Silly nagelfar. The manner of your writing also means that you are incapable of getting your ideas across in any meaningfull way, which may be why you have a hard time gaining traction. The semi-esoteric manner ala Lyndon LaRouche in which you write your arguments also may have something to do with this.

 Capone 9-27-04

You didn't sign your name with tithes as one would do who has an account, sometimes people sign their real name when not logged in, and this could generate confusion, and you certainly did imply an analogy as such from somehow considering "self" as anything to do with Actual Idealism. This exchange only proves to me not to put much weight into discussion of post-Hegelian philosophy with someone who presumably doesn't even have a basic understanding of Kant. If only because it is continually your POV on how "this conversation proves the shortcomings of Actual Idealism" with no discussion as to why. 100% POV, baseless and irrevelent. How does "presupposing I am not me or you, you" figure into anything? Presupposing is completely against what Actual Idealism is all about, so your critique of what you think to be it is in fact the critique of it's opposite. This assumption might just well be from where our argument started. You started POV, and you keep every response POV and therefore cannot allow any advancement on the historical relevance of the subject. I'm keeping an open mind, you started with attacking me personally. Was it your position that Actual Idealism did not figure into the construction of Fascism? You didn't say as such, let alone give any reasons. You simply attacked me personally. That certainly isn't a sign of a great contributor of information in any regard. There was nothing "semi-esoteric" about anything I have thus far written, I used all terms in the context of the Philosophy at hand, words that weren't meant to be 'hidden/occult' but descriptive, and I used them as such. I never said Solipsism made no presuppositions, I said Actual Idealism was built to act as such as the only way in which "Solipsism" can have a defensible meaing. Except 'Solipsism' wouldn't be a defensible term for it, because it implies an objective self in it's very name. I now recognize my mistake of saying orthodox Solipsism at the beginning of the page when meaning a new form created philosophy extrinsically resembling, and having distinctions drawn around, Solipsism (so many writers have called it Solipsism as to make confusion for a synopsis with being familiar with those writings) Actual Idealism doesn't say a self does not exist, it says it cannot be real except as subject. Solipsism doesn't work for the same reasons laid out by G. E. Moore in his refutation of Idealism, where perception is the same as experience, and experience is identity which makes 'self.' Experience is the object seperate from the subject of perception in Actual Idealism, so whether the self exists or not has no bearing on it's reality. This is the philosophy's context and I am regurgitating my knowledge of it NPOV, not trying to 'prove it,' this is not the place for discussion on the validity of a philosophy in a real world sense, only on the validity of it's definition and here it's definition with regard to what intimate relationship it had as a method for defining the politics called Fascism. Nagelfar 06:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So instead of hammering away at it in the talk page, try to write up something comprehensible in the article, and expect that it will be "edited mercilessly" by people, some of whom will probably disagree, some of whom probably won't understand, etc., because that's how it goes. -- Jmabel 16:42, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I want to get everybodies critique to see if any strong critiques of the connection with Fascism & of the validity of their association become apparent before I try anything there first. That is, if I can get past arguing about the item in itself and on to the suggestion of it's impact on the development about the topic for the article of which this is the talk section of. Nagelfar 06:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then put a staged contribution at Talk:Fascism/Actual Idealism and let us engage with an actual text rather than with your intention to write one. -- Jmabel 15:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Because I am not interested in what people think of Actual Idealism, I am interested in what people think of it's weight on the meaning of Italian Fascism. Regardless of what the implications of Actual Idealism are of itself outside that link to Fascism. Nagelfar 10:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, name the section whatever you want. My point is, instead of harping on talk about the fact that no one else has written anything, write your proposed added section as a staged contribution so we can react to actual proposed content rather than your desire to engage a topic. -- Jmabel 19:34, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nolan chart

Moving the chart was a good compromise. Sam [Spade] 01:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "fascism is socialism brigade"

Once again we have an anonymous visit from the "fascism is socialism brigade", preaching the gospel according to St. Hayek. There may be something useful in what was added, so I'm not reverting immediately; conversely, I won't be surprised if there was something useful in what was deleted without comment.

Would someone else take this on this time? I've waded through an awful lot of these ideological edits lately in various articles, and I'm getting really tired of looking for the pearls among the dung. -- Jmabel 22:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Another view of Fascism

My search for "fascism" redirected me to G. W. Bush's entry. Mildly humorous, unless you've talked to someone who lived under a "real" fascist regime.

This article provides a different point of view on Fascism and its history. It might factor in to the entry.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm The Mystery of Fascism <end of an anon contribution>

<start of a contribution contributed anonymously, but signed by Capone>

This anonymous poo-poo head lies. For one, fascism did not redirect anyone from George W. Bush, unless he spells George W. Bush "fascism".

[Actually, a vandal briefly had Fascism redirecting to George W. Bush. And please don't make ad hominem attacks on people] - Jmabel 17:37, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Secondly has anonymous talked to someone who lived under a 'real' facist regime, or was that just another empty rhetorical platitude? Even if so, who cares about this anecdote? I know several holocaust survivors, one who's autoboigraphy I helped ghostwrite in 1993, and while he is dead now, he contended that even George Bush Snr. was a fascist. Perhaps jewish survivors of fascism are too 'paranoid' or 'sensitive' about creeping fascism when they seem to feel it, but you can't have it both ways. Few would say that the U.S living under a fascist regime, yet, but a leader being a fascist or having fascist tendendies or desires ala Bush who said "It'd be a heck a lot easier if America were a dictatorship . . . so long as I was the dictator!" is a seperate matter.

For thirds . . . The article on Mussolini linked by the anonymous coward has many interesting factual name references, but makes many errors in logic and in history. Anyone else who cares to read it may find the same. Look for the stunning contradictory reversals in the article re the basis of fascist support. First it claims it was not a tool of big business, then it claims it was. It claims Mussolini was on the extreme left wing of the Socialist Party in 1914, but he was not. It deduces this from the fact that Mussolini, like many many leftists at the time and today, had contacts with other leftists outside of their immediate party circle. It starts out saying that syndicalists were to the left of the Socialists. It then says that Mussolini became a syndicalist. It then shows how syndicalists started fascism (along with non leftist intellectuals who are adequately listed). But the revisionist trend in syndicalism which called for syndicates which united managers with workers was actually a right wing trend within syndicalism, a small one at that, (not having support among the rank and file) and, could be placed along side the revisionist right trends with Bernstein of the Social-Democrats and right leaning Italian Socialists. Then there are some post hoc fallacies regarding economics, and there are also outright falsifications, for one, claiming that Mussolini's turn away from liberal economics came before the Great Depression. This can only be viewed as true if one places the begining of the Great Depression in Italy in 1929. But the 1920's did not see much real growth in Italy given its mutilated victory in WWI. Italy suffered as if it been on the losing side, even though it was on the winning side. Italy could not even annex Fiume, to the dismay of right nationalists and right syndicalists, like D'Annunzio and co. The economic slump hit Italy and other developing nations of Europe and abroad (like Mexico)as early as 1925. A modern analogy is the Tiger Markets crash of the middle-late 1990's (1996) which led finally to the world stagflation which started towards the end of the summer of 2000. Italy's Corporatist model developed in the middle 1920's could best be, in retrospect, considered Keynesian. Or perhaps Keynes could just be considered a 'statist', whatever. You say potayto, I say potahto. This model allowed Italy to emerge from the depression in 1934, well ahead of the more 'liberal' economies of western europe and the u.s.

Again, there is much interesting factual information, and even usefull analysis in this article, but, unfortunately is based upon ill-informed assumptions and makes conclusions which are questionable at best. Capone 9-7-04

Capone, could you please open an account so that we can have some confidence that all of the contributions signed by you are all really from one person? This is as much as anything for your own protection. It would be so easy for a troll to fake being you. -- Jmabel 17:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, while dissenting from Capone's ad hominem remarks, I basically concur with his evaluation of the article: it has some good research behind it, and it's worth reading, but it's ultimately wrongheaded and anyone who wants to take material from it should exercise great care, probably going back to the sources it cites rather than trusting the article itself. -- Jmabel 17:44, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth, I found this to be rather interesting

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

TDC 21:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

China

Does the PRC as it exists today fall within the definition of a fascist state? I am thinking about adding it to the list of nations as I beleive that it is a near perfect fit. Comments and feedback please. 21:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

[Unless I'm mistaken, the above is TDC, although he didn't sign it -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)]

    If you were the same anonymous that posted the publiceye article on fascism, and you thought that criteria was fitting (as I thought it was more or less sound)then by that definition, no.  Ok, I have an account I realized as I tried to log in.  But what's that shortcut for signing the name with the official UTC stuff?

Capone 9-8-04

• Just use 4 tildes: ~~~~ -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Responding to the anon remark above (which I believe was TDC:

I think a reasonable case could be made either way. I don't think just adding it to a list would be useful, but relevant cited quotations on both sides of the question probably would.

Certainly it had many of the standard characteristics: much of the wealth in private hands, but in the context of a rather centrally directed economy; lack of democracy; militarism; irredentist nationalism. On the other hand, it clearly got there by a route where its intellectual heritage is in State Communism rather than the states historically known as fascist, and teh word "Fascist" carries connotations of an intellectual heritage as well as a form of government and society. Also, the present-day PRC is not very big on the cult of personality. But my opinion doesn't belong in the article as such: if you want to follow this up I strongly urge citing relevant, reasonably authoritative sources. -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ardent nationalism basically sums up every nation I can think of on the face of the planet at present. It makes sense that a nation would extol the virtues of itself, right? The PRC does not have a cult of personality, does not glorify male youth as fighters, does not glorify female youth as future incubators. Mysticism is missing from official Chinese pronouncements too. Also missing is the stated goal of said society. Left Totalitarian regimes like China see a future where a hierarchy of work-production, and distribution can be overcome once production is more automated with robotics and technology and economic scarcity can be overcome. Allowing private property is a means towards an end in the case of China (market socialism). Right Totalitarian regimes see hierarchy as the natural and permanent order of things, and the existence of private property is not a mean to an end, but the end to be preserved within itself. A broad definition of fascism which would more correctly have to be termed corporatism if we say that mysticism, gender roles, and ideological heritage/stated aims aren't necessary conditions, then that would also allow us to place countries like the U.S since the 1930's, social-democratic Germany, and Keynesian Japan in that category. The main difference between fascism and capitalist-democratic or more benign corporatist states is the right for trade unions and combinations to engage in collective bargaining and even work stopages (strikes) against the immediate consent of the state or business. Unions have this right in China today, to a limited extent, as in the U.S to a limited extent. On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions. Unless I can be swayed from this line of thought, and I am open to it, I will mercilessly edit out grouping the PRC as fascist. Capone 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions." I hope you mean Germany today. If you are saying this about rights to protest, etc., in Nazi Germany you are off your rocker. -- Jmabel 22:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I was speaking of both China and Germany in the present, market-socialist China and capitalist-social-democratic Germany. Sorry if that wasn't clear to others. But all this aside, I may indeed still be off my rocker! Capone 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Race and nation

Italian facism does not exalt race, who is a typical national-socialist concept. When the Italian governement started its racial policy in the late 1930s, it was because he was following Nazi Germany, not original fascism. (unsigned, anonymous)

Which is exactly why the article says "and sometimes race" (emphasis mine). -- Jmabel 23:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

There were two wings in Italian fascism, one of which was very concerned with race. There was discrimination against Jews in public bodies from at least 1930 onwards - it just didn't become a matter of law until 1938. In addition, this is an article about fascism, not just the FIC/PNF, and the exaltation of race was a key component of fascism in most countries. -- Gregg 23:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think we are seriously missing the point here in simply focusing on Jews. I think to many Italian Fascists before the 1930s, Jews were a perfectly acceptable part of the new 'Risorgimiento', just other races were not. According to Paxton in 'The Anatomy Of Fascism' the Italians committed genocide in Libya and Italian East Africa due to racially motivated reasons. Hauser 02:56, 17 Dec 2004 (NZEST)

But what about Fascist Spain and Portugal? No signs of real racism there. And Japan was open to Jewish refugees. Including that line, you might as well make mention of Racism in an article on democracy. (unsigned)

So should we perhaps just focus in this article on "nation"? I would say that the focus on race is precisely what distinguished Nazism and its progeny from other forms of fascism. I'm a bit open on exactly what belongs here as against the Nazism article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Christianity/Roman Catholicism

I see that the section "Fascism and Christianity" has been changed to "Fascism and the Roman Catholic Church". That does seem to fit in with the material currently there, but certainly the Iron Guard were closely tied to the Romanian Orthodox Church; I'm guessing that there are other analogous situations in other non-Roman-Catholic countries, but I don't know much about this. Does someone else? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it was not just the Roman Catholic church but in some cases various Orthodox churches (but it gets tricky because Orthodox churches are technically Catholic). A new book argues that the Nazis enjoyed the support of the Protestant church, but its claims are controversion.

Richard Steigmann–Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Might be better to have the main heading "Fascism and Christianity" and add some material about the Iron Guard, then cite Steigmann–Gall. --Cberlet 23:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe even broader: "religion". It seems to me that one can find an at least an alliance between fascism and certain religious elements in countries that aren't Christian as well (Japan during the Thirties and WWII, arguably some Muslim countries, arguably an element in right-wing Israeli politics). Anyway, I think singling out Roman Catholicism is probably slightly unfair, at least in the sense of unfairly letting other religions off the hook. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Prof. Roger Griffin: fascism not right-wing

I'm kind of surprised that noone has made use of Prof. Roger Griffin's article "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" (PDF), in which he attempts to circumscribe an actual scholarly consensus on fascism. I mention this particularly in relation to the introductory characterization of fascism as "right wing," but Griffin contends more or less explicitly that it is not--at least insofar as "conservatism" is synonymous with "right wing." Herewith the quote:

The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

Vorpal Suds 08:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just because a prof's own website touts that he has created a "new consensus" doesn't make it the case, nor does Open University accepting a view make it the standard in academe. I think the broad consensus remains that fascism is right wing. Nevertheless we should probably mention Griffin and his theories. AndyL 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Fascism is anti-conservative as well as anti-liberal. Nonetheless, the dominant consensus on the use of "left" and "right" places fascism on the right; similarly, liberalism and Marxism, quite opposed to one another, both sit on the left. No problem mentioning Griffin's views, as long as we don't mislead into presenting them as dominant. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that Fascism seems to take more the place of a centrist totalitarian society. Pinochet an example of a right wing form, and stalinism a left. Somewhere betweeen these two lies fascism. Corporativism is often seen as an alternative to socialism and capitalism. (unsigned comment February 28, 2005)

I challenge the claim that Griffin does not place fascism on the political right. He just edited a whole collection of journal articles on fascism and neofascism where fascism is placed on the political right: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions (Vol. 5, No. 3, Winter 2004) on "Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement."--Cberlet 18:32, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Proto-fascism

It would seem to be a service to the reader to note that fascism does not spring fully formed upon a society and that there are features or fascistic tendencies that can be discerned and should be resisted.

Does NPOV mean that fascism=bad is not allowable?

Yes, it does, although quoting a condemnation of it by an important scholar or political figure might be appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the part of the definition that reduces the use of the term to a fringe critique of globalization essentially means that this term is no longer relevant to current political discourse. Perhaps it is overloaded or maybe wiki's aren't good for dealing with disputed topics.

For instance, it seems unlikely that wikipedia could ever include an entry that observed that the current executive of the U.S. espouses fascist ideals. Bush II extemporaneous comments about how it would be easier to advance the agenda if he were a dictator come to mind. (Anonymously posted 24 Nov 2004)

While there may be current important political movements that are parallel to, or even influenced by, fascism, there are very few anywhere that are explicitly fascist. I don't like Bush one shred, but clearly an encyclopedia can't call him a "fascist". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, given the "living" nature of this encyclopedia, we should maybe modify the suggestion that the Bush administration cannot be labelled "Fascist" with the qualifier "yet". After all, the Bush family's commercial entanglements with the European Fascists of WWII may well yet militate for that very determination. Certainly, the two main fascist "concepts" (anti-intellectualism and anti-socialism)are, in many senses, being pursued policy goals of the Bush administration.

Original poster (again anonymously, sigh): Agreed -- hyperbole is not appropriate, however well it illustrates a reality-based anxiety. Have a look at the para I added at the end of the fascism in practice section. It follows your advice about quotations as a way to avoid NPOV and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions about the risk of fascism in the U.S. today.

Thanks Jmabel, your edits improved what I added, in particular the references section (where I added a link to an archive of the original document)

Two things

Hey everyone, I'm back after a bit of a hiatus, and unfortunately it seems little has changed with the page. Ah, well, gives us all something to do rather than that silly "Christmas" nonsense, eh? ;)

I only had two points: one rather perfunctory, one substantive.

I'll dispense with the inane first. I've cleaned up the archiving a little bit; upon noticing that there had never been a page 5 archived, rather simply skipped over, I took the liberty of moving 6 to 5 (after a couple of false starts with my formatting, albeit) and then archived this main page to 12. Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this left 6 blank. In whatever case, I archived all the pages back, and then took the first half of 11 and made it 10, the rest of 11 and part of 12 (the new one) and kept that as 11, and left 12. This way everything is pretty much as it started, but with the error fixed, and confusion will be limited (not the least with future archives). Just be warned if the pages look a bit small or large, especially 10, 11 or 12, as they've been redone a bit, but with nothing removed.

That rambling explanation done, I see that the page title now refers to this article's subject as exclusively Italian fascism. Is that what has been generally decided, that fascism is and rightly deals only with that practiced by the Italians? If so, fine, but rereading the archives I find nothing detailing that, and given the number of fascist regimes, and even given Nazi Germany (for a state that, as the article's header would have it, is not a fascist one, it gets an awful lot of mention in this thing), this is both confusing and disingenuous. If I'm just rekindling an old flame, point me back to where everything was settled up and I'll be happy to withdraw any objections.

No rest to the weary, eh? Wally 21:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, where is it you say the page title says that? The page title is Fascism. Period. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

The opening paragraph. You know what I mean. Wally 18:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that should be reworded, it looks like someone at some point removed the explanation of small-f fascism. I'll do it. And, no, I didn't know that by "title" you meant "lead paragraph", that's why I couldn't work out what you meant. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

My apologies then; I can be a little less clear in words than in my mind at times. :P New version looks fine. Wally 02:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Socialism

The_Manifesto_of_the_Fascist_Struggle#Contents_of_the_Fascist_Manifesto sounds socialist to me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I gather half of the U.S. Republican Party and most of the Democrats sound socialist to you. We've been through this over and over. Yes, there were important currents from left politics (and even more so from left rhetoric) that led into fascism. Still, fascism represented an enormous break with those currents and quickly aligned itself to the right, very much so in practice and somewhat so in rhetoric. We've probably got 5 archive pages filled with that discussion for this article alone and more scattered around Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, but I just stumbled across this, and alot of it reminded me of the communist manifesto. I figured it was good info to bring to the attention of editors here. Besides, wally suggested I might want to stop by. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I actually had asked if there had been any changes since I'd last checked, to which you didn't reply. I was wondering what had happened with that.

As for this claptrap about the leftist nature of fascism, even if it WAS true, which I do not in any way grant, so what? Is it not notable that the primary enemies of fascist governments were leftists. Communists, then trade unionists, then finally the more mainstream Social Democrats were eliminated - and why might one eliminate those with which they are ideologically agreeable? A little simple logic dispenses with this - besides, I seem to remember a saying about actions speaking louder than words. This is starting to seem more like ideological rationalizing than reasoned analysis to me. Wally 18:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A proposal for how we might work the rest of this out

All right, a thought strikes me. Just above, I mentioned a problem with the intro, Jmabel edited it, and now it looks fine. Why don't we do this on down the line - go section by section, anyone here who sees fit to contribute, and fix each up to our satisfaction before moving on? That way we don't trip over ourselves and everything gets done in due course.

In that spirit, I'm fine with the intro. Any other problems with it, anyone? Wally 02:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd be glad to participate in discussion of any of this that someone feels needs it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

All right, I’ll begin with the section on “Definition”. I’ll refrain from commenting on minor grammatical things, unless the legibility of the passage is in question.

I. Definition

A. The fourth bullet under definition needs reworking; this is, IMO, if we keep the national socialism vs. fascism part under that fourth bullet at all, which I do not think we should. Not only is it something of a red herring at just that point, but it is also a discussion that needs far more than just two lines in a bullet. The fact that nationalism and occasionally racism are motivations towards fascism needs to be noted, however.

B. All subsequent discussion on Nazism as it relates to fascism needs to be moved to a separate section of the article, likely combined with any comments on national socialism. It’s an issue that deserves to be treated, and at some length, but to bring it up right in the section on the definition is, I think, needless saber-rattling. I’ve always felt that the definition section of an article ought to comprise only those elements that are beyond dispute – for the article to be at all serious, we need to at least present what facts we have agreed to right at the start, as that serves the reader best.

C. We make comments throughout this section that I do not feel are either wisely-placed here or accurate. For example:

“Outside of their [Nazism and facism’s] internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.”

This is not only a blanket statement, and subject to easy refutation (even if only in some element of minutiae), but I do not even believe on a general level that all of fascist thought can be said to have been abandoned, as closely-tied as it is with statism and nationalism and that being such important elements of many modern far-right parties (the BNP and French National Front come to mind). Such statements as these, where they occur, need to be changed – this goes for the whole article.

D. There is a good deal of discussion on present meanings and connotations of fascism; not only are these not properly put in a section on definition, but I believe that modern-day fascism (or it’s related progeny, anyway) should have its own section, complete with a discussion as to present day understanding of the term.

Just first thoughts on this section. Wally 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mostly agree, other than the fact that even if we want to postpone discussion of Nazism and present-day fascism to later in the article, we still need at least one paragraph in the definition section, probably either the first or the last, that (1) discusses the fact that there is both a narrow and a broad use of the term, (2) points out that it is commonly applied to Nazism and certain present-day ultra-nationalism, and possibly even (3) that it is also used as a pejorative for politics to the political right of the person using it, sometimes even politics that have little or no resemblance to fascism. And then when we take up this last point later in the article, it should be with clear citations of this usage. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, should I write up a proposed edit on a template page to be read, or edit the article itself to reflect the consensus on what it ought to say? Wally 08:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use Talk:Fascism/staged contribution and alert us here when there is something to look at. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

(At this point, Wally made the edits straight into the article)

I've done a little more than copy edits on some of what you've written. Let me know if any of what I did is objectionable. Looking at the article as it stands now, I have some questions/remarks; some of these issues are not with what Wally wrote, but with what was there already:

• I think we underplay the influence of Italian fascism on Nazism. Yes, they had ideological differences but, especially in both the economic and political spheres, they pursued them by very similar means. We are now downplaying that.
• I have a lot of trouble with this passage: "This is mostly because both ideologies have ceased to be society-driven movements of their own anywhere in the world today. Outside of their internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns." I think it really downplays the influence of these ideologies on everything from the BJP in India to the Latin American dictatorships of the second half of the 20th century, not to mention the more contentious issue of whether one might think there is influence on the likes of John Aschcroft.
• The passage beginning "In its Corporativist model...": for starters, does "Corporativist" mean anything different than "Corporatist" elsewhere in the article? I suspect not. "...the various functions of the state were trades...": I have no idea what this means to say. "...it is in the state's interest to oversee them for that reason...": for what reason? "...such functioning in government hands undermines the definition of the state." Similarly incoherent: undermines according to whom? Can someone fix this passage? If not, we should probably just lose it.

-- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'll reply directly down the line:

• The changes you've made were more cosmetic than substantive, and while I don't necessarily feel that your way of saying it is meaningfully superior I likewise have no problem with leaving it the way you did, save the note on Italian fascism, which I agree should be included more. The influence, where it exists, should be reported, although in the final analysis I've never been convinced Nazism drew that much from the it. I defer to you on specifics, however.
• I agree with you as well on the passage quoted above - as a matter of fact, I quoted it myself in my list of objections to that section! It appears, however, that I forgot it when I went through. It should be excised; however, the problem of how much fascism itself influenced the people and groups you mentioned as opposed to their self-developing it as a sort of garden-variety authoritarianism is far trickier. I would say that unless we can PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these people or groups were influenced by these doctrines or thinkers, we should refrain mention entirely.
• The corporatist passage is one I noticed on my pass through and moved pretty much wholesale down to the "practices" section. I really have little idea as to what purpose it serves; however, I hesitated to remove it as I did not feel expert enough on the economic side of fascism (to be fair, I rarely thought there was one, as fascism is fundamentally social). If it is meaningful, it should be saved, although reworked.

One last thing as well. I did not mean to change the Henry Wallace quote towards the end of the article; I was merely attempting to fix the 'cartel' link so it would work, and I seem to have arranged it wrong. I fixed the link correctly this time, because linking something so that half the word is linked and half isn't (which happens repeatedly in this article, like so) really ticks me off. Other than that, there's where I am. Wally 23:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"What is Fascism, warning signs"

The following is about the link to [1].

Jmabel, I have a problem with you summarily deleting an external link I added. You remarked only that it was tendentious and not scholarly. The first is probably true, (but there are sufficient other points of view already represented that this shouldn't be a problem), and there's no policy stated anywhere I've seen that external links should be scholarly. I suspect you deleted it just because you disagreed with it, which is definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia, especially without consulting me or anyone else. The NPOV page mentions the problem of POV in external links but seems to come down on the side of more points of view rather than fewer, so long as they're external. I think that makes more sense. In addition, it's pretty clear to me that the article I've linked (and now re-linked) says about the same as another article already linked there, but is more readable for the average person and therefore more informative on the whole.

I think that to be fair the link should not be removed without further discussion. Steverapaport 18:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, actually, I mostly agree with it, at least based on the casual reading I gave it (although I think it cheapens the word fascist a bit). I deleted it for the reasons I said: because it is tendentious and not scholarly. Yes, there may be other links here that say something similar: I haven't gone through the links systematically, I've just been checking new ones because this article is a crap magnet. Not to say yours was crap, I just think it wasn't particularly appropriate.

As for relevant policies: I'm not a "Wikipedia policy" junky, I mostly go on what I've seen as precedent, and there seems to be surprisingly little formal policy in this area. All I could quickly find was find [:m:When_should_I_link_externally#Non-neutral links], which suggests at least that this link ought to be better described. Similar advice at Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Standard_appendices: "If you are dealing with controversial issues, it is also useful to point out which sites take which stance, and maybe separate the links by proponents and critics. Funding information or relationships may also be interesting."

I'm not going to fight over it, but I won't be surprised if someone on the political right does. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I would be happy to label it POV but I couldn't think of any good way to describe the POV without becoming rather POV myself. What do you say? "Suggests the possibility of US and Israel being proto-fascist states"? "Rather broad definition"? But I think it needs to be said anyway. Burying the, shall we say, slight trend of recent fascist tendencies in some countries under mounds of scholarly verbiage is a cheap cop-out too. And you can be Neutral and Fair without being incomprehensible. I'd be happier with the linked article if it left out pointing out the obvious in the note at the end, but the clarity of the rest makes it worth it.

Anyway don't let's fight, but feel free to change the description of the link. And if there's an opposing POV on the topic, link to that too.

Steverapaport 09:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think "an article making the argument that the contemporary U.S. and Israel are proto-fascist states" is a fair enough description. If you can live with that, then I can. Again, I suspect someone else will take up the argument that it doesn't belong there at all, but I have no problem with its presence as long as it is so described. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fair, hope it stays and someone can find an equally POV article for the contrary. But I'm glad it's there because it counters the overall impression from the rest of the page that Fascism is a thing of the past, unlikely to ever recur. That kind of denial is just an invitation to fate, in my view. Even if you think that the current fascist-leaning states are actually France and Russia, better to believe that than to think that it's just a historical anomaly.

Steverapaport 23:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I still agree with Jmabel, even though he seems now to want the link to stay. One doesn't mind an article saying such a thing, however the article itself and the website hosting it seems less than appropriate for an article like this which, as it was so eloquently put, is a shit magnet. If you two are fine with it, I'm not going to the mats, but my objection should be noted.

As for fascism today, Russia hardly had democracy for long enough (or at all) to suggest they are relapsing, and France is France. Just as many people still vote for Communists as for Jean-Pepe Le Pew. :P Does raise an interesting question though: is it fascism, specifically, that we see in resurgent right-wing nationalist groups, or is it just garden-variety authoritarianism? I've always tended towards the belief that it was the latter; not better, mind you, just less threatening. Wally 08:35, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me: I'd still rather have this gone, but I wasn't ready to fight about it and wanted to make sure it was at least correctly characterized. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's a controversial article, and Fascism goes out of its way not to be. But the shit-magnet nature of Fascism has scared us into retreating past NPOV into obfuscated scholarship. The clear subtext of the Fascism article right now is: "Fascism is this bad thing that happened long ago and far away, and all we can do now is discuss it in the abstract." I think, to the contrary, Fascism happened in recent memory, and as close as the USA and Britain in the 30's, and (though maybe not in an encyclopedia) we should discuss it very much in living, concrete examples so it doesn't happen again. Compare the immediacy of the democracy article with the dessicated scholarship of this one and you'll see what I mean.

Hence any attempt to bring living examples and easy-to-read text into this article should be viewed as a breath of fresh air.

Steverapaport 13:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You wanna fight off the trolls, or should I do it? ;)

By the way, heads up, I made the changes I discussed above to the intro (and did so before I noticed Jmabel's advice to put it on a template - argh. However, I doubt this should be a major problem, as very little language was changed and only then for the benefit of readability. The following was changed:

• The section, within the definition bit, on corporatism was removed and replaced in the concluding "practices of fascism" section.
• The entire section on Nazism within the definition section was removed, wordsmithed, and dropped down to follow "Italian fascism".

If there's no objection to these, I'll get down to the nitty-gritty stuff (and post it on the template this time). Let me know what you all think.

One last thing, also. The more I read over it the more I come to think that with some judicious rewording we could not only substantially clarify and improve the article, but we could also knock at least several hundred words off. Just food for thought. Wally 17:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Nazism

The last paragraph of this section is as follows:

Today, however, this distinction in terminology is not made often, even when used historically. This is mostly because both ideologies have ceased to be society-driven movements of their own anywhere in the world today. Outside of their internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.

I think this needs work.

1. The distinction between the two as movements is still made today only by some fascists. To the extent that the distinction is made by anyone else, they similarly make a distinction between fascism in each country, so Nazism is merely fascism in Germany, and only as different from fascism in Spain as fascism in Spain was from fascism in Italy. "not made often" is not specific enough.
2. The distinction was, AFAIK, only ever made by fascists. No such distinction was made by those outside of fascist/Nazi movements.

The reason the distinction isn't made now, except by fascists, is because it has never been made, not because of current political concerns. (The preceding is anonymous).

I would say that the disctinction was strongly made by the U.S. right in the years 1933-1939. Generally, they remained very favorable about Mussolini, but generally wary about Hitler. For example, look sometime at how the two were handled in Hearst Movietone newsreels of the time.

Looking at the headlines from the period, on the one hand one can cite a New York Times headline in September 21, 1930 referring to "HITLER, DRIVING FORCE IN GERMANY'S FASCISM" and calling him GERMANY'S "DUCE"; on the other hand, a subhead in this same article refers to the "doctrine of 'National Bolshevism'" (certainly a term they would not have applied to Mussolini). A February 19, 1933 NYT headline reads, "FASCIST PLAN SEEN ENDING CLASS WAR; That, Say Its Proponents, Is Its Contribution to Social Development of World. HITLER SCHEME UNLIKE IT Nazi Resemblances Are Regarded as Superficial -- Danish Ban on Strikes Held Similar." The latter article talks about how the Italians laud Hitler's rise as part of the spread of fascism, but then says, "The Nazis and Fascists, indeed, have many points of contact, but mostly they relate to superficial non-essentials. These political creeds resemble each other inasmuch as both oppose communism and democracy, and both stand for strong leadership in government. But there the analogy ends. There is no evidence yet that Hitler proposes to apply in Germany the political methods with which Mussolini successfully experimented in Italy," (by which they seem mostly to mean suppression of strikes). Well, as we know now, the operative word in that sentence was "yet", but no one knew it at the time.

While I'm at it (all citations are NYT headlines:

• "JUNG [Guido Jung, Italian Minister of Finance], HERE, PLEDGES AID OF MUSSOLINI; Says Italy, No Less Than We Do, Wants Concrete Results at Economic Parley. DELAYED 10 HOURS BY FOG Leaves Liner at Sandy Hook, Misses Harbor Welcome -- Denies Hitlerism Is Fascism." May 3, 1933
• "MUSSOLINI EAGER TO MAINTAIN PEACE; Hopes Four-Power Pact Will End Dangers of War He Sees Threatening Europe. DISCLAIMS LINK TO NAZIS Premier Asserts Dictatorships Are Order of Day -- Holds U.S. Has Revolution.

" June 5, 1933

• "FASCISM'S INROADS IN EUROPE: A MOVEMENT OF MANY SHADES; While the Mussolini Pattern Has Been Followed in General, The Hitler Modifications Are Popular With Some Groups" September 17, 1933.
• "BREACH WITH REICH DISTURBS ITALIANS; Foreign Policy Is Upset and Rome Turns More Toward Paris for Support. VIOLENCE IS DEPLORED At Best, Repairing of Nations' Relation Is Expected to Be a Long Process." August 5, 1934
• A fascinating, ironic, and highly recommended article "HITLER NOMINATED FOR NOBEL PRIZE; He Is Held to Have Curbed the Spread of Fascism by His 'Treachery.' SERVICES TO PEACE CITED Withdrawal From the League Helped Persuade Soviet Russia to Join It." December 30, 1934, essentially arguing that Hitler's excesses (including the Night of Long Knives) have discredited fascism. Note, though, the implication in this that this "discredit" must be with people who were not offended by Mussolini's brand of fascism.

All in all, this shows a mixed bag as to the degree to which the NYT viewed the two as the same phenomenon or different ones at the time. But it also tends to fit with my view (that's just "fit with"; I won't claim "confirm") that the left considered them two heads of the same beast and the right emphasized the distinctions; the NYT being reasonably centrist, found itself wandering back and forth between the two views, depending which correspondent was writing.

It might really be worth someone doing research on who was saying what at the time about whether they were the same or different; I would distrust any generalization without citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

The only time there's a suggestion of difference between fascism and nazism in the NYT quotes it seems to be coming from Italian fascists. There's an article about what proponents of fascism think that seems to give their reasoning as read and a headline about what an Italian government minister has said. I would also point out that all of these NYT quotes come from 1934 or earlier when the Nazis are still only recently in power. Until that point fascism had only existed in one country. Before the Nazis it hadn't become possible to see Fascism as having any existence outside Italy. What were they writing a couple of years later? As for Hearst Movietone, perhaps I'm being swayed by Philip Roth but I think that also fits with my experience that the only people who have ever made the distinction are fascists themselves. But your point about "yet" is well-made. Perhaps the distinction was made at the start of the Nazi regime when people believed Hitler's propaganda. In which case, the passage above should be revised to reflect that. Again I think the fact that the distinction is not made today has nothing to do with current political concerns or liberal states (communist ones didn't make the distinction either) and I can't see a justification for implying that such a distinction should be made when talking historically. Outside of their internal reasoning there has never been a distinction. (again anonymous, 172.191.67.116)

I would say:

1. that there was no difference in political methods
2. that there were differences in ideology
3. that the strong elements of racism rather than merely nationalism were largely a Nazi introduction and were not present in Italian Fascism
4. that the tendency to try to exterminate one's enemies rather than merely kill a few to try to get the rest to fall in line was also largely a Nazi introduction and only entered Italian Fascism under coercion by the Nazis.

As long as these points are acknowledged, I have no problem with the claim of continuity in most other respects. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

As long as we can change that last paragraph:

Outside of their internal reasoning, their own opposing ideas have no part to play in modern politics, and could be said to be arbitrarily alien to the liberal states currently dealing in defining political concerns.

Aren't we smug and superior here...? Isn't it nice that we've all outgrown this sort of thing, and it could never happen again in our nice liberal states? Doesn't this feel like writing something in the "Thailand" article mentioning that tsunamis happened 40 years ago but they have "no part to play" today? This is gonna look awfully foolish if and when people buy another line of propaganda based on nationalism. Can we please consent to remove the bland reassurances? I don't want to touch it until there's some consensus, but I really object to that paragraph, and to any other implications that it just isn't likely to happen again. Where there's nationalism, blind patriotism, and xenophobia, it can indeed. And the 1930's had no monopoly on those traits.

I'm not pushing any political agenda here, but remember that the Fascist's chief way to the top was propaganda. Denying the existence of a feared thing has got to be one of the most obvious steps toward reimplementing it. Let's just stay objective and not explain away anything, okay? Also, an encyclopedia is supposed to be timeless, not making assertions that may soon be out of date. --Steverapaport 20:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would also be glad to see that paragraph gone. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mussolini's influences

I reworked the recently added section originally titled "The extent to which the ideology of Mussolini was based on 19th century ideas." I'm not sure this is all accurate -- there is a lack of citations for these influences, though most of what is here seems likely enough to me -- and at least now it's better written. Others should work out whether the claim of Nietzsche's influence on Mussolini has historical basis, and whether some of this might be redundant to material already in the article; however, I'm pretty sure there are some good points here, and it some of it is certainly worth keeping.

One specific quibble: the last paragraph of the section quotes someone named Layton. I have no idea who this might be, let alone whether the quote is accurate. An explicit citation is certainly called for. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Semi-capitalist?

"Semi-capitalist"? You must be joking. You're begging the question by defining capitalism as only existing under democracy and thus ruling out any non-democratic states as possibly being capitalist, despite the fact that Chile, South Korea, Taiwan etc (and for that matter apartheid South Africa) had fully free markets and booming capitalist economies. Chile was a lab for the Chicago School and a leader in deregulation and privatization followed by Thatcher and Reagan. Just because you don't like the fact that several police states were successfully *fully* capitalist doesn't mean you can rewrite the definition of capitalism to exclude this from being possible. Don't let your dogma interfere with reality. AndyL 19:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RE: Semi-capitalist?

The paragraph in dispute:

Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism. While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states [they both use force to obtain goals], and most other one-party states (including capitalist one-party states[this statement is attempting to support "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" yet at the time there were no examples clearly listed.])have also been police states. A few examples:

I regret that you witheld the other states you claim are capitalist. I believe the subjective statements would be understood better if the reader was aware of what states you believe to be capitalist societies. I think you should work this material into the article:

"Actually, there are numerous examples of capitalism existing quite nicely with a police state. Chile under Pinochet was a lab for the "Chicago school", South Korea and Taiwan were both strongly capitalist while under police state regimes and, yes, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, fascist Spain and fascist Portugal were all capitalist." AndyL 23:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows Nazi Germany was capitalist, as long as you weren't jewish, weak, or had something the state wanted, you could maintain private property (wait, is that still called private property).

You say I'm begging the question? Another thing, I never said capitalism existed under democracy! You assumed I thought that. ==

There are some who say there's never been a true capitalist society and that not even the US or Japan are capitalist. That's a theory, however, and a fairly ideologically laden theory (there are also those who say there's never been a socialist society). It's not our job to apply that position in our articles. As far as most people are concerned and as far as most theorists who use the word "capitalist" are concerned the US, Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc are and were capitalist. If it's your position that there is no such thing that's interesting but not at all relevent to the article.AndyL 21:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-The job is to apply facts to the articles. It's funny how we have to use the adjectives "fully", "true" or "total" to the word capitalism to imply a free market. The fact a nation is called a capitalist society does not mean it is. Once governments intervene in the economy (doesn't matter the rationalization) it is no longer a capitalist society (free market). The market is either free or it is not. Who defines these interventions and to what extent? Individuals, that support or suppress other individuals in the market place for some rationalized reason.

Response

Socialists argue that it is impossible for a socialist society to be a police state. Perhaps we should just conclude that there are no such things as police states since both socialist and capitalist police states are impossibilities? AndyL 20:53, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because someone argues a fallacy, that does not make it true.

The Paradox of Capitalism co-existing with police state

POLICE STATE

n. A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force.

n : a country that maintains repressive control over the people by means of police (especially secret police)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

CAPITALISM

n.An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

n: an economic system based on private ownership of capital

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

I can list Nazi Germany as a capitalist system, that doesn't mean that statement is accurate. The paragraph intertwining capitalism and police states is degrading the validity of the article. It should be rephrased or omitted.

Don't back track AndyL, why not use the example of Nazi Germany as a capitalist society anymore in your statement?

Capitalism and statism are on different sides of the spectrum as the state gains ground the individual loses and visa versa. So trying to correlate the two is absurd.

I don't think Andy was trying to correlate them. He was just disagreeing with your claim that they are perfectly negatively correlated.

In general, the Nazis left the narrowly economic benefits of ownership in the hands of the pre-existing capitalists (except, of course those who were Jews), but the government took on many of the prerogatives of decision making. Don't forget "capitalism" isn't interchangeable with "free enterprise" (although in Chile, remarkably enough, a police state even managed to co-exist even with the latter: I'm not sure I would have believed it possible before the fact). Did this presumably mean a good deal of doublethink? I imagine so. To Milton Friedman's credit, a few years into the process of Los Chicago Boys helping Chile attempt to merge capitalism with a police state, Friedman expressed reservations as to whether the various benefits he claimed would result from extreme free market policies would, in fact, accrue in the context of a police state: his notion of freedom was apparently broader than that of some of his disciples. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

With your rationalization any state could be considered Capitalist. Any dictator that possesses the rights to private property could be called a capitalist. Because two ideals are opposed to each other does not mean you can't have aspects of those ideals existing together. Could you have a relatively soft police state and certain aspects of capitalism? Yes, but it would not be best described as "capitalist police states". This is suppose to be an objective, factual forum.

If I own capital but am unable to use that capital for production - I don't really own the rights to that capital. If the state takes my production from that capital - I don't own that capital. If the state is able to take my capital - it never was my capital but the states.

The only use in mentioning capitalism in this section is to support the claim that there is no correlation between socialism and police states. The obvious correlation is the force applied by the state. As the force of the state decreases you can have more capitalistic aspects. The neutrality of this section is very questionable with its current statements.

response

I'm not backtracking. Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Spain, Portugal etc were all capitalist, indeed capitalism thrived in these countries - just ask all the industrialists who got rich, just ask IG Farben, the Fricks, Ford Motor Company etc.

What I was doing, however, was assailing your absurd argument that police states cannot be capitalist by presenting the strongest example, Pinochet's Chile, which was a model of Chicago School economic policy and a regime idolised by free marketers like Thatcher. Anyone who thinks Chile wasn't capitalist wouldn't think any country is capitalist at odds with most economists.

Incidentally, there are many who argue that Chile's Pinochet was also a modern example of fascism.

AndyL 21:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Incidentally, there are many who argue that Chile's Pinochet was also a modern example of fascism."

Then why would you use it as an example of a "capitalist police state"

Because there are no serious economists or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't capitalist. AndyL 21:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) To which I'll add, "and there are no serious historians or scholars who argue that Chile wasn't a police state." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute:Weak, Vague and unclear

Furthermore, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism.[Stating "does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism" is vague, irrelevant and more like an editorial. You could also state "there could be a commonality between socialism and police states". It's a weak argument.] While many one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states,[Really? You stated it now support it!] and most other one-party states (including some capitalist one-party states) have also been police states. A few examples:

   * Chile under General Augusto Pinochet
   * the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang,
   * Afghanistan under the Taliban,
   * Iran under the Shah (a monarchist police state).
   * South Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, etc. during certain periods of their recent history.

[Examples are not clear. Are the examples one-party police states or are you refering to the information in the parenthesis with these examples? If these are examples of capitalist one-party states the parenthesis are not needed. Since you are attempting to support your argument that "there is no correlation between socialism and police states" with capitalist one-party police states you need clear examples of capitalist police states. As of right now the examples read as "one-party police states" in general. One option would be to use the same strategy used with the Iran example.]--David Swink 23:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Corporatism as stated by Mussolini himself

Anyone who wants to remove the quote from the Enciclopedia Italiana 1932 about Fascism and Corporatism (from Mussolini/Gentile)[2][3] should discuss why first, and give a source that explicitly says those quotations are false.

If you take out Corporatism, fascism is just totalitarianism and hardly worth all this argument. Being pro-corporate and anti-labour was the Fascist's chief difference from the Socialists and any other dictatorship. Remove it and you remove the point of the article.

American Heritage Dictionary 1983

Encyclopedia Brittanica --Steverapaport

I'm with you on this, although I think the word is a tad misleading, because this is not the common English-language sense of "corporation". I realize that we have a decent article on corporatism, but I think we could do with a little more expansion on the term in this article, because it is so subject to misunderstanding. Could you take that on, or should I? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'd never thought of it that way, Jmabel. Happy to take on the first draft, you can edit, how's that? I guess it should go into the *Definition* paragraph beginning "As a political science..."?

By the way I've revised this talk entry -- added my signature that I forgot, and also support for the Mussolini quotation. Not that it needs any, it's already there under Corporatism, and gets 557 Google hits using "Mussolini Fascism Corporatism Enciclopedia 1932".

Steverapaport 09:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right, I'm not saying this is unclear to people with a good background in the relevant field (or who follow up that particular link!), I'm just saying that to the average reader in 2005 it is a potentially confusing term. Yes, please, take the first shot.-- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've done my first attempt. Take it away, Jmabel. Problem is this article (the whole thing) rambles incessantly, alternating between ignorance and scholarship but forsaking clarity. It appears that lots of people are writing in about their feelings rather than doing the research. (Fine for the talk page, but not the article.) The suggestions above to rewrite one section at a time appeal to me too. It could also be reduced in size by about 35% without losing any content. Steverapaport 11:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit removing Introduction and Definition

Some anonymous user removed the entire introduction and definition yesterday. It's an improvement in some ways but I think some compromise could be reached, no? I suggest we revert and then take the best of their edits and redo them.

Steverapaport 09:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Were there positive edits that went with that? There is a vandal who periodically lops out pieces of this article... -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've been trying and failing for over an hour to restore the intro and the header and first paragraph of the "Definition" section, which were deleted. No, there were no positive edits that went with this. I'm not sure what is wrong with the wiki right now, but I cannot edit it successfully. Particularly strange because I'm having no problem editing other things, including this talk page. If someone else can make the restoration it would be appreciated. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Worked for me anyhow. I think it's ok now. This is my first revert ever. Steverapaport 00:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)Steve

Mussolini quote has a fake cite

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

The so-called Mussolini quote where he is claimed to have equated fascism with corporate power is a fake or a terrible translation. This quote does not appear in the original Italian encyclopedia text or any of the English translations from that period. I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet, Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), which is listed as a translation of Mussolini's article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932). The quote above does not appear. Nor does it appear in a longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter: Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers). I asked a scholar in Europe to find the quote in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), and he said he could not find a sentence that translates into the quote above. Finally I went and copied the original article in the Enciclopedia Italiana, in case anyone wants to pick a page it is supposed to be on. We had a whole discussion of this over on the Talk:Benito Mussolini page. I removed it from this page and the page on corporatism. I have photocopies of all the original documents in front of me. If someone wants to argue this quote exists, please cite the page and paragraph from an original document.--Cberlet 19:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Steve who put the quote here seems to be a generally good and well-intentioned editor, so I strongly suspect that if the quote is wrong, any problem was with his source, not with his intentions. Steve, what was your source on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that it was not well-intentioned. In fact the quote is everywhere on the Internet. And it is often specifically cited to the Enciclopedia Italiana article. I got into this when writing a journal article on fascism, and wanted to see the surrounding text. Odd, there was only surrounding text. I suspect it started as someone paraphrasing what they thought Mussolini meant. Maybe even in an encyclopedia or book. I just can't find who started the text as a quote. If anyone knows, please post it here! Actually, if you read the original English translation of the Mussolini article, he is explicitly saying business corporations (and everything else) are subservient to the state, making the bogus quote also bogus in terms of what Mussolini meant. It is a favorite of people who do not know the difference between syndicalist corporatism and modern business corporations.--Cberlet 20:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My sources aren't authoritative, just numerous quotes on the internet. If Chip has the originals and the quote's not there, that's good enough for me to believe that someone made it up and it spread. I assume that the association between fascism, corporatism, and the right is solid enough without it.

Thanks Chip for finding the incorrect quote, and also for discussing your deletion in the talk page instead of just deleting it wordlessly as others have. Steverapaport 20:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the rest of the discussion about the associations among fascism, corporatism, and the right are quite excellent, both here and on the corporatism page.--Cberlet 21:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Catholic v. Roman Catholic?

Someone seems to have changed "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" throughout. I Wikified the internal links to point to the actual article "Roman Catholic Church." I would think using the term for which there is an entry would be more appropriate, but thought I would ask here as to the policy on such matters.--Cberlet 23:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are quite different, as a reading of the two respective articles should illuminate. I'd assume any reference in this article should be to Roman Catholic, but I havn't looked at the specifics. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Some Catholics object to the term "Roman Catholic" for a variety of reasons, but in an encyclopedia, I think "Roman Catholic" is the appropriate main title. Let's wait and see if there are other comments and then make the change.--Cberlet 14:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic (with link to Roman Catholicism) on first mention. After that, Catholic is OK because context is established-- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

USA FASCISM

what about usa? l see a lot of elements of the italian, german fascism in the u.s. right now.

Elements and echoes, perhaps. A very good essay on this subject is by Neiwart: "The Rise of Pseudo Fascism." http://dneiwert.blogspot.com We might link it.

Another very good essay is by Umberto Eco.

A not very good essay is by Lawrence Britt, who finds 14 things shared by Nazism and the U.S. today and then implies that means the U.S. is fascist. This would get a F on a logic exam.

These last two are linked in the article.

There is a lot of hot rhetoric about this matter, but few serious scholars of fascism see anything but elements and echoes of fascism in the U.S. --Cberlet 14:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Time to protect this page for a while?

The ratio of real edits to vandalism/revert is getting depressingly low. Thanks to Chip and Joe for all the good reverts, maybe we should ask the admins to just protect this page in its current form for a while and let the trolls play elsewhere. If someone has new research or better writing to contribute maybe they should just ask an admin to open it up.

Steverapaport 13:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nah, hasn't even been vandalized ten times in a month. I'd say ten articles related to the French Revolution do worse than that, and we never lock those down. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Talk first - Edit later

Re: these deletions:

- South Africa (1948-1994) - Many scholars have labelled the apartheid system built by Malan and Verwoerd as a type of fascism.

- Rhodesia (1965-1978) - The racial segregation system by Ian Smith is similarly considered by some to be a form of fascism.

I actually do not agree that apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia were fascist, but it is a fact that a number of scholars think this is so. Please talk first before deleting again. Thanks. --Cberlet 02:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and again

Folks really need to disuss changes on this page before deleting material that has taken a long time to construct. Most analysts call fascism a right-wing mass movement. After an anonymous deletion (how tiresome) I rewrote a paragraph as follows:

Besides totalitarianism, a key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. Thus Fritzsche and others describe fascism as a militant form of right-wing populism.

That's got a cite. If folks disagree, add a sentence with a cite. Don't just delete stuff. Then we can talk about it. I doubt if there is an editor that watches this page that agrees with 100% of it.--Cberlet 19:20, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since there is controversy over whether it is left, right or center perhaps we should remove that. The sentence reads fine otherwise "Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, refers to the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini." Seems to be fine.

I do not believe there is controversy among any but a tiny segment of people, most of them either fascists or people on the right who are trying not to admit fascism's association with right wing politics. There is almost universal consensus that fascism is a right-wing ideology, and to leave that out would be as disingenuous as dissociating communism from left-wing politics. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Most scholars call fascism a right-wing ideology.--Cberlet 02:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no controversy over whether fascism is left or right-wing. Except as Jmabel said. It's funny to watch rightists who have been brought up to believe fascism is "bad" simply knee-jerking away from having it on the same side of the spectrum they've swung to, though. Totalitarianism is not an ideology, it's a state a country can reach through extreme right- or left-wing politics. Fascism is the road from the right. Stalinism is the road from the left. Simple. Steverapaport 12:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pinochetism is to the Right, Stalinism to the left, Fascism to the Center. Simple. (anonymous, 13 March 2005)

...and simply wrong, with respect to fascism. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"fascism is socialism" claim

This is a controversial subject, and just rewriting lines that leave the rest of the text nonsensical is just vandalism. Pinochet was hardly a socialist. --Cberlet 19:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

American Fascist Movement

I am calling people's attention to the recently added external link to a web site for something calling itself the American Fascist Movement. I know nothing about the group; I leave it to those more expert than I to decide whether this is an appropriate link or wikispam. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I read through the site -- it appears to be a well-defined and correct appeal for more fascism in America. It is quite clearly distinct from Nazism and racism, and in fact states its fascist ideals[4] more clearly than this article ever has! (1/2 smiley). Whether it's a genuine appeal for adherents to the cause or an ironic gesture is never made clear -- it may be a bit of both. I vote keep the link; in either case it's informative. Steve | Talk

I can tell you first hand that it is quite serious, in fact, maybe we could expand the article to include the fascist movement today.

Reality is not anti-communism

This was cut:

"With the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism were doomed, and Communist and fascist movements swelled. These movements were bitterly opposed to each other and fought frequently, the most notable example of this conflict being the Spanish Civil War. This war became a proxy war between the fascist countries and their international supporters — who backed Franco — and the worldwide Communist movement allied uneasily with anarchists and Trotskyists —who backed the Popular Front — and were aided chiefly by the Soviet Union."

I support the anti-fascists who fought in Spain. This description is historically accurate. What is the problem? It's not anti-communism to accurately report history. Reverted! Get over it.--Cberlet 03:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The deletion was anonymous and without comment. If I were you, I'd just restore it with an edit summary telling the anon to discuss it here on talk if there is anything to discuss. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the objection was in the first place. The paragraph is a bit POV ("it seemed that liberalism and the liberal form of capitalism were doomed"), but not overly so, and it is informative. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, this has been restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:44, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Calling anti-communism fascist is highly dishonest and totally loaded, remove it. (anon 18 April 2005)

I don't see any indication that the passage says that. Am I missing something? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be reading alot into the fact that facism opposed communism. He is neglecting that both facism and communism / anarchism opposed social democracy. Sam Spade 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dubious link

Recent addition of an external link to the Italian- and German-language site of a present-day self-proclaimed fascist party. I am not familiar with the group in question and haven't really looked at the site myself, so I'm just raising a flag here. I don't believe the party is important enough to merit a link on the basis of its importance, but someone might want to look at the site and see if there is enough exposition of fascist ideology to merit keeping the link. Otherwise, I say delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:51, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)