Misplaced Pages

Talk:Fascism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:07, 21 June 2005 view sourceNat Krause (talk | contribs)15,397 edits →New Deal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:21, 26 December 2024 view source Beeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,480 edits →2024-11 gallery: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|reason=per proposal at Village Pump - ]|small=yes}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Warning Fascism left-wing}}
{{Talk header|search=no}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=high|attention=}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}}
{{On this day|date1=23 March 2004|oldid1=3116637|date2=23 March 2005|oldid2=16334950}}
{{Top 25 report|Oct 20 2024 (8th)}}
{{section sizes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter=55
|minthreadsleft=5
|minthreadstoarchive=2
|algo=old(30d)
|archive=Talk:Fascism/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{US English|flag=off}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Fascism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Fascism/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
}}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}


==Archives==


__FORCETOC__
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


== Is this article under 1RR ==
] reasons for deleting the word "reactionary" from the Nazism article and putting the word "Revolutionary" back into this article.


There's ] for this article saying that the ] applies. This was enacted in 2009 after ]. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like ] or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both {{u|EdJohnston}} and {{u|Daniel Case}} have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? ] (] / ]) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
This article is a selected entry at ] (may be in HTML comment)
:At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. ]&nbsp;]] 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. ] 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. ] (] / ]) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:Meant to ping {{u|KrakatoaKatie}}, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? ] (] / ]) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, re-issuing the edit notice under CTOP seems wise if someone can check that the topic falls in the correct area. ] (]) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


==Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing==
Nazism is only revolution(Ary) in that way, that it is strugglingi it's way back to the Reaction(Ary) times way back in then in the days of Negro Slavery and bigotry. BAH! So it's both, only not changing social order forwards (Communism) but backwards to the hillbilly times. And has this anything to do with fascism in general? Knock it off, it's a sort of sub-sort racial Fascism! --] 10:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
As Just Step Sideways ]:
----------
{{blockquote|This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.}}
And as {{u|Objective3000}} notes, we already have ] which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.{{pb}}As such I propose that we enact an indefinite ] on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) ]'']'' 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


:We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. ] (]) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
== Fascism and Social Philosophy ==
This entire article needs to be rehauled. It is massive misinformation. Fascism has nothing to do with governmental forms! Fascism has nothing to do with governmental forms! Fascism is a policy of negative social reproduction. The first actual facist was Lycurgus, the ruler of Sparta at around 800 BC. "Politically" or nominally speaking, Lycurgus ran a timarchy, or militaristic governmental program. But he was fascist to the extent that he encouraged negative social reproduction; no expansion of educational systems, rigid modes of thinking about conduct, and the insulation of society against intellectuals and the arts. (anonymous, of course, 14 May 2005)


:: If editors are incompetent enough to miss the ''bloody great red message'' when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. ] 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:This has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in my life. Have you read Ezra Pound's Cantos? Plato's Republic? Fascism is the true essence of melding art and society. It is the artist's ideal state. Fascism's only connection to Sparta is that it is anti-democratic and generally advocated some form of eugenics. However, the similarities are no more or less than the system of society proposed in Plato's Republic. Fascism is the political doctrine that the best should rule; it is pure aristocracy. Yet at the same time, fascism is rooted in the modern concept that value itself is subjective to a specific culture. What defines the most ideal ruler in Italy was not the same as in Japan.


I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough.
== moved to talk ==
If we shut it down with something like {{collapse top|please see the notice at the top of this page}} the same comment over and over
{{collapse bottom}} seems more likely to be effective. ] ] 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


:I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Misplaced Pages's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to ''feel'' like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming.
*Fascism versus socialism
:A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. ] (]) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. ]'']'' 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That is absolutely the point, agreed. ] ] 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


==Poor record in war==
Fascism developed in opposition to ] and ].


I recently a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation.
While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state is an example: socialism considers the state to be merely a "tool of the people," sometimes calling it a "necessary evil," which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good. (Certain forms of ] reject the state altogether.) Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in and of itself, which the people should obey and serve, rather than the other way around.


The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like {{tq|Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms}}(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic ''more'' weight rather than less.
Fascism rejects the central tenets of ], which are ], and the need to replace ] with a society run by the ] in which the workers own the ].


Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: {{tq|Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.}}) ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
A fascist government is usually characterized as "extreme right-wing," and a socialist government as "left-wing". The fascists themselves often rejected their categorization as right-wing, claiming to be a "third force". Fascists, like Marxists, were critical of the capitalist liberal democracies, but unlike the Marxists, their criticisms focused more on the liberal democratic aspects than the capitalism. ], ], and others argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see ]) are more superficial than actual, since those self-proclaimed "socialist" governments did not live up to their claims of serving the people and respecting democratic principles. Many ] and ] also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See ] for more on these ideas.)


:I have also reverted this content as ]. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in , because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in ]. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. ] (]) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and ]; they regard the two as utterly distinct. Since Marxism is the ideological basis of Communism, they argue that the comparisons drawn by Arendt and others are invalid.
:Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. ] (]) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning.
::That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? ] (]) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. ] (]) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


{{od}}Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Mussolini completely rejected the Marxist concept of ] or the Marxist thesis that the ] must expropriate the ].
@Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think:


{{quote frame|
It is also frequently noted that Fascist ] did not ] any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, it established a ] structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the ]. Indeed, there is a lot of literature on the influence of Catholicism on fascism and the ] in Europe before and during ].
{{fake heading|sub=3|Poor record in war}}
Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) ] wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)
}}


This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled {{tq|differently}}, but I tried a different summary.
:The above is inherantly POV, and is an unacceptable title for a section, as well as manner of discussing this volitile issue. Somebody needs to read ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary:
Sam, ''The Road to Serfdom'' is not factual but a POV polemic. There's no reason for us to adhere to it. Everything you've removed is factual and generally agreed to by historians and consensus on wikipedia has supported the above statements or similar ones several times (see debates with WHEELER in the past). You should not remove it unless and until you can show that consensus has changed. ] 13:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


{{quote frame|
:Your POV that ], ], and other non-marxists possess a non-factual POV is not encyclopedic. Please read ]. Our job is to cite experts and their respective POV's, not express the POV of the majority of wikipedians in the narrative. <big>''''']'''''</big> 14:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)
}}


@Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.<br/>
Sam, you know better than to edit unilaterally and against consensus. Discuss on talk first and then edit, not the other way around. BTW, Arendt was of the opinion that fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism and I doubt she'd disagree with anything in the section so please don't misrepresent her in an attempt to find justification for your ad hoc removal of an already agreed to section.] 14:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
--] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


:Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk.
Hayek, by the way, is a political theorist with a particular POV, not an "expert witness". Though you may be enamoured with him that doesn't make his phiolosophical tracts factual. Cite Hayek in the article by all means but don't remove things just because you think they contradict Hayek's interpretation. 14:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
:One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, '']'', chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion: {{talkquote|National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (''Grosslebensraum'') of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.}}
:] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are.
::Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war.
::Best to leave it out. ] (]) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


:::@Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as: {{tq|Historian ] wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.}} I think this is particularly valuable since the other sources didn't focus on economics; I would probably insert it either before or after the second mention of Morgan in the main paragraph.
:It is unacceptable to present a disputed opinion as fact in the narrative. Why you think your postulated "concensus" (majority of wikipedians willing to fuss over this page is more like it) trumps ] is beyond me. As far as your premise "Sam, you know better than to edit unilaterally and against consensus", I would be shocked and disappointed if you actually believed that. <big>''''']'''''</big> 14:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
:::@TFD: those are true statements, but I'm not sure how they're relevant to the content, which is sourced to multiple experts. Eco might be an exception, but at minimum he is still a well-known commentator on fascism. In addition, the weight is already minimal given that it's only included in the Criticism section and is presented as attributed statements (if a "Criticism of Fascism" sub-article existed, that could perhaps be an argument to move it there, but summary style suggests the content should be built up here first, through additions like this one). I have also noted above that there is considerably more detail involved than simply analyzing a population of one, so perhaps the description of Devereaux could be expanded to make this clearer. I'm thinking of starting with {{tq|Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes...}} and/or adding {{tq|When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under certain definitions, such as the ] regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their effectiveness in war was also very poor.}}
{{cot|Updated version including the changes described above}}
{{quote frame|
{{fake heading|sub=3|Poor record in war}}
Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux <u>evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes, and</u> described a general trend for <u>them</u> to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing. <u>When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under various definitions, such as the ] regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their records in war were also very poor.(Devereaux)</u> Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) <u>Historian ] wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.(Mazower)</u> ] wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)<br/>
In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)
}}
{{cob}}
:::--] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? ] (]) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Does Devereaux use examples from outside WWII in their work? ] (]) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


::::::The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which {{tq|most everyone agrees on}} are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; while they were both destroyed in WWII, he discusses the failures and fall of each of them separately (as do most scholars, I think). He describes {{tq|the next most ‘clearly fascist’ government}} as Spain under Franco, and describes the rest as being much more subject to debate, but summarizes them as e.g. {{tq|the candidates for fascist or near-fascist regimes that have been militarily successful are few.}} A full list of the governments that he explicitly mentions are Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron, Imperial Japan, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Hussein, and Russia under Putin. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Fascism like most isms developed '''to excuse a grab for power''' and not as something fuctionally different from socialism (of which it is ONE type). ] 14:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I was kind of wondering if he would include Argentina either under Peron or under the ] on that list. ] (]) 13:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


::::Weight says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Given that hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been written about fascism, that limits us to major views that are routinely mentioned in overviews of fascism.
"socialism considers" is NONSENSE. People consider. Socialism itself can include or exclude fascism based on how the term is defined. and the term is usefully defined differently in different contexts. ] 14:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
::::Eco was not a fascism scholar and his "Ur-Fascism" has not gained any acceptance among fascism scholars. Bret Devereaux is also not a fascism expert and his not submitted his views to academic scrutiny.
::::Every major writer alive during fascism's zenith had something to say about it. We cannot mention them all, but can only pick what is significant according to reliable sources.
::::Incidentally, what is the evidence that "military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself." Hitler ran on a campaign of "work, freedom and bread." Starting a world war wasn't one of his campaign promises. ] (]) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


:::::I am aware of how ] works. :-) As I agreed above, one can make a weight argument that this should be spun off into a criticism article. If you insist (and others don't weigh in), that's the approach I'll take; the large subsections have a lot of specific details that could be spun off as well. That said, in this case I would put more emphasis on weight within the Criticism section, which is poorly developed (e.g. until my recent edits, the genocides were barely mentioned at all) and I would consider this to be an appropriate amount of weight relative to the total amount of criticism that should be but isn't (yet) included in our article.
All talk of marxism belongs in THAT subsection. Confusing marxism and socialism is shameful. ] 14:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::Eco is at minimum a significant viewpoint; he is already cited in this article, and comprehensively so at ]. I would consider Devereaux to have expertise in the public communication of history, but the content would still stand if he was removed, and some of the information could also be sourced to others. Morgan, of course, is the author of a Routledge textbook on fascism. Certainly "every major writer alive during fascism's zenith" isn't the right comparison, since while WWII was still in progress they didn't have much of an established military record that could be discussed.
:::::The centrality of military effectiveness (or at least the appearance of effectiveness) is currently only being presented as part of the attributed argument. On reflection, it will probably always be possible to choose a definition of fascism such that the statement doesn't apply. That said, Morgan discusses this extensively. As an example, from the conclusion: {{tq|The Fascist regime, self-evidently, ‘failed’ against its own chosen measurement of ‘success’, which was war. Fascism’s immediate legacy was, then, military defeat and the foreign occupation of Italy, which was bound to discredit both the system of rule and the aggressive nationalism which Fascism embodied.}} Likewise there is the description from the above content that support for the Italian government had an important dependence on their ability to win the war. Another example is from Paxton, ''The Anatomy of Fascism'': {{tq|Fascist regimes could not survive without the active acquisition of new territory...and they deliberately chose aggressive war to achieve it}} (which logically includes victory as a requirement).
:::::While Hitler didn't promise to start a ''world'' war, he certainly ]. His ideology is well-studied and encompasses a lot more than his specific campaign promises. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::You have not provided an WEIGHT based arguments. People do not have weight, opinions do, henve the reference to "all significant viewpoints" not "all significant commentators.
::::::Eco's "Ur Fascism" article for exampled has received great attention in popular writing, although AFAIK, none in academic writing. But the opinions expresssed in that article do not mention fascism and war.
::::::Also, while Morgan wrote a chapter about Fascism's failure in war, you need to establishe the prominence of his observation in reliable sources. Do brief articles about fascism routinely mention it?
::::::Also, Morgan was writing about Fascism in Italy. It's OR to apply it to anything else. And if his opinions are mentioned, you need to mention him.
::::::Anyway, the best approach to ensuring weight is to identify the main literature and summarize what they say. We should not include things just because we find them interesting. It would leave an incorrect impression on readers on how fascism is perceived by experts. ] (]) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)


:::::::I have provided a weight-based argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous response. I have also observed that the argument is discussed in multiple sources, which is inherently a weight-based argument that the cumulative weight of these sources is sufficient for inclusion in the article. (Also, people have weight in the sense that weight originates from ''sources'', and if the author is an expert that will greatly increase the weight of the source.) Furthermore, I will also restate that a lot of the content could be rewritten to a form that presents ''facts'' rather than opinions, in which case arguments about opinions wouldn't apply even though the content would technically have even more weight rather than less.
Using the limited tool of left versus right to talk about fascism is like using west east to discuss the north pole. The tool is pointless for the task and proves nothing ] 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::::With regards to Eco, ''Ur-Fascism'' is cited in Google Scholar. Looking within the citing articles provides multiple cases where other scholars use him as an authoritative source on fascism: etc. Your additional claim that his article {{tq|do not mention fascism and war}} is incorrect, and the relevant section is quoted in the above content.
:::::::In response to your other new objection: part of the content describing Morgan already makes it clear that it refers to Italy. The other part cited to Morgan is cited to another source as well, but his position in that sentence could be replaced by a different source; alternatively, please feel free to propose a version that you think improves the attribution. I have also just provided another source (one that ]) on a very similar point that clearly discusses fascism in general.
:::::::As I said, I will acknowledge that your weight argument can be supported as well, so I will plan to spin this off into a subarticle instead as I mentioned above. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)


::::::::OK, I've now created the new ] article, as per my last comment. I also added quite a bit of additional content (and I'm sure even more could be added), so please feel free to review and make further edits. Corresponding edits to the main article are in progress. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Socialism does not require nationalization of anything. Control and power '''redistribution''' can be far more subtle. This subsection is hopelessly bad.] 14:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::You did not have consensus for this. ] (]) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm confused, but current discussion is at ]. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Well I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone said this was a good idea for you to make this article. ] (]) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I might be misunderstanding you? But generally speaking, ], and especially not for something that was proposed on talk with ]... ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
@Slatersteven and Trakking: I have no objection to retaining the status quo pending discussion, of course. However, please remember that ] I would appreciate knowing any specific objections you might have so they can be addressed.<br/>
With regards to Trakking's edit summary: to be clear, the "additions" are a single sentence listing the sections of the new Criticism article, and the "major removals" are a summarization of the existing content to distill out the central points, with additional details being moved to the subarticle. This is a normal procedure in accordance with ]. I also did a cleanup at the same time, and it turns out that a lot of the content (in the status quo version) could be shortened or removed since it's either not criticism, extraneous detail, or can be written in many fewer words.<br/>
I appreciate both of your edits on the Criticism article. I will take a closer look later, but as some preliminary thoughts: @Slatersteven, the paragraphs that you removed are directly based on the long-standing content in the main article. I could see it being argued either way, but if you want to object to their categorization as "Criticism of fascism", you should probably make that argument here instead. @Trakking, you've made suggestions for content a couple times now but without actually providing sources. Could you please provide suggestions for what sources you're recommending the content could be based on? ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== 2024-11 gallery ==
Oh, one more thing. Sam sees fit to bring up "The road to serfdom". The road to serfdom for Today's Americans to to replace their civil rights with consumer rights, to believe the rich will act in their interest more than their elected representatives, that property=sovereignty, that "ownership society" is anything but an attempt to replace owner of USA=citizens with owner of USA=the rich. ] 14:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


A potential gallery for the FAQ: Nazis sitting on the far right of the German parliament circa 1930
=== Piffle ===
<gallery>
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-10549, Berlin, Eröffnung des Reichstages.jpg
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-11035, Berlin, Reichstagseröffnung durch Karl Herold.jpg
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13801, Berlin, Reichstag, Eröffnung.jpg
</gallery> ] (]) 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


:Too bad ideology isn't determined by seating arrangements. ] (]) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that in the last 24 hours or so, much solid, well-cited material has been removed and replaced by piffle. I would suggest reverting to the state of the article 24 hours ago, and moving on from there. -- ] | ] 06:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
::Please remember ]. ] (]) 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I do realize Misplaced Pages is not a forum. But I don't see the point in adding these images. It seems like he is just trying to deceive people. ] (]) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't see any indication of deception here. ] (]) 18:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::While ideology is not determined by seating arrangement, seating arrangement is determined by ideologies in European parliaments. Parties chose among themselves where to sit and that means they sit closest to the other parties they are most likely to cooperate with. Generally but not always this will reflect their relative position in the political spectrum.
::::This 1924 plan of the Baden-Wurttemburg legislature for example shows the parties sitting from left to right: Communist, Social Democratic, liberal, Nazi affiliate, national liberal, Christian Democratic and conservative. I saw a 1930s plan of the Reichstag that had the Nazi grouping seated inside the Conservative grouping.
::::I don't see though how the picture helps and it's not clear who is a Nazi in the photo. ] (]) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::They're the ones on the right. Kidding. I agree, I don't see any swastikas or any other nazi symbols, and the image quality makes it more or less impossible to identify individuals. ] ] 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
:I suggest you review ], ], etc... <big>''''']'''''</big> 10:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


This is a very important discussion; if you want you can contribute. ] (]) 04:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::Sam, I am remarking on the state of an article, not on the conduct of the people who edited it. Or are you suggesting that "piffle" is an obscenity? -- ] | ] 05:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

:I'm suggesting that it is rude. <big>''''']'''''</big> 10:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

:Sam, that is ridiculous. False modesty like yours is a serious source of gridlock on discussion pages, so knock it off. --] 19:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== Hannah Arendt ===


You can also just look at ] or ]. Didn't she invent the term "totalitarianism"? <big>''''']'''''</big> 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

* Yes, I have read Hannah Arendt, extensively. I studied under Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (in fact, I was studying under her at the time Arendt died); Arendt was her advisor on her dissertation, and EY-B's biography of Arendt is pretty much the standard work on Arendt. I'm not sure if she invented the word "totalitarianism"&mdash;it might have been ]&mdash;but she certainly popularized its use. But what is your point? Arendt, to my knowledge, never argued that fascism is socialism. What she argued is that state communism and fascism converged on a phenomenon that she, Popper, and others called "totalitarianism". This was a similarity, even an identity, of practice, but certainly not of ideology. I'd more or less agree, with the proviso that only the more extreme states of either ideology strongly resemble one another. Which is to say, Stalin's Soviet Union was a lot more like Hitler's Germany than Tito's Yugoslavia was like Pinochet's Chile. (And, I'd add, the latter two were both quite unlike the former two.) -- ] | ] 05:32, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well then, were not disagreeing about any of that, it would seem. I would say that her catagorising State socialism and fascism under the same label (totalitarianism) is germane. <big>''''']'''''</big> 10:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

* Wait, state socialism or state communism? A few too many things are being thrown in the same bucket. Sweden, for example, was arguably state socialist for many years, but no one in their right mind would say it was totalitarian. And even fascism and state communism are only totalitarian in their extreme forms. Yugoslavia and Poland in the 1980s were not totalitarian states, but they were communist states. (By way of contrast, think of Stalin's USSR, or of North Korea today: you can't exactly imagine ] or ] there.) Neither were most of the various quasi-fascist Latin American dictatorships that Jeanne Kirkpatrick preferred to call "authoritarian". (Again, for contrast, think Nazi Germany: how long would the ] have lasted in Berlin in 1939?) These were still dictatorships, they were often arbitrary and sometimes cruel, but they were not totalitarian, any more than the regime of Napoleon III was totalitarian. -- ] | ] 20:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

:Don't confuse socialism in the marxist sense and socialism in the European sense used nowadays. Sweden was never socialist in the marxist sense. True, it had and still has a lot of state intervention, but it never departed from the principle of capitalism (indeed, Sweden has many internationally reputed companies and is considered one of the most competetitive economies despite its huge taxation levels). Also, there is a lot of socialist parties in Europe, all of them only mildly left-wing (Spain and Portugal, for instance, have socialist governments right now).] 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

:Poland and Yugoslavia remained authoritarian dictatorships until 1989, however. Solidarity thrived despite state repression, not because of a lack of it. And Yugoslavia only remained together while Tito could crack the whip. As soon as communism crumbled, the oppressed populations demanded independance, starting with Slovenia and Croatia. I would say that these countries were still totalitarian, but that their power had eroded, which is why they seem to us as authoritarian. ] 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtful comments, I second your desire for clarity and precision. <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

===Dispute header===

I am ready for the dispute header to be removed. Thoughts? <big>''''']'''''</big> 11:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

::I still object to this line:
"Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Hayek, and others argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual."

Arendt and Hayek have different views on this matter. This sentence is not accurate. Hayek's views are usually taken serioulsy by right-wing ideologues. Arendt is more mainstream.--] 22:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

:I obviously don't agree w your definition of mainstream, nor your criticism of Hayek, but lets look at this:

::"Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Hayek, and others argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual."

:Are you saying that this is in some way inaccurate? How would you like it worded? <big>''''']'''''</big> 00:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I think it's up to you to cite something in Arendt's writings that indicates she has the views you attribute to her. I asked you to do this earlier and you did not. ] 05:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

IE please cite a quotation in which Arendt asserts that the "differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual"] 05:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

====Hannah Arendt quotes====
The Scientificality of totalitarian propoganda is characterized by its almost exclusive insistance on scientific prophecy as distinguished from the more old-fashioned appeal of the past. Nowhere does the ideological origin, of socialism in one instance and racism in the other, show more clearly than when their spokesmen pretend that they have discovered the hidden forces that will bring them good fortune in the chain of fatality. There is of course a great appeal to the masses in "absolutist systems which represent all the events of history as depending upon the first great causes linked by the chain of fatality, and which, as it were, suppress men from the history of the human race" (in the words of Tocqueville). But it cannot be doubted that either the Nazi leadership actually believed in, and did not merely use as propoganda, such doctrines as the following "The more accurately we recognize and observe the laws of nature and life, ... So much the more do we conform to the will of the Almighty. The more insight we have inbto the will of the Almighty, the greater will be our successes." It is quite apparent that very few changes are needed to express Stalin's creed in two sentences which might run as follows "The more accurately we recognize and observe the laws of history and class struggle, so much the more do we conform to dialectic materialism. The more insight we have into dialectic materialism, the greater will be our success." Stalins notion of "correct leadership," at any rate, could hardly be better illustrated.

- The origins of Totalitarianism, pages 345 and 346

Totalitarian movements use socialism and racism by emptying them of their utilitarian content, the interests of a class or nation.

- The origins of Totalitarianism, page 348

:While the above quotes could be seen to support my previous position, I saw enough statements in a contrary bent to reword the reference to her. have a look. <big>''''']'''''</big> 11:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, which edition of Origins of Totalitarianism are you using?] 15:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

:Harcourt; New edition (March 1, 1973)

::<big>''''']'''''</big> 23:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe that all of you have forgotten that Fascism grew out of the syndicalist movement. Marxism was in dispute at the time and many intellectuals rejected the idea of Marxism as a science that would eventually happen. They saw no sight of a workers solidarity taking place soon.They wanted a huge workers union to take control of the means of production and turn them into corporatives or co-ops. So they agreed on a shoddy interpretation of George Sorels myth of a nation philosophy to rally the workers. This was the only aspect of fascism being manipulative,it wasnt an economic lie. Fascism is post modern jargon that upholds emotional, irrational, and nationalist ideals. Just read the writings of Mussolini, Giovanni Gentile and Sergio Panunzio. Its a mix of Sorel, Nietzche, and Kant. Other varients grew out of this as well. There was National SOCIALISM and NATIONAL SYNDICALISM.

I'm sorry but this nonsense about it being "right-wing", and on the same spectrum with American conservatism is absurd. It was reactionary because syndicalism demands direct action. It was oppressive of other unions because it wanted to be the ONLY workers union. It appealed to whole groups of people because it was nationalist. Read Von Mises work on corporate syndicalism and it will explain alot of reasons why its always mistaken for being "the last reactionary ditch effort of the capitalist class". (anon 19 May 2005)

* I'm by no means "forgetting" this, and the section ] acknowledges much of this. However, von Mises put a much stronger emphasis than does almost anyone else. No, I don't think fascism has a lot to do with American conservatism, any more than Stalinism has much to do with British Fabianism. Neither the left nor the right is anything like a monolith. -- ] | ] 04:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

== Shah ==

Was the Iranian Shah fascist? <big>''''']'''''</big> 11:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
* Arguable either way, but that's not the context in which he's mentioned. His regime is mentioned in the context of "Examples of police states in modern times, outside of the Communist world, include&hellip;". And that it certainly was, just like its Islamic successor that everyone seems to agree belongs in the list, and which doesn't strike me as any more (or less) fascist. -- ] | ] 20:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

== fascio ==

I just read ]! How could any knowledgable, intellectually honest person claim fascism is right wing, or rooted in anything other than socialism! I always knew this was rooted in a desire to distance modern socialists, but I had no idea how blatant the truth was! Every source I have ever read said fascism was based on the roman judges fasces (might makes right), not strength thru unity. This is why I love encyclopedias! :D

<big>''''']'''''</big> 22:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam, fascio just meant group in the late 19th century and could be applied to left or right wingers. The application of the term evolved in the same way that all "manifesto" means is a document of principles but in common parlance (in the US) it is used pretty much exclusively to mean a left wing program. That there were left wing fascio in the nineteenth century does not make 20th century fascism left wing let alone socialist. Perhaps, instead of cherry-picking, you should read some of Mussolini's statements condemning socialism and, in the "Doctrine of Fascism", explicitly referring to the movement as one of the right?] 22:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

:Heh, you should ask WHEELER about ''that'' quote sometime, assuming he's still around... <big>''''']'''''</big> 22:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, WHEELER went into an existential crisis when several of us looked up the original and it said "right" (in Italian) because, like you perhaps, he could not accept it when the facts flew in the face of his pet thesis. Sorry Sam, I saw the original with my own eyes. ] 23:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

:"the original"? Like hand written by Il Duce himself? Seriously tho, I assume your smart enough to know the left-right dichotomy is a arbitrary one. The encyclopedic question is his relationship w socialism, and everything I kn ow says he, and all fascists, were socialists. They certainly wern't monarchists, or freemarket capitalists! Corporatism seems awfully (state) socialist to me... <big>''''']'''''</big> 01:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


This can be easier than it looks if people would just stop being so ideologically based and look at the facts.

"In face of Liberal doctrines, Fascism takes up an attitude of absolute opposition both in the field of politics and in that of economics"

"Now Liberalism is about to close the doors of its deserted temples because the peoples feel that its agnosticism in economics, its indifferentism in politics and in morals, would lead, as they have led, the States to certain ruin."

Mussolini certainly rejected lassiez faire capitalism and liberalism in general. Oh, and I mean classical liberalism, people, not liberalism as its known today. but....

"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism: the doctrine of historical Materialism according to which the history of human civilizations can be explained only as the struggle of interest between the different social groups and as arising out of change in the means and instruments of production. "

It also rejected Marxian Socialism as a science. He negated everything that had to do with the rationalism of the enlightment. Anything that did away with nationalism and questioned the role of the state.

"'''whilst in the great river of Fascism are to be found the streams which had their source in Sorel, Peguy, in the Lagardelle of the Mouvement Socialiste and the groups of Italian Syndicalists, who between 1904 and 1914 brought a note of novelty into Italian Socialism''', which by that time had been devitalized and drugged by fornication with Giolitti, in Pagine Libere of Olivetti, La Lupa of Orano and Divenire Sociale of Enrico Leone. "

His influence came from syndicalism, pure and simple. yet....

"Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. ''Fascism recognizes the real exigencies for which the socialist and syndicalist movement arose, but while recognizing them wishes to bring them under the control of the State and give them purpose within the corporative system of interests reconciled within the unity of the State''."

While he still expoused syndicalist rhetoric he still opted for total control to belong to the state.

"It might be said against this programme that it is a return to the corporations. It doesn't matter! ... I should like, nevertheless, the Assembly to accept the claims of national syndicalism from the point of view of economics ...."

So in essense he was a corporative syndicalist or a national syndicalist. The Flange of Spain were also National Syndicalists.

http://library.flawlesslogic.com/fascism.htm

Oh and to put the nail in the coffin....

"This explains why all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal, and it is supremely ridiculous to endeavor on this account to put them outside the pale of history, as though history were a preserve set aside for liberalism and its adepts; as though liberalism were the last word in civilization beyond which no one can go."

He hated liberalism to the core and understood that all movements are against liberalism and collectivist in nature.
Sorry guys but Fascism obviously began at point A: Marxism, deviated, and was left at point B:Fascism. It didn't begin with any liberal starts at all. He simply rejected the enlightment's notion of socialism, and marxism as a science.




'''What is the difference between Fascism and Capitalism, since both admit the system of private enterprise ?''' In brief definition, Capitalism is the system by which capital uses the Nation for its own purposes. Fascism is the system by which the Nation uses capital for its own purposes. Private enterprise is permitted and encouraged so long as it coincides with the national interests. Private enterprise is not permitted when it conflicts with national interests. Under Fascism private enterprise may serve but not exploit. This is secured by the Corporative System, which lays down the limits within which industry may operate, and those limits are the welfare of the Nation.

-Oswald Mosely, 100 Questions
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/buf/100questions.htm

Again I ask why is this ideology "right wing"? Sounds like a socialist wet dream, to me.



Oh and to the person who said that conservatism wants to do away with individual rights, is wrong, conservatives uphold individual rights.


::I see WHEELER's back.

::Anyway, someone cut out the comment by me (below)] 01:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC):

::::":"the original"? Like hand written by Il Duce himself?"
::As in the first edition of the Encyclopedia Italiano (1932?). Not a reprint and not quoted second hand or mistranslated in another book. ] 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC) As in the first edition of the Encyclopedia Italiano (1932?). Not a reprint and not quoted second hand or mistranslated in another book. ] 21:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

==Sanctions against Sam Spade?==
Sam Spade continues to rewrite parts of this page despite endless discussion where his views are shown to be ill-informed and Right-Wing POV that damages the integrity of the encyclopedia. IDo others think it is time to seek sanctions to stop this bullying and failure to edit collectively? Sam Spade has a long history of this type of abusive activity on other pages. He is now following me around Wiki abusively editing my edits. --] 21:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

:I advise you to review ]. This ] is not a place to make ]. <big>''''']'''''</big> 21:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--] 22:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

::Sam's right, this talk page is not a place to make personal attacks. As he can attest, the proper place to make personal attacks is ], where you can get away with all manner of vulgar insults ! ] 07:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you FM, for your insightful comment. <big>''''']'''''</big> 10:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

::And thank you both for choosing wit and humor as your weapons. ] 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

:::And let's not overlook his fine use of ] combined with ]. ] 01:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

==Fascism is Right Wing==
Among serious academic scholars of fascism there is a clear view that Fascism is ultimately a right-wing ideology. It sprang from socialism, but when it added nationalism and trans-class populism it morphed into a right-wing movement. I cite Griffin, Eatwell, and Laqueuer as my sources. They are among the leading scholars of fascism today. Laqueuer is the most likely to see elements of left and right in fascism (as do all serious scholars) but he concludes: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right."

Sam Spade is now trying to start this debate over anew at ].--] 00:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"Serious scholars" don't boil serious matters down to bumper sticker philosophy. You yourself are claiming Fascism has both left and right elements. Thus it is '''NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT'''. The simplistic bumber sticker label fails to be useful in this case. ] 22:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Among serious academic scholars of fascism there is a clear view that Fascism is ultimately a right-wing ideology. "

Oh yeah among the ones YOU take seriously. Then somehow we have to really have define the notion of right wing all over again, because the usual definition for "right" is less government, less spending and more free markets. It also involves patriotism, not nationalism. Conservative morality, not hate filled bigotry.Strong defense, not militarism, and individuality not collectvism.
Why is there so much debate on this? Hitler said it himself that he was a socialist. Why cant we take his own words for it? Mussolini said he rejected the doctrines of liberalism. How would that make him a "right winger" among the likes of Reagan, Bush and Eisenhower?

I quoted from thier own writings and they refute the notion that they're aligned with classical liberalism. Unless ofcourse you guys refer to "right wing" as totalitarian, militaristic and oppressive, than nearly ALL of the Communist ''left wing'' regimes out there in the past and present have been or are "fascistic".

"'''but when it added nationalism and trans-class populism''' "

So this constitutes it being "right wing"? No, this is what makes it un-Marxian Socialism. Hitler was still a socialist though.

"'''The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day'''."


-Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf- The struggle with the red front

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html



:::"The actual difference between Socialism and Marxism still remains a mystery to these people up to this day."

::What does the above have to do with fascism not being right wing? Sounds more like Hitler trying to paint "Jewish" Marxism and socialism with the same brush. ] 19:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

==Recent Scholarship==

Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism in the world. I picked them to cite because they are among the scholars most reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology, yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism ends up allying itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism or hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.

Laqueuer: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right." Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future (New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 223.

Eatwell talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak." Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (New York: Allen Lane, 1996) p. 39.

Griffin also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described Fascism as “Revolution from the Right.” Roger Griffin, “Revolution from the Right: Fascism, chapter published in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (Routledge, London, 2000), pp. 185-201.

Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." Weber, Eugen. 1982. ''Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century,'' New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 8.

So even these scholars, who see both left and right influences on fascism, and studiously avoid stating that right-wing ideology is part of the "fascist miniomum," end up admitting that in practice, fascism gravitates to the political right.

Now, having mentioned Laqueur, Griffin, Eatwell, and Weber, I would point out that there are many, many scholars of fascism that are quite willing to call Fascism a right-wing ideology.--] 19:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


Because it promises to keep the bosses on top in a syndicalist/corporatist style economic system. Where parties on the right are its weakest, is where Fascism invokes the most appeal, not where the right is in the majority. You're forgetting that nationalist parties existed before the Fascists. They alligned with the Fascists, not the other way around. If nationalism is what only constitutes right wingism, then I can see why Fascists are right wingers, but in essense thats not all what they're about.
For example; why didn't the nationalist Kuomintang refuse to make a pack with the Communists in order to fight the nationalist Japanese? Even when Wang Jingwei, who was a member of the ''left wing'' side of the "right wing" nationalist Kuomintang wanted to side with Imperial Nationalist Japan.
By 1926 the Kuomintang was splitting between left and right as well, and the left wing faction wanted to side with Imperial Japan.The propaganda that spewed from Nanjing was peace throught national salvation. The same rhetoric expoused by Mussolini.
'''''Fascism recognizes the real exigencies for which the socialist and syndicalist movement arose, but while recognizing them wishes to bring them under the control of the State and give them purpose within the corporative system of interests reconciled within the unity of the State.'''''
- Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism

'''''"It might be said against this programme that it is a return to the corporations. It doesn't matter! ... I should like, nevertheless, the Assembly to accept the claims of national syndicalism from the point of view of economics ...."'''''

again Mussolini.

Now lets go to Flange Spain:

'''No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites. It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the State, but to the producer as a member of his trade union. And this economic system will make a thing of the past the depressing spectacle of unemployment, slum housing, and misery.'''

- National Syndicalist Party, magazine Arriba, number 20, November 1935

'''The National Syndicalist Movement, conscious that it has strength and reason on its side, will keep up the assault on all its enemies: the right, the left, communism, capitalism. For Fatherland, Bread, and Justice.'''

http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

Exhibit A: Fascist Flange Spain, The National Syndicalist Party.

Fascism is simply, Left Wing Nationalism.

'''QUESTION 2: Thinking in terms of geopolitics, what primary strategic mistakes did Adolf Hitler make in the Second World War?'''
''ANSWER: First, we must dispense with the simplistic, black-and-white approach that views communism and national socialism as being at opposite poles from each other. They were competitors far more than they were enemies. This is why the totally unexpected German-Soviet treaty in the summer 1939, for the first time, put the pawns in their right places on the chessboard.

''True fascism is definitely not right wing. (Cf. the analyses of Zeev Stemhell, the Israeli historian.) The "leftist" roots of national socialism are numerous. After leaving prison, I managed to meet and interview the last surviving Strasser brother, Otto. Around 1962, my press brought out two personal interviews with Otto Strasser. The SA (brownshirts) were sometimes nicknamed the "Beefsteaks." In fact, most of the SA were communists who had gone over to Hitler. Brown on the outside, but red inside. In East Germany, about 1950, many of these became red on the outside once again.''

-Jean-Francois Thiriart, Respone to Question 2
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/jeanthiriarte.html

Why dont we just just take the Fascists at face value?


::I understand that folks are passionate about this view, but it is a microscopic position compared to the scores of books that plainly call Fascism a right-wing ideology. As I have shown above, even the most cautious scholars eventually see Fascism starting on the left, merging left and right influences, and then drifting toward the political right.--] 22:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

...and its a position we should challange, especially when it smears people who dont want, or have absolutely no association towards fascist ideology. Classical Liberals/Libertarians/Conservatives get the bulk of the ad hominems towards this awful misconception and bad handling of labels. That is why I challange it and see it as a Marxist heresy. The only thing "right wing" about Fascism is it's nationalism. Today that is mostly all that remains, is the extreme nationalism.

It’s always exhilarating to debate fascism with Strasserites because they don’t seem to recall that Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives stuck a sharp blade through the notion that right-wing fascism could co-exist with the oxymoron of “nation” “socialism.” All the rest of the socialists had already figured that out. But the fact is, even as we agree that Fascism started out from the left, that does not change the fact that most scholars see Fascism as either a right-wing phenomenon, or a left/right syncretic blend that ultimately drifts to the right. And by the way, at least have the commom courtesy of inventing a name--perhaps Gregor Otto? --] 23:01, 27 May 2005 (U

So then right means nationalism, correct? It doesnt matter how many socialists Hitler did kill, the point was that they were not nationalists, that is why. To understand the Nazis you had to understand the time. During the time of the depression international commerce had failed in many of the eyes of Germans. They didnt want liberalism or democracy. The Nazis fiercest enemy was western liberal democracy. The Marxists and the capitalists were both jewish inventions to him that would undermine German nationalism. Nazism and Fascism is another anti-liberal crusade that competed with Communism. So can we just underline in essense just what constitutes as right wing? Is it authoritarianship? Or is it smaller government?
And no national socialism is not an oxymoron! You seem to argue socialism in a marxist sense.
But at the same time, I would like to know just what you guys get out of refering to Fascism as right wing and equating it with all sorts of conservatism, patritotism, and anything remotley capitalistic? (unsigned)

== Left vs. Right is at least one dimension too few for this discussion ==
]The first person to devise such a two-axis system was ] in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (] tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (] tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like ] and ]), can be distinguished. (from ] ) ] 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, not the stupid two dimensional political spectrum. Yes, the left-right spectrum is vastly oversimplified, and fails to convey a great deal of nuance and difference. But at least it has a real meaning, at least people have understood and continue to understand politics in the light of a relatively simple one-dimensionsal left-right spectrum. Whether or not it really exists (obviously, it doesn't) is secondary to the fact that it has been used as a convenient tool for categorizing political parties for hundreds of years. While the question of what is "really" the left and what is "really" the right is obviously nonsensical, there is nevertheless a basic inherent meaningfulness to the one-dimensional axis, simply because it is how people have chosen to understand politics since the French Revolution. The two-dimensional axis has no such historical validity to recommend it - it is nearly as silly and oversimplified as the one-dimensional axis, but has no particular advantage over it except the fact that it is slightly less oversimplified. Give me the one-dimensional axis, please, at least when discussing historical figures who were viewed ''by their contemporaries'' in the light of left-right politics. It was Mussolini himself, after all, who said that the century of fascism would also be a "century of the right." ] ] 23:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with John Kenney, except I would add that the two dimensional model is of historical value in understanding America during the Cold War. The orthogonal axis makes assumptions about the state and private property that were ideologically powerful during the Cold War and are still of importance to many proponents of Capitalism. That said, John is quite right that it does not help us describe or analyze fascism. ] | ] 23:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

::Nice that you all agree, but remember the no original research rule? The major scholars of fascism in academia have a variety of views. Cite some... --] 03:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think the issue is the NOR rule, the question is whether Eysenck is an appropriate source. Did he actually ''do'' research on fascism? The title of the book suggests that it is not based on research about fascism. ] | ] 13:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

::Oh, Hmmmm... I think you are right. I missed the point. :-( --] 15:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
:Well, in all fairness to you, the point was not made very explicitly the first time around, ] | ] 16:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

:What the heck is "historical validity"? There is no article for it, and the article for ] doesn't mention anything about it. --] 19:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well Then it was a just another anti-liberal ideology that wanted to kill liberal democracy;like its commie cousin.

==New page on neofascism?==
I am thinking about creating a new page on neofascism that would supplement the pages on ] and ]. This would be a controversial topic, and I would need help. It could explore the issue whether or not the U.S. is diplaying some signs of neofascism (I see both sides of that question, but do not think the U.S. or the Republican Party is neofacist as has been suggested here), but would like to see a disucssion of these charges based on RELIABLE and SCHOLARLY or ACTUALLY PUBLISHED sources. Anyone want to talk about this? I REALLY would like a discussion here for a few days before this page gets set up and a giant edit war breaks out. I will wait out the discussion and jump back in in a few days.--] 13:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

please do so NOW or i will. this page is getting out of hand. the article is supposed to bae about FASCISM and that died with mussolini. anything after that is called NEOFASCISM.
create the new neo article and remove all that pertains to it from this one to the new one.
--] 04:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an ok idea. but one thing that I dont get from people that do believe we're exhibiting "neo fascist" tendencies now, is how they didnt notice that we've always been a rather quasi-nationalist,capitalist,(classical liberal) conservative country. Even Toqueville vouched for that centuries ago. I'm wondering if Marxist ideas didnt sneak into our way of looking at our own history and coming to a sound conclusion? We're just a country that protects our own interests, and it seems that people equate that with "neo fascism".

Plus neo fascism today has more to do with ultra-nationalism and brute jingoism today. Its rather racist than just having anything to with rational logic or coherent ideology. It's not even conservative for any other reason than to hate.
Neo Fascists today would be: Neo Nazis, Black Nationalists, Fascist revivalists, Islamic radcials and Mexica Nationalists.
----------------------------------

even though i agree, THIS IS NOT AN ARTICLE ABOUT MODERN AMERICA!!!!!!!! it is about the HISTORY of Fascism.
stick to the nature of the article, fascism, Italian Fascism.
--] 23:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::OK, there is no reason to get so excited. Most of the editors here agree this page is for the history of fascism up through the end of WWII. If you want to create the page on neofascism, I would be delighted, and it should look at neofascism in Europe, North America, and other places., not just the U.S. Relax! --] 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---------
just getting excited because every day some idiot comes in here and adds his political views about curious george and his republicans.

--] 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Fascism & ideology & the political right==
The idea that fascism has no ideological basis is widely challenged in recent scholarship (although there is little agreement). We have crafted a compromise regarding fascism as on the political right, please do not rewrite the lead without first coming here to discuss the matter.--] 18:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Rather than revert the whole second paragraph, could you please edit the specific parts that need improvement. Here is my response to the above, and summary of the intent of my changes:
:*The opening paragraph should give a concise definition of Fascism/fascism - the regimes of Franco and Hitler are the two non-italian WWII governments most often identified with being "fascist", so I feel they bear mentioning early on.

:*In the above you comment on the ''ideological'' basis of fascism, whereas I was commenting on the ''theoretical'' basis of Fascism in particular. I'm trying to make the point that unlike Marxism, there wasn't a school of thought backing the Fascists.

:*Regarding left-vs-right, I found a brilliant summary you wrote above and attempted to work it into the text in my most recent edit.

:Thanks -] 18:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::The wording in the lead went through a big battle. I do not agree with your claim that you are summarizing my views or my edits. Franco is seldom listed as a fascist by modern scholars. Nazism is the proper link, not National Socialism. The idea that there is no "theoretical" basis for fascism is the idea of scholars 30 years ago.--] 19:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I apologize if I missummarized your views or edits. The article will improve through ongoing edits, and I look forward to hearing from more members of this "consensus". -] 21:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::The consensus was reached through the discussion above on this page. It might help to start there. --] 21:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::::I have reread all of the above on this page (but not the 16 archive pages). If a clear consensus was ever reached that the first two paragraphs were frozen in form, it is escaping me. Consensus is also a dynamic concept, as additional editors participate on an article, consensus will change.
:::::I believe this article can be improved. True to the spirit of wikipedia, I have edited the article. Reverts give little guidance in coming to language acceptable to all, which is why I would prefer to have mutual editing of the article. -] 22:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Cites Please==
Mutual editing on a controversial topic implies actual discussion and the provision of cites.

I challenge the following:

"The term has also been used to describe governments such as National Socialism and the rule of Francisco Franco in Spain." Few recent scholars call Franco's Spain Fascist. Please provide a cite to this claim.

Why "National Socialism" instead of Nazism? It is the wrong reference.

This is an article on early Fascism, thus this phrase is inadequate and vague: "Neofascism is often used as an alternative term to describe post-WWII movements seen to have fascist attributes." What other term is there?

"Italian Fascism, unlike some other contemporary movements, did not grow out of a strict theoretical basis." Please provide a cite to this claim. Few recent scholars of fascism would agree with this.

"Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing to right-wing positions as suited their purposes." This is a dated and now discredited argument. Please provide a cite to this claim.

"This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum." Who says this? Please provide a cite to this claim.

Thnaks for providing this information.--] 01:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I don’t understand why we can't take the doctrine of the Fascists at face value. Why do people come in with these preconceptions of socialism and left wing and evaluate fascism from than angle? I mean if the Nazis said they were socialists, why can't we argue why their doctrine was flawed and not whether they were socialist or not? Who are we to say that they were not? Is there some sort of attempt to avenge the name of socialism or something?

"Few recent scholars call Franco's Spain Fascist". Well, here are some references that seem to say the opposite. ] 18:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::These cites above are largely popular, journalistic, and partisan accounts. Some of them do not even support your claim, saying, for example, that Franco incorporated some aspects of fascism, which is not disputed, but far different from being considered full-blown fascism. This page has tried to rely on serious scholarship on fascism such as Payne, Laqueur, Sternhell, Griffin, Eatwell, etc. We are aiming for something more compelling and substantial than an essay based on Internet research. As researchers and editors we do not accept what the fascists called themselves because that is not scholarship. I am removing your text until you can provide serious contemporary scholarship on fascism to back up your contentions. Please note that this page is the result of many editors having discussions where there has been substantial--even heated--disagreement. Much of the resulting text has been battled over using cites to contemporary scholars of fascism. If I wrote a page on Fascism it would not read like this, but as a Wiki editor I am delighted to have helped edit a page that aspires to higher standards than material culled from websites.--] 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:You appear to have mistaken ]'s message as being from me. My response is below.

:1: "frequently used to describe Franco" - The statement is not that Franco '''was''' fascist, it is that his regime is one that was frequently '''described''' as fascist. ] has already provided several references to this. In addition, the article internally uses Franco many times as an example.

:2: "National Socialism -v Nazism" - I have removed the redirect.

:3: "Neofascism as an alternative" - I have clarified the language.

:4: "Italian Fascism growing from theory".

::"...most fascists affected to scorn philosophical constructs. Deeds were deliberately exalted at the expense of theory; doctrine tended to be invented, if at all, in haphazard,opportunistic fashion." - Alan Cassels Janus: The Two Faces of Fascism

::"Neither 'totalitarianism' nor 'fascism' is a clean' scholarly concept." - Ian Kershaw: The Nazi Dictatorship

:I should add, efforts today to place fascism in a theoretical framework do not demonstrate that it grew out of a theoretical framework.

:5: "willingness to do whatever was necessary"

::See Cassels above

:6: "difficult to strictly categorize fascism"

::This sentence characterizes that attempts to categorize (or even precisely define) fascism have been frought with trouble.

::"if every theory is inadequate, some are more inadequate than others" - R Pearce

::"any general theoryof fascism must be no more than a hypothesis which fits most of the facts." - G Mosse

::See also:
:::French Fascism, Both Right and Left: Reflections on the Sternhell Controversy - R Wohl
:::Neither Left Nor Right - Z Sternhell
Please, I kindly ask you to use edits instead of reverts in response to my additions, it makes it much easier to make progress. -] 00:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I have actually been rewriting and incorporating some of the ideas discussed here into the text. What ] has been doing is primarily stamping his same text into the same place over and over. Who is really engaging in a discussion here? The are many different positions on Fascism. The idea that it has no ideology has been largely rejected in recent scholarship. The details of the material on Fascism incorporating both left and right belong in that section of the article. It is not appropriate to put idiosyncratic views into the lead paragraphs. They belong in the detailed sections where various competing positions can be explored. The lead should only contain the broadest consensus of recent scholarship. Sternhell's position is one of the tiniest minority views on the subject. Brilliant, yes, but very challenged and disputed.--]
03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::A right wing dictator would be closer to Chiang Hai Shek, Pinochet,Batista,Somoza, Suharto, Pervez Mushareff, and the ruler of Singapore. They really do not come in the name of any ideology other than ruling thier countries. They did not claim to be socialists or fascists and had straight military rule.
I do not think that Mussolini and Hitler would directly fall into that. User: 205.188.116.136 17 June 2005

:I'm sorry, but the references I cited included lecturers from several universities, the Australian Government, MI5 and another encyclopedia. Are these "popular, journalistic sources"? I'd like an apology please. ] 13:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Let's get serious. It is not appropriate to cite another encyclopedia in an encyclopedia. MI5 is an intelligence agency. One cite was to a study of memoirs about fighting the "fascists" in Spain (The Gallant Cause - Canadians in the Spanish Civil War) that's not scholarship about theories of fascism, even if it is published by a university press). One cite explicitly stated that Franco's government incorporated PARTS of fascism. The material from the University of Richmond appears to be a teaching tool for high school students.

::Now let's deal with the attempts to plagiarize the material, almost word for word, sentence by sentence, from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop it.

::Here is the text that is being plagiarized:

:::Fascism is a "totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.
:::"Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy"
:::"Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups."

::I also note that in promoting the POV that Fascism has no ideology, that other text that talked about fascism and ideology in the The Columbia Encyclopedia was not mentioned.--] 15:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==New Deal==
The claim that the New Deal was a form of fascism is only promoted by a handful of right-wing ideologues. It is not considered a serious critique in academia. And without a cite and posted anaonymously without prior discussion, it has no chance of remaining part of the text for more than a few minutes.--] 18:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

: Agreed. We shouldn't limit the catchment of valid facts and observations to academica. But editing without prior discussion on a controversial topic like this is futile. --] 18:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Gabriel Kolko a right-wing ideolog??? Kevin Carson ("The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand") a right-wing ideolog??? Please educate yourselves. ] 19:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Kolko noted some parallels, but you are totally misrepresenting his work. Someone please go ahead and revert these edits. The constitute clear vandalism. ] 19:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Do you consider anything you don't agree with to be vandalism? ] 19:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::I've read Kolko's work on the topic and I don't know how you could interpret it as calling FDR fascist. I consider your edits to be vandalism, and I assure you I have a very negative opinion of FDR (for very different reasons than you, I'm sure) - it's simply an issue of NPOV and original research. --] 19:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


Well the whole argument about the New Deal is silly. The New Deal was not close to Fascism in practice. But anyways how can you guys still commence to say that Fascism is right wing?

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/tomorrow/chapter3.htm

A right wing dictator is someone who upholds conservative values such as monarch, military or state rule ''only''. There is no ideology really attached to it. The Czar of Russia was right wing. The King of England was right wing. The generals like Chiang Kai Sheck, Lon Nol, Pinochet, Shah of Iran,Batista and Somoza were right wing.

The Fascists were syndicalists. Nationalists that simply rejected international finance and International Commnunism. How much more are we going to have to go around what these people believed in?
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/um/syndicalism.html

::Because, as discussed ENDLESSLY here, that is the view of many scholars, and if you read the current text carefully, the claim is phrased in a cautious way that represents the views of MOST influential scholars of fascism. Also, citing the fascist ideologue Mosley on the subject is not pareticularly persuasive.--] 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::The fascists were hardly syndicalists. They killed syndicalists by the thousands. Sounds kind of like the claim that they were socialist just because they called themselves "National Socialists." --] 20:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:::From an economic perspective, fascism is the type of statism which maintains the legal forms of private property. IOW it regulates rather than nationalizes (like statist socialism.) Here is an ideology map:
]

::::Folks, there are a million interpretations of fascism. The issue on this page is what are the most persusive and accepted scholarly approaches to the study of fascism and the history of fascism.--] 21:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Salerno says that John T. Flynn described the New Deal as a sort of pre-fascism, a fascist economic system without the totalitarian politics. He also predicted, incorrectly, that it would swiftly lead to full-blown fascism, or that it would be reversed to the pre-1929 norm. Since the claim was not that the New Deal was actually fascism ''per se'', it seems to me this information would be more relevant in the ] article. - ]] 16:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Political Spectrum==
The discussion on socialism belongs under the section on the political spectrum. Some of the other material posted by Sam Spade is repeated in other sections. The material on Arendt has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a false and misleading interpretation of her work. --] 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=="Ministry of Truth" strikes again!==

Attempting to sweep anarcho-socialist ugliness under the rug, are we? ] 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Look, this is tiresome whining. Get over it. I moved some stuff around. Deleted stuff that was repetitive or not at all relevant. You are simply wrong about Arendt. Discussed previously. Deleted. Stop being a crybaby and claiming you are being censored whan all you did was paste a giant wad of contested material back into the text without bothering to see if it was repetitive to material on the page. --] 22:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== "Fascism spread across Europe" ===

Prior to changing, the 1st sentence said that Fascism was a movement led by Mussolini, and the 2nd sentence said that Fascism swept Europe. Leaving the reader to think that the movement led by Mussolini swept Europe? Better to say "similar movements", or try to make the F/f distinction. -]

:That's a good point. Want to take a crack at fixing it?--] 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Ooops, somebody already fixed it.--] 22:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:: Yes - that was me. -]

Ç

it should be Fascism was a movement led by Mussolini, that served as a generic model for other european governments, sort of a "role model" that is the difference between <u>F</u>ascism and <u>f</u>ascism.
--] 00:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


"Because, as discussed ENDLESSLY here, that is the view of many scholars, and if you read the current text carefully, the claim is phrased in a cautious way that represents the views of MOST influential scholars of fascism. '''''Also, citing the fascist ideologue Mosley on the subject is not pareticularly persuasive'''''.--Cberlet 20:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fascists were hardly syndicalists. They killed syndicalists by the thousands. Sounds kind of like the claim that they were socialist just because they called themselves "National Socialists." --Tothebarricades 20:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)"

This is ridiculous. The syndicalist camps split into two factions. The nationalist camp and the anarchist camp. The Nationalists went on to become the fascists and the anarchists fought the fascists in Spain. Its simple. The Flange party leader called his party, the National Syndicalist party. Fascist ideology is based on corporative syndicalism or guild socialism. It was called the Third Way. Mosely accepted it, Mussolini accepted it, Hitler accepted with the creation of the DAF, and Franco also accepted it. The Flange del las JONS is still active today in Spain.So why on Earth can I NOT quote someone who was a fascist? What does it matter about all of these other historians when the people themselves that are claiming to be fascist are spilling thier doctrine out? I dont understand why Fascists seem to be the only ones that "tricked" the people into "phony" politics while everyone else was bumbling but honest? You guys have the worse sense of objectivity I have ever seen. Hitler could resurect from the dead this very night and claim to be a socialist, but you people would just scoff and tell him otherwise. How arrogant! That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, that citing a Fascist himself, on his own politics, from his own pen, is ''not'' persuasive. There must be something special about the Fascists that not even thier own writings are taken into consideration.

What about these authors? Any careful examination of the birth of Fascist ideology will tell you that the movements began on the left and progressed to use thier politics by a force similar to that of the right.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691044864/qid=1119331891/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/104-6901599-7436706?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.akpress.org/2001/items/roadtofascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/Falange_Espa%F1ola_Tradicionalista_y_de_las_Juntas_de_Ofensiva_Nacional-Sindicalista

http://es.wikipedia.org/Nacional-sindicalismo

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6524/politics/corporatism.html

==Fascism and Socialism==
Note to Sam Spade. Please actually read the entire article before stamping in duplicative material that has already been extensively debated here. There is a new section on Fascism and the political spectrum that contains most of what you just stamped in. In some cases you actually stamped in whole sentences that are duplicated elsewher in the article. The Hayek sentence for example is in another section. The leftist roots of fascism are discussed at lenght in several sections. Same with totalitarianism and corporatism. --] 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Then delete the duplication, not the section which stood the test of time and concensus for over a year. ] 14:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Sam. This is totally contrary to Wiki policy, and you know it. It is up to you to read the entire article and edit based on the current edit, rather than stamping in your dated and exhaustingly debated highly POV section. Most of what you are stamping into the article already exists in other sections of the page, and has been edited by scores of editors. What you are doing is vandalism, not editing.--] 14:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::Read ], and stop repeating yourself. ] 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::Pasting duplicate sentences into an article is clearly vandalism. --] 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:21, 26 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

Fascism is a right-wing ideology.

The lede of the article says that "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement". This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Misplaced Pages community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives.Please do not request that "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing"; your request will be denied, and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so.
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.
Article policies
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.
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 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.
This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconItaly High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
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 article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
Section sizes
Section size for Fascism (50 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 8,303 8,303
Etymology 2,926 2,926
Definitions 16,638 24,025
Position on the political spectrum 4,960 4,960
Fascist as a pejorative 2,427 2,427
History 46 70,037
Background and 19th-century roots 3,310 3,310
Fin de siècle era and fusion of Maurrasism with Sorelianism (1880–1914) markup removed; cannot link (help) 4,579 9,693
Fascist syndicalism 5,114 5,114
World War I and its aftermath (1914–1929) 3,985 18,135
Impact of World War I 1,630 1,630
Impact of the Bolshevik Revolution 3,213 3,213
Fascist Manifesto and Charter of Carnaro 3,572 3,572
From populism to conservative accommodations 3,795 3,795
Fascist violence 1,940 1,940
Fascist Italy 1,035 8,704
Mussolini in power 2,519 2,519
Catholic Church 2,284 2,284
Corporatist economic system 1,057 1,057
Aggressive foreign policy 1,108 1,108
Nazi adoption of the Italian model 701 701
International impact of the Great Depression and buildup to World War II 6,981 6,981
World War II (1939–1945) 4,778 4,778
Post-World War II (1945–2008) 7,533 7,533
Contemporary fascism (2008–present) 127 10,857
Greece 3,109 3,109
Post-Soviet Russia 7,621 7,621
Tenets 1,135 27,257
Nationalism with or without expansionism 1,940 1,940
Totalitarianism 1,906 1,906
Economy 12,513 12,513
Direct action 1,140 1,140
Age and gender roles 6,394 6,394
Palingenesis and modernism 2,229 2,229
Culture 12 7,969
Aesthetics 5,498 5,498
Popular culture 2,459 2,459
Criticism 577 11,803
Anti-democratic and tyrannical 1,996 1,996
Unprincipled opportunism 4,957 4,957
Ideological dishonesty 4,273 4,273
Anti-fascism 3,276 3,276
See also 445 445
References 28 28
Bibliography 17 53,313
Primary sources 4,255 4,255
Secondary sources 41,226 41,226
Tertiary sources 2,591 2,591
Further reading 5,224 5,224
External links 1,755 1,755
Total 211,137 211,137

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.



Is this article under 1RR

There's an edit notice for this article saying that the one-revert rule applies. This was enacted in 2009 after this discussion. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like WP:AN or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both EdJohnston and Daniel Case have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Meant to ping KrakatoaKatie, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. Katie 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, re-issuing the edit notice under CTOP seems wise if someone can check that the topic falls in the correct area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing

As Just Step Sideways commented above:

This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.

And as Objective3000 notes, we already have a massive page notice which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.

As such I propose that we enact an indefinite WP:Moratorium on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) SerialNumber54129 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
If editors are incompetent enough to miss the bloody great red message when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough. If we shut it down with something like

please see the notice at the top of this page
the same comment over and over

seems more likely to be effective. Just Step Sideways 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Misplaced Pages's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to feel like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming.
A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — Czello 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. SerialNumber54129 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
That is absolutely the point, agreed. Just Step Sideways 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Poor record in war

I recently added a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation.

The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic more weight rather than less.

Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.) Sunrise (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also reverted this content as WP:EDITORIALIZING. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in their edit summary, because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in WP:TONE. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning.
That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? Trakking (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

@Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think:

Poor record in war

Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)

This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled differently, but I tried a different summary.

Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary:

In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)

@Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.
--Sunrise (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk.
One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion:

National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (Grosslebensraum) of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.

Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are.
Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war.
Best to leave it out. TFD (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as: Historian Mark Mazower wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists. I think this is particularly valuable since the other sources didn't focus on economics; I would probably insert it either before or after the second mention of Morgan in the main paragraph.
@TFD: those are true statements, but I'm not sure how they're relevant to the content, which is sourced to multiple experts. Eco might be an exception, but at minimum he is still a well-known commentator on fascism. In addition, the weight is already minimal given that it's only included in the Criticism section and is presented as attributed statements (if a "Criticism of Fascism" sub-article existed, that could perhaps be an argument to move it there, but summary style suggests the content should be built up here first, through additions like this one). I have also noted above that there is considerably more detail involved than simply analyzing a population of one, so perhaps the description of Devereaux could be expanded to make this clearer. I'm thinking of starting with Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes... and/or adding When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under certain definitions, such as the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their effectiveness in war was also very poor.
Updated version including the changes described above
Poor record in war

Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes, and described a general trend for them to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing. When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under various definitions, such as the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their records in war were also very poor.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Historian Mark Mazower wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.(Mazower) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)
In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)

--Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Does Devereaux use examples from outside WWII in their work? Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which most everyone agrees on are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; while they were both destroyed in WWII, he discusses the failures and fall of each of them separately (as do most scholars, I think). He describes the next most ‘clearly fascist’ government as Spain under Franco, and describes the rest as being much more subject to debate, but summarizes them as e.g. the candidates for fascist or near-fascist regimes that have been militarily successful are few. A full list of the governments that he explicitly mentions are Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron, Imperial Japan, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Hussein, and Russia under Putin. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I was kind of wondering if he would include Argentina either under Peron or under the Junta on that list. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Weight says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Given that hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been written about fascism, that limits us to major views that are routinely mentioned in overviews of fascism.
Eco was not a fascism scholar and his "Ur-Fascism" has not gained any acceptance among fascism scholars. Bret Devereaux is also not a fascism expert and his not submitted his views to academic scrutiny.
Every major writer alive during fascism's zenith had something to say about it. We cannot mention them all, but can only pick what is significant according to reliable sources.
Incidentally, what is the evidence that "military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself." Hitler ran on a campaign of "work, freedom and bread." Starting a world war wasn't one of his campaign promises. TFD (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I am aware of how WP:WEIGHT works. :-) As I agreed above, one can make a weight argument that this should be spun off into a criticism article. If you insist (and others don't weigh in), that's the approach I'll take; the large subsections have a lot of specific details that could be spun off as well. That said, in this case I would put more emphasis on weight within the Criticism section, which is poorly developed (e.g. until my recent edits, the genocides were barely mentioned at all) and I would consider this to be an appropriate amount of weight relative to the total amount of criticism that should be but isn't (yet) included in our article.
Eco is at minimum a significant viewpoint; he is already cited in this article, and comprehensively so at Definitions of fascism. I would consider Devereaux to have expertise in the public communication of history, but the content would still stand if he was removed, and some of the information could also be sourced to others. Morgan, of course, is the author of a Routledge textbook on fascism. Certainly "every major writer alive during fascism's zenith" isn't the right comparison, since while WWII was still in progress they didn't have much of an established military record that could be discussed.
The centrality of military effectiveness (or at least the appearance of effectiveness) is currently only being presented as part of the attributed argument. On reflection, it will probably always be possible to choose a definition of fascism such that the statement doesn't apply. That said, Morgan discusses this extensively. As an example, from the conclusion: The Fascist regime, self-evidently, ‘failed’ against its own chosen measurement of ‘success’, which was war. Fascism’s immediate legacy was, then, military defeat and the foreign occupation of Italy, which was bound to discredit both the system of rule and the aggressive nationalism which Fascism embodied. Likewise there is the description from the above content that support for the Italian government had an important dependence on their ability to win the war. Another example is from Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism: Fascist regimes could not survive without the active acquisition of new territory...and they deliberately chose aggressive war to achieve it (which logically includes victory as a requirement).
While Hitler didn't promise to start a world war, he certainly planned for Germany to expand dramatically. His ideology is well-studied and encompasses a lot more than his specific campaign promises. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
You have not provided an WEIGHT based arguments. People do not have weight, opinions do, henve the reference to "all significant viewpoints" not "all significant commentators.
Eco's "Ur Fascism" article for exampled has received great attention in popular writing, although AFAIK, none in academic writing. But the opinions expresssed in that article do not mention fascism and war.
Also, while Morgan wrote a chapter about Fascism's failure in war, you need to establishe the prominence of his observation in reliable sources. Do brief articles about fascism routinely mention it?
Also, Morgan was writing about Fascism in Italy. It's OR to apply it to anything else. And if his opinions are mentioned, you need to mention him.
Anyway, the best approach to ensuring weight is to identify the main literature and summarize what they say. We should not include things just because we find them interesting. It would leave an incorrect impression on readers on how fascism is perceived by experts. TFD (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I have provided a weight-based argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous response. I have also observed that the argument is discussed in multiple sources, which is inherently a weight-based argument that the cumulative weight of these sources is sufficient for inclusion in the article. (Also, people have weight in the sense that weight originates from sources, and if the author is an expert that will greatly increase the weight of the source.) Furthermore, I will also restate that a lot of the content could be rewritten to a form that presents facts rather than opinions, in which case arguments about opinions wouldn't apply even though the content would technically have even more weight rather than less.
With regards to Eco, Ur-Fascism is cited 627 times in Google Scholar. Looking within the citing articles provides multiple cases where other scholars use him as an authoritative source on fascism: etc. Your additional claim that his article do not mention fascism and war is incorrect, and the relevant section is quoted in the above content.
In response to your other new objection: part of the content describing Morgan already makes it clear that it refers to Italy. The other part cited to Morgan is cited to another source as well, but his position in that sentence could be replaced by a different source; alternatively, please feel free to propose a version that you think improves the attribution. I have also just provided another source (one that has its own WP article) on a very similar point that clearly discusses fascism in general.
As I said, I will acknowledge that your weight argument can be supported as well, so I will plan to spin this off into a subarticle instead as I mentioned above. Sunrise (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've now created the new Criticism of fascism article, as per my last comment. I also added quite a bit of additional content (and I'm sure even more could be added), so please feel free to review and make further edits. Corresponding edits to the main article are in progress. Sunrise (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You did not have consensus for this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused, but current discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of fascism. Sunrise (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Well I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone said this was a good idea for you to make this article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding you? But generally speaking, editors do not require permission to edit, and especially not for something that was proposed on talk with no objection... Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and Trakking: I have no objection to retaining the status quo pending discussion, of course. However, please remember that in general, "no consensus" is not a valid reason to revert. I would appreciate knowing any specific objections you might have so they can be addressed.
With regards to Trakking's edit summary: to be clear, the "additions" are a single sentence listing the sections of the new Criticism article, and the "major removals" are a summarization of the existing content to distill out the central points, with additional details being moved to the subarticle. This is a normal procedure in accordance with WP:Summary style. I also did a cleanup at the same time, and it turns out that a lot of the content (in the status quo version) could be shortened or removed since it's either not criticism, extraneous detail, or can be written in many fewer words.
I appreciate both of your edits on the Criticism article. I will take a closer look later, but as some preliminary thoughts: @Slatersteven, the paragraphs that you removed are directly based on the long-standing content in the main article. I could see it being argued either way, but if you want to object to their categorization as "Criticism of fascism", you should probably make that argument here instead. @Trakking, you've made suggestions for content a couple times now but without actually providing sources. Could you please provide suggestions for what sources you're recommending the content could be based on? Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

2024-11 gallery

A potential gallery for the FAQ: Nazis sitting on the far right of the German parliament circa 1930

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Too bad ideology isn't determined by seating arrangements. Liberty5000 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I do realize Misplaced Pages is not a forum. But I don't see the point in adding these images. It seems like he is just trying to deceive people. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any indication of deception here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
While ideology is not determined by seating arrangement, seating arrangement is determined by ideologies in European parliaments. Parties chose among themselves where to sit and that means they sit closest to the other parties they are most likely to cooperate with. Generally but not always this will reflect their relative position in the political spectrum.
This 1924 plan of the Baden-Wurttemburg legislature for example shows the parties sitting from left to right: Communist, Social Democratic, liberal, Nazi affiliate, national liberal, Christian Democratic and conservative. I saw a 1930s plan of the Reichstag that had the Nazi grouping seated inside the Conservative grouping.
I don't see though how the picture helps and it's not clear who is a Nazi in the photo. TFD (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
They're the ones on the right. Kidding. I agree, I don't see any swastikas or any other nazi symbols, and the image quality makes it more or less impossible to identify individuals. El Beeblerino 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Fascism?

This is a very important discussion; if you want you can contribute. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories: