Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 9 November 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2004 and March 23, 2005.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fascism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fascism at the Reference desk.

Section One Paragraph One Sentence One

Hi, All,

The mediator assigned to us has suggested that we work a piece at a time. That essentially is what CM and NH requested yesterday.

So here goes.

Here is sentence one, paragraph one of the current entry:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Here is the new version I am proposing:

Fascism was an authoritarian, populist, and nationalist political movement and system of government that arose in the early 20th century in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, and elsewhere in response to Communist revolution, economic decline, and loss at war.

Justification:

The current version lacks a sense of history and of location. It provides no cause or reason for the emergence of F. It leaves out "populist." It does not specify that F was an actual political movement and a successful form of government. It makes it seem like an idea (nationalism).

For now, I'm leaving out the "rightwing" that dictionaries and many encyclopedias apply to F. We can deal with that in the next sentence.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Can I ask where a '...mediator was assigned to us'? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mediator? Capitalismojo (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The addition of "populism" seems fine. The addition of "movement" and "system of government" is a good addition. We have no information or refs in the body of the article that would allow us to include Japan in this lead sentence. Removing Japan leaves us with three European counties. Perhaps "initially arose in 20th century Europe" would fit better. Italy was a victor in WWI and Spain neutral, obviating the "loss at war" piece as an overall cause. I'd put possible reasons for Fascism's rise in a seperate sentence. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I broadly agree with those suggestions for the proposal. I did have doubts about the "loss at war", but then thought that although Italy was on the winning side in WW1, it didn't do well out of it, which did have an impact on the rise of fascist nationalism. Given the German situation, which speaks for itself, I think we are OK with the broad suggestion that military failure or setback, however we phrase that exactly, was one factor among others that helped drive the emergence of fascist movements, even if it did not apply in every case. N-HH talk/edits 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree regarding the military setbacks proposal, as per Capitlismojo and other reasons. Basically, syndicalism started in Italy for economic reasons not connected to any military setback. The pressures were of a different nature, and to claim military setback would simply be fallacious. Germany is a different case, but that doesn't justify a false generalization.

Let me repeat, any edits made to the lead are going to be made on the basis of material in the body of the article. I would suggest finding sources that support any proposed changes and editing the body of the article first.

Obviously the inclusion of "populism" and "political movement" in the lead would be desirable, but they should be incorporated in a weighted manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But we're not talking about syndicalism per se and even then I don't think this can be narrowed down to simply "economic reasons" in Italy. Perhaps loss or setback doesn't work, but at the very least the broader observation that WW1 had an impact – in many different ways – in driving the emergence of fascism is well attested and is arguably worth listing as an overall factor; again, even if it did not apply in every case. As for the lead/body issue, the WW1 point is currently covered in the body, as indeed are most of the points that Mryan will no doubt want to propose for the lead as a whole. The complete version proposed earlier was as much about shifting emphasis as about introducing anything totally novel. Even if we might disagree more generally on how rigorously the lead/body rules need to be applied – I think sticking to them too rigidly can simply act as a brake on any improvement; if we can at least sort out a reasonable lead, isn't that for the better? – I'm not sure the issue really comes up here anyway. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Something like "the after effects of World War I" rather than "loss in war"? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, as long as it isn't the case that WP:OR is being introduced into the lead with respect to speculation of a spectral causal relationship between fascism and WWI, fine. Needless to say, WP:RS and WP:NPOV apply. I have no qualms with improvement.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, the line might read:

Fascism was an authoritarian, populist, and nationalist political movement and system of government that initially arose in early 20th century Europe in response to Communist revolution, economic decline, and the after-effects of World War I."

Is that a good formulation? Capitalismojo (talk)

That is a positive suggestion. My concern is that by defining the topic we are taking a position. The article "Defining Fascism" (which is Part I of World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1) may be helpful as a source and guide for the lead. It begins by saying that not all scholars believe that there is/was a fascist ideology and those that do (the majority) are divided on its definition. It then says that a "consensus" has developed in this century among non-Marxist English-speaking scholars that it is an ideology with three core elements: ultra-nationalism, revolution and rebirth. It then outlines "sources of confusion": "taking fascist ideology at face value", and its relationships with conservatism, modernity, and religion. After defining fascism, we should then say something about actual fascist parties and fascist regimes. TFD (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that too, although "threat/fear of .." might be useful addition ahead of "Communist revolution" (plus I'd always prefer lower case for communist, especially in a phrase like that, but that's a trivial point). After all, there was only one successful such revolution. N-HH talk/edits 17:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that simplicity is desirable as far as the language used to in the lead to define the topic of the article. There is far too much packed into that sentence to aid the reader in understanding in a clear manner what the characteristics of "fascism" are.

The language needs to be clear and concisely phrased.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Ubikwit on that point. Break it into two sentences?. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a revised sentence one with sentence two. The current section lacks a clear definition of F's politics. Again, I'm using the existing competing online encyclopedias as a guide here as well as standard dictionaries like the OED, which defines F as "a rightwing political movement."

"Fascism was an authoritarian, populist, and nationalist political movement and system of government that arose in early 20th century in Europe in response to Communist revolution, economic decline, and loss at war. It embodied the values and ideas of the extreme Right."

An alternative would be to go with the OED and combine sentences one and two: "F was a rightwing, authoritarian, populist and nationalist political movement..."

24.34.171.166 (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Proposed revision section one

Hi, all,

We seem stalled. What's up?

It might be easier if I just posted my proposal for a revision of the entire first section. I do that below, taking into account your comments so far:

Fascism was an authoritarian, populist, and nationalist political movement and system of government that arose in early 20th century in Europe in response to the threat of Communism, economic decline, and the after-effects of World War I. It embodied the values and ideas of the extreme Right.

Fascism was characterized by the mass mobilization of the national community around an idealized vision of the nation and the race. It relied on a totalitarian state, the cult of the charismatic leader, and overt violence against political opponents to maintain social order and to achieve its goal of creating a conflict-free, well-disciplined, post-democratic society. Fascists were hostile to liberal democracy, and they opposed the economic egalitarianism of Socialism and Communism. Although critical of the materialism and individualism of capitalism, they preserved traditional economic hierarchies and suppressed trade unionism. They sought to quell the division between classes that gave rise to leftwing radicalism by creating a corporate economic order. Fascism proposed what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and communism. It advocated a mixed economy with the goal of achieving autarky or national self-sufficiency.

Fascists emphasized militarism and national rejuvenation through military conquest and imperialism. They advocated a belligerent, chauvinist nationalism and distrust of foreigners. Fascists believed that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations. Fascism displaced the class conflict the Communist movement exploited onto a conflict between races and nations. Fascism was characterized by a celebration of the virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal. Public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis was placed on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

The fascist movements sought to turn back the tide of liberal modernization, which they perceived as decadent, by turning to the past for ideals--the German medieval Reich and the Roman Imperium. They rejected the Enlightenment ideal of human progress through science and reason and instead celebrated the Will of the leader, the irrational power of the race and the nation, and traditional values such as "Kinder, Kuchen, Kirche" or family, home, and church.

The fascists came to power by non-parliamentary means, usually using violence to intimidate opponents and to organize anti-democratic revolutions. They were defeated in World War II in Germany, Italy, and Japan by an alliance of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). The Spanish movement lasted until 1976. Fascist movements can still be found in many countries. And the term is often used to characterize rightwing military dictatorships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.171.166 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Newer Version--section one

Hi, all,

This is a version with what I think might be a better opening. It specifies that F is the name of a movement in Italy; then it goes on to say it is used to name other, similar movements.

That is really more accurate historically.

It follow below.

Can one of you say why the discussion stopped earlier? Are you all hesitant to name F as "rightwing"? If so, why?

24.34.171.166 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

Here is the revised version.:

Fascism was a rightwing political movement in Italy between WWI and WWII. The term is also used to characterize similar movements in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere during the same period and since.

Fascism arose in response to the threat of Communist revolution, economic decline, and loss in World War I. It was authoritarian, populist, and nationalist.

Fascism was characterized by the mass mobilization of the national community around an idealized vision of the nation and the race. It relied on a totalitarian state, the cult of the charismatic leader, and overt violence against political opponents to maintain social order and to achieve its goal of creating a conflict-free, well-disciplined, post-democratic society. Fascists were hostile to liberal democracy, and they opposed the economic egalitarianism of Socialism and Communism. Although critical of the materialism and individualism of capitalism, they sided preserved traditional economic hierarchies and suppressed trade unionism. They sought to quell the division between classes that gave rise to leftwing radicalism by creating a corporate economic order that was meant to be a Third Position between capitalism and communism.

Fascists emphasized militarism and national rejuvenation through military conquest and imperialism. They advocated a belligerent, chauvinist nationalism and distrust of foreigners. Fascists believed that stronger nations have the right to obtain land and resources by displacing weaker nations. Fascism displaced the class conflict the Communist movement exploited onto a conflict between races and nations. Fascism was characterized by a celebration of the virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal. Public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis was placed on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

The fascist movements sought to turn back the tide of liberal modernization, which they perceived as decadent, by turning to the past for ideals--the German medieval Reich and the Roman Imperium. They rejected the Enlightenment ideal of human progress through science and reason and instead celebrated the Will of the leader, the irrational power of the race and the nation, and traditional values such as "Kinder, Kuchen, Kirche" or family, home, and church.

The fascists came to power by non-parliamentary means, usually using violence to intimidate opponents and to organize anti-democratic revolutions. They were defeated in World War II in Germany, Italy, and Japan by an alliance of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and the Soviet Union. The Spanish movement lasted until 1976. Fascist movements can still be found in many countries. And the term is often used to characterize rightwing military dictatorships.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.171.166 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2013

We need to reflect how reliable sources cover the topic and not right our own summary based on our personal views of the subject. Your summary for example ignores the "consensus theory". TFD (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the above suggestions could be seen as a fair reflection of sourced material, albeit leaning towards one interpretation more than others (as said previously, I'm not sure there's one perfect intro waiting to be found that represents an ideal distillation of all published sources). The second bothers me though with its immediate and initial identification of fascism as simply a right-wing movement in Italy. Yes, that's the origin, and should be specified as such but surely the point is, as the later proposed text acknowledges, that the term is generally used to cover broader ground now. I also think some of the detail in the current last para needs to be in any lead. As for why the discussion dropped off, that's because contributing here is not a full-time job, and those who do spend even an hour or so here each day get distracted by real life and by other pages. Not many of us have the time and energy to invest in total rewrites, especially when it comes to such contentious topics. N-HH talk/edits 07:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If it leans toward one interpretation more than other then it is POV. Given that the "consensus" theory holds that fascism only existed in Italy and Germany between 1918 and 1945, we cannot state as a fact that it lasted in Spain until 1976. The ranking of the countries that defeated fascism and the inclusion of Canada as one of the four is curious. TFD (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As was discussed a while back now, I'd be happy with some variation broadly based on the first paragraph or two of the first of the two options just posted above (ie "Fascism was an authoritarian, populist, and nationalist political movement and system of government that arose in early 20th century in Europe ..." etc) replacing what we have now. I think the first sentence proposed there is a bit more comprehensive and accurate than what we have now, and I'd also happily lose the stuff about vanguard parties and how fascists want to "organize the nation on fascist principles", which isn't really very illuminating, all told. N-HH talk/edits 19:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I had a chance to go through the lead a bit just now, and agree that material from the last paragraph. There is also the point that national syndicalism predates WWI. I also made everything consistently past tense with respect to the movements per se, leaving only the discussion of ideology in the present tense.

Obviously there's more that can be done, but there has to be sources and the lead has to be summary style. In this regard, I noticed that the material (removed) in the following passage was not only unsourced, but not mentioned at all in the main body of the text. I am familiar with the discussions on monumental architecture and the like, but there has to be reliably sourced material--preferably in the main body of the article--to be summarized in the lead.

Fascist movements emphasize a belligerent, virulent form of nationalism (chauvinism) and a distrust of foreigners (xenophobia), the latter closely linked to the ethnocentrism of many fascist movements. The typical fascist state also embraced militarism, a belief in the rigors and virtues of military life as an individual and national ideal, meaning much of public life was organized along military lines and an emphasis put on uniforms, parades, and monumental architecture.

That would not seem to be text that clears the bar of WP:NOR. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem wholly inaccurate though, hence is not technically original research, just currently unverified and lacking parallel detail in the main body. As I think discussed previously, the logical conclusion of taking out such content is that if we have an unbalanced and incomplete body we must have an unbalanced and incomplete lead to match too. Surely it would be better to maintain a more comprehensive lead and look instead to building up the body to reflect that?

Also, I think there's a problem with flipping the left-right stuff up to the top of the page. Even if the words haven't changed, because it now precedes all the stuff about nationalism and militarism, and hostility to socialism and communism, it gives too much prominence too early to the suggestion that fascism is based, in part at least, in "left-wing politics". N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is important to mention national syndicalism at the beginning, as that eliminates a good amount of the problems with temporality associated with some of the more generalizing and overarching terms that have been suggested.

As for the left-right thing, it should be apparent that national syndicalism itself was a nationalistic movement, but the economics they embraced were not generally what would be considered "right wing". I agree that it is problematic to harmonize all of the elements, but the next paragraph focuses on the right wing stuff (i.e., totalitariansm, etc.), and the third paragraph delves into the economics ideology. Neither of those is contradictory to the lead. Fascism arose during a fragmentary, transitional period, and it ideology embraced what today may seem to be contradictory elements. It's probably better to try and get that across early--which the reference to "national syndicalism" should facilitate, than oversimplify.
Regarding the deleted material, I think there are some claims made there that would have to be sourced and attributed or based on a substantial body of text in the main article that provided context (and sourcing). It should be borne in mind that the WWII-era fascist states of Italy and Germany along with the then quasi-fascist Japan formed the "axis", for example, so the claim of xenophobia seems somewhat specious to me, though ethnocentrism sounds plausible. Just because it sounds plausible, however, does not mean that there are RS describing it as such. Militarism is a common thread, but how does monumental architecture relate to that? The sentence seems somewhat forced, so there has to be a concrete source connecting those in an intelligible manner.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier there is no agreed definition of fascism or which groups, beyond the Italian party, were fascists. Also, it should be pointed out that fascist ideology changed and no fascist group came to power on its own or governed strictly according to fascist ideology. For us to come up with a definition is therefore POV. TFD (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically I agree that since there are diverse assessments in various RS on the topic of this article, all statements should be sourced.

You mention a "consensus theory" that includes Germany along with Italy (1918-1945), which is something with which most people would not disagree. The time frames are relevant to discussions of the left-right political spectrum characterizations, etc. As pointed out in Great_depression#Germany, for example, the Great Depression had a severe impact on the unemployment in the Weimar_republic#Onset_of_the_Great_Depression, facilitating the rise of the National Socialist party, etc.

It would seem evident that monumental disasters like the Great Depression had an effect on the ideology of Fascism and other movements as well. I'm sure that the sources address these issues much more thoroughly than is reflected in our article. For example, the following paragraph cites no sources whatsoever, does not even include a Wikilink to the Weimar Republic article, and seems to be generally lacking

The events of the Great Depression resulted in an international surge of fascism and the creation of several fascist regimes and regimes that adopted fascist policies. The most important new fascist regime was Nazi Germany, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. With the rise of Hitler and the Nazis to power in 1933, liberal democracy was dissolved in Germany, and the Nazis mobilized the country for war, with expansionist territorial aims against several countries. In the 1930s the Nazis implemented racial laws that deliberately discriminated against, disenfranchised, and persecuted Jews and other racial and minority groups.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 15:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If Italy and Germany were the only two countries where fascists came to power, then it is incorrect to say there were several fascist regimes. TFD (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that paragraph is a mess. For starters, there was already a fascist regime in Italy before the Great Depression. I've done a provisional edit to that paragraph, including a wikilink to Weimar, etc., which is all I can do at present.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead was arrived at after much discussion, and including an understanding that claims made in the lead in Misplaced Pages's voice can be a problem where the body of the article does not make such a claim. I would note that "monumental architecture" has been found in almost every major civilization, including the present-day United States. It has very little to do with ideology at all. The common thread is that fascism was a pragmatic, totalitarian ideology which generally included irredentism and militarism as hallmarks. Other attributes are sometimes found, sometimes not found, and many of these attributes are found in distinctly non-Fascist regimes (Soviet and PRC irredentism, militarism and totalitarianism etc.) The topic is complex, and the proposal greatly oversimplifies it, as well as making claims which are not common to all fascist examples. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Spain

Doesn't seem to be much on Spain and the Spanish Civil War. At the time of writing it's mentioned in passing as a regime that survived WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.106.246.224 (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperialism bit

"Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations."

I have a problem with this. You can say this about any nation, including democracies, especially powerful ones like the United States. There's no question that the US has been imperialistic in both the past and present, so why present this as a core ideology of a fascist society when fascism is not necessarily imperialistic and imperialism is not necessarily facist. ScienceApe (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be an overlap between fascism and other ideologies. Until the Second World War, mainstream politicians in the UK and other countries called themselves imperialists. The idea of "national rejuvination" however is distinctly fascist. Bear in mind too this is about ideology. There are ideologies that oppose imperialism, war etc. even in countries that support them. TFD (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic in the original query. Just because these traits may be seen in other systems/ideas/countries, that does not mean they are not, generally, a feature of fascism or fascist regimes. There's no rule or principle that says a lead can only mention things that exist in or apply to the topic exclusively. Even if not all fascist regimes were particularly imperialistic, the general observation still stands, as does the point that the sentence does not simply say fascism was imperialist but that it saw imperialism, war etc as having some quasi-spiritual benefit to the nation. Beyond that, it's also, ultimately, a question of sourcing: if reliable authorities assert these features, that's good enough for us, subject to an element of editorial judgment about how and where to state it exactly. N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Change to lede

I cannot discern where in the body "Fascism promotes the binding of economic, military and political power, making each stronger than they could be as independent entities" is adequately explained. Can someone point it out, please? --NeilN 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics