Talk:Fascism/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Social welfare

This section appears to be misleading. While welfare spending increased in Italy between 1930 and 1940, the fascists began with liberal economics and only increased government spending to alleviate the effects of the depression particularly as it affected their members. Welfare spending in the US during the same period actually increased by a greater amount.[1] TFD (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But that was when the Fascists had to form a coalition with liberals, conservatives, and nationalists in the Italian parliament. I don't think comparing the amount to the U.S. detracts from the point that Italy spent on social welfare. Fascists did not have egalitarian ethos, but they did have group identity ethos of the nation, and promoted protecting their nation from dangers external to their individual dispositions. It is a right-wing social welfare. Remember, that the difference between left-wing and right-wing that is often confused and misinterpreted is that essentially right-wing involves the intentional support of hierarchical society as a goal, left-wing means the intentional egalitarian society as a goal. Outside of those goals, they use either tradition (typically for the right-wing) or social change (typically for left-wing) as legitimation for those types of societies.--R-41 (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not confused about the difference between left and right. However it is important to understand whether the welfare state was a core fascist value or inherited, as in Germany, or a method of dealing with the depression. Studies after the Second World War have shown that fascists have been hostile to government involvement in the economy. TFD (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

How were they hostile to government intervention? If you're referring to early Italian Fascism, with its more laissez-faire economics, then you may be correct, but all fascist movements in Europe that I can think of were quite content and specifically aimed to employ significant economic intervention: the Iron Guard, with Codreanu's National-Christian Socialist ideology, the Arrow Cross Party, with its support of the peasantry and working-class welfare, and the Falange, which planned to nationalize major banks and industries as part of its National Syndicalist stance. Nazi Germany, obviously, centralized the affairs of public finance and covered the entire German economy with Keynesian policies. Saying fascists have proven hostile to economic intervention is simply incorrect and misleading. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems the fascists were following the same economic policies that mainstream parties followed at the time - liberalism in the 20s and big government in the 30s and 40s (the fact that you would call it Keynsianism underscores the point). Today's fascists have adopted American style libertarianism. My point is that the article should mention what if any core beliefs about economics they had. TFD (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that fascists have been hostile to intervention in the economy. Fascists have supported state intervention to ensure national control over the economy and for economic stability. A number of neo-Nazi parties, such as the British National Party and National Democratic Party of Germany have campaigned on promising to reduce unemployment and support of social welfare and economic rights for white workers. --R-41 (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"The neo-fascist New Right has frequently adopted neo-conservative New Right positions, especially on the economy or social welfare reform...." (The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right)[2] TFD (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point that you found. Hmm. So there is division nowadays. But is that the norm, what of the neo-fascists that do support social welfare like that of Mussolini or Hitler?--R-41 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This article claims that unlike in other countries the German middle class were economically conservative, and looked to government for protection against big business, labor and foreign competition. So it seems that economic policy is not part of core fascist doctrine. In any case the section on social welfare should explain how these policies related to fascist theory. BTW there has been a lot written about modern European neofascists. Google "right-wing populism". TFD (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Classical liberals and Marxists often claim that the middle class bourgeois are in favour of laissez-faire capitalism, but historically mercantilism and protectionism become popular with the middle class in times of economic woe. And you certainly are correct TFD that German conservatives had gripes with big business. German conservatives were very frustrated with uncontrolled liberal capitalism, they saw it as a source of decadence, and its goal of economic globalization as having the effect of sponsoring cosmopolitanism, two things that disgusted a number of German conservatives. One such prominent German conservative was Oswald Spengler, who called for a conservative "Prussian socialism" that would instill government authority over the economy thereby in his claim representing the people while retaining private property under this authority, while destroying classical liberal economic individualism and its claimed decadence in favour of "Prussian" discipline. Spengler's Prussian socialism influenced the Conservative Revolutionary movement as well as the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The section on fascism's stance on religion is extremely confusing and unclear

I have tried to read through the stance on religion section, it is like a maze. It jumps back and forth from subject to subject with no overall topics, just citing innumerable examples of specific actions by specific fascist movements regarding specific religions. I think that the section needs to be entirely rewritten.--R-41 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe it should be divided into subsections, although I don't know how. If one tries to divide it into Pro-religious/Anti-religious/Neutral stance than there's the problem of some regimes whose ideologies fluctuated over time. On the other hand, dividing it into Fascism/Nazis/Others doesn't do much good, as it's still confusing and blurry. I do however notice a trend. It starts with an non-religious period in some ideologies, than they increasingly become more intertwined with religion. At the end, all end up with strong religious ties. At leaast that's the way I read it - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

History section

Thanks to whoever worked on the "Historical causes" section and made the early stages of Fascism clear. It's now a lot easier to determine Fascism's initial left-wing nature and its shift to the right. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I added that material. I figured that it was necessary for the article to be clear about Italian Fascism's origins in Sorelian syndicalism. If people wish to criticize my motivations on why I added material on left-wing origins of fascism, I hope they take note on my user page that I am a social democrat who dislikes capitalism, communism, and fascism.--R-41 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference critique

The problem with this whole article is that it is based on references from books about Fascism rather than from the writings of the Fascists themselves, as if this all took place in prehistory. Who knew more about what Fascism was supposed to be than the Fascists themselves? It is general knowledge that most far left socialist governments nationalize corporations. As for being "Corporatist," the French government sits at the board of their giant Oil company "Total." Does this make France "Corporatist?" Some far left socialist countries are even authoritarian (i.e. Hugo Chavez' Venezuela). The only thing that separates Fascism from far left Socialism is it's strong Nationalist bent, as far as I can tell. Hitler called his party the "National Socialist" party, which is what the word "Nazi" stands for. Why not take him at his word? Fascism looks to be nothing more than a left wing ideology as far as I can tell. This article tries to cover that up and so do the many references here, but none are very convincing.97.77.209.82 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Academic books and articles on the subject are much better references than first hand accounts that would require original research. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The anonymous user should look at the historical development section in this article. Fascism did indeed have strong left-wing roots in syndicalism, particularly the syndicalism of Georges Sorel. But it also has right-wing roots and it is acknowledged by many scholars that Italian Fascism allied with the political right in the early 1920s. Fascists do not view the world as being in class conflict as far-leftists like Hugo Chavez do, they see the world as being in national and often racial conflict. Fascism shifted to the right to gain political support because its advocacy of elite rule, its opposition to democracy, and opposition to class conflict had much more in common than with the mainstream left. Right-wing meaning the support of a socially stratified society on the basis that equality is not a possibility or desirable reality. The moderate right accepts that equality of opportunity for everyone is acceptable but rejects attempts to impose equality. The extreme right often denies that equality of opportunity is acceptable, and believes that people are either innately superior or inferior to each other. Fascism hold many extreme right positions, it commonly asserts the superiority of its associated nation to that of other nations, it claims that its nation's innate superiority requires it to purge inferior ingroup members and to conquer inferior outgroup nations through war to maintain the nation as virile and to prevent degeneration from inferior ingroup members and the threat of degeneration posed by outgroup nations. To Mussolini and the Italian Fascist, the main threatening outgroup was the Yugoslavs, to Hitler and the Nazis; the main threatening outgroup was the Jews; to Ante Pavelic and the Ustase, the main threatening outgroup were Serbs. Fascism is best noticeable by rhetoric of national and racial conflict involving a self-righteous nationalist movement claiming that its nation has the right to regain unredeemed lands lost in the past to foreigners; that the nation or race is in conflict with another nation or race either within the same state or in another state; and lastly the belief that the nation has the right by its perceived superiority to conquer and destroy other nations and races to pursue the national interests of the fascist's ingroup.--R-41 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That point has been argued before. Laissez-faire liberalism was considered centrist when fascism came to power, while the Left opposed the welfare state and nationalization. BTW, R-41, the origins of fascism you wrote is helpful in understanding its origins. Do you know whether their welfare policies were contained in their founding ideology or was it adopted after they came to power? TFD (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the issue is that the Left at that time opposed the welfare state, social democrats and progressives supported the welfare state since the 19th century. The Italian Fascists had social welfare policies in mind prior to their shift to the right, the Fascist Manifesto included government agencies for public health, creating a minimum wage, and reducing the retirement age. The issue is that the Right at that time in Europe had not consolidated itself with full support of capitalism. The Right-wing in Europe admired capitalism in a competitive, survival of the fittest sense, but when economic times went bad the radical or extreme right would blame liberal capitalism due to its perceived decadence, alliance with foreigners, and cosmopolitanism for ruining society. The Roman Catholic Church was and remains a strong conservative proponent of social welfare, and in Catholic countries social welfare is not considered so extreme. It should be noted that right-wing protectionist nationalism with suspicion of foreign domination is not only a European phenomenon, paleoconservatism in the United States is highly opposed to free trade, and Lou Dobbs blames both the conventional left and the free trade capitalist right for betraying American workers and the United States itself for their self-interest. This is not to say that Lou Dobbs is a fascist at all, but it demonstrates instances of right-wing hostility to capitalism and support of nationalist protectionism. Right-wing social welfare is different than left-wing in that it is not egalitarian and universal, there are "deserving poor" and "undeserving poor" and society is to determine who is deserving and undeserving. The Italian Fascists and Nazis took pride in exhibiting protectionism in their policies of autarky and demonstrating the power of the state in assisting their nation in the Great Depression, while noting how classical liberals stubbornly opposed to do so.--R-41 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Left, especially syndicalists, did not support welfare. Sorel wrote, "To reform in a bourgeois society is to affirm private property".[3] The same views are reflected in most socialist writing up to the Second World War. The "public health" in the Fascist manifesto does not mean public health care: legislation for public health, safety and improved working conditions were supported by all but the most extreme liberals. TFD (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to look up more on Sorel to be sure about that. Sorel was an an odd and unconventional syndicalist though. He held elitist views towards the working class, he believed they needed moral renewal in order to overthrow capitalism. He was highly critical of Marxism for its sole focus on materialism while ignoring spiritual necessities of people. He saw Marxist adherents' agitation against the development of capitalism as being senseless. Sorel believed that socialists should allow capitalism to develop until the point that it could no longer function and then overthrow it. What he emphasized needed to be overthrown was bourgeois liberal democracy. Indeed I read somewhere that Sorel thanked both the Bolsheviks and the Fascists for having overthrown bourgeois regimes. There were many classical liberals throughout the 1920s and only declined in the 1930s. As to your point on classical liberals, in my country, Canada, our Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and the Liberal Party of Canada were adamantly classical liberal in the 1920s even through the early years of the Great Depression. King condemned the Depression-era Conservative government of R.B. Bennett for enacting social welfare and for deficit spending. King called for drastically slashing government spending to balance the budget. King only changed his policies to counter the rise of the the social democratic Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. So yes there were a number of strong classical liberal political parties even into the early 1930s.--R-41 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

While Sorel may have been unconventional, his anti-statist views were typical of left-wing thinking. Here is what Norman Thomas (a social democrat) said about the New Deal: "There is no socialism at all about taking over all the banks which fell in Uncle Sam's lap, putting them on their feet again, and turning them back to the bankers to see if they can bring them once more to ruin.... What Roosevelt has given us... is not... socialism .... It is a State capitalism which the Fascist demagogues of Europe have used when they came to power."[4] My question was when the fascists adopted welfare policies and it appears it was part of their move to the right. TFD (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW the attempts to limit welfare to the "deserving poor" were made by classical liberals, not the Right. TFD (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The only examples of extreme right that I know of have had economic and social policies similar to many socialist countries. Hitler commissioned a car be provided to every common folk, the Volkswagen. His party called itself the National Socialists. The KKK originally arose from the Democrat controlled South and they seem to believe in economic equality among whites. Theological dictatorships such as Iran have state controlled industry and cooperatives, which also exist in socialist countries (i.e. France's oil company 'Total'). Both Hitler and Mussolini were originally active in socialist movements. It seems to me that 'extreme right wing' is not right wing at all, but rather a separate evolution of left wing thought.97.77.209.82 (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The term far right refers to groups that hold the values of the original Right, which was statist. The Left wanted to smash the state which they saw as a tool of the establishment. Under socialism there is no need for the government to give one a car, one is able to earn the money to pay for it. Hence the Right introduced social welfare policies that the Left opposed. The "socialism" of the Nazis was really the State Socialism of the Prussian conservatives. Cf Tory socialism, Red Tory. TFD (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To the anonymous user. Conservatism is different in other countries, there have been conservative governments that have been overwhelmingly statist and protectionist. Until recent times, conservatives stemming from British parliamentary politics did not like the notion of free trade and free enterprise, they utilized state-owned companies or state-sponsored companies to pursue state projects. Indeed the classical liberals of the United States in the American Revolution, like Thomas Jefferson, were attempting to free the U.S. from absolutist rule by Britain over the U.S. Absolutism believed in the divine right of kings over their subject, and moreover a strong government, conservatives in Britain upheld that view. In Europe many conservatives hated classical liberal laissez-faire capitalism, it was seen as decadent and cosmopolitan, destroying the traditions of nations and selling out nations and religion in the name of free trade and self-centred individualist greed. They preferred a strong conservative state to restore traditions and keep out left-wing liberals and socialists to maintain order and avoid the disaster of the French Revolution, all-out anarchy and civil war they saw as being caused by leftists. Contemporary American conservatism is largely the combination of social conservatism with support of classical liberal economic values in opposition to modern liberalism's emphasis on a social welfare state. The reason American conservatives oppose this is because of the libertarian tradition that has developed in the U.S. to oppose a government from tyrannically imposing itself upon its people. The root of this tradition stems from the resistance to right-wing absolutism of the British monarchy, but now applies left-wing social welfare by the American right. The American left used this same tradition against the wiretapping propositions of the Bush administration.--R-41 (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

- So, if one is for forced social and/or economic equality, then one is either left wing or right wing depending on whether or not the enforcement is coming from the state? 97.77.209.82 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Left-wing means support of an egalitarian society, right-wing means support for a hierarchical society. The libertarian right opposes the imposition of egalitarianism and believes that there naturally are people who are inferior and superior (i.e. an entrepreneur is superior to a homeless person who does not have profitable talents and thus in right-wing views, the "superior" entrepreneurial businessman deserves respect for being a success, the "inferior" homeless person does not deserve respect - the person is deemed as a drain on society). In left-wing views, a person who is in a hierarchical status that is deemed to exploit lower status people to do their bidding is undeserving of respect, because of that person's contempt for fellow humans. The authoritarian right seeks to stamp out existing egalitarianism and sense of equality (i.e. in Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa, that the "inferior" blacks or Jews needed to be forcibly separated from the "superior" whites to prevent racial degeneration of whites). The libertarian left opposes the imposition of hierarchy and believes that all people should be treated equally. The authoritarian left seeks to stamp out existing traditional hierarchical structures. the authoritarian left supports a strong state to repress reactionary forces that seek to restore traditional hierarchical structures. Typically though the authoritarian left, like Stalinist regimes are hypocritical, they end up retaining a leadership vanguard group as a hierarchical structure that exploits its people - but that is due to corruption, not ideology. There are two scales at hand here: left-wing (egalitarian) versus right-wing (hierarchical) and authoritarian versus libertarian. Most people have a mix of left-wing and right-wing views, with tendencies to one side or the other. Far-left or far-right people are usually a minority, unless there is a severe crisis in society.--R-41 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Examining history, left-wing means support for hierarchical society based on who you know and how close you are to government, whereas right-wing means support for meritocratic society based on how much education, money, and success you have. Fascism seems to be a branch of left wing ideology that extends the left wing hierarchy to only include certain races and groups, with a strong national bent. Evidence of this is the fact that all fascists started out as socialists.97.77.209.82 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to debate ideology with you. If you can show that serious historians and political theorists agree with your viewpoint then it will be included irrespective of whether we agree with it ourselves. Of course, that isn't going to happen because your argument is completely contrary to academic consensus. I am not sure what history you are "examining" but the claim that all Fascists started out as Socialist is just ludicrous. Some may have done but many more did not. Hitler certainly didn't. He was anti-Socialist and anti-Communist from the outset, even before joining the Nazis. You might want to read the article on Hitler. It is all in there and it is all referenced to genuine historical sources you can check up on if you want to. You might also want to read up on what left and right wing really mean. After you have done that you will understand their historical meanings and the meanings they are understood to have now. Once you do that you will see that both sides have libertarian and authoritarian camps. Whenever you hear somebody suggest that all oppression springs from either the left or right then you can be pretty sure that they are either engaged in demagoguery without any respect for the facts or have been confused by such rhetoric and are ignorant of the facts. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler: "During his inspection of the party, Hitler was impressed with founder Anton Drexler's anti-semitic, nationalist, anti-capitalist and anti-Marxist ideas, which favoured a strong active government, a "non-Jewish" version of socialism and mutual solidarity of all members of society. Drexler was impressed with Hitler's oratory skills and invited him to join the party. Hitler joined DAP on 12 September 1919[41] and became the party's 55th member.[42] He was also made the seventh member of the executive committee.[43]" The word NAZI stands for "National Socialists." When one discusses Fascism, the two biggest players were Hitler and Mussolini. Both started out as Socialists.97.77.209.82 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So you read the article. That's good. But rather than learning anything you read it looking for bits you could misconstrue to support what is well documented to be a false position. That's not so good. I fail to understand the insistence on taking certain things the Nazis said at face value. It is universally acknowledged that they often chose dishonest names for things when they wished to hide their true nature. National Socialism is not a form of Socialism any more than Positive Christianity (a Nazi pseudo-religion) is a form of Christianity. The researched and documented fact is that Hitler started out opposed to Socialism and joined a Nazi Party that was anti-communist and anti-Socialist from the outset, although not fully formed in its ideology. Hitler soon pushed Drexler to the margins. When a faction within the Nazi party flirted with a more left wing style of economics they were tolerated for as long as it seemed expedient and then expelled or violently purged on Hitler's orders. This was all done and dusted by 1934. That is as far left as the Nazis ever went and Hitler opposed it.

Hitler joined the German Worker's Party (DAP) prior to his political evolution into Nationalist Socialism. This is well documented, even in his own writings. The article that I referred to has references. Hitler started out as a Socialist after serving in WWI. I don't know why you dispute that or feel that others dispute that.

You are attempting proof by repeated assertion. You must understand that everybody already knows that Nazi stands for National Socialism. Everybody already understands that they co-opted some style and some substance from the left. This isn't some blinding revelation that turns conventional thinking on its head. It is already factored in to every analysis of Nazi ideology that has ever been made by a respectable historian or political analyst. Despite this, there is an overwhelming consensus that Hitler, the Nazis and Fascism in general were never on the left. Find us one reputable post-war historian who thinks so. The broad consensus puts them on the right and those who disagree seem to put them in a limbo position that is not left or right.

To a Socialist or a Communist, everything else IS to the right. The Programme of the NSDAP (24 February 1920), Hitler and Drexler outline these points:
"9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.'"'

I don't see any difference between these views and the views of any other socialist country, be it France or Hugo Chavez' Venezuela. The other points in the writing may differ, however every point in this writing correlates well with the phrase "Nationalist Socialism," a form of Socialism with a strong Nationalist bent.97.77.209.82 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I return to the core point. We are not here to argue politics with you. Even if you were right it wouldn't make any difference. It is not for Wikipedia users to arbitrate the truth. Our responsibility is to reflect the consensus in the field. That is what we are doing. If you want to change what is is in Wikipedia, don't bring us arguments, bring us reliable sources.

While I would like to help you understand why you are mistaken, that isn't really what this page is meant for. I am afraid that I have to agree with R-41's hydrophobic horse analogy. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion if it simply involves us both restating our cases without any progress. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave a good description to attempt to clarify the anonymous user's claims but if the anonymous user is demanding answers while refusing to accept any that disagrees with their point of view then all I can do is lead a horse to water, but I can't make it drink. If one wants to know one of the key ideological roots of the particular "socialism" of National Socialism, just look at this article about a book by a conservative named Oswald Spengler: Preussentum und Sozialismus ("Prussianism and Socialism". Spengler advocated that conservatives had to support a form of socialism to be politically viable after the rise of Bolshevism, saying "For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction".--R-41 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer that I have received is that right wing is defined as supporting a hierarchical society, whereas left wing supports an egalitarian society. The problem with this argument is that there are very few real world examples of this. France is hierarchical in many respects. The National Socialists (NAZIs) were hierarchical in similar respects. France's government sits on the board and is allied with its big corporations (i.e. Total), yet Fascists were supposed to be the Corporatists.97.77.209.82 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IP, if you want to write articles based on the writings of Adolph Hitler, try writing for Conservapedia. Unlike you, I do not accept his opinions or even spend much time reading his extemely boring writings. TFD (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:AGF. Where a source is RS according to WP policies, then it is valdi for use in an article. That you do not "like" it is quite irrelevant. That you find it "boring" is also irrelevant. The only issue before any editor ought to be "is the source reliable according to WP policies?" Collect (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Collect, do you consider Adolph Hitler's speeches to be a reliable source? I suspect that if you began inserting his views as facts into articles that you would encounter resistance. None of his theories were endorsed by peer-review and Nazi fact-checking left much to be desired. TFD (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Relax everybody. Don't let the anonymous editor wind you up to the point where you start arguing with eachother. He is just making foolish assertions with nothing to back them. In his latest missive he has lapsed into confusion and irrelevance. I have no idea why he is being disparaging about the French government. Clearly the comparison to the Nazis is spurious, potentially offensive and does nothing to advance his argument anyway. I think TFD is right to suggest that the anonymous editor should find somewhere else to go if he wants to argue politics rather than help us write the encyclopaedia but I wouldn't have suggested Conservapedia, not unless I was feeling mischievous anyway. There are many web forums where people can go to argue about their political views. If he goes to a good one he might find himself having to defend his views to people who question him far more robustly than we do. He might even learn something.

If you were to choose which country most exemplifies the virtues of Socialism, which would it be? This is the only reason why I singled out France.97.77.209.82 (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how we got onto the subject, but I hope we can all agree that Hitler's authentically documented speeches and writings are a reliable source of information as to what Hitler said and what the official Nazi party line was but not on any wider factual matters. I think we know how to use such references responsibly. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Collect (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To user 97.77.209.82, on the issue of corporatism you said, "France's government sits on the board and is allied with its big corporations (i.e. Total), yet Fascists were supposed to be the Corporatists." You do not understand what corporatism is. It is NOT about business corporation dominance in politics. Corporatism derives from the Latin word "corpus" meaning body. Corporatism views a community as alike to an organic body due to the social interaction between its individual members. Fascism adopted corporatism because it fit with their agenda to create national solidarity. As for your claim that France is hierarchical, like I said before, most moderate people and moderate political parties have elements of both the left and the right within them. When governments of the left or the right come to power, they typically have to accept natural elements of left-wing and right-wing components of society, i.e. hierarchical systems of authority and order - typically government systems, police, the military, higher-level education systems and in some cases religious institutions - and rights or activism that guarantee equality. Most extremists when they gain power end up having to accept such institutions at least temporarily if they are entrenched. Extreme right and extreme left refers to the distance between each other - extreme right means total support for hierarchy and complete dismissal of egalitarianism, extreme left means total support for egalitarianism and complete dismissal of hierarchy. There were many occasions where Mussolini and Hitler declared their opposition to egalitarianism. They considered egalitarianism absurd - people have to prove their worth through merit and honour - with the greatest merit and honour in their view is being a soldier in war. They wanted an orderly hierarchical society with essentially a warrior class in charge to rule over subordinate people and classes, like what Plato advocated in The Republic with the "guardian" warrior caste.--R-41 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler supported the concept of State, whereas Communists and Socialists are anti-statist (even though all of them seem to have borders and immigration policy). The word Corporatism is thrown around these days to imply that fascist right wing means when the government and big business conspire together. I've heard this time and time again as the definition of Fascism. As for hierarchy, Hitler was for individuality only as long as it supported the broader community. Hitler wrote "One can be proud of one's people only if there is no class left of which one need to be ashamed."[Mein Kampf Vol II, Chapter 2]. He also wrote "It is also one of the aims before our movement to hold out the prospect of a time when the individual will be given what he needs for the purposes of his life and it will be a time in which, on the other hand, the principle will be upheld that man does not live for material enjoyment alone. This principle will find expression in a wiser scale of wages and salaries which will enable everyone, including the humblest workman who fulfils his duties conscientiously, to live an honourable and decent life both as a man and as a citizen. Let it not be said that this is merely a visionary ideal, that this world would never tolerate it in practice and that of itself it is impossible to attain. "[Mein Kampf Vol II, Chapter 2].97.77.209.82 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a moderate, centre-left person myself, I can say that the left in North America has typically misrepresented corporatism due to ignorance and assumption and I can say that the far-left typically exaggerates fascism as being pro-capitalist. That being said, it is unmistakable that fascists were right-wing and their opposition to components of capitalism was not out of an egalitarian ethos like the left, but out of protectionist neo-mercantilist sentiments and the view of capitalism in its original classical liberal form as supporting self-centred egotism and greed at the expense of society.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Too often people love to use fascism as synonymous with "evil" and claim their leaders lied about everything. When fascism is just associated with "evil", then anything bad could be connotated with it. It's just a cheap defense mechanism to avoid recognizing the challenges fascists posed to the norms of the Enlightenment. Fascists DID have ideals, but their ideals are not those of an Enlightenment nature. Fascists saw the Enlightenment as a failure, cosmopolitan humanitarianism as impossible and a fraud, democracy as a fraud, and claims of humans being rational beings as being wrong. While the absurd racist rhetoric of the Nazis has long been debunked, but the original Italian Fascism's claims remain issues of today, such as: humans viewed as being primarily irrational (emotional), of perpetual peace being impossible and undesirable by people, that the world is and always will be primarily violent and that nations must compete and cripple nations that threaten them, and of the majority of people are unable to govern themselves and require an overarching and directing authority and mobilization myths to give their lives meaning. The Enlightenment was created on the basis of most people having the capacity to be rational and that there is a common humanity and natural rights attributed to it, that is the source of the progressive ideologies of liberalism and mainstream socialism. But the Enlightenment has always been in a struggle for its own legitimacy and existence in the face of the rampant irrationality of many people - and there are many people who do not believe in it or have abandoned believing in upholding humanity because it is violated so often and so grotesquely that it seems hopeless to even try. Often when soldiers come home from a war involving extreme violence, they can become completely desensitized to violence, hold complete contempt and hate for their wartime enemies, and some even becoming sociopathic or unable to stand life in peacetime. Italian Fascism involved veterans after the First World War who joined the Blackshirts and continued killing people. Fascists are such anti-Enlightenment people who either completely reject the Enlightenment or who abandoned believing in it, that is why they often do not have compassion for human life as a whole and that is why they can passionately support violence, that is the reason is why they are viewed as evil.--R-41 (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of Hobbes vs Locke vs Rousseau. I think it is a stretch to say that if one is anti-Enlightenment or even pro-Hobbes that one has little compassion for human life. Hobbes viewed that man is highly dependent on an artificial "State" to define what is just and to enforce behavior. See the quotes written by Hitler in my answer above.97.77.209.82 (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You should not use American categories of the right and apply them to the far right. While the far right incorporated some modern concepts into their ideology, essentially they saw the people as an organic whole, rather than a group of individuals who had banded together. The leader did not owe his position to a contract with the people, but was either appointed by god or owed his position to his natural superiority over others. It is the far right vs. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It may be that the far right had compassion for human life, but they were only able to resist liberalism and socialism through violence, and saw their opponents as inhuman. TFD (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous has discovered some aspects of fascism, an extreme ideology, has some characteristics similar to extreme left-wing groups. That doesnt mean fascism is left-wing, it means extremists of different camps exhibit similarities in their extremism. Anonymous hasnt yet worked out that in today's conservative America communism and socialism are lumped together as the same thing, but in the 30s in Europe there was a much clearer distinction between the communists and socialists which explains the fascists' use of socialism in their party names. The fascists were virulently anti-communist, and in fact that attribute is almost their only common aspect, which means they couldn't be left-wing. Mdw0 (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned to the anonymous user earlier, American politics since the American Revolution has been based upon the libertarian tradition of the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution. It is actually of some humourous irony to me that the American conservatives who lambast American liberals are themselves descendents from classical liberalism who merged economic classical liberalism and neoclassical liberalism (aka neoliberalism) via laissez-faire capitalism with social conservatism). The Republican Party is "conservative" in that it rejects the social liberalism of the Democratic Party, while the Democratic Party is considered as just as the American "liberal" party due to the Republicans' self-identification with conservatism. Historically in Europe and the British Commonwealth, conservatism was initially highly anti-capitalist, favouring mercantilism and aristocratic nobles' privilege over concessions to bourgeois merchants. And as I mentioned earlier, but will rephrase again, immediately after the Russian Revolution, with far-left socialist revolts breaking out across Europe, the ideas and very word of "conservatism" was nearly as taboo in Europe then as the ideas and word of "socialism" is in the United States today. After the Russian Revolution, traditional conservative right-wing groups were seen as having failed to counter the threat of Bolshevism, thus right-wingers like Oswald Spengler who influenced both Italian Fascism and Nazism said in his book Preussentum und Sozialismus "For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction". Spengler associated himself with a group called the "Conservative Revolutionary movement" that advocated a conservative socialism. Right-wingers like Spengler and Hitler who declared support for a form of socialism adopted anti-capitalism in a strongly right-wing and anti-liberal sense, by denouncing it for self-centred egotistic individualism that promoted greed and stabbing nations in the back in the name of materialism, while supporting a hierarchical economy that retained private property that was directed by the state that would be right-wing socialism. Both Spengler and the Nazis countered Marxist rebuke that they were not socialists but capitalists by accusing Marxists of being proletarian capitalists who continued the core capitalist value of materialism. In summary, the right wanted to gain access to the term "socialism" after the Russian Revolution to maintain popularity and be able to ideologically address the ideological and economic concerns that arose with the rise of Bolshevism in Russia and Europe. That context must be understood.--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your commentary but would like to add two points. US "social conservatism" is actually liberalism too - it is a middle class view supported by individualist religion very similar if not identical to Puritanism and Calvinism. Also, social liberalism was never accepted in the US, although it is an influence. TFD (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I stumbled across a semi-related article Al-Muthanna club whose creator may have misunderstood how we can use copyrighted material in articles (I have left a message on their talk page, but they have been inactive for a couple of weeks). Specifically, they seem to have been using excessive amounts of material verbatim from books available through Google Books etc. They've made a lot of contributions to this article, and I have found a couple of cases of the same thing here (from this) and here (from this). The first is still in the article, somewhat edited. I think most of the edits are on the Middle East, and a number of sources/quotes may overlap those used in Al-Muthanna club. I'm not an expert on the subject and I don't want to blank wholesale sections of it, but I think there may be parts which need removed or rewritten. Any thoughts? --Kateshortforbob _talk 14:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I add the article to the list of possible copyright infringements.[5] That should be the best place to resolve the issue. TFD (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with the Italian Version of this Page

The Italian version of this page is inconsistent with the English version. In the Italian version, the "Fascism" portal is entirely missing and is substituted with the "Italian Fascism" page instead. The reason behind this choice is that according to Italian (and many Europeans) scholars Fascism is a political system exclusive to early 20th century Italy. They argue that grouping Italian Fascism, German National Socialism and other European anti-communist totalitarian regimes under the common name "Fascism" is misleading and inappropriate. I recognize the fact that the term has a different meaning in English, so I would advise the creation of a new section on the "Meaning of the Term 'Fascism' in the World" as the one already present in the Italian version. I think this would increase cross-language consistency and provide useful information about the modern understanding of the words "Fascism" and "fascist". Snoopy18 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is far right?? Please explain that in the article

Facism is, by definition, gigantic government. Its centralized power. Government controls everything. Conservatives universally believe in Limited Government. Facism, with unlimited central government is polar opposite from conservative right. The idea that Facism is somehow on the same political line as "right wing conservatives" is irrational. How is this kind of reasoning justified given the universal unity that the "right" seek limited government? The term "right" as it is used today means limited government. If you are using a different definition for the term "right" you have an academic obligation to state that in the article. We should be using concepts that are in use TODAY and are widely understood TODAY, not concepts whom people a century ago had that have a different meaning today. If your use of the term "right" refers to a form of "right" that existed 100 years ago, but is not known in that way in the present day, you are misleading people and have the obligation to clarify what "right" means as it pertains to the scope of the article. Throughout both in Canada and the US "right" nearly universally means limited, smaller government. This article is disingenuous to leave out that clarification and I believe the authors of the article know full well that "right" is commonly understood to mean limited government, yet are using the term "right" as it was commonly known 100 years ago instead of commonly known today. This is one truth that no amount of nuance by the authors can refute: 'right' as it has come to mean today, has absolutely nothing in common with 'right' as it was known to be used 100 years ago. Yet for some reason, I see the authors of this article fervently hold fast to their sublime desire to associate facism (the "right" of 100 years ago) with the "right" of today. The meaning of "right" today as it is commonly used is polar opposite, and has absolutely nothing in common with facism. There is no association with big facist government to the "right" as it is understood and known in 2010...none whatsoever.

This article is disingenuous and any college professor that tries to make a present day association with the 'right' of 2010 to the 'right' of Germany is committing fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times. People in German who believed in limited government were called "liberals". People who supported a strong state, militarism and social welfare were called "conservatives". The conservatives sat on the right, while liberals sat in the center. Over time liberals became more closely associated with welfare policies. But the left/right divide does not depend on policies which change over time. Incidentally if you search "far right" on Google scholar, you find articles about political extremists, not libertarians.[6] TFD (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, fascist economic policy was not as statist as it is sometimes described. The Nazi economics minister, Hjalmar Schacht was a liberal and former central banker who was credited with ending the German inflation. Although he continued the previous government's construction of the Autobahn, he had been an outspoken critic of make work projects. During the 1930s he was credited with reducing Germany's foreign debt and the deficit. He urged Hitler to reduce military spending, turn away from autarkic and protectionist policies, and reduce state control in the economy. While government grew in Germany as it did elsewhere, it was in response to the depression and preparation for war, not an ideological commitment to big government. TFD (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is the term "right" is ambiguous and warrants explanation. Today, I believe, especially when it comes to Hitler, the term "right" is excessively used by left-leaning professors and ideologues as a mechanism to falsely associate today's conservatives with 1930's facists. Conservatives, who identify as being on the "right" are universal in few things, one of them being limited central government- completely oppositte of Facism. So oppositte in fact, that facism is not anywhere near on the same side of a "line" as the conservative right in the US and Canada. Frankly, it is growing tiring to read about how Hitler is to the "right" without ever properly putting the term "right" in its context as something completely opposed to the right of today. A massive central government...no matter what its social policies, no matter what its corporate policies, will always and forever be mutually exclusive from conservative ideology. You can cite tiny little tidbits of Hitler's government that may "seem" to be inline with some things conservatives like, but this is a grave irrational fallacy because the entire premise of todays right-conservatives is *built upon* limited central government. A massive central government cannot possibly ever be in harmony, or even in the same spectrum as, todays right. In the interest of Academic credibility, it is beholden to Wikipedia authors dealing with Facism to differentiate and better define the term 'right' rather than let an implied association to today's conservatives remain standing.

I believe quite firmly that left-leaning Wikipedia authors know full well the implied association when they say Hitler was to the "right" - to allude to today's limited government conservatives- and that is an explicit goal for them. I believe that association (which is fallacy) is exactly what wikipedia authors want.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You must not confuse policies with ideology. In the 1920s the Right was libertarian. But they modified this view in the 1930s. Herbert Hoover for example supported state intervention. While the Italian fascists were libertarians, they also rejected some of these views during the depression. The Nazis were also libertarian and kept this ideology until they needed to use government in order to conduct war. Fascists today of course support libertarian values. TFD (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was only following the Second World War that US conservatives and right-wingers starting calling themselves by those names. The names were applied to them by "left-leaning professors and ideologues as a mechanism to falsely associate today's conservatives with 1930's facists". The leading ideologues of the American Right (such as James Burnham and Frank S. Meyer) were in fact Marxists who adopted the terminology. In Canada they did not become "conservatives" until recently either - they used to call themselves Social Credit. TFD (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"While the Italian fascists were libertarians, ... The Nazis were also libertarian and kept this ideology until they needed to use government in order to conduct war. Fascists today of course support libertarian values." A use of the term libertarian with which I was previously unfamiliar.

—WWoods (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the economic sense - they supported laissez-faire economics. The far right today, such as the National Front, have adopted US-style libertarian positions. The point is that economic policies of parties change over time. TFD (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The French National Front isn't fascist. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They developed from groups that supported the Third Reich, called themselves fascists and consciously imitated them in dress and ceremonies. Whether they were or are true fascists is of course debatable, although they are considered "far right". The point is that over time these parties have adopted U. S. style right-wing populism and moved away from WW2 era political and economic policies. TFD (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe someone brought this up again. It has already been settled in previous discussions. Fascism incorporates both left and right politics. However, it is a form of extreme reactionary policies against the Communist ideology. Fascism is far right in practice. It seems that many people here disputing this fact are confusing Nazism and Fascism with American conservatism. These terms are not mutual. It's like confusing Communism with American liberalism. They are not mutual. Please understand that left and right politics are originally coined by the French Assembly during the Revolution and are not exactly the same as American liberalism and conservatism. The definition of liberalism is progressive thought, personal liberty and reform . Whereas conservatism is retaining an existing order in fear of drastic change. Please pick up a history book and read up on it. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg does not count as he is not a historian but an opinionist. He has already been repudiated by actual scholars and historians. Those of you who are trying to dispute this are misunderstanding the political spectrum and percieving comparisons where there are none. Facts do not have any bias to the left or right.The articles current definition of fascism is fine as it is, although there is still room for improvement in other areas particularly in the Middle East and Religion section.

YOu should believe it because this article is disingenuous and creates a false association (deliberately, I believe). As long as that false and misleading association exists, this topic should be brought up. It is not settled. Facism is not "right" in the sense as right is commonly understood in the western world. "right" as it is commonly understood in the western world relies on limited central government. This article is misleading, and I believe you know full well what it is doing, and it is "working as intended" because most Wikipedian authors are white, left leaning, and under 30 (this is the systemic bias of wikipedia), so of course there is a strong undercurrent to put todays "right" ideology in a bad light (by comparing it to Facism, the party of Hitler, that has nothing to do with the "right" of todays western world) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.23.79 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your getting at. The article is not deliberately misleading. This article's current definition regarding fascism is fine as it is. Although I admit that other areas need to be more properly clarified. Your conclusion that Wikipedia is somehow full of white, left leaning 30 somethings is a blatant generalization. It is true that the word "fascist" tends to be thrown around a lot by some liberals against conservatives but so has "communist" and "socialist" by some conservatives against liberals. To echo The Four Deuces, you are falsely percieving comparisons of American conservatism to fascism when no such suggestion is made in the article. Perhaps we could have a faq at the forefront of the talk page to clarify things up.

70.74.238.65 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

70.74.238.65 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: ""right" as it is commonly understood in the western world relies on limited central government". If that were true then de-centralized Canada would be the most right-wing country in the world. Also, if true why do they call the German Free Democrat/Christian Democrat coaltion "center-right"[7] and not the other way round? The centrist FDP is much bigger on smaller government than the CDU. TFD (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Americans decided to call their Republican/Democrat divide "conservative/liberal" and later "right/left". It is confusing to then categorize foreign ideologies according to where they would fit into the US spectrum. TFD (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I know we are straying a little from discussion of how to improve the article but I find this subject very interesting and it is relevant to understanding why this topic keeps on coming up again and again. It seems to me that globalisation of communications (including Wikipedia to some extent) normally leads to a gradual convergence of language among English speaking people. Certainly in Britain we are far more able and willing to understand and use American and Australian idioms than we used to be. We are no longer "people divided by a common language". It seems odd that certain political terms should be a counterexample, particularly when it seems that the terms are being ripped up by their roots and flipped 90 or even 180 degrees (I am thinking about the bizarre redefinition of "liberal" as a term of abuse to mean "one who is opposed to liberty") rather than gradually evolving. What I would like to know is whether this is a natural thing stemming from the different political landscape in the USA, or whether it is more deliberate. I am not suggesting that the stream of anonymous editors we see here are anything more than confused, but I would like to know whether somebody is deliberately confusing them. I have seen people, who are presumably British, on British web forums trying to inject the same changes in political terminology into British political thinking, which seems very strange indeed because the new terminology fits our political landscape even less than it does that of the USA. The new terminology seems to me to be unhelpful in a number of ways. It embeds a lot of the assumptions of the American right into the language which prevents it being universally acceptable and leads to a fragmentation of language. It also seems simplistic and incapable of handling much nuance (I am thinking of whopping great confused conflations along the lines of: liberal = Socialist = Fascist = Communist = left = French = bad), in fact it seems more like Orwell's Newspeak in that it is a language that makes certain types of political discussion impossible, or at least impossible to have in a coherent way. Finally, by changing the meaning of words it retrospectively changes the understanding of previously published texts, which is part of the problem we are having here. So, am I paranoid or is there deliberate mischief at work here? [If this is too far off topic then feel free to put replies on my Talk page instead (or ignore me entirely)] --DanielRigal (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This issue is moot, it has been discussed over and over again. For the third or fourth time now I will show a quote by Oswald Spengler, a man who influenced both Italian Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) whose "socialism" that he advocated is described in his book Prussiandom and Socialism where he says "For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction".--R-41 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The Italian Fascists indeed had strong original roots in the political left, as in syndicalism, but they only gained substantial support when they switched in 1920 to accomodate the political right, including conservative nationalists from the Italian Nationalist Association. Various Italian Fascists spoke of fascism as a "conservative revolution". Bear in mind this does not refer to American conservatism that emphasizes limited government. In other countries conservatism has supported strong governments. Left-wing means egalitarian, right-wing means hierarchical, there are authoritarian and libertarian factions on each side.--R-41 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is anyone surprised this would be brought up again? I'd be suprised if it wasn't. Politics is an ongoing phenomonon, and you will always have modern day right wingers trying to dissociate themselves from the fascists and associate them with their political opponents, just as the left wingers do. There isnt really a problem with this. The problem is not when you have people saying 'Fascists are like them, not us,' its when you get people saying 'I'm fascist and they had it right!' Mdw0 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems it's necessary to do the same that has been done in Talk:Intelligent design, a FAQ section that shows the consesnsus on common points of argument.--Sum (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Religion Change

I removed this single sentence after the fourth paragraph "A number of Italian Fascists were disgusted by Mussolini's decision to seek reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church." It seems to be a duplicate as this line is already present in the 3rd paragraph's last sentence. 70.74.238.65 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Iron Guard (Romania)

An editor removed this section with the notation, "I deleted it because it's not true. An old women from Romania allready proved that the Iron Guard was NOT AN FASCIST MOVEMENT thus including it in this article is a big mistake". This does not seem to be an adequate reason and therefore I will restore the section. TFD (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Iron Guard attended the conference in 1934 known as the Fascist International (officially the Action Committees for the Universality of Rome), of a variety of fascist parties. See this link. [8].--R-41 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Legionary Movement (Iron Guard) was, at its time, the most mysticism-excited fascist group in Europe, second only to the SS's pagan religiosity. It held ultra-nationalistic views combined and strengthened with religious extremism, social and economic corporatism, a paramilitary force that rivaled the SA and Blackshirts' coordinated street violence (especially against Jews), a dedication to the cult of elitism, the cult of personality and the exaltation of the cult of war and the warrior spirit as a deadly opponent of liberal spirituality, considered anti-capitalism equally as important as anti-communism, and associated itself with the pan-European fascist trend. The Iron Guard was possibly one of the most fanatic fascist organizations next to Nazism, and a sustaining pillar of the Third Positionst ideology of current-day neo-fascism. It was fascism in its fanatic, youthful form. And this is coming from a Romanian, by the way. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What can be done to shorten the article without removing valuable content?

Though this article seems to be getting long, it appears to be addressing key issues now. The intro though a bit long, answers a lot of questions about fascism quickly and relatively concisely. I think the problem is in the examples of fascism and para-fascism section, it takes up space and doesn't contribute much to the article. I think that the ideological origins of fascism section can be moved to the Italian Fascism article, as it addresses the origins of the original "Fascismo". The development of fascism section to me seems important to understand that fascism never had many clear-cut principles but developed over time, this could be reduced. What do others think?--R-41 (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The examination of actual fascist movements is vital. It shows how the historical groups rarely measured up to the ideal of fascism, and it shows how varied fascist groups can be. How would someone know if Franco's regime was technically fascist or technically not fascist unless it was examined?. Its a broad topic, broader than most people think, so if its a little longer than normal, that's probably a good thing. Mdw0 (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In general, I don't understand the obsession with short articles on complicated topics. We're well past the point where internet connection speed is really an issue, and traditional encyclopedias make articles as long as necessary to adequately deal with a topic. If anything, the problem with wikipedia is that articles on big topics are too short - an article on an actually important topic that is "too long" is a pleasant surprise. john k (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be expected to be longer than other articles due to it involving a major political ideology that is highly relevant. Unless there is a real dire issue with the length, I think the length tag should be removed.--R-41 (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of showing how the historical groups rarely measured up to the ideal of fascism by describing numerous groups it would be better to quote this from an expert on fascism. TFD (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascism and Enlightenment

Currently the article states as fact that fascism is a by-product of enlightenment. It cites Stanley Payne. Unfortunately that is an extreme view in the spectrum on the role of enlightenment. In fact Payne claims that virtually all of Hitler's views stem from enlightenment which is not canonical at all. Canonically Enlightenment is tolerance, pluralism, secular separation of church and state, democratic government, equality, individual liberty. Fascism is in fact often defined as the canonical opposite to most of these, intolerant, monolithic, state-controlled church, totalitarian, non-egalitarian, illiberal. Numerous books support this view. For example Ball and Dagger, "Ideas and Ideologies". But it's not that simple. There is no uniform diagnosis about the origins of Fascism/totalitarianism. For Popper it all goes back to Plato for example and he certainly would not be found to blame enlightenment. But for some thinkers in the Frankfurt school, it was the limits and failings of enlightenment. In any case the current passage is grossly misleading at best and I'll edit out. Please discuss before reverting because regardless, the passage needs improvement (i.e. at least a presentation of multiple perspectives on the role of enlightenment rather than a blanket citation of an extreme interpretation). 99.118.118.95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC). That claim is absolutely unforgiveable, I agree. Fascism is the absolute antithesis of The Enlightenment. It opposes every one of the three prongs of French liberalism, "Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite." Every bit of Fascism is anti-Liberty, anti-Fraternity, anti-Equality. Fascism loathes every one of these things because they are antithetical to the very notion of it. Again this is the most deplorable aspect of this article, which poses as neutral but seems to be intentionally deceptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.179.111 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is Corporatism

The article inexcusably downplays the role of monopoly corporate power in the central role played in the state, and is therefore entirely misleading, suspiciously so. Benito Mussolini famously stated that, "Fascism is Corporatism." The role of the corporate elites is central to every fascist form of government. To simplify it, as Bill Maher once put it, Fascism is where the Corporations become the government. It is the form of government that Jefferson feared the most in his letters and papers, where corporations become so powerful that they control the government and we lapse into an oligarchy. The article never once, to my recollection, links to the work of George Seldes, the biographer of Mussolini, who very thorougly discussed this subject. There is a wiki article on Seldes, in fact but even that article is suspiciously lacking in bare of this journalist in defining and interpreting Fascism, which he knew and documented better than anyone. I also see no references to treasonous American fascists in industry and banking that supported Hitler's rise to power and kept doing business with him throughout the war, and then escaped justice to lead us into the Cold War and the military-industrial complex. Men like Prescott Bush, the Walkers and the Dulles brothers, Brown Brothers, Henry Ford, the Duponts and Sloans. Men who sponsored an attempted Fascist coup against FDR in 1933. There is no discussion of euthanasia or eugenics, two of the pillars of Fascism. The fact that Nazi government was a strong powerful central government has nothing to do with classic fascism. It was a dictatorship of the right and the cartels. Harmony between the corporations and the labor unions was never one of its features. The whole thrust of Fascism is to eliminate unions and eliminate competition. It also does not discuss the ultimate inefficiency and wastefulness of this form of government and economic control and the propaganda needed to support the truth of this. It was the antithesis of FDR New Deal policies supporting democracy. I don't have time to go over every deficiency of this article but to say that it is so devoid of real content that one must suspect the neutrality of it's authors, and there are a lot of good reasons out there why someone would do that, because Fascism is with us today and on the ascendency so a little political mystification is helpful to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.179.111 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) A good and accurate treatise on Fascism that is truthful and thorough is the recently published book, "The Nazi Hydra in America," by Glen Yeadon and John Hawkins, 2006, available online as a Google Book preview at http://books.google.com/books?id=vh7sx2xtjGEC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=hydra+headed+bush+family&source=bl&ots=DN1QEHijln&sig=sqTsiPKYpZhAVYZrecdds5RbY54&hl=en&ei=jxxMTNfBHY_UtQO0hIlJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.179.111 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with at least some of this. Why not familiarise yourself with some of our rules of editing (such as WP:V and WP:NPOV) and help to improve the article. --FormerIP (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 It also seems to make a rather tortured effort to define fascism as "on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum". There are six (*6*) references for this single statement, and none of them seem to actually support the statement's premise, with the exception of the first, which is a self-described "progressive", or far left, publication. Perhaps a better treatment would be to simply mention the controversy surrounding the left-right nature of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squ1rr3l (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has a difficult history and, yes, it is a bit "tortured". It probably doesn't need all those cites, but there have been lots of discussions about it and there we are. The article goes into some detail about debates over the placing of fascism on the political spectrum but consensus is (rightly IMO) that these debates are not significant enough to be gone over in the lead, where they would be a distraction and an WP:NPOV minefield. --FormerIP (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with the article is that it relies heavily on the "consensus definition" which sees fascism as an ideology rather than a political movement. These are two distinct things and the article is not clear. TFD (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Payne actually describes the difference here (pp. 200-204). I will try to find the complete section and insert his view into the article. TFD (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian fascism

In my opinion the article of the Hungarian fascism is should be about the arrow cross party and hungarism movement, not about Gyula Gömbös. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wymp (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. john k (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascism - The Truth

If everything is based upon power then Fascism cannot be right wing. Under Fascism, there is a dictator or an oligarchy. Under Fascism there is government ownership.

What makes Fascism different from Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Dictatorships, or Monarchies?

Those who claim Fascism is right wing can never define the terms that make it right wing.

Fascism would fall under the Ruler's Law scale, where in America we have or had a system where the People ruled or People's Law. Which is right of center on the People's Law Scale.

http://www.5000yearleapblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/political_spectrum.jpg

You might want to read up on what are considered reliable sources here WP:RS, oh and check out WP:UNDUE as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleon Skousen's view is not accepted by reliable sources. For some reason, Skousen reversed the meaning of left and right. See left-right politics for an explanation of the terms. TFD (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do we continue to get far more of this garbage than its left wing equivalent? There aren't constant uprisings in pages dealing with communism to insist that communism isn't truly left-wing based on dubious standards of left and right, are there? So why do we constantly have to deal with it here? Once again: "right wing" does not mean "libertarian," and certainly the "right wing" in continental Europe in the inter-war period had almost nothing in common with libertarianism. Thank you. john k (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Some Americans have adopted the ahistorical terms "right" and "conservative" to describe themselves and are now trying redefine the Right and conservatism. TFD (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clearly stated in the article already what makes it right-wing. What you say also implies a misunderstanding of the generally accepted ideals of the left-right spectrum. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the word dictatorship mean anything to anyone? Never mind, I see that's been applied to right-wing also. Jesus, you guys have applied this to Nazi's? Nazi's were "National SOCIALISTS". How on earth is that right-wing? Right wing is liberty, it's SMALL GOVERNMENT. Don't you guys have a conscience at all? It looks like someone had a field day running through this site changing thing. Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, Westcoastkitty77, for the last 70 years there hasn't been a consensus within the historian community and other scholarly communities that Nazism was right-wing and only recently someone decided to propagate that outrageous idea within Wikipedia. Now Hitler might not have been economically far-right wing, but he wasn't economically far-left wing either. He was in the center, in opposition of both Communism and Capitalism. What defined The Third Reich was NOT the economic policies they enacted, it was the social policies and the actions that followed those. The Third Reich was socially far-right wing, and this is not to say anything BAD about modern right wing ideology because it is very different from Hitler's idea of it all, but historically and contemporarily right wing politics have been about giving economic liberties to people, but also restricting social freedoms, a contemporary example(and really, a historical one aswell) of this would be opposition of homosexuality. Hitler was also very adamant about military and expansionism, nationalism and patriotism, which again if you look at contemporary ideology you'll see that left-wing politics are against having a huge military and the people people within them don't exactly exude nationalistic or patriotic behaviour - At least not to the extent of contemporary right-wing politics. Really, I challenge you, go to any neo-nazi forum and ask them what ideology they identify as, see if you don't get chased away for calling them left-wing socialists. What defines ideologies on the far side of either side of the spectrum in practice is the fact that they're both regimes run by very few, be it a dictatorship in general or fascism, authorianism or totalitarianism. Atheuz (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Quotes

Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war

This quote goes against the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Smith2 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you quoted that out of text. You left out a highly relevant piece of information: 'to keep the nation strong'. Secondly, the statement is sourced. Please provide more than your personal opinion why the statement violates our policies.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Communism and Fascism

I've reworked some parts of the article, and added more information on Fascism's relationship and usage within Communism, especially on the use of the term during the Cold War, i.e. "Red Fascism." Any feedback? Theliberalhumanist (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits represent a fringe extremist view of the subject and I have deleted them. Please read WP policy in order to understand how articles should be written. TFD (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold it... I think you have it confused, I was trying to remove this section. See here. I wasn't the one that started it. I merely began cleaning it up after other users reversed my removal of it.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw that we had acquired a contentious section called "Comparison and usage within Communism" I was getting myself all geared up into deletionist mode but then I read it and I think it is mostly OK. The worst thing about it is the title. I would like to see it renamed "Colloquial and abusive use of the term Fascism" and expanded to cover other notable instances where people, parties and countries have been called Fascist without actually being Fascist. It should not be fixated on Communism, although that is a significant part of it as there are so many comic examples of Communists denouncing eachother as Fascists.

We should try to draw out the continuum of applicability from those who use the term more loosely than academics but still with much of its correct meaning (e.g. those who label Franco's Spain as Fascist) at one end, through those who use the term Fascism for any authoritarian state whether similar to Fascism in other respects or not, through to those who use it in entirely spurious ways (e.g. "The Fascist ticket inspector threw me off the bus just because I didn't have a ticket" or the aforementioned bickering Communists). --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the title doesn't accurately convey the content, but I couldn't think of anything else. "Colloquial and abusive use of the term" sounds fine. However, during the Cold War, associating Communism with Fascism was considered the mainstream viewpoint of the time, despite this view having largely been rejected by modern scholars. What about "Historical usage of the term Fascism"? With a section on the Cold War?--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Another idea, what if we incorporate it into the Criticism section, under the subheading: "Historical allegations of Fascism by political figures" or "Historical designations of fascism"? It could be like the List of designated terrorist organizations; much like how the American government (informally) designated the Soviet Union as "Red Fascism" or the "Evil Empire" during the Cold War, regardless if such descriptions are considered controversial, the fact that they've been designated as such by prominent figures of national governments, makes it historically relevent and justifying inclusion.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Something like this might work, but I've reversed it until it gets more consensus. --Theliberalhumanist (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be mentioned in the "Fascist as epithet" section?VoluntarySlave (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, has been included under the "As used against and within Communism" section.--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The lede's very long. Any suggestions on how we could reduce the size?--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What if we moved the fourth paragraph in the lede (which is the lengthiest) and incorporate it into the "Position in the political spectrum" section?--Theliberalhumanist (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fascism - The Truth

Sorry, I don't know how to comment on that.. thread?

I'm sorry, but this is beyond offensive applying fascism to the right-wing political spectrum when it does not resemble it, proven by further investigation into the term and just knowledge of who created the thing and who followed it. You guys have a responsibility to provide accurate information. This is why no one can take anything on here seriously.

I guess there's nothing I can do about it since I'll just get my account banned, but I would like to offer the suggestion of reading the following, which gives a healthy definition that would satisfy all readers and is a very good explanation: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858078.html and also a definition from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist?show=0&t=1285766198

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoastkitty77 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Relax. Just because Fascism is right wing, and there is an academic consensus represented by all the main history books on the subject that it is right wing, that doesn't mean that all right wing people are the same as Fascists. Stalinism was left wing but that doesn't mean that all left wing people are like Stalinists. Napoleon was French but that doesn't mean that all French people try to invade Russia. These facts are just facts without any spin or insult intended to them. Maybe some guy at your local store steals groceries; that doesn't make everybody in your town a thief. Life is like that.

Wikipedia isn't about satisfying readers. It is about correctly reflecting the mainstream consensus in a field, documenting dissenting views as such so long as they are notable. Neither of the links you gave us says that Fascism was not right wing. Even if they did, they would not trump the serious historians and analysts that have defined the consensus on this for the last 70-80 years. I am sure that some readers might prefer to read articles that were slanted to flatter their own viewpoints or social groupings but that isn't what an encyclopaedia does.

Anyway, we have a policy on "truth". Please see: WP:TRUTH. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look at Weimar political parties and see that what you consider to be right-wing was actually centrist, e.g., Christian Democracy and laissez-faire liberalism. In fact the entire right-wing from that time disappeared following the war. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your sarcasm, DanielRigal; but it isn't right-wing in ANY shape or form. I provided information from reputable sources. This is just malicious misinformation. Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 07:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your sources were not the best and they don't support your claim anyway. I did look at the links and neither one says anything about whether Fascism is right wing or not.

There is no malice in us reporting the existing historical consensus, nor is there any malice in the people who defined the consensus. They really were not trying to make the libertarian right look bad. There is no insult here. Some of them may even have held libertarian right opinions themselves.

I am pretty sure that you have failed to understand what the defining characteristics Right-wing politics are, and that it comes in many different types, but I do not propose to discuss this further as that linked article explains it all in detail.

If you still disagree then your mission is not to persuade us here on Wikipedia because we don't put our own opinions in the articles anyway. Your mission is to persuade the serious academics and analysts who make the consensus on the subject to overturn their considered and expert opinions of many decades. If you succeed in this then we will modify the article accordingly, whether we personally agree or not. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if someone who heard that the conservative movement was fascist wrote up the description of it on the main page by just attaching every conservative philosophy to the term, destroying the definition of fascism in the process. One clue is that it is much too long as evidenced by the need to display every conservative talking point as a fascistic one.

Perhaps we should just stick to the definition as has been used and accepted in the past which was clear, concise and short because it didn't extrapolate it's definitions to include conservative ideals where it was not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.40.209 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be very biased against Fascism. The articles about the far left, Communism and Anarchism, seem to be much more open to their topics, while this article uses the word "they" to describe us, as well as slanderous comments against fascism. Nearly every other political viewpoint's articles are neutral, using what they believe and accept, while this one tells of what we "reject and resist". For example "Fascists reject and resist the autonomy of cultural or ethnic groups who are not considered part of the fascists' nation and who refuse to assimilate or are unable to be assimilated". This is very "they" and very negative, while "Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state." shows a much more positive, "this is what we believe" kind of language. Physics1313 (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In academic literature there are scholars who defend communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. but none who defend fascism. Even scholars who oppose communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. find some positive elements in these ideologies, but none find any positive elements in fascism. Articles must represent scholarly views. If you think that fascism has had a bad rap you must persuade scholars of this at which point we will change the article. TFD (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In academic literature there are scholars who defend communism, liberalism, conservatism etc. but none who defend fascism.

Actually, there are some, such as David Irving; but the quality of their evidence and research is generally of such poor quality, and their arguments so very misguided and unpersuasive, that really they don't help their cause at all, and only do their opponents the favour of not having to think of new things to throw at them.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

By "academic literature". I meant peer-reviewed journals and books from academic or university publishing companies. TFD (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

There has been a steady stream of edits from the 71.* IP range, but no talk comments from that range. A particular concern is that an IP from that range keeps restoring a paragraph about fascism in China, which seems not to enjoy any support from other editors. I have semi-protected the article for one month. If you would like to comment for or against the semi-protection, please do so here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

OK no mention of the "goverment" of Juan and Eva Peron Argentina was it also Facist?

Searched article no reference I could see Re: Juan and Eva Peron were was his regime Facist? or??/ Thanks!NOVA BAKUNIN (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" view today is that only Germany and Italy were fascist and Peron was "para-fascist". Obviously the article should explain this and does not. TFD (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long!

The article seems to be planned well, but it might do with being broken down into separate sections. As it is, this article looks like a wall of text. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a train wreck...

Possibly the most biased article I have seen in Wikipedia.

Beowulfborealis (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to point out some specific areas or sections where the content shows bias, and what sort of bias it shows? Simply calling the article a "train wreck" does nothing to improve it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw in a bias reference. Fascism is neither left wing nor right wing, yet it appears as though some left winger has gone through every article about any form of government and labeled anything disagreeable as right, even while throwing in arguments that contradict their own explanations. Can we move past the left vs. right name calling and just give a genuine article about fascism without the left vs. right argument? This certainly expands into the "related" Collectivism article where they try to call it extreme right wing when arguably right wing is more of individualism. Fascism is neither - it's closer to totalitarianism, which is also neither left or right leaning, though individual fascist and totalitarians may have more left or right ideas. Even many of the citations in this article and most political articles are from bias sources. Pecosdave (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments of this type are too vague for us to take any action on, or even discuss meaningfully. If you feel that some of the sources are no good then you need to identify which sources you are complaining about and state clearly why you believe that each one does not represent mainstream thinking on the subject (which you should reference with other sources you feel we could use instead). Failure to accord with your own views is not, in itself, evidence of bias. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that the introduction is biased, while the section about where it is on the political spectrum is far more balanced. For example the introduction states that: most scholars consider fascism to be on the right, and it states that it's on the far right. However, the political spectrum section states the more balanced perspective that it's hard to place as either left or right. The introduction nees to be changed to reflect the contents of that section. SR Boxer (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction is not meant to cover everything in detail. If it did it would be the same size as the whole article. It is correct that there is a general academic consensus that puts Fascism on the far right and that is enough for the introduction. Other views, be they historical, non-mainstream contemporary, or just the same ideas expressed differently are better left for the appropriate section.

Feel free to suggest a minor tweak to the lead if you think that would help but please try not suggest bulking it up with unnecessary caveats.

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

People are afraid to say anything positive or even just neutral or objective about Fascism because the majority are ignorant and think "Fascism" automatically equals "Nazis." It's ashame we will never have a neutral toned, objective article on Fascism. Seems too many people think Fascism has to include Nazi-esque idealology. They can't seem to grasp that Fascism by itself is just another socio-politicol philosophy and does does not by default have to include anything Nazi-esque. Jersey John (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

We base articles on how subjects are seen in reliable sources, which do not see fascism in a favorable light. However, readers are welcome to follow links to fascist writings and make their own judgments. TFD (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a definition that 1) falsly quoted a Time magazine article (reference #20) and 2) was a blatant attempt to equate Fascism with the idea of the Melting Pot (basically, a philosophy that attempts to prevent Balkanization is being equated to Fascism). Since the reference was the author's own definition and twisted historical fact to make the argument, it does not fit in Wikipedia as it shows obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesWeller (talk • contribs) 03:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)