Talk:Fascism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nat Krause (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 21 June 2005 (→New Deal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:07, 21 June 2005 by Nat Krause (talk | contribs) (→New Deal)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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)

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.

moved to talk

Fascism versus socialism

Fascism developed in opposition to socialism and communism.

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 libertarian socialism 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.

Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism, which are class struggle, and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production.

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. Hannah Arendt, Friedrich Hayek, and others argue that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) 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 socialists and communists also reject those totalitarian governments, seeing them as fascism with a socialist mask. (See political spectrum for more on these ideas.)

Socialists and other critics of Arendt and Hayek maintain that there is no ideological overlap between Fascism and Marxism; 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.

Mussolini completely rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle or the Marxist thesis that the working class must expropriate the means of production.

It is also frequently noted that Fascist Italy did not nationalize any industries or capitalist entities. Rather, it established a corporatist structure influenced by the model for class relations put forward by the Catholic Church. Indeed, there is a lot of literature on the influence of Catholicism on fascism and the links between the clergy and fascist parties in Europe before and during World War II.

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 The Road to Serfdom. Sam Spade 09:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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. AndyL 13:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Your POV that Hayek, Hannah Arendt, and other non-marxists possess a non-factual POV is not encyclopedic. Please read NPOV. Our job is to cite experts and their respective POV's, not express the POV of the majority of wikipedians in the narrative. Sam Spade 14:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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.AndyL 14:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 NPOV 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. Sam Spade 14:21, 16 May 2005 (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). 4.250.198.126 14:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"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. 4.250.198.126 14:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

All talk of marxism belongs in THAT subsection. Confusing marxism and socialism is shameful. 4.250.198.126 14:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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 4.250.198.126 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Socialism does not require nationalization of anything. Control and power redistribution can be far more subtle. This subsection is hopelessly bad.4.250.198.126 14:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

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. 4.250.198.126 14:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Piffle

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. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you review Misplaced Pages:Talk page, Wikiquette, etc... Sam Spade 10:51, 17 May 2005 (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? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that it is rude. Sam Spade 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. --67.161.115.23 19:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt

You can also just look at Hannah Arendt or The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism. Didn't she invent the term "totalitarianism"? Sam Spade 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"—it might have been Karl Popper—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.) -- Jmabel | Talk 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. Sam Spade 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 Solidarity or NSK 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 Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 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).Luis rib 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. Luis rib 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoughtful comments, I second your desire for clarity and precision. Sam Spade 21:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dispute header

I am ready for the dispute header to be removed. Thoughts? Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 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? Sam Spade 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. AndyL 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"AndyL 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. Sam Spade 11:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

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

Harcourt; New edition (March 1, 1973)

Sam Spade 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 The origin and ideology of Fascism 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Shah

Was the Iranian Shah fascist? Sam Spade 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…". 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. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

fascio

I just read fascio! 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

Sam Spade 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?AndyL 22:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, you should ask WHEELER about that quote sometime, assuming he's still around... Sam Spade 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. AndyL 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... Sam Spade 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)AndyL 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. AndyL 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. AndyL 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. --Cberlet 21:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I advise you to review conflict resolution. This talk page is not a place to make personal attacks. Sam Spade 21:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--Cberlet 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 email, where you can get away with all manner of vulgar insults without fear of being held accountable! FeloniousMonk 07:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you FM, for your insightful comment. Sam Spade 10:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And thank you both for choosing wit and humor as your weapons. 4.250.168.100 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And let's not overlook his fine use of insults and personal attacks combined with attempts to side-step policy and game the system. FeloniousMonk 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 Neofascism and religion.--Cberlet 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. 4.250.168.100 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. AndyL 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.--Cberlet 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

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.--Cberlet 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? --Cberlet 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 Hans Eysenck 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" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic 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 Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished. (from Political spectrum ) 4.250.168.100 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." john k 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. Slrubenstein | Talk 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... --Cberlet 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. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Hmmmm... I think you are right. I missed the point. :-( --Cberlet 15:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, in all fairness to you, the point was not made very explicitly the first time around, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is "historical validity"? There is no article for it, and the article for validity doesn't mention anything about it. --M4-10 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 Neo-nazism and Neofascism and religion. 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.--Cberlet 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. --espo111 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. --espo111 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! --Cberlet 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.

--espo111 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.--Cberlet 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 -O^O 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.--Cberlet 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". -O^O 21:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was reached through the discussion above on this page. It might help to start there. --Cberlet 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. -O^O 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.--Cberlet 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. Richmond Uni MI5 Daily Mirror Australian Govt (1946) Bartleby Bartelby again Uni of Manitoba DJ Clayworth 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.--Cberlet 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken DJ Clayworth'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. DJ Clayworth 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

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.--Cberlet 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. --GunnarRene 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. Hogeye 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. 172 19:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you consider anything you don't agree with to be vandalism? Hogeye 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. --Tothebarricades 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.--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)

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:

500px|right|thumb|Liberty-Authority X Socialism-Capitalism. Fascism is in the lower right.

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.--Cberlet 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 New Deal article. - Nat Kraus e 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. --Cberlet 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Ministry of Truth" strikes again!

What, pray tell, is this about? Attempting to sweep anarcho-socialist ugliness under the rug, are we? Sam Spade 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. --Cberlet 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. -O^O

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

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

Yes - that was me. -O^O

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 Fascism and fascism. --espo111 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. --Cberlet 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. Sam Spade 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.--Cberlet 14:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, and stop repeating yourself. Sam Spade 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:

Misplaced Pages controversial topics

Archives