Talk:Fascism/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Please Note

This page has grown long from time to time and topical subsections have been pulled out and new pages created. Please do not complain about information missing from this page until you have explored the Fascism Template pages. Weaving links to existing pages or adding text with pointers to longer discussions is both appropriate and useful.--Cberlet 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious Persecution

From the "Positions on Religion" section:

Nazis arrested and killed thousands of Catholic clergy (18% of the priests in Poland were killed), eventually consigning thousands of them to concentration camps (2600 died in Dachau alone).[125] Although Jews were obviously the greatest and primary target, Hitler also sent Roman Catholics to concentration camps along with the Jews and killed 3 million Catholic Poles along with three million Jewish Pole.

Wasn't the persecution of millions of Poles mostly motivated by the Nazi supremacist ideology, not because these Poles were Catholic? I would also think that the persecution of members of the clergy was to kill people who had leadership roles to render Polish society powerless. The Nazis did persecute some upstanding Catholics that criticized them in Germany as well, but early on struck a (now very controversial) deal with the Vatican, the Reichskonkordat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo2001 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Leftist Political Terms?

I don't understand why this sentence is here:

"fascists supported revolutionary politics, and fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler used leftist political terms such as "proletariat" and "bourgeois" to describe society. "

"proletariat" and "bourgeois" are not leftist political terms! If one is associating them with Marx (who didn't invent said words) then they would be right-ist (very conservative) not very liberal. --Russ Frank 16:11, 02 August 2008 (UTC)

Element of fascism: "opposition to laissez faire capitalism"?

In the listed elements of fascism is "opposition to laissez faire capitalism", and the references given are the following:

• Calvin B. Hoover, The Paths of Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World, The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20;

• Philip Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168

Could the text for these sources be provided for independent review? I have seen no evidence that fascists opposed free market capitalism and did they not ally themselves with them? --Jfrascencio 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."

This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."

We fascists do not trust the market to take care of things. The market can operate to an extent, but state must make sure resources are distributed in an equitable manner and make sure that workers aren't being exploited. We support minimum wage laws, welfare system, laws against usury, etc. That's what fascism is all about. The "invisible hand" just doesn't work. Billy Ego 03:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascists, especially Strasserites, often claim to be a "third way" between capitalism and communism. Almost all socialists and the majority of scholar claim this is a deluded self-perception. --Cberlet 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it not a third way? Is it laissez-faire capitalism? No. Is it Marxian socialism? No. Therefore it's a third way. Besides some nationalization private property is allowed but the use of that property is under the supervision and control of the state to make sure it is used for the common good. There is a welfare system, wage controls, price controls, etc. Billy Ego 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now how about some text from the source that is alleged to say that "most" scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements? The source given in the article is John Hoffman and Paul Graham. Introduction to Political Theory. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X Billy Ego 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has happened before. The majority of editors believe that the most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years have disagreements, but generally do not describe fascism using the terms developed by fascists to describe themselves. Nor do most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years adopt the perspective of the libertarian/Austrian School ideologues, none of whom are considered mainstream scholars of fascism by most academics who study fascism. Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find.--Cberlet 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What "marginal view" are you talking about? Billy Ego 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just caught a really flawed from statement from you. You said "Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find." Well, if many sources can be found, then it is by definition not a marginal view. Capisce? Or are views "marginal" just because you say they are? Billy Ego 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find thousands of cites from the Marxist left on the nature of fascism, probably far more than you can find cites for your marginal views. In neither case would this justify adding this to the lead, or making it a disproportionate part of the entry. Even for fascists, size isn't everything...--Cberlet 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you are able to find more cites for your views? The only way to know what is marginal and what is not is to actually try to pull up sources and compare numbers. So far you're saying that other views are marginal. There is no reason to believe you. Billy Ego 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to visit a library and see what I am saying is easy to document.--Cberlet 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't documented it. You're just saying it. Where is your comparison of the numbers of sources? Billy Ego 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet does not have to do your research for you, nor does he have to prove anything. Since the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to alter the status quo (see WP:SOURCE), it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the article, as it previously stood, did not present the views of the majority. -- WGee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The burden is on whoever wants to delete the material. If something has a source then it shouldn't be deleted. I can go around deleting sourced things that you put in by claiming they're "marginal." But do I? No. I'm not a vandal. There is no way to know what is "marginal" or not without a thorough compilation of sources and comparing numbers. Billy Ego 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Please study Wiki guidelines and stop disrupting this and other pages.--Cberlet 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary. You're simply wrong. And you're vandalizing articles when you delete cited text with your self-righteous claim that views that you don't subscribe to are "marginal." Billy Ego 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the person adding content, not removing content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your source talks about opposition to laissez faire (or opposition to the theory of no or very little government involvement in the economy). It says nothing about opposition to laissez faire capitalism/ free market capitalism. Your source does not say what you are trying to make it say. fascism does not oppose free market capitalism and it is false to state that when under fascism, both coexisted. Fascist states did have free market capitalist economies that were made to serve the state. It did not oppose free market capitalism, it controlled free market capitalism to make it a servant to the state. There was a functioning free market capitalism system in place. --Jfrascencio 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascist economy centers on war production. Since it has no interest in the welfare of the masses of people and prefers to depress wages of workers and farmers and lower their standard of living, goods for popular consumption are of secondary importance

— Facts and Fascism by George Seldes, http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/George_Seldes/Facts_and_Fascism.html

--Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."

What do you mean with "regulated laissez faire." Hoover writes himself that laissez faire had been abandonded in both principle and practice in Germany and Italy. Intangible2.0 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "regulated laissez-faire" is meaningless. Either it's laissez-faire or it's not. Fascists are for a state directed economy to serve the common good. Billy Ego 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence is just false and is not supported by any reputable source. Fascism is not socialism or communism, and you will just fail trying to spin things to make it something it is not. --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? The last sentence is supported by the source we're talking about. It says "the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group." Fascism is opposed to allowing the capitalist to do whatever he wants with his property. Property rights are contingent upon using it for the benefit of the group, that group being the society. Billy Ego 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This sentence: "Fascists are for state directed economy to serve the common good". You are twisting people's words, while ignoring that the source talks about the nation being the group. In fascism the state or nation is an organism working to serve something beyond or greater than any single individual or any group of which this organic state is made out of. --Jfrascencio 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "twisting" anything. I'm saying the same thing you are saying. You just don't realize what "common good" means. It means the public good, as opposed to the individual good. We fascists believe that the common good is more important than the individual good. It is right that the individual sacrifice all for the survival of the people even if that sacrifice is his life itself. The individual should live to serve not himself but the group. The same principle applies to businesses. They must be controlled by the state to make sure they are serving the public good instead of functioning in their own interests by exploiting the people for maximum profit and interest. It is not capitalism because in capitalism the capitalist has control over the means of production. It is not Marxian socialism because there is private property. But it something in between. It is a "third way." Billy Ego 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "regulated laissez faire" (without the word capitalism) means regulation of what is not or should not be controlled. "Laissez faire" is French for "let it be". However, you could "let it be", and then regulate when it gets out of line (like not acting in the intrests of the state). There can be a free market capitalist economy that is regulated (e.g. the United States: Is it a free market economy? yes. Is it regulated? yes). --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That still does not mean that fascist actually opposed free market capitalism. This excerpts showed that there was a coexistence between free market capitalism and fascism as long as the free market was the servant to the state. Note the "Nevertheless", meaning there were things to the contrary of that sentence. Meaning that fascists did not oppose the exploitation or oppose free market capitalism itself just that the capitalist is now the state and the free market capitalist owner of the means of production must obey the state. It also describes the inequality, with the condition on the laborers being "onerous" (very difficult), this goes against what socialism or communism is trying to accomplish egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production by the people. Communism tries to abolish private property and the state. Socialism is a transition to that end. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."

Fascism is known for economic output that exceeds even free market capitalism. While socialism/communism is known for weak economic productivity. Fascism is the reason that fascist states recovered from the great depression so quickly compared to free market capitalist states. Nazi Germany was second in recovering from the great depression if IRC. All that above means is that fascism has become an alternative to both communism/socialism and free market capitalism. Not necessarily where it falls compared to these systems. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fascist/Nazi governments did regulate the economy and have a welfare state, but so did capitalist democratic governments. Most governments in so-called capitalist countries have placed restrictions on the economy, have used government spending to boost certain sectors of the economy, have expected some sacrifices from its citizens for the common good, and have set up programs to help the needy. This is especially true during wartime or economic downturns. If that translated into anti-capitalism, then I guess that means the US, the UK and similar non-fascist/non-communist countries are anti-capitalist too. I have seen no evidence that fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were any more opposed to laissez fair capitalism than those two Western capitalist democracies and other similar countries. There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term.Spylab 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were true that "There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term," what is the relevancy of that? Opposition to laissez-faire comes from fascism. Fascism is the inspiration and model for economic planning, welfare systems, social security, minimum wage, etc. There are economies in the world today that fascists would be pleased with. But they would not be pleased with something like the U.S. because there is not enough state control over the means of production. Capitalists are allowed to run wild in the U.S. and the people suffer. Maybe the better term is opposition to "liberal capitalism" because it's not just "absolute" laissez-faire that fascists oppose. Billy Ego 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are wrong about that. Opposition to laissez-faire capitalism does not come from fascism. There was opposition to laissez-faire capitalism long before the development of fascist ideology. This opposition cam from various sectors of the economy and various factions within the political spectrum. Fascism is not the inspiration for concepts such as economic planning, welfare systems, social security and minimum wage. Again, many of those ideas were around long before the development of fascist ideology. Also, the development of the modern welfare state was partially a response to economic downturns and partially a reward for the sacrifice of working class citizens during wartime. It was also partially a reaction to the rising support for socialism among the working class. Those in power proposed the development of the welfare state as a way to address some of the needs of the working class, in order to quench their thirst for revolution. Spylab 15:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is the same capitalism based on nazism and totalitarism. Communism is the fight for freedom and against the slavery imposed by capitalists (opposite to capitalism). Socialism is the middle way ideology, that is it combines the best qualities of both (no monopoly and no private big corporations). Liberalism is the same capitalism based on free exploitation without government involvment (or some rules against free exploitation). Capitalism is the base of all evel on our earth. All wars before communism was caused by this ideology when a small group of individuals takes all profit of work and the vaste majority are sheer slaves. Monarchy is the same capitalism ruled by dynasties.

"Extremism of the Center"

This is given:

Albert Breton. Political Extremism and Rationality. Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 79

As a reference to this:

However, some scholars say it is an "extremism of the center."

Many illustrations of this mechanism come to mind. One is the fact that Hitler found electoral support among voters who normally voted for parties of the center, and more generally the fact that fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" (see, for examaple, Kershaw 1992, Sternhell 1978). In that case, what could motivate the middle classes is their fear of the consequences of the adoption of some economic policies reflected in the move from mainstream position from R to R'.

— Political Extemism and Rationality By Albert Breton, Page 79 Excerpt

Clearly, Albert Breton does not outright say or argue that "fascism is an extremism of the center". You can't just write "fascism is an extremism of the center" because this is not generally accepted and it won't stand on its own. "Some" is being used to throw this out there without naming the proponents of this claim or where their argument can be found. --Jfrascencio 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He says it can plausibly considered exteremism of the center. And He's giving the names of people who say that is "extremism of the center." (Kershaw and Sternhell). Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No he says that it can be interpreted with SOME DEGREE of plausibility. Plausibility = apparent validity = validity appearing as such but not necessarily being valid. The two names given are authors of two books that give examples of how fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" --Jfrascencio 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the authors he lists are those who say it is extremism of the center. Hold on I'll give you direct sources. Billy Ego 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For "extremism of the center" also see Lipset's Political Man where he talks about fascism as extremism of the middle class. -- Vision Thing -- 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also "The classic fascist movements have represented the extremism of the center." ---Aristotle Kallis, Routlege 2003, page 113 Billy Ego 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Productive industrial capitalism"?

Someone wrote in the introduction that the sources says that Nazis "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Where in these sources does it say that? I don't see it. I'm challenging this. If it can't be verified that the sources say this then it needs to be removed. Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Billy Ego, let me know what you could not find in the cite: Moishe Postone. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier There is a detailed discussion of the artifical and antisemitic division of capitalism into productive industrial capitalism v. parasitic finance capitalism. The Nazis did not invent the consept, but they built their ideology around it. Do you think this cite is just a dollop of chopped liver? I think it is a full meal!--Cberlet 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it in there. Where does it say that they supported "what they considered productive industrial capitalism."? YOu are saying that they called it "industrial capitalism." On what page number of the book does it say this? If you don't come up with a more specific cite then it has to be deleted. Billy Ego 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My summary of a brilliant article by Moishe. Go to a library and go look for yourself and tell me when you have done that and why you disagree. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If the 1986 book is anything like the same 1980 essay from Moishe, I think there are some problems. It reeks of New Leftish critical theory, in the standard framework of Marxist ideas on "big capitalist." Intangible2.0 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the article and yes it is very strange. But I don't see it saying anywhere that Nazi's "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Postone talks about "industrial capitalism" in his theorizing but I don't see him say that the Nazi's considered what they embraced to be "industrial capitalism." Cberlet won't give any page number and he won't give any quotes so we can check up on his claim. I think we should delete it. Billy Ego 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"National Socialism"

There was a party in Germany called German Workers' Party in 1919 of about 50 members. Hitler, a corporal, was sent by German intelligence to investigate the party. He got into an argument with party members, where they asked him to join after impressing them with his speaking ability. He later joined the party

The party became National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1920 against what Hitler wanted it to be renamed to "Social Revolutionary Party." Hitler accepted the new party name with the "National Socialist" part because it appealed to the working class and it inspired patriotism and nationalism, and also because there was no clear interpretation of the phrase.

Hitler defined the terms nationalism and socialism in an unusual way. Hitler defined nationalism as the devotion of the individual to the nation. He defined socialism as responsibility of others for each individual.

The fact remains that there was rising support of the working class for socialism and communism at the time. Politicians tend to say anything in public speeches to gain support. So using what Hitler said to the public during his rise to power should be done in a skeptical questioning way. What should be examined is the actual system that Hitler had in place when he was in power. --Jfrascencio 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Socialism" has always been a vague term. But basically, if you're opposed to capitalism you're a socialist of some color. Billy Ego 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're anti-Capitalist. Fascism has shown that you can be anti-Capitalist and not Socialist. Tazmaniacs

That "actual system" that Hitler had in place was definitely not laissez-faire capitalism or anything close to that. There was private ownership of the means of production but that alone does not make capitalism. The means of production were strongly regulated to serve the public good. Billy Ego 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that some refer to Communist states' economic policies as "state capitalism"? Just passing by... Tazmaniacs

I think something along "opposition to economic and political liberalism" in the intro will do just fine. Intangible2.0 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation, there was national walfare, but the economic system was capitalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and racism (moved controversial statement)

I moved this here. It should not be included in the introduction because it is only one view on the matter. Others historians have argued the importance of anti-Semitism in Fascism, as well as of racism (see the review Difesa della Razza, for example). To claim Fascism had nothing to do with racism is overlooking the fascist project of creating a "new man;" it prevents understanding the use of sports and the condemnation of so-called "degenerate art" which perverted the "race". If you want to reintroduce that statement, do so in a subsection concerning "Fascism and Racism."

Though a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs, racism is not a constitutive element of fascism.
<ref>Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 
 University of Michigan Press. p. 30</ref>

Tazmaniacs 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So your justification of removing it is just your personal opinion that fascism is a constitutive element of fascism? Do you have a source that says it is? That source says it is not, so why aren't you respecting that and deleting out of the article? One don't have to be a racist to be a fascist. Billy Ego 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on fascism and race, but this a complex issue, even more so if one allows for generic fascism. It would be good to make this point clear though in the introduction, to say it is not a defining characteristic (at least not in the early "stage"). There were certainly prominent Jews (e.g. Sarfatti, Finzi) who worked together with Mussolini; anti-Semitism only became part of the fascistic discourse in the 1930s. Intangible2.0 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

they are also Jews and Blacks in the Front National. So what? Your claim concerning anti-Semitism and Fascism is, however, more to the point. But Fascism has always had to do with claims of "regenerating the nation" and creating a "new man". And how can you "regenerate" if there has not been (racial) "degeneration" before? Tazmaniacs 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You could also say that the 1938 racial laws were passed as a pragmatic response to the demands of Nazi Germany, and so not really part of fascist ideology per se. Intangible2.0 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Didnt Musso join Hitler because it "looked like" the Nazis where winning the war. He would then have had to have implemented a Nazi-esque racial policy to not "let the side down". Having the most powerful land army in Europe on his doorstep at the time probably helped "convince" him. I would say that Fascism doesnt HAVE to be racist though. As, at it's core, it is simply placing the nation/state above the individual, it could be argued that the race of the individual within the nation doesnt count, as long as they 'give themselves' to the state. To answer an above user i'd say that the cult of "Chavs" in Britian was a degeneration of the state, though the chavs themselves can be any race. Though the white ones are normally racist though they talk in ebonics. Thinking isn't thier strong point anyway, hence the degenerationFelneymike (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And why did you delete the Mussolini opposed Marxian socialism when it says in the essay referenced "Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism."? Billy Ego 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And why are you deleting that Mussolini opposed both political and economic liberalism when it says in the source referenced "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere."? Billy Ego 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, start reading WP:Talk and not confusing subjects. This section is adressed on "Fascism & race," hence I will respond to this claim. Yes, I have sources to back what I say, and Intangible's comments have more validity than yours. What I argued is that this is a complex topic, and as such, should be asserted in such an unilateral way in the intro. As much Intangible's POV can be argued (that it is not inherent to Fascism), as much the other can be argued. So there is a debate. Or do you want to claim that there is no debate? Tazmaniacs 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do say Intangible's comments have more validity than mine? And yes I do want to claim there is no debate except possibly in marginal circles who don't know too much about fascism around the world. You say you have sources, so let's see them instead of you just giving your personal opinion here. Billy Ego 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sic. Tazmaniacs 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any sources to back up what you are saying or not? Billy Ego 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism in its purest form like communism is an economic system that is a tool meant to keep a stable government, there has never been a pure fascist ruler, Hitler was a nationalist who used fascism as his economic plan and Mussolini was a socialist that used some fascist idea as his own. And to say racism or hate towards Jews being a major principle in fascism, would be a lie because nationalism promotes racism and Hitler was just racist so he shouldn't be your judge of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.134.192 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism

It is meaningless to say "Fascists opposed laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism." Finance capitalism is a specific mode of capitalism (which deals with finance). Laissez-faire is an economic policy related to classical liberalism, which advocates to not put any rules or state intervention on the market. Despite explicit ideologies, no state on Earth is faithfull to such classical liberalism theories, and the US least of all (with all the funds given to research and others stuff). It simply is senseless to include the two concepts in the same sentence as if they both designated rival types of capitalism. Furthermore, this article is about Fascists in general, and Italian Fascism and Nazism are the archetypes of such movements. There is thus no need to explicitly quote Nazism in the intro. If you do, use the term Nazism, not "National Socialist" (per discussion above). Finally, part on anti-Semitism related to capitalism is not needed in intro. Here is the controversed passage (which I have not removed myself for the time being (see diff):

Fascists also opposed laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. Many, particularly 
National Socialists,  considered the latter parasitic and associated it with Jews.<ref>Postone, Moishe.
  1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West 
 Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier.</ref><ref>Calvin B. Hoover, ''The Paths of
  Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World'', The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, *
 Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. 
 (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20; Philip Morgan, ''Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168</ref>

Tazmaniacs 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They are seen as diffrent types of capitalism. See laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Finance capitalism is Marxist theory, it's not an ideology one can oppose, it's not even analytical, and reeks of historicism. Again, I think the intro should just state that fascism is opposed to economic and political liberalism. Intangible2.0 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree and it is two different criticisms to go with it. Billy Ego 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism revolted against laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was seen as the cause of the Great Depression. Laissez-faire capitalism did indeed exist, and no this doesn't have to mean "absolutely" no intervention. It is a relative term. Economic planning, full employment policy, etc came from fascism. Fascist economics was sweeping the world. The idea was not to let the market take charge but to take charge of the market by controlling it for the public good. If "classical liberal" capitalism doesn't exist now it's to the credit of the fascists. Billy Ego 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The concepts of economic planning, full employment and restrictions on the free-market capitalism did not come from fascism. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously make that claim.Spylab 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority). ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64 Billy Ego 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• That quote doesn't support your claim that fascism is the origin of ideas such as economic planning, restrictions on the market and social welfare. Those concepts were around long before fascist ideology was developed. Besides, that quote is just one person's opinion and is not historically accurate. Fascism borrowed ideas from lots of different sources. Fascists did not invent all the concepts that you're claiming they invented.Spylab 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they were the first to "invent" economic planning but they were the first ones to at least put the ideas together and actually put them to practical use, so the world looked with reverence upon the fascist model. Billy Ego 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Fascists were not the first to implement economic planning. Governments had been planning and regulating their economies since markets first existed. In more recent history, Communist countries implemented economic planning before the fascists came to power. Spylab 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the TYPE of economic planning we're talking about. In communist countries, the means of production are owned by the state so of course they controlled those. In fascist countries, though there were nationalizations, most of the means of production were privately owned. Fascist economic planning allows private ownership but strong state control over those means of production. It's neither liberal capitalism such as we see in the USA (though the USA has some mild shades of it) nor communism, but something in between. Billy Ego 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• That may be true, but I'd want to see reliable sources to back up those historical claims. And if it is true, then from now on you should be more specific about the type of economic planning your are talking about, instead of making generalizations that aren't backed up by historical fact. Also, despite the USA's claims of being a free market economy, there are controls over the economy and other interferences in the market such as subsidies and tax breaks for certain industries. The US economy also has social welfare programs. I'm still not convinced that fascist economics are that much different than the economics in other countries, other than outlawing independent democratically-run trade unions and cracking down on labour activists.Spylab 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The type of planning is economic planning of a private ownership economy. I gave you source. "Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority)." ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64. The USA is a generally free-market economy. Nothing is ideal this or that. It's not absolute laissez-faire at all. But it's not controlled to the degree that fascists prefer, which would be something closer to social democratic countries. FDR however did attempt to implement the fascist model though with the New Deal. Mussolini even said ""Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." Billy Ego 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your mentions of social democratic countries and the New Deal show that those economic policies are not unique to fascism, and you have not proven that fascists were the originators of those policies. Also, your quote of one person's opinion does not prove that fascists were the first to introduce those types of economic policies. The quote does not compare specific policies in different countries and what dates they were introduced. Historical claims have to be backed up by hostorical facts. And we haven't even discussed the economic planning that was in place in pre-capitalist markets... Spylab 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not claimed that a planned private ownership economy is unique to fascism. I am claiming that we first saw it from from the fascists. It did not exist prior to the Great Depression. Mussolini was the first to implement it. From there, it spread around the world in varying degrees. But, I'm not claiming this in the article so I don't need "proof" of it. What I am claiming in the article is simply what is cited, which is that fascist economic planning foreshadowed what we've seen later in non-fascist countries. Billy Ego 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Billy, please review WP:Talk page. This is not a political forum, but a page to discuss the article. Furthermore, your outlandish claims concerning fascism testify to a striking ignorance of history. One must not need be an historian of economics to know that all states involved in World War I implemented state control of economy and planified it (it's called war economy), and that was the first, massive use of such planified economy. Finally, concerning Vision Thing's claim, of course "financial capitalism" is not a synonym of "laissez-faire capitalism," I never pretended that. I said that one refers to an economic policy and ideology (classical liberalism) whereas another one refers to a special part of capitalism, the one concerned with finance economics (what we call the tertiary sector.) If you need references, have a passing look at the table of contents of Das Kapital, it might be more reliable than Wikipedia on that matter. Tazmaniacs 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism was first to do away the laissez-faire economy and institute economic planning. Other countries, such as the U.S. took Mussolini's lead. "War economy" came from the fascists. The U.S. today is in a war. So where is all the economic planning? Billy Ego 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Postone and Critical Theory

I am delighted that the libertarians and the fascist all dislike the work of Postone. It confirms my respect for Postone's work. Postone has published a serious analytical work. When Billy Ego, Intangible2.0, and -- Vision Thing -- publish their studies on fascism and capitalism, I am sure they will alert us so we can consider citing them. In the meantime their views remain marginal minority positions peddled in an aggressive and disruptive manor. POV pushing is a form of tendentious editing. This has gone on long enough. The minority position has had its say. It is time to move forward.--Cberlet 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said I disliked Postone's essay. I've just been asking for something specific like a page number or quote so we can verify what you claim it to say because I don't see it. Why won't you cooperate? Billy Ego 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that a work that has more than 800+ academic cites is not marginal? Maybe I do need to start quoting Hayek. At least he will be using an analytical concept of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Laissez faire/ free market and capitalism

Capitalism = supply and demand market economy with mostly private property. Regulation or planning in a capitalist economy does not make someone anti-capitalist. Opposition to laissez faire capitalism is not note worthy, because it is practically dead.

This is nonsence because do not exist such kind of market (cannot be free market at all, this is logic). Any economic system relies on supply-demand market, that is why all these countries develop. Everywhere is planning and regulations it is inevitable, chaos do not allow us to progress.

Laissez faire capitalism was a reaction to Mercantilism. Does government intervention = socialism? Then Mercantilism is a form of socialism if that is the case, but it is not.

Socialism/Communism was a reaction to free market capitalism (or laissez faire capitalism) by the lower or working class. Fascism was a reaction to the rising power of the lower and working class. It was a reaction to maintain the existing order.

That is true. Moreover fascism must contain nazism elements or some superiority against others. And not only to free market but any kind of capitalism. Socialism and mercantilism is two completely different ideologies cause in mercantilism can only exist private economy with some restrictions.

Take the capitalist economy of the U.S. for example: market economy, supply and demand, mostly private property. However there is regulation and government intervention or opposition to laissez faire (i.e. no government intervention).

Is laissez faire communism possible? In theory yes. That is a system with no government intervention, but no private property, property is shared, and a classless society. --Jfrascencio 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? You cannot have an advanced economy without private property. Intangible2.0 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

His point was that opposition to laissez-faire does not equal opposition to capitalism. I'm sure you would agree that the vast majority of economies in the world today are not laissez-faire. Does that mean that the vast majority of economies in the world today are anti-capitalist? On another note, I'm not sure what you define as an "advanced economy", but economic systems without private property certainly have existed and continue to exist. -- Nikodemos 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I already stated that I would be happy to change that bit to refer to economic liberalism. Intangible2.0 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the problem lies in how different people define capitalism and socialism. Most people consider the US mostly capitalist, but Milton Friedman considered it only about half capitalist; the government controls 40% of the economy directly and government mandates and regulations bring it up to ~50%. His argument was that ownership of capital is essentially equivalent to being entitled to the product of that capital. Government entitlement to x% of profits is equivalent to x% ownership. By his definitions, most Western nations are more socialist than capitalist.JoeCarson 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

collectivism

These last changes were incorrect. Collectivism in this case does not only refer to economic planning. It also means anti-individualism, as in being subordinate to the state, which is a form of social planning. It needs to be changed back. Intangible2.0 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Nikodemos 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible OR

Fascism portrayed itself as seeking a transformative rebirth of the society, it opposed both liberal and conservative solutions to societal problems and it claimed to represent a Third Way between liberal capitalism and Marxist socialism.

This does not cite it's sources and it goes counter to what is generally accepted. Fascism is a conservative, right-wing movement and it is unfortunate that conservative/right wing individuals want to twist the truth because they refuse to accept it.

Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; ...its [fascism's] protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

— Fascism, Encyclopedia Britannica

--Jfrascencio 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote in the article is correct and is the most dominant view in scholarly research. Richard Griffiths in "Fascism" (2005) gives a large account about it on pgs. 15-16 (too much to type right now). Passmore in "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" talks about this in Ch. 2 (see Definition of fascism for a quote). There are certainly more sources but these two are the only two I have handy right now. The "transformative rebirth" part might be a bit harder to source but the opposition to "liberal and conservative solutions" is pretty well documented. - DNewhall 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Several scholars talk about Fascism as calling for the "transformative rebirth of the society," primarily Gentile's concept of "sacralization of politics;" and Griffin's concept of "palengenesis."--Cberlet 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate suffers from the same problems arising with Martin Heidegger's relationship with Nazism. Supporters of Heidegger claim he was not a Nazi, on grounds that some Nazis have opposed him. However, this is fallacious reasoning - and we are here confronted before the same fallacy: assuming that Fascism (or Nazism) represent a monolithic, coherent, ideology & movement. However, historians have demonstrated that:

• Fascism (I use the term "Fascism" in the sense of "historical Fascism": I think it better to use neo-Fascism for posterior movements, as Fascism, as the Encyclopedia Britannica's quote show, arose in a specific European context, immediately after WWI and the October Revolution) has got various historical stages: before taking power - taking power - state fascism - and what several historians have called the ultimate stage of fascism, "fascism in war" (some historians actually have stated that fascism follows a sort of teleology which culminated in war annihilation ; by the way, this concords with Foucault's statement in the Will to knowledge - see Talk:Fascism and ideology#Economic policy again). Thus, there is a diachronic distinction of fascism to make, which is very important to understand its "revolutionary" aspects.
• Fascism is not a monolithic movement, neither is Nazism. They agglomerate many, competiting people, groups and ideologies. It does not make a coherent ideology, as has been orthodox Marxism (that is, Marxist philosophy codified by the Komintern in some clearly defined thesis, easy to learn and to repeat). It is not supported by people who agree with themselves: hence the conflict between SA and SS, support by Futurists revolutionaries and by wealthy Italian bourgeoisie, etc.

I think we must make this clear in order to solve this controverse. Tazmaniacs 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bideleux and Jeffries

Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998 (ISBN 0-415-1611-8) provides some rather good discussion of various views of fascism. Someone may want to draw on some of this for the article.

• "During the 1930s almost all the ruling oligarchies in Eastern Europe sought authoritarian nationalist and quasi-fascist means of resolving or containing the acute tensions, political pressures and military challenges engendered by the 1930s Depression and the growing power and territorial/hegemonic ambitions of Fascist Italy and (after 1933) Nazi Germany." (p. 467)
• "The ruling oligarchies also often resorted to the creation of fascist or quasi-fascist states in the hope of heading off, undercutting or politically 'neutralizing' potential threats and challenges from the more wayward, anarchic and violent fascist and quasi-fascist movements that were emerging…" (p. 467–8)
• "However, it is often argued that the fascist or quasi-fascist parties, institutions and organizations created 'from above' by more traditional authoritarian rulers… were fundamentally different from the more autonomous, radical, mobilizatory fascist movements that 'conquered power' for their leaders and active supporters." (p. 468–469; they go on to quote several authors to this effect, including J. Linz, Hugh Seton-Watson)
• Hence, they conclude "Either we can adhere to a narrow, uniform, 'purist' conception of fascism, which would carry the very misleading implication that fascism as such was a relatively marginal, extraneous, peripheral phenomenon in inter-war Eastern Europe. Or we can uphold a broader, more variegated conception of fascism… This would make possible a greater appreciation of the multifaceted nature of European fascism…" (p. 469)
• They then discuss what they see as the limitations of a purist approach that sees Italian fascism and German Nazism each as a unique and ungeneralizable phenomenon. They quote and paraphrase from M. Kitchen, expressing this view that "fascism was essentially an extraneous, skin-deep phenomenon in Eastern Europe… 'imported' or even 'imposed'…" but call this "misleading and unsound". (p. 470) Kitchen apparently believes that proper fascism can only occur in a country that is already in a state of advanced capitalism: "Fascism is phenomenon of developed industrial states," a view they characterize as "quasi-Marxist", and also particularly problematic with reference to Italy. (p. 471)
• They go on to assert (p. 473–4) "…Italian Fascism had more in common with kindred movements in southern and eastern Europe than it did with German National Socialism" and quote Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1966, p. 308–9). They quote more extensively than this but, in part, "…even Mussolini, who was so fond of the term 'totalitarian state', did not attempt to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contented himself with dictatorship and one-party rule. Similar non-totalitarian dictatorships sprang up in pre-war Romania, Poland, the Baltic States, Hungary, Portugal and Franco's Spain." They then go on to discuss the forces in Italy and elsewhere that frustrated totalitarian ambitions. (p. 474 et. seq.)

Their discussion continues for another 20 pages and resumes later in the book, where they look also at the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist views of fascism (basically, they think the Marxists — and others — have some good points on economic matters, non-Marxists have good points on nationalism, and both tend to ignore the strengths of each other's views). I'm not going to try to summarize it all here; someone working on the article may want to get hold of the book, though. I think the discussion is excellent. Just a few more quotations:

• "…there is no generally accepted threshold beyond which authoritarian nationalist movements or regimes can clearly be said to have become fascist. The former 'shade off' into the latter." (p. 483)
• "Unlike Stalinism, fascism was not a monolithic phenomenon." (p. 483)
• "…one of the crucial tasks of any effective fascist leader was to hold the disparate elements together by creating and sustaining the illusion that the 'ideas' he put forward and the movement he led were coherent. He did so mainly by embodying and drawing together all the potentially conflicting strands in his own person and by concentrating fascist phobias and hatreds on a single 'arch-enemy'…"
• "The fascist movements were relative 'latecomers' on the party political scene… This… helps explain why fascism was to such a large extent defined by the things it opposed…" (p. 489)
• "It is … striking that fascism mainly developed in 'nations' which had attained 'national' unity and statehood relatively recently…" (p. 492)
• "Marxists were quite correct to emphasize that 'prole-bashing' ant-Bolshevism was a much more pronounced, pervasive and persistent feature of fascist ideology than its superficial and ephemeral anti-capitalism." (p. 514)
• Finally, they quote P. Togliatti, Lectures on Fascism: "…fascism must not be viewed as something which is definitively characterized: that it must be seen in its development, never as something set, never as a scheme or a model, but as the consequence of a series of real ecomonic and political relations resulting from real factors…" (They only date the quotation to a 1976 book, but this would have been written some time in the mid-1930s.)

- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The second part of your quotes is particularly relevant for our problem: Fascism is not monolithic. Something which Marxists, such as Togliatti, quickly understood, because of their own peculiar doctrinal habits of theorization. Togliatti, if my memory does not failed me, was one of the first to say that Fascism had to be understood historically in its development, and not as a "pure, ideal, ideology" (as if any ideology or political movement could be described in such a way, when even philosophy can not be described in such a way, without some reference to the political & historical context). The distinction between Fascism & quasi-Fascism, strict sense & broad sense is also a clear way of putting the problem, and allows for varying perspectives (hence avoiding any dogmatism). However, it is contrasted by the allusion that Fascism became to power in recent nation-states. Even more important than that, Arendt recalled that both Italy & Germany were revisionist states after WWI, and Fascism can not be understood without WWI (territorial disputes, but also plain awe before violence & war - see futurism movement & various veterans' association). This leads to an important problem: extending the definition of Fascism to make it a full-fledged European-wide movement (with influences even in North & South America) might lead to missing the important point that Fascism came to power only in Italy & Germany (if you accept that Nazism & Fascism are not as different as some claim they are). This reminds two historical discussions:

• one on "French fascism", initiated by Zeev Sternhell. French historians have defended their country's prestige by claiming that one could not assert the existence of "French fascism" because it remained a ultra-minoritary movement. Sternhell never really claimed the reverse, as his main argument was that the intellectual matrix of Fascism was to be found in France. In any cases, the degree of this "ultra-minority" is subject to caution and it would be nice to have foreign historians investigate the matter closely (as did Robert Paxton for Vichy). But the main point remains: Fascism did not gain power in France, and one of the main reason might be found in the absence of "revanchism" and irredentism after WWI. Quite to the contrary, French population feared war, in a diametrical opposition to Italy & Germany.
• the other on the appearance of capitalism in Europe, and not, as Fernand Braudel investigated, in China. Transposing the question here: why did Fascism become such a mass movement, which managed to take power, in Italy and, in the case of Nazism, in Germany, so early, while other countries had to wait WWII, at minima, to have fascists in power (showing that they did not have support of the majority of the population)? This answer, again, can only be resolved by the issues of WWI. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Twisting of references

Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a battle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a 'Third Way' between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.

— Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch, Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge 2003, p. 101

Text in Wikipedia Fascism article: "Fascist movements have often claimed to represent a "Third Way between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." (reference above given)

1. Reference talks about a claim, but makes no mention of who makes the claim.
2. The word "often" is not used in the reference.
3. The reference uses the word "Nonetheless" (meaning there were mentioned things to the contrary).
4. The reference appears to be taken out of context.

--Jfrascencio 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a specific section on this topic would be more than appropriate. It could discuss claims of representing a "Third Way" (without, please, linking that to that other claim, Third Way (centrism)), explain fascism relation's to revolutionary movements (beginning with anarcho-syndicalism), underline that this purported "revolutionary" aspect of fascism is related to its first, historical stage (before taking power) and that it is considered by the vast majority of historians to be in fact "counter-revolutionary" (also called "revolutionary right" by Sternhell). It could continue on by showing how fascism in power has favorized and supported various members of the upper classes; how fascism before taking power in Italy struck down workers' strikes and presented itself to the bourgeoisie as the sole way of retaining control of an insurrectionary context, etc. There is plenty to do, and a whole article by itself would not be enough. Finally, it could point out that the so-called "Third Position" is today used by the Strasserist movement or people who claim to follow it — and also that such movements have often hesitated between "alliance of the extremes" vs. simple alliance with the far-right, be it more reactionary (see Nouvelle Résistance's slogan: "Less leftism! More fascism!"). Tazmaniacs 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

These examples are always of those who received their definitions of "fascism" from sources which were detractors of the construction of the term. Mussolini in 1927 considered it a progressive, and thus "leftist" movement in 1927 when stating; "It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism." [1] [2] He similarly stated while being a forward looking movement, it sought to perserve national tradition, and didn't yet fall into traditional categories of politics like "right" or "left" and was thusly outside political tradition. The 'corporativst' model advocated by Mussolini and other Italians was never put into practice. [3], so like many who argue about "true Communism", "true Fascism" has never seen historical realization. That is, the Corporative Syndicalist model branded "fascism" as laid out by the literal historic Italian 'Fascist' movement. Nagelfar 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I think starting a major entry with a quote from a single scholar is a very bad idea.

• Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation (defined in exclusive biological, cultural, or historical terms) above all other loyalties.<ref name="Passmore">Kevin Passmore, ''Fascism: A Very Short Introduction'', pages 25-31. Oxford University Press, 2002</ref>

In any case, the lead quote and cite are simply butchered and need correction. If it is a "direct quote" as Nickodemos states, where are the quote marks? And the cite is missing information. What is the name of the book? A one sentence quote cannot run from pages 25-31. Either the quote is wrongly cited, or this is a chapter, or what?--Cberlet 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the book ("Fascism: A Very Short Introduction"), so I went to check. The sentence appears on page 31 (I have no idea why it was sourced to pages 25-31). What we have in the intro right now is not exactly a direct quote, but it's pretty close. In the book, this is the opening sentence of a lengthy definition of fascism, which goes as follows:

• "Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism."

I strongly suggest using sourced statements in the introduction, because, as the history of this article shows, it is utterly impossible for wikipedians to arrive at any sort of consensus about fascism. -- Nikodemos 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that WP:LEAD says that no source are even needed in the intro (my mistake: this policy has been changed it seems), as they should be provided in the body of the article. This means that we should be able, maybe through a draft here on talk page, to agree on a stable, consensual version (which means: excluding fringe views per WP:UNDUE). If we manage this incredible feat, we should be able to submit this draft intro to a poll, establish it, and keep it there in a stable manner. If someone's up to it... It should present, in a quick way, the mainstream view on Fascism, the various aspects of it, and the main points lifted by the article. Any controverse should be at most mentioned, but certainly not solved there. Further on, I think it should concentrate on historical Fascism: fascism is, after all, a political and social movement closely related to the inter-war period, and posterior movements are best called "neo-fascism". All in all, I think we have enough people here knowledgeable on Fascism who could easily make such a consensual draft (consensus does not mean including all extremist POV, but giving the state of knowledge of modern, mainstream research on the matter). Tazmaniacs 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: this nationalist definition of Fascism is very restricted. If Fascism was only nationalism (and I particularly appreciate the "biological", "cultural" or historical: so, do you know any type of fascism not based on ethnic nationalism?)... This is indeed a very insufficient definition, and would lead, to the dismay of most far-right contributors here, to the inclusion of all of today's far-right parties as Fascists! (not to say, to the inclusion of Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, etc. etc.) Tazmaniacs 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Name of the book is probably Fascism: A Very Short Introduction. To me definition looks fine. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think (following Bideleux and Jeffries phrasing, quoted above) even in the lead we should distinguish between "a narrow, uniform, 'purist' conception of fascism" and "a broader, more variegated conception of fascism". - Jmabel | Talk 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A link to Fascism as an international phenomenon might be relevant. In any cases, if Vision Thing doesn't see the difference between Fascism and nationalism, well, he support yet another fringe views which would include all authoritarian nationalist states of the 20th century (Franco, Peron, maybe even some Communist states as being authoritarian and nationalist is also possible in Communist states...) as Fascists.Tazmaniacs 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I see some problems with the current version of the lead:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology accompanied with a mass movement seeking to forge national unity based on ethnic, cultural, or genetic "racial" concepts, and pledging to reclaim historic glory through a struggle to renew and rebuild the society.

For one thing, it's a run-on sentence, which should be avoided, especially in a lead sentence. I'm not so sure that "mass movement" should be mentioned in that sentence, because one can be a fascist without having a mass movement to back you up (also it should be "accompanied by", not "accompanied with"). Finally, some of the wording seems right out of a speech or pamphlet, such as "forge", "pledging", "reclaim","glory", "struggle", and "renew and rebuild." All those words together in one sentence makes it seem like a commercial instead of a neutral encyclopedic article. Spylab 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism was not only an ideology, it was a mass movement too. -- Vision Thing -- 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One can say that about almost every ideology, yet articles about other ideologies don't tag on the phrase "and a mass movement" in their lead sentences. A person can support the ideology of fascism without being involved with a mass movement. I'm not sure why you deleted the lead sentence without discussion. I am restoring it because all Wikipedia articles need lead sentences, and there was nothing controversial about the most recent version.Spylab 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is usually defined as a mass movement. As for the lead, I deleted first sentence because there is obviously no definition of fascism on which we all agree on. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is outlandish POV pushing and bias. Don't even try to defend it. Reverted.--Cberlet 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that first sentence was something we could all agree on. Authoritarian statist nationalism.JoeCarson 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoeCarson that "Authoritarian statist nationalism" are elements that most of us agree on. Mass movement I re-added since almost all scholarly research in the past 20 years emphasizes this point. Some exclusionary form of national unity is also something most of us have discussed as present in some way. And I added the word individual to the lead since most of us agree that the individual is subservient to the state under fascist rule (and ideology). Since we are about to have a mediation on the current disagreements, could folks please step back a bit and avoid an edit war? I tried to make the lead reflect the general consensus, without including buzz words and issues that go too far.--Cberlet 14:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism

I find that the mention of collectivism early on is interesting. I always associated collectivism with communism. Interesting viewpoint. My encyclopedia defines it as a more socialist/communist ideology, but I guess that the Brittannica is good enough for me! Wikiisawesome 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism in communism refers to the collective ownership of the means of production by the people as a whole, instead of individual ownership. The collectivism in respect to fascism is in reference to the synergistic aspect of the people as the whole to become suberviant to the will of the state, opposed to their individual interests. --Jfrascencio 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. Collectivism in respect to fascism means that the individual is subservient to the collective. In Italian fascism the collective is the state. In Nazism the collective is the race. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by No Joke (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Your dispute is simply semantics and the use of different terms to describe basically the same thing. How could someone be subservient to the race? It is an abstract concept and does not exist in reality. It is the state government and a hierarchy that exists. The will of the state is defined by the leader of the state. Did not the Nazi soldiers fight against those of different nations, including those of their own race? -Jfrascencio 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But understanding the philosophy of each government and official policy (which are abstract concepts & matters of simple semantics also, and at the same time essential to the spirit of the regimes); in Nazi Germany, the state existed for the race and people. In Fascist Italy, the people and race existed for the state. So the National Socialist state was an effacing state; existing to place a prescribed ethnic group above all else and even its own form & function, it was a sufferage to an ideal condition of a people even if it were a people that was not even real. The state was simply a useful tool to a sought social condition. Fascism by contrast was a self-exultant state that held its 'sum as worth more than the parts' even above the nation itself; compare how Giovanni Gentile writes (as recorded in the works on him by A. James Gregor) how "nationalism is a presupposition"; which is the greatest sin of his philosophy, but that "the state" is the core nature and immanent 'Subject' of his ideals. These distinctions define and set Nazism and Fasicsm at odds in their core philosophies, quite apart from their (also very different) administrative natures (of expansive localism and social reductionism in the former and centralization & public aggregation in the later). Nagelfar 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism, an element?

Totalitarianism can not be considered an "element" of Fascism. Rather, Fascism may be defined as a totalitarian movement. Changed intro accordingly. Tazmaniacs 17:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "Totalitarian" was originally appropriated by the Italian Fascists (usually qualified as not being outright coercive, but universally syndical) and was a form unto itself, a condition of their ideal state, rather than a function or means of bringing disparate social entities into congruence. It depends on how Totalitarian is meant, if it is an aspect by means of the result of a particular kind of governing, it can be considered an 'element'. If Totalitarian is considered a single initial root of which there are many branches of different kinds; different things to be brought into line; it may be categorized the way you argue. However I am of the inclination that a 'Totalitarian' structure can be the result of many alternate and mutually incompatible ways of governing, at base; from the bottom up; and therefore Totalitarianism becomes an aspect and a qualification to many exclusively different social functions. In this way it could be considered an "element", as either a static 'form' or a coercive 'function'. Nagelfar 10:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism and fascism

I see that the debate continues whether racism is a necessary element of fascism. This should be hashed out on the discussion page instead of turning into an edit war. It is my understanding that racism is usually part of fascist movements and governments, but that racism is not absolutely required in fascismt. Spylab 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I put in the statement backed up by a source. The source says "Racism was not a constitutive element of fascism although a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs." (Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 University of Michigan Press. p. 30). Tazmaniac deleted it. He seems to think that it's a controversial statement, but I'm not aware of any sources saying one has to be a racist to be a fascist. Many fascists just happened to be racists. But so did many communists and anarchists. Racism is not a constitutive element of fascism. Billy Ego 18:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some broadly-defined form of ethnocentrism is arguably a constitutive element of fascism, but it is not accurate to simply add "racism" to the list of generally agreed upon constitutive elements of fascism. I now need to take a cleansing intellectual shower...--Cberlet 19:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Italian fascism became only overtly racist when race laws were past in 1938. The problem is of course if you don't attribute racism to fascism, you cannot claim that National Socialism is a form of fascism. But this goes by the historic antecedent for why these race laws were passed in Italy. Intangible2.0 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to push these idiosyncratic and marginal views, Intangible2.0, you really should sign onto the mediation as a matter of basic courtesy and principle.--Cberlet 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See Mussolini and the Jews by Meir Michaelis. Intangible2.0 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Misspellings of "fascism" and "fascist"

How come it's so common among the general public to misspell the word "fascism" as "facism"? That has got to be one of the Most Annoyingly Common Misspellings of All Time. What's a "facist" supposed to do, support the application of eye shadow, lipstick, and powder puff? 204.52.215.107 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the modern consensus sees Nazism as a type or offshoot of fascism

And your source is? Do you know history of Austria?Xx236 09:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant generic fascism here. If you take a historic look, this is of course incorrect. There were certainly fascists in Austria and Czechoslovakia who were opposed to the National Socialists, making history far more nuanced than simply a "modern consensus." It's like Paxton's use of the five stages of fascism. Why stop at only five? Intangible2.0 14:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Communist language many opponents of Soviets are called fascists and many people in the West are talking Soviet language till now. The result is that any statement about fascism has two meanings. Xx236 09:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism and Nazism were terms outlawed under Stalin's reign. Hitlerites was a term they did could use as well. Intangible2.0 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is fascism?

Many people think that fascism was created by Adolf Hitler; this is not strictly true as national socialists are in fact a massive part of the past five hundred years.Connections with racism,homophobia,feelings of self imposed power and egomania is what makes this growing trend truly a laughable thing.

Obviously, well I believe, that the six million jews were indeed killed; amongst millions of gays jews etc. But this is growing with the idiotic BNP which poisons our society. People of different races have right to live ANYWHERE they want and that is final!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eternity666 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Nationalisim has nothing to do with fascisim

Nationalisim has nothing to do with fascisim. Name one nation state without this characteristic? Europeans are in the midst of a political shift, a consolidation of national identities and thus believe that EU trends are of global relevance. Before I edit nationalism out of the article, is there ant debate? Raggz 01:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Your opinion is not supported by most of scholars. Tazmaniacs 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, academics do have a definite POV, I do not dispute this. We agree.

1 "Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals." nationalism's. (n.d.).

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

When Italy was fascist, were either of these two definitions emphasized more than now? Italy had and has a strong "devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation." During WWII it entered into a strong alliance to act "collectively", after fascisim fell it resumed "emphasizing national rather than international goals." Was post-war or pre-war Italy more fascist? The very meaning of the root (fascia) implies collective rather than individual actions.

Logically: Either the definition above is flawed - or the description of Mussolini as a fascist is incorrect?

So, how do you (or "most scholars) answer, was Mussolini fascist - or not? Raggz 18:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to say that fascism needs nationalism while nationalism can and does exist quite seperated from fascism. You know the old saying "All mammals are vertebrates, but not all vertabrates are mammals..." You can have a backbone without being a mammal. You can have nationalism without being fascist. Does this clear things up?

John 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nationalists are found everywhere on the Left-Right political spectrum, from the Communists of todays Russia up to Adolf Hitler's Nazis. Thus fascists are not necessarily nationalists, for fascists want POWER FOR THE STATE... -Pika ten10 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nationalism does not alone explain fascism and nationalism does not set fascism apart from other ideologies. What makes fascism different is its ultra-nationalism. This is what sets it apart. This is mostly because of the mythology surrounding the state and its people. How many states include ideas about mythologies of the people who live there? This will undoubtedly evolve within a fascist state to biological racism. Something that does not happen within a democratic or communist state. Biological racism comes from the conclusion that ultra-nationalism comes to. Ultra-nationalism assumes that if the nation is great and its origins are too, then the nation must not be 'infiltrated' by others. This forms biological racism and is also only present in fascist states. For example, Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic agenda, and the mass killings that occurred in Abyssinia (currently known as Ethiopia)committed by Italy under Mussolini. This nationalism and ultra-nationalism will be required in some form in order to attract members of all social classes.By the way, there is no such thing as a nation state. A Nation state is country, in which there is one nation living. The only country that MIGHT fit this description is Japan. No other country fits this description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.81.247 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I tagged parts of this article with {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} which are unsouced. I didn't tag the anti-communism section, because it already has a similar tag. There is enough materila unsourced here to warrent the {{More sources}} tag--Sefringle 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied Material at Eliteintegrity.co.uk

May I assume that this site copied Wiki without attribution rather than the opposite? Raggz 21:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3]

http://www.eliteintegrity.co.uk/Democracy/Ideologies%20-%20Fascism.php

The above text was crafted on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 12:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

FASCISM AND ITS SYNDICALIST ROOTS

Fascism isnt socialist nor capitalist, it is syndicalist. To be more precise it is National Syndicalist. We should include that most fascist theotricians take their ideals from syndicalist George Sorrell, and were part of syndicalist parties before joining the Fascists. The syndicalist parties in Europe split into two camps: The Nationalist camp and the Anarchist camp. The biggest supporters of Franco were the National Syndicalist party. Remember the group of bound arrows in the film Pan's Labrynth? That was the JONS! Mussolini mentions that his system is a form of corporate syndicalism. British Union of Facsist Leader Oswald Mosely propated syndicalism as Fascism and his ideals are open for the public viewing on his website.

The point is that the Fascists parties of Europe were right wing in nature but used LEFTIST tactics to gain power. They believed that the Fascist Party was the one big union that would unite workers and bosses under one roof.

These are interesting points that reflect substanial research, but here on Wikipeida, especially on controversial entries, we need to rely on the major published scholars on the subject, not our own opinions or beliefs. See WP:OR and {{WP:Reliable]].--Cberlet 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not my own opinion.....

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/dannunzio.html http://www.oswaldmosley.com/people/sorel.html http://www.oswaldmosley.com/um/syndicalism.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_fascism#Syndicalism_and_the_.27Third_Way.27

MYSTERY OF FASICSM: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm "Fascism was a doctrine well elaborated years before it was named. The core of the Fascist movement launched officially in the Piazza San Sepolcro on 23rd March 1919 was an intellectual and organizational tradition called "national syndicalism."

Mussolini Doctrine of Fascism: "It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism …" http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

"The fascist party had conceived the fascist state. One could not think of a "corporate state" or a "syndicalist state" without thinking of the fascist party. Fascism was inseparable from corporativism or syndicalism. If one removed the one concept, he necessarily removed the others. The fascist party, not the state, was the guardian of the fascist ideals, especially including syndicalism and the corporate organization of the state. The orthodoxy of syndicalist ideas was safeguarded in the fascist party. Hence, the highest value in the fascist state was syndicalism-corporativism." http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p--5_Whisker.html

Fascist Flange Arriba, number 20, November 1935. "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."

Any more proof, needed? http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

<-------------Few scholars dispute that syndicalism played a role in the formation of fascism, but if you are unwilling or unable to provide a reputable published scholalry source and edit text based on Wikipedia guidelines you are simply wasting everyone's time. --Cberlet 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean Oswald Mosley, Benito Mussolini's own words arent enough to convice Wiki?

Fascism and Protestentism

This section seem to be quite bias against the protestent churches, especially the Lutheran church, and seems based more on generalizations and outmoded assumptions than actual fact. Needs to be edited IMO. The way it is worded seems to cast blame on the Lutheran church, and it also supports that tired, old, ridiculous, overly simplified view that Martin Luther directly inspired anti-semitism in Germany... He most certainly did not. He only partook in something symptomatic of his time. But I digress. Anyway this needs a sever re-write.

John 07:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, much recent scholarship supports the curret text. See, for example:

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

So any rewrite would have to be cited to contemporary serious published scholarship on the subject.--Cberlet 13:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are only looking to support one viewpoint naturally you're only going to look for anything that supports it. I stand by what I said. I really do not care that some people are witing books making direct links between Nazism and the Protestant church. To think that authors have no bias, well, as we all know, that's silly.

John 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying " I really do not care that some people are witing books" etc., seems unhelpful. Books written by noted scholars and published by reputable houses carry more weight than your own unsupported opinion. Here is Martin Luther in his own words, as published by the Lutheran Church. Hard to get more definitive than that: On the Jews and Their Lies (1543). This document most certainly did encourage later antisemitism, and ultimately the Nazi "Final Solution" to the "Jewish Problem." Clocke (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Merging Nordic theory into this article

I figure the Nordic theory acticle reflects the chaotic science and antihumanitarian emphasis of Fascism sufficiently to justify a merger into this article.

1. Both articles refer to the subject of politically inspired racism.
2. The fascist views on nordic supremacy are completely covered by the article on Nordic theory and Wikipedia is not a dictionary to account to such an degree of overlap
3. The subject of Nordic theory is unlikely to be expanded very much since this topic is not meaningful by itself, ceased to be reinforced by mainstream theorists and lacks currency within legal and recognized politics.
4. The article on Fascism requires the information from Nordic theory to supply the necessary background material and context. The other way round, Nordic theory is incomplete without fullscale reference to its political consequences the world is suffering until today.

Rokus01 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nordic theory is a different topic from fascism. It's possible to have fascism without racism, and not all fascists are "Nordic", or even white.Spylab 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Innocence on the anthropological definitions on race is why mosts fascists at least think (or thought) they are of the Nordic race. Even Hitler was far from anything Nordic. I would say such suprematist racial theories are typical to all fascists, without exception. Your statement on fascism without racism sounds pretty OR to me. Other race theories might be involved, however, this does not take away the outstanding and almost exclusive importance of race theory to fascism. Rokus01 01:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. I think User:Rokus01 is confusing Nazism (heavily Racist) with Facism (Corporatist, Nationalist rather than Racist). Facism per se has nothing to do with nordic theory — the guy who created it certainly wouldn't have thought of himself as Nordic! CWC 05:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The fascism and Nordic theory articles clearly show they are about two different topics and should not be merged. Nordic theory should not even be merged with the Nazism article, because Nazi ideology has a lot more to it than just the racist aspect. Perhaps Nordic theory could be merged into a similar racial article such as White supremacy, but definitely not the fascism or Nazism articles. Spylab 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. --Cberlet 14:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. "The" Nordic theory is not so much a theory on "race", but an abuse of contemporary racial anthropology. This abuse was in accordance with fascism's political motives towards expansion and hegemony. Thus, such a racial theory to be specifically "Nordic" is just circumstancial. Italian fascism adopted the ideal of cultural hegemony by themselves and Mussolini was not deterred to introduce the Charter of Race, here confusing concepts of nationality and race by purpose. Correspondingly, Japanese fascism recurred to indoctrination touting Japanese racial superiority - leading to atrocities against the Chinese population and European (ironically, mostly "Nordic") prisoners of war and slave laborers. Also, the appliance of "Nordic Theory" to Nazism did not save the milions of Polish people and Russians from termination by Nazicm, without regard to their true racial features being Nordic or close to Nordic, instead they were labelled Üntermensch" and killed accordingly. This article should make clear fascism's total abuse of the concept of race by racial theory. All adherence to racial theories is referred to nowadays as being Fascistic. The article on Nordic Theory could be useful to this end, naturally heavily condensed and put in a subsection together with those other "racial theories" inherent to fascism. Rokus01 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you have explained above, they are not the same topic and should not be merged.Spylab 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Note to Rokus01. It would help immensely if you grasped the fact that we are not ignorant about fascist ideology, ethnocentrism, and racism--we simply disagree with you. So please stop posting long lectures as if we are simpletons. Thank you.--Cberlet 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hold this as a "yes" to a new subsection "Fascism and the concept of race". Rokus01 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no agreement to any such proposal.
Can we remove the merge tags now? CWC 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I quote: we are not ignorant about fascist ideology, ethnocentrism, and racism. Still I don't see any indepth reference here to the Fascist concept of race. Such a Fascist concept certainly differs considerably to the scientific concept, since it involves nationality rather than anthropology, insinuates psychology rather than physical measurements, adheres to a predefined political stance rather than insight and continuous investigation. There are lots of studies tying fascism to race theory. In other words, this article on Fascism wouldn't be complete without an indepth subsection on race theory. Since all of you are not ignorant, I would like to hear some valid arguments against such a subsection - if any. I mean, you can't be serious in wanting to keep race theory issues out of this article? Are people here working on a redefinition of fascism to make it self-explanatory, or what? Rokus01 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, there is no "fascist definition of race". Perhaps you can tell us what these "lots of studies" are. Otherwise, you are just a pusher of OR; no more, no less. Paul B 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rokus is still splattering the talk page of Nordic theory with his insistence that racism is a "fundamental characterstic" of fascism. If any editors here have any useful referece t help resolve this I would be grateful. Paul B 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia the fascist encyclopaedia

File:Hitlermusso.jpg

These two were quiet the Conservatives back in their day

Hrmmm... Your article says political liberalism can sometimes cause Fascism. Bollocks, liberalism is against nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, so this page contradicts itself. Conservatism is more likely to cause fascism because it is PRO nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, censorship and of course has one of the biggest aspects for fascism FEAR CAMPAIGING. I bet this will get taken off this talk page because Wikipedia is the fascist encyclopaedia nobody can edit without getting banned.--124.187.20.197 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have misread the article. The article states that fascists oppose economic and political liberalism.JoeCarson 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is actually against liberalism. Liberalism is an ideology which seeks freedom for the individual, while fascism is longing for the power of the State. If we are to incerase the power of the State, then the individual is to be bound to its rules, and it will result to loss of freedom for the individual. But, if we are to increase the freedom of the individual, then we must restrain the State from controlling the individual. For example, here in the Philippines, we had a curfew last Friday, November 30, 2007, from 12a.m. to 5a.m., for the State was in trouble after Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim and 48 others staged a coup attempt against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and Nicanor Faeldon had escaped after that attempt. If a curfew is implemented, then you're not allowed to go out during the curfew hours. As we know this is restrainment of individual freedom for the sake of the State. If this were not implemented, then individuals are free to go out at those hours, but that the State can be in trouble if Faeldon is not found. -Pika ten10 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The strongest state I know is the Soviet one. Nazi Germany was very liberal comparing to the Soviet Union.Xx236 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "Encyclopedia." Although wikipedia is mildly fascist, ->They have to be if they want any accurate information on their website<- I wish didn't save my IP adress though that bothers me. But if you disagree with an article on any wiki you have can edit: ETIT IT! Jeez! Oh BTW Stalin is worse than Hitler because at least Hitler's friends were safe. Stalin's friends however were most certainly dead. See ya!76.19.175.114 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.175.114 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism as socialism - not again

There have been numerous debates over this matter extending back many months. Please, let's not open this up again. The current wording is already a compromise that overemphasizes the minority viewpoint.--Cberlet 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cites project

Anyone want to chime on on which format the cites should take on this page? We need to convert to a single standard. Some sections need more cites inserted (although the books cited at the end of the article already cover most of the text). I personally hate the long cite method, but that's me. Anyone want to adopt a section and find the proper cites?--Cberlet 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Paxton reference?

Why is the reference by Paxton included? It's not an informative reference so much as putting fascism down. That reference would be like me going to the page on democracy and saying "democracy is defined by corruption, lack of direction, slow legislative process, etc." The reference doesn't add to this article, it just points out some of the flaws of fascism. JW 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Paxton is one of the most important English language scholars of fascism, and he is attempting to offer a definition of fascism. It is absolutely relevant. john k (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and Nationalism

Just an anonymous contributor, but I think something needs pointing out. This article claims fascism is usually understood as nationalistic. Wikipedia defines nationalism as "a doctrine or political movement that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny." And Benito Mussolini, in "The Doctrine of Fascism", which, I think we can agree, is something of an authority on the subject claims that: "In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for XIXth century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity."

This weighty block of text will, I hope, prevent anyone claiming I have taken a soundbite out of context. So there it is: a whole paragraph basically contradicting our definition of nationalism. It seems to claim that nations cannot exist without states (in a nationalist's ideal world, the reverse is true), and that a nation without a state is not in fact a nation (so there goes the ideology of an overwhelming majority of nationalistic revolutions, resistances, political parties and other movements).

Can someone help me solve this without getting cognitive dissonance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.125.107 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

George W. Bush and Facism

I don't like George W. Bush very much either, but I don't think there's the same abundance of scholarly evidence to suggest that his government is "most often considered to have been fascist" in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini (second paragraph of the article). The list after that is made up entirely of WWII era movements as well. Certainly many people are unhappy with his administration, but they can hardly be lumped into the same "facist" group as Hitler. Am I alone in thinking this is a little silly? Perhaps this could be somewhere else in the article, but it seems like it shouldn't be in the second paragraph that someone reads. Unquist 16:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NM. Someone just reverted it.Unquist 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... seems to me and many people I've spoken to, that they would define George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their administration as fascist. (From the Wiki page): "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism"... seems pretty accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.234.126 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I included George Bush's name in the list of governments thought fascist, because there is an incredible amount of articles examining the possibility - search for 'george bush fascism' on Google Scholar and see what you can uncover. 144.92.120.44 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:V & WP:CITE please. --Van helsing (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)