Talk:Fascism/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Arbcom

Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed a complaint against me at ARBCOM because he is "highly offended". Anyone who is interested may comment here. TFD (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not exactly ArbCom but WP:AE. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lenin quote

The Lenin quote in the Economic planning section should be removed. The opinion of a Communist leader in the characterization of fascist economy is biased and unencyclopedic. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that Lenin was a major world statesman at the time, his view probably is worth mentioning, as his view. That said, having the quote hanging on its own there without any contextual information was useless. The quote is actually already mentioned in the Criticism section, where it is much more at home. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Variations and subforms

The article is far too long and difficult to get useful information out of. Nearly half of it seems to be the Variations and subforms section. I would propose rendering this as a list or table with wikilinks out. Any objections? --FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Formation of the Italian Fascist Party

In the section World War I and the founding of Fascism, the Fascist party is suddenly just mentioned without any information about how it came into being. I've tagged the section, but the tag says "This concern has been noted on the talk page", which is why I'm mentioning it here. --FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Some scholars consider fascism to be part of the political right? EXCUSE ME? This is accepted political thought, not 'some scholars'. This disingenuous charade to repaint fascism as a disease of the political left instead of the right is disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.254.96 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd love to see some "scholars" claiming otherwise...but the only people they can find to claim that Fascism is not "Right," are kooks, uneducated conspiracy theorists, non-historians, and journalists. Of course, if one is the kind of person that can "buy" the idea that all history is written by a secret cabal of "Left-Wing Intellectuals," then of course no amount of reputable citations will convince you of the truth!  ;) Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:REUSE

Applies to the "spinout article". As the spinout article fails to conform to the WP policies about retaining the history of an article, it likely should be deleted, and a new article, if warranted, be properly formed. Collect (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Collect. I'm not sure why you're linking to re-use. What's the relevant part of that? --FormerIP (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP has specific legal rules about using material from an article to form a new article. I suggest you ask an admin to do the spinout to conform with those requirements. Collect (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if new article (Ideological origins of Fascism) was legitimate, but it considers the roots of fascism in The Republic by Plato. This book describes a hypothetical totalitarian state where people shared all their property, wives and children, and where

the private and individual is altogether banished from life and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common, and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and fell joy and sorrow on the same occasions

Quoted from Richard Pipes "Communism: A History". This is an interesting development. Biophys (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Biophys, Pipe's views are fringe, and are published outside the academic mainstream. FormerIP, Ask User:GTBacchus, who I found helpful in a similar move earlier. Apparently we require a history of the article to be retained and he could explain this to you. TFD (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You guys are describing the history of totalitarian systems rather than history of fascism that begins only in 20th century. Good work. Appreciated. P.S. I could easily quote other sources telling that "Republic" was the model of communist systems, including even books by GRU people, but you would probably declare all of them "fringe".Biophys (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I only moved the content, I didn't write it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added null edits to conform with WP:SPLIT. If anyone thinks more is required, then please feel free to WP:IMPROVE or cite the relevant guideline. --FormerIP (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"para-fascist"

This is a concoction, the source states with regards to a number of authoritarian regimes more than once that they did NOT pursue fascist policies. Just because a regime is mentioned in a book on fascism doesn't make it "para-fascist." Apologies my edit summary was cut off (premature save). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the definition provided in Routledge,[1] If you believe that they were true fascists, then please provide a source. TFD (talk) 23:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the idea here that they should be described as "fascist" or that they shouldn't be mentioned in the article. Either way, the info appears to be sourced, so I think an explanation/discussion of why the sourcing may not be adequate is needed before removing the info. --FormerIP (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of the "core tenets" section

The core tenets section is long and confusing. There are too many subtitles. I propose that the section be reorganized to the following:

Policies

• Economic policy
• Social policy
  • Cultural policy
  • Gender and sexuality policy
• Foreign policy
• Other policies
  • (I.e. Environmental policy, etc.)

By organizing it this way, it is more coherent and focused.--R-41 (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would hasten to point out that "gender and sexuality" appears to be not a "core tenet" of fascism. Indeed, the positions of fascists on everything other than nationalism, militarism, and central government control of the economy do not really exist as core tenets. When an article says "some do this and others do that" it is clear that we should actually finally restrict the article to what is held in common by them, and eliminate material which is not held in common. Collect (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree regarding gender and sexuality. Also, along similar lines, the "corporatism" that is included as the primary defining factor in the first definitive sentence in the current version of this document is also not part of the original fascist policy. This article seems to be written with a particular agenda in mind, but it is neither correct nor accurate the way it is. Also, revising the core tenets and the introductory material ought to be the #1 priority for this article. It's fundamental and basic and needs to be addressed. -- DinoChiesa 8 April 2011 166.137.143.171 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.143.171 (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the corporatism sentence from the lead. Though corporatism was a major part of Italian Fascism, it was not a major part of Falangism or Nazism. The sentence referring to a regulated, integrated, multi-class national economy essentially refers to the national corporatism, national socialism, and national syndicalism that various fascists promoted. The subsection on gender will be scratched out. So is this acceptable:

Policies

• Economic policy
• Social policy
  • Cultural policy
• Foreign policy
• Other policies
  • (I.e. Environmental policy, etc.)

--R-41 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as we restrict this to polices held in common - fine. I do not like "some Fascists are A and some are ~A, and some Fascists are somewhere in between." f'rinstance, Mussolini has absolutely no "environmental policy" I can find. BTW, does irredentism (which does seem popular in many non-Fascist groups as well) constitute any sort of "core value"? The closer we are to settling on the actual core values, the better the shot at improving the article. Collect (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between `core tenets`and policy. Policy may be driven by core tenets or pragmatism and may change over time. TFD (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, how about reorganizing it along similar lines to the Liberalism article. With a "Philosophy" section. I suggest that there be subsections like this:

• Economic
• Social
• Foreign affairs
• Negations

--R-41 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "negations" here? Stuff never found in fascist positions, actions, values, thoughts or tenets? (noting the cavil about delineating "tenets" from "positions" etc. for whatever that is worth) Collect (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No negations refers to the anti-communism, anti-liberalism, etc. of fascism--R-41 (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When talking about core tenets there is no issue with discussing what are thought to be core tenets but really aren't. Mdw0 (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that you did not understand what I said. Fascism's opposition to communism and liberalism are important elements to its ideology.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right" - This is OPINION and FALSE

Fascism has more in common with the left wing than the right wing. They favored unions (their own unions, not others) They favored the redistribution of wealth and they favored proletariat things like the poor peoples' car-VolksWagon in Germany. I believe they also wanted healthcare paid for by the rich taxpayers. They came in favor of the masses and billed themselves as anti-millionaire. In Hitler's declaration of war against America, he took a shot at Franklin Roosevelt as being a part of the "millionaire class." They advocated taking wealth away from the Jews via the state as opposed to using free market competition. The idea that they were exclusively right wing is bullshit. What might be more interesting to you is the fact that most "academics" in America happen to be left wing, that is a fact-we know that, and it seems unlikely that they would brand the biggest killers of all time to be in line with what they think. More of what we see here is the liberal bias of academia rather than the truth. Did it ever occur to you that most academics are left wing here in America? It's also true that left wingers are not actually anti-war or violence. Many of them called for George Bush's killing during his tenure-often openly. Many on the Left Wing advocated going to war against Sudan during George Bush's tenure, but Bush refused. Left wingers in many circumstances have been pretty serious war mongers, as long as the war fit their agenda.CaptainNicodemus (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

They were also anti-clerical and generally had a tone of atheism. That would make them left wing CaptainNicodemus (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not. You have no idea what you are talking about, nor do you have any reputable sources backing up your statement. You don't even know what "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" even mean. Read a book some time. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling Nazism, Fascism, and Racism "Far Right" is completely false.

This guy gets it right:

"Though this definition (that Fascism is far right) is accepted and promulgated by media and educators, how does this fit into any rational system of understanding political ideology? It does not, of course, but whenever any group displays any activity that does not adhere to a politically correct agenda, and can be pronounced by liberals as being racist, sexist, bigoted, or intolerant — whether this description is accurate or not — the group is deemed “right-wing.” " http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/european/2161-ideological-bedfellows

So somewhere, somebody got the idea that racism is a "far right" trait even though the only major piece of legislation in the last several decades that discriminates based on race (in the US) is affirmative action promoted by the left. But even then I give the left the benefit of the doubt. I do not think the "far left" is racist, neither is the "far right". Racism can happen regardless of political orientation.

So forget about the fascist authoritarianism, statism, socialist qualities, and collectivism and say that because they were 'racist' they must be 'far right'. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.67.141 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your source says, "this definition (that Fascism is far right) is accepted and promulgated by... educators". That is the same as saying "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right". TFD (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually - you are inserting what you WP:KNOW here. "Scholars" != "educators." Scholars are people who are studying the issues in depth. Educators simply present material to students. "Educators" teach students "parallel lines never intersect." Ask a "mathematician" about this. Collect (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

According to history books by Pipes and Conquest I was reading, there are two common issues here (and these books also quoted a lot of other sources). Yes, the fascism was described as "far right" in a large number of sources. However, the description in terms of "right" and "left" is just not informative, because what it means can be easily disputed. Instead, according to these authors, fascism is much better described in such terms as being "nationalistic", "anti-liberal", "totalitarian", "anti-democratic", and so on. Second issue: German Nazi and Italian fascists were not "conservatives" (as "right-wing" parties suppose to be), but revolutionaries: they strongly changed the existing social order in Germany, for example. Of course I am just retelling what they say in my own words.Biophys (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(Since you are going to SPAM multiple pages with this nonsense, I'll follow you around and post this as well...) Your source is ludicrous, as is your thesis. The author you quote is no academic, and has no credentials whatsoever that I can locate. You rely upon a false dichotomy to make your assertion (i.e., the idea that Left=Statism/Collectivism, while Right=Less Gov't/Anarchy) which is absurd and has no historical justification whatsoever. I'd debunk your pathetic attempt at revisionism piece by piece, but frankly, it's not even worth taking the time. Turn off the Glenn Beck and pick up a history book. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to make claims about "left-wing" or "right-wing", people must know what these terms mean. A good source for the meaning is this book accessible on Google Books: Left and right: the significance of a political distinction by Norberto Bobbio and Allan Cameron. This book describes left-wing politics as supportive of egalitarianism and hostile to hierarchical orders --> such as the Church and monarchy in the French Revolution, right-wing politics is supportive of social hierarchical orders in various degrees and is hostile to egalitarianism --> believing that it is not practical in reality and can cause disorder --> the brutalities of the French Revolution as an example.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, quite frankly I am frustrated that the referenced sentence I added to the intro on the fact that fascism was founded by Italian national syndicalists has been altered out of what it originally said to something completely different. It is a fact that fascism was originally founded by national syndicalists who had both left-wing and right-wing influences, but fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.--R-41 (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think that categorising political ideologies in just 2 spectrums(left&right) is a little outdated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.164.70 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No. It's something that is commonly done in political science. --FormerIP (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that left/right dichotomy is artificial. The discussion of Fascism merely illustrates the difficulty very clearly. It works for TV "soundbite" commentary, which is constrained by time and the attention span of the viewers, but in an encyclopedic source such as Wikipedia, there is room and reason to analyze the political spectrum with more nuance. --DinoChiesa 166.137.143.171 (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DinoChiesa above. Additionally, I add - in general, the original statement ==> "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right" - This is OPINION and FALSE == Calling Nazism, Fascism, and Racism "Far Right" is completely false. " ==> is correct BUT, if quoted, always needs to be quoted with a caviat. FASCISM is neither "far right", "far left, nor "centrist". In fact it has nothing to do with the political spectrum as it exists in the modern traditional sense. What Fascism IS, is "corporatism" which is (in short) the collusion between the corporations in a country (the primary "power(s) that be") and the organized religion(s) in that country (the secondary "power(s) that be") in order to control the country's people and expand the country's influence throughout the rest of the world, and become more and more of an "empire". Examples are "The Roman Empire" (mentioned in this article), the "Mongol Empire", the "Ottoman Empire", and what is very close to now becoming the "American Empire". Many other examples exist in individual countries - mostly what most Americans call "dictatorships", are indeed fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanIMK181 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You need sources to back up your views. TFD (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a variety of political spectrum definitions: , with Left-right_politics being the simplest and (probably) oldest of them. Also note, that Political_spectrum refers to fascism, together with conservatism, as being traditionally refered as right-wing. Tomatensaft (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it: The Oxford English Dictionary[2] is quite clear on the matter:

FASCISM: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.

The only people who claim otherwise are usually shown to be non-experts in their field, such as the debunked journalist Jonah Goldberg, or uneducated conspiracy theorists like Glenn Beck. If you want to see a bunch of essays by some of the most respected living historians in the field of WW2 history and Fascism...completely obliterating the absurd "theory" that Fascism is somehow related to the Left or "Liberalism," then click here [3], here [4], or here [5]. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascism is not extremely right wing but it is extreme and right wing. The part that says (in general use) refers to what most would consider fascism. Scholars see Fascism as a synthesis of left and right wing ideas but generally sitting on the right wing. This shows a problem with the simplistic notion of the Left Wing Right Wing Spectrum. Thus, I would contend that far right is incorrect but right is correct. (See Eatwell, R. & Wright, A., ed., 1999. Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd ed. London:Pinter)(also apologies if this is formatted incorrectly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.184.194 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

We use reliable sources, not personal speculation. However the extreme right today incorporates views taken from the Left, e.g., populism and anti-elitism. That does not mean they are left-wing. TFD (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find an academic source yet that directly states it is right wing. I do have this from the second edition of Politics an introduction:
"The ideological status of fascism is controversial. (...) The peasant-based Christian Iron Guard of interwar Romania, the reactionary Catholic Action Française of early twentieth century France and the atheist, racist regime of the Nazis have all been labelled fascist. (...) [I]t is opposed to Enlightenment ideas such as reason, rights, freedom and democracy. It was also opposed to democracy and internationalism. (...) Eatwell (...) sees fascism as assimilating diverse currents evident in other ideologies (Eatwell and Wright 1993), and Wilford stresses its syncretic character (Wilford 1994). (...) Griffin has presented a challenging new interpretation in which fascism is seen neither as a merely reactionary ideology nor simply as a progressive, modernist ideology, but rather as incorporating both of these elements (Griffin 1991)."
Here are the sources referred to in the text: Griffin, R. (1991) The Nature of Fascism, London: Routeledge.
Eatwell, R. and Wright, A. (eds.) (1993) Contemporary Political Ideologies, London: Pinter.
Wilford, R. (1994) 'Fascism', in R. Eccleshall et al. Political Ideologies, London: Routeledge.

So some of the things in this text more or less make the statements said about fascism in the discussion board not true. I think it would be best to first get 2 or 3 reliable sources directly stating that fascism is right wing before writing it is so in the article. Also TFD if I'm correct populism isn't really taken from the left I'm afraid I can't quote a source on this but I could get the source in a week or so.--Tomvasseur (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC) That unsigned one wasn't me btw.--Tomvasseur (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To start, how about try the definition of the word itself from the Oxford Dictionary, as I've already pointed out:

FASCISM: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices. [6]

I can also guarantee you that you won't find an RS stating that Fascism is "Left-Wing." You might find some stating that there are "Left-Wing" elements to some forms of fascism, but the same can be said of many ideologies, movements, and organizations that identify as "Right-Wing." To try to divorce fascism from the Right, is nothing but revisionism and original research. You should read these essays: [7] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statements about the position of fascism in the political spectrum have been extensively footnoted. Nonething you have presented has any bearing on that. Studies of the political spectrum btw do not define the spectrum and then determine who goes where but observe who is left and who is right and then attempt to to explain the differences. That begins with the observation that fascists sit on the far right and communists on the far left in legislative chambers. --TFD (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD who is the "you" in your sentence, if it is me please elaborate a bit. Bryonmorrigan, I ain't disagreeing man. But that alleged revisionism you're talking about is just what I get in my bachelor study political science. What I was trying to demonstrate is that:
1 fascism isn't purely progressive;
2 fascism isn't purely atheist;
3 fascism wasn't purely influenced by the left;
as CaptainNicodemus claimed. He does that without reliable sources but still. I'm not saying it's not right-wing, all I'm saying is we should not be content with 1 sole source, especially if it is the dictionary. A dictionary generally only describes the colloquial meaning of a word and that doesn't necessarily equal the sociological or political scientific or whatever meaning/understanding. There should be academic sources directly stating it. This is because for some people it is not that easy to make the difference between why something is left-right they can mix it up with the religious-secular scale, the authoritarian-libertarian scale and others.--Tomvasseur (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Oh TFD, I get what you're saying now, so don't bother. When you said footnoted I didn't make the link with the article in my head.--Tomvasseur (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one source. And groups are right-wing because they sit on the right side of the chamber and work with other groups on that side against the Left. TFD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that that's why I said don't bother, and there's actually a bit more then that to the whole left-right story but that's how it began obviously.--Tomvasseur (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@ everyone: Keep in mind that there is no solid line between left-wing and right-wing. Nazism and other forms of fascist government implemented left-wing policies along with right-wing policies. The left-right dichotomy is not 100% accurate at describing a political ideology.Fraqtive42 (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

fascists

It is fascist to suppose there can be no Capitalist Fascists. That entire paragraph should be removed or moved from the definition section in this entry, and from a book that apparently no one reads. This is an unacceptable entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.72.68 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it is a book from a University Press. Find alternative sources if you would like to change the section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement complained about is apparently, "It entails a distinctive type of anti-capitalism...", which is sourced to Walter Laqueur.[8] In fact the source is an article by Juan J. Linz which appears in a book edited by Laqueur that reads, "A distinctive type of anti-capitalism is originally present in many fascist movements" (p. 16).[9] The way the source is cited is misleading and should be corrected. TFD (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up TFD. Edit away... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the source is sufficient to state "A distinctive form of anti-capitalism is found in the origins of many fascist movements" (trying to avoid outright plagiarism). Or fully quoted without such concerns. Removal entirly would not be in accord with WP:RS to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fascism as inherently anti-clerical? What about the Falange, Iron Guard, and Ustase?

The intro sentence that says that fascism is regularly anti-clerical seems really inaccurate to me. There were major fascist movements that were pro-clerical, including the Falange, the Ustase, and the Iron Guard. Italian Fascism was originally anti-clerical, but became pro-Church to solidify support for Fascism, and there were pro-clerical Italian Fascists.--R-41 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The source (which came up in the last section) says, "Anti-clericalism, perhaps with the exception of the Iron Guard, the Ustacha, and Brazilian Integralismo, is a more or less central component...." TFD (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Falange and the Slovak People's Party other examples. The problem I have with this is, as the source itself mentions, there are multiple exceptions. The Falange, Iron Guard, Ustase, the Slovak People's Party, and Brazilean Integralism are a big list of major fascist movements, four of which took part in government. Plus after attaining power, the Italian Fascists openly courted the Catholic Church, and spoke of Italian Fascism as promoting "Christian civilization". Anti-clericalism was initially a component of Italian Fascism, but I doubt that other fascist movements, especially in Catholic countries (aside from the Redshirts in Mexico) or strongly religious countries, had a substantial anti-clerical component.--R-41 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then find another source. Bear in mind that we are discussing fascist ideology, not government. TFD (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that we are discussing fascist ideology. And the ideologies of the movements that I mentioned all involved support of clerical authority.--R-41 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the "consensus" view, anti-clericalism was part of Fascist ideology, while support for the church represented pragmatism. Also, in order of importance, the main fascist parties were the Italian and German ones. TFD (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There were clerical Italian Fascists and there were Nazis who promoted "Positive Christianity" and had their own religious organization, the "German Christians". Also, do not ignore the importance of the Falange, a pro-clerical fascist movement, it was influential like Italian Fascism and Nazism. Falangism held substantial influence in Latin America. Anti-clericalism is too idiosyncratic to describe generic fascism as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources to support your statements about the definition of fascism, rather than argue from evidence, which is original research, TFD (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source of Mussolini denouncing anti-clericalism: “All creations of the spirit—beginning from the religious ones—come forward as superior; and no one dares to dwell anymore in the position of that anti-clericalism which for many decades has been the favourite occupation of democracy in the western world” Benito Mussolini, February 25, 1922. (Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi. Fascist spectacle: the aesthetics of power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press, 1997. Pp. 245.)--R-41 (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You still need sources that draw these conclusions. And since anti-clericalism is opposition to the Catholic priesthood, your example of Protestant Nazis does not support your reasoning. TFD (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source for Mussolini's quote on anti-clericalism: Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi. Fascist spectacle: the aesthetics of power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press, 1997. Pp. 245. Plus, if it is just about opposition to Catholic priests, how can anti-clericalism apply to fascist movements outside of Catholic countries? Nonetheless, the quote I provided shows Mussolini condemning anti-clericalism as being associated with democracy which fascism opposes.--R-41 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And this source says on page 10 that anti-clericalism in Fascism declined.[10] The point is we must rely on what secondary sources say about fascism (even if it is wrong), not what fascists themselves say, because that would be original research. TFD (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The newly added reference for the claim of anti-clericalism (Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism: 1914–45, pp. 490, 518, 1995 University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 299148742) on page 490 claims that fascism benefited from secularization, but does not specifically say it was anti-clerical. I'm using a free-copy of Google Books, so page 518 does not appear for copyright purposes. Another example to add to the list of pro-clerical fascists, including the Falange, Iron Guard, Slovak People's Party, the Ustase, and the Brazilian Integralists; are French fascists, who condemned the "enormous trickery of anticlericalism". (Zeev Sternhell. Neither right nor left: fascist ideology in France. First Princeton Paperback Edition. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 1983 and 1996. Pp. 64) And I've found another quote from Mussolini from an earlier year (1921) rejecting anti-clericalism: "Fascism neither practices nor preaches anti-clericalism" (Martin Blinkhorn. Fascists and Conservatives. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 2001. Pp. 41.). It also rightly points out that there were indeed many anti-clerical Italian Fascists. I do not think it is original research if the context of the quote's use as in the book is described in the article. The same reference describes the existence of "Clerico-Fascists" in Italy. Historian Roger Griffin states that Italian Fascism abandoned anti-clericalism in 1921 but briefly returned to it from 1943 to 1945 under the Nazi puppet Salo regime. (Roger Griffin. The nature of fascism. New York, New York, USA: St. Martin's Press, 1991. Pp. 75.)--R-41 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"The newly added reference for the claim of anti-clericalism (Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism: 1914–45, pp. 490, 518, 1995 University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 299148742) on page 490 claims that fascism benefited from secularization, but does not specifically say it was anti-clerical." You need to work on your reading comprehension. Payne at 490 says "The core fascist movements were anticlerical and even fundamentally antireligious". Griffin's comment is consistent with the opinion that core fascism is anticlerical. Mussolini was forced to compromise and anticlerical practices of his government waned, later to be reintroduced. Lacquer even says that political realities lead Nazis and Italian Fascists to sometimes keep their anticlericalism in check, puting off their Kulturkampf while they dealt with other enemies (Jews, allied forces, etc.). See Laqueur, Walter, Fascism: Past, Present, Future pp. 31, 42, 1996 Oxford University Press. Payne also says fundamental to fascism was the foundation of a purely materialistic "civic religion" that would "displace preceding structures of belief and relegate supernatural religion to a secondary role, or to none at all", and that "though there were specific examples of religious or would-be 'Christian fascists,' fascism presupposed a post-Christian, post-religious, secular, and immanent frame of reference." Mamalujo (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've weirdly got sympathy for both sides of this. What I would say, though, is that "this article is about ideology not governments" may lead into a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. In any case, where do we derive an understanding of ideological fascism (as opposed to Italian Fascism, which has its own article) except from the behaviour of fascist governments?

I'd say that, since it is obvious that fascism is only loosely definable, to say it is anything "inherently" (even if a source offers that opinion) may mislead the reader as to the fundamental character of the subject they are reading about, particularly if there are clear exceptions to the supposed rule. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of Police Power

Malum prohibitum legislation is in my opinion a central core element of any fascist or other authoritarian system, as it allows more and greater controls over the both the physical and financial activities of the Citizens. Through the use of taxation and malum prohibitum regulations, central planners (oligarchs) can increase the amount of money, using police power, collected by the government through direct and indirect taxation as well as fines, penalties and approvals such as permitting. When every activity, such as fishing from the river bank, requires a license/permit, the government coffers grow gaining more power to the politicians as they redistribute the money to their favored interests, seldom benefitisn the majority. Fascism, in my opinion, is the use of taxation and regulation to control the means of production, as Karl Marx might have put it. It is also very similar to communism, as the government grows, it must seek greater and greater levels of revenue to maintain the ever expanding expenditures that power promotes. Add in a Central Bank, the 5th platform of communism, and now the Citizen is but a target/victim for the police state to do with them as they please. We erroneously believe that democracy will eventually counter act against such intrusive policies, but history has not shown that to be the case as people generally vote for what is in their own best interest, rather than what is in the best interest of the majority, as city hall becomes tyranical in its actualy working. The only thing, in my opinion, that makes fascism any different from communism is actually the level of ownership of property by the government as both systems eventually create extremely oppressive policies to maintain their power. Controlling a business by taxation and regulation can be just as influential on its operations as government ownership. A government can literally tax all the profits that a business can generate, leaving it no money to recapitalize if or when necessary, eventuially bankrupting it or forcing it out of that juresdiction as the U.S. has done to many American companies.

Hence, in my opinion the real definition of fascism is the use of taxation and regulation by an oligarchy to control the means of production and actually most countries in the world today are fascist oligarchies and why the world is suffering from the vast array of poor economic conditions. The size of the oligarchy of course varies as does the levels of malum prohibitum laws. A dictatorship for instance is really never just one person. It may have a central spokesperson such as a Hitler or Mussolini, but there are surely others behind the scenes that are playing their role in protecting and enforcing the policies of the leadership group.

Trying to explain what various ideologies fascist believe in is playing into the promotions that oligarchs use to get the Citizens to except their fascist policies. The underlying reasons are just to steal from the majority and redistribute that money to their interests. Don't get bogged down in th3e various methods used to accomplish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iapetus68 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The most important part of your statement was the phrase, "in my opinion." Wikipedia is not about your "opinions," or what we call "original research," (WP:NOR which describes the above comments perfectly. Here is how the Oxford Dictionary describes Fascism: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization;(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices." [11] Trying to equate Communism and Fascism and what-not, is original research, and has no business being on a Wikipedia article. The End. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

recent edits by PhilLiberty

Do these recent edits give undue weight to the idea hat fascism is a creature of the left? I think so, but I would like to hear other opinions before I revert these additions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in accordance with WP:BRD I have reverted it for now, it seems we have had these discussions above actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldberg is not RS. He is a journalist, and experts in history and the history of fascism have debunked him. He is no more RS than Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I figured as much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian Fascists called themselves right-wing, from the Doctrine of Fascism it states: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century." There is NO room for debate about this anymore, it is stated in the original fascist movement's political programme. Only ignorant or deceitful revisionists claim that fascism is wholly left-wing, It indeed had leftist elements and origins, but became mostly right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, all forms of political extremism have similarities: political extremists have fanatic zeal in their beliefs, are dogmatic, and are militant and intolerant towards those who do not share their views.--R-41 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the mainstream Left. Since Socialist parties have proven to be the world's most successful model, it is obvious why others would copy their tactics. TFD (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When did Switzerland become Socialist? And when did Zimbabwe turn successful? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Social Democratic Party of Switzerland is part of the governing coaltion. The Zimbabwe Socialist party, which is called Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai, only came to power in 2008. By "successful" I mean by the way electoral success. Socialist parties form one of two major parties in most countries in the world that hold free elections, the U.S. and Japan and (until recently Canada) being major exceptions. TFD (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss "governing coalition" is exceedingly inclusive - and the Social Democrats are not the key members. Nor even one of the top two groups in the government. And the Zimbabwe case is more interesting than you might dream ... [12] President Robert Mugabe announced yesterday that he wanted Zimbabwe to become a hardline socialist economy and warned that he would seize commercial businesses being forced to shut by tough new price controls. making Mugabe clearly a "Socialist." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote, I was referring to the mainstream Left, which is represented by "Socialist" parties. They are in fact the most successful form of party. I was not including parties which elsewhere you describe as "far left", which are organized differently, but if you include them then the party family would be even more successful. The Swiss party btw is the second largest in the country. TFD (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland groups parties (6 major groups, IIRC). Sorry - but your argument would be quite akin to saying the Minnesota DFL party is not part of the Democratic Party in the US. Each "group" is fairly treatable as a single party. The two most successful party groups historically are "centre-left" and "centre-right" - mainly due to both being close to the centre of an ill-defined "political spectrum." I am curious as to the "parties which elsewhere (I) describe as 'far left.'" Might you show me where I make such an enumeration? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing extremism typically has similarities with the Left. The most recent example is the Tea Party's use of protests. That does not mean that the Tea Party or fascism are left-wing, merely that they copy elements of the Left. TFD (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The WP:1RR rule is still in effect

Please recall the announcement in June, 2009 that this article is under a one-revert-per-day restriction. Violations of this restriction can be reported at the Edit-warring noticeboard. If you make a change to this article and it gets reverted, open a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Need's revision.

Contrary to what the initiator of this section suggests, the Introduction reads like PRO-FASCISM PROPAGANDA to me. Fascism is one of the worst entities to hit the human species since the bubonic plague. Anyone who thinks there's such a thing as "anti-fascism propaganda" has to be somewhat mentally ill. I do not mean this statement to be derogatory, I am simply stating a fact. By definition, fascism IS beating people down, silencing them, rendering them impotent. Please: mentally healthy people of the internet: stand up with me on this. This article must remain neutral, not one that promotes the supreme illness promoted by Mussolini and Hitler. Defining "fascism" in positive terms would be the same as trying to define "cancer" in pro-life terms. Athana (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Parts of the introduction read like anti-fascism propaganda and not non-biased objective fact. I believe a rewrite or removal of those paragraphs is necessary, or moving these comment's to another section of the article.

"Fascism promotes violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[10] It views conflict as a fact of life that is responsible for all human progress.[11] It exalts militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[12] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents, or to overthrow a political system.[13]"

Date: 4th October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.250.62 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Above all, Fascism...believes neither in the possibility nor in the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism – born of the renunciation of the struggle as an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies, and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it." - quote from the Doctrine of Fascism, as noted and commented on in this book: Hawkins, Mike. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p. 286. ([13]) This quote from an official Italian Fascist document reflects what the referenced material by secondary sources is saying.--R-41 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

X

It certainly appears that User:Local Panel is itchin' to start up the whole, "But the Nazis were really Liberals!" nonsense proposed by NON-historians and talk show hosts with nothing but high school diplomas, and roundly condemned as utter nonsense by every person who ever got his/her PhD in History. I've reverted his off-topic, and non-Wiki style edits TWICE, so someone else is gonna need to put the kibosh on him if he attempts to make that same ludicrous edit a third time.

Dear User:Local Panel: Just because Hitler used the word "Socialist" a few times, doesn't mean anything. He never called himself a "Leftist," or said anything about Nazism being of the "Left." THAT'S why your attempt at a counter-quote fails miserably. Also, you can't use ALL CAPS in a Wikipedia article, or poorly-worded sentences like the one you keep trying to ram into the article. Your clear, blazing POV is quote obvious to anyone who ever took History 101. Furthermore, one can be a Right-Winger and be against Capitalism, just as one can be a hardcore Capitalist and be a Left-Winger...and in fact many of the world's greatest Capitalists have indeed been Liberals, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, just off the top of my head. Your criteria for defining Left and Right is not accurate, nor is it acceptable in scholarly discourse, and also goes against the definitions which can be found on Wikipedia itself. I suggest you start by reading Left–right politics...if it hasn't been defaced by uneducated vandals recently, of course. Now please, stick to topics to which your knowledge is more than simply "what you heard on the radio." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Socialism is always on the left. No source will tell you that socialism is right wing. Putting NAZI in all caps is not incorrect, as it's an acronym. Local Panel (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you HIGH? Nazi is most assuredly NOT an "acronym." It's short for "Nationalsozialist." If you say the word in German, the first two syllables sound like "Nazi," just as the Socialists in Germany at the time were called "Sozis." You really need to read a book, 'cause obviously you don't know what the heck you're talking about. That has to be the single most ignorant thing I've seen posted on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. And oh yeah, there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to Right-wing socialism...and it's filled with plenty of academic sources. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"A word formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term" is by definition an acronym, loser. Consult the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym Local Panel (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi" is not an acronym, and it is never standard to write it in ALL CAPS, particularly on Wikipedia. The word "Nazi" is not formed by using the initial letters of two different words. It's a nickname, created by the phonetic sounds of the the first two SYLLABLES of a single word. That's like saying that using the word "Dems" to refer to "Democrats" is an "acronym." Grow up. You typed something stupid, and you got called on it. Have some personal responsibility, and stop trying to pretend you didn't. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi, acronym formed from NAtionalsoZIalist, the first word of the official title of Hitler's party, the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which was founded in 1919.." The Oxford companion to World War II, p. 607. "...in fact, the word NAZI, an acronym formed from..." (CAPS the writers original) NAZI Germany: A New History. University of Michigan. p 142. Local Panel (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, it appears that other editors disagree with your edits and therefore I will revert them. Please discuss and work toward concensus before reinserting. TFD (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not following closely enough. You didn't revert any of the edits that were in dispute. I was waiting on putting them back until this was resolved. You took something ELSE out. Local Panel (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, do you know the history of right-wing groups declaring themselves to be socialists, there have been many such right-wing socialists. First of all there was Klemens von Metternich who coined the term "conservative socialism", there was French monarchist Charles Maurras who supported a "national syndicalism", there was Nazi-predacessor German monarchist and member of the Conservative Revolutionary movement Oswald Spengler's Preussentum und Sozialismus that claimed that the Prussian monarchy and Prussian society were connected to a hierarchical type of socialism. Almost every single RS labels the Nazis as far right, such as major scholars on the subject such as Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin - these are respected scholars who have debated, tested their hypotheses, retracted earlier hypotheses and presented new ones to become theory on the subject, if you are accusing them of POV you need very strong evidence to back up your very strong claim. Local Panel are you insisting that we form our evaluation based on a name? By that convention we would be interpreting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) as a democracy based on the popular will of the people, by saying "well it said it was a democracy and a government of the people in its name".--R-41 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments don't address my views. I make no claim of whether fascism is left, right, or center. I was putting in a quote from Hitler saying "We are socialists." You have a quote in there that Mussolini says Fascism is on the right. So why exclude a quote from Hitler saying that they're socialists"? It's POV to delete it if you allow the other. Why is Hitler not being given the same opportunity to self label, in the introduction of the article? Local Panel (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone making a non-contentious statement about themselves and expressing an opinion. TFD (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you claimed that socialism is only left-wing, and by that are claiming that National Socialism (Nazism) is left-wing because it declares itself to be socialist. Bear in mind that the Italian Fascists officially declared themselves "anti-socialist" for years, yet the Italian Fascists and Nazis cooperated and had propaganda depicting Mussolini and Hitler, fasces and swastika side-by-side, apparently Mussolini could accept Hitler's National Socialism, but not others, and apparently Hitler who declared himself a national-socialist supported Mussolini who rose to power on a campaign of anti-socialist violence against the reformist Italian Socialist Party, the Communist Party, revolutionary syndicalists, and even very moderate centre-left Catholic trade unions of Italy. Af for the quote about fascism's position in the political spectrum, almost every scholar acknowledges fascism as being right-wing, the quote just confirms this. As for the kind of socialism preached by the Nazis can at best be only described as right-wing socialism a deviant socialist ideology that has nothing to do with the original purpose of socialism: egalitarianism, and instead legitimizes social hierarchy. Socialism was founded as a development of the French Revolution, an revolution of egalitarianism that was denounced by Mussolini's Fascists, Hitler's Nazis, monarchists, and reactionary right-wing movements. Hitler specifically demanded an economy that was hierarchical with the Fuhrer as the leader of it. Right-wing opponents of capitalism have existed for centuries, they don't focus on attacking capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth as mainstream left-wing socialists do, they attack it for being historically associated with liberalism, with a universal cosmopolitan identity, with urbanization and its social ills, and with bourgeois individualism and modernism that rids society of social traditions and cultural collectivism - such as nationality or religion. As I said, North Korea declares itself a "democratic" "people's republic", a majority of scholars claim that it is undemocratic totalitarian state run through terror and coercion and not popular will by a quasi-monarchy and thus not a republic; as Shakespeare said "what's in a name?".--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Right-wing opponents of capitalism have existed for centuries, they don't focus on attacking capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth as mainstream left-wing socialists do.." Oh really? "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -Adolf Hitler. Again, if you allows a Mussolini self-decription quote in there and deletes a Hitler self-description quote from there, they're violating NPOV. You can't single out your favorite fascist dictator who says something that you happen to agree with. Hitler is just as notable in fascism as Mussolini. Whoever deletes the Hitler quote while leaving in the Mussolini quote is violating NPOV. Local Panel (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are now becoming very confrontational and condescending, that is very much against Wikipedia policy. Scholars widely recognize both fascism and Nazism as being far-right. It is a descendent of the far-right Völkisch nationalist movement. Italian Fascism is the original fascist movement and basis of it, when Mussolini rose to power Hitler presented himself as a German Mussolini and had a bust of Mussolini head in the Nazi party's office. In power, Hitler did not reduce the salaries of corporate heads or equalize them with workers, he accepted inequality of wealth and property and did nothing to equalize the distrubution of wealth or property, he courted the heads of corporate industry for votes. Hitler supported Mussolini, a man who rose to power on an anti-socialist campaign against reformist socialists, communists, revolutionary syndicalists, and centre-left Catholic trade unions, highly hypocritical to Hitler's statements. I gave you the "what's in a name" example of North Korea, here's another: Stalin preached that the Soviet Union was a democracy in propaganda over and over again, mainstream democratic people don't accept that claim, should Stalinism be accepted as democratic because Stalin said it was so in spite of strong contention against this by scholars?--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Confrontational? You misinterpret me. And, the dispute from me is not whether fascism is labeled left or right. This is about whether a quote from Hitler saying he's a socialist is going to be allowed in the introduction. I think it should be, as long as a quote from Mussolini is in there. Otherwise, both should be deleted. You're giving special honor to Mussolini and throwing Hitler to the curb. He's a very notable figure in fascism, and his words should be allowed there in saying whether he's a capitalist or a socialist just as Mussolini is allowed to say he's on the right. You're favoring one over the other, when both are nearly equally associated with "fascism." Local Panel (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote included in the intro is for clarification of fascism's position in the political spectrum that has been contended again and again in this talk page. The quote you mentioned can be put in the Nazism article, Italian Fascism and other fascist movements were quite the opposite of the "we are socialists" quote that Hitler officially preached - they called themselves "anti-socialists" and in 1919 declared "war on socialism".--R-41 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If Hitler's quote has no weight, and if most scholars consider fascism to be on the right as is claimed, then why do you need to buttress that with a Mussolini quote? Either the leaders' views of their own movements matter, or they don't. Which is it? Also, maybe you're not aware that not all socialism is Marxism-based, i.e. not all socialism is for common ownership of the means of production. There are also non-Marxist versions of socialism, which supports private ownership but opposes interest-charging, rent, opposes large wealth inequalities, etc. Nazis were for land redistribution, profit sharing in industries, opposed finance capitalism, etc. When Mussolini says he's opposed to socialism he's talking about Marxist socialism. When Hitler says he supports socialism he's talking about non-Marxist socialism. Local Panel (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that Mussolini is referring only to Marxist socialism when he and the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento declared "war on socialism" in 1919? On the record, the Italian Fascists violently attacked many socialist and left-wing movements in their rise to power from 1919 to 1922: communists, reformist socialists, syndicalists, centre-left Catholic trade unions, and anarchists. I really don't appreciate your position "if you don't include this, I will remove this" but if it is agreed to include the Hitler quote then it can stay - That's petty bargaining. The issue is whether it is consistent with the article as a whole. Major fascists declared themselves to be anti-socialist, claiming that socialism and liberalism were ideologies of the past that had degenerated into failures.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do the research yourself on what you're asking. You mistake me if you think I'm bargaining with you. This is not a bargain. This is about NPOV. I think it is POV to do what you're doing which is allow one in but not the other, as if Mussolini's words are important but Hitler's aren't. You're just selecting the one you agree with, and rejecting the one you disagree with. 20:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Panel (talk • contribs)

Hitler's statement "we are socialists" does not apply to all fascists, as Mussolini declared "war on socialism". You are the one presenting the claim that all fascism is socialist, I provided a quote that appears to rebuke that, then you claimed that the quote was only referring to Marxist socialism - you are the one who made that assertion and you need to present evidence for that. Mussolini didn't say "Marxist socialism", he said "socialism" in general, and if he is inferring that socialism is Marxism which he opposes then he is still claiming the same thing, he is denouncing socialism itself as being Marxist that he opposes and is thus still anti-socialist. And there is no majority of scholars that claim that fascism is socialist at least in its mainstream left-wing form. But a majority of scholars claim that fascism is right-wing, and far-right at that. It is not POV to show inconsistency between two leaders' statements, just as it is neither POV to note the historical fact that Italian Fascist Blackshirts attacked multiple socialist groups: reformist socialists, communists, and syndicalists during the Fascists' rise to power from 1919 to 1922 nor is it POV to point out the historical fact that these events coincided with the Italian Fascists' openly declared statement that they were waging war on socialism. All this reveals is that Hitler appears to be incredibly disingenuous with his claim of being a socialist since he praised the openly anti-socialist Italian Fascist movement. The Italian Fascists had declared themselves to be anti-socialist in 1919, prior to Hitler even being Nazi leader.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As many keep trying to point out, there is a very big difference between the Mussolini quote and the Hitler quote. If Hitler had said something along the lines of, "We're Left-Wingers, and Fascists..." then it would be relevant. He however, did no such thing. Using that "We are socialists" quote to counter the Mussolini quote is apples and oranges, but it appears the LocalPanel is relying on "high-school diploma radio talk show" definitions of things like "Right" and "Left," which are not in any way grounded in reality, history, or academic scholarship, and he is bound and determined to make this article fit into his personal weltanschauung, regardless of how many academic sources are presented, in clear opposition to scholarly consensus. And here's another example: Communist East Germany was named the "German Democratic Republic (DDR)." Should we then include them on the page for "Democracy?" Obviously, that would be ridiculous...as would be including the Hitler quote. On the other hand, Mussolini clearly claimed to Fascism to be on the Right...and it is a system universally recognized by experts and historians as being on the Right...therefore, there is a clear consensus. No reputable historian puts any weight on that Hitler quote, or on the idea that Nazism or Fascism were Left-Wing concepts. Your POV is akin to arguing in favor of the "Flat Earth Theory." You have been shown incorrect in regards to pretty much everything you've ever posted here. Nobody buys your revisionist, POV, anti-academic bias. Wikipedia is not the place to promote ludicrous fringe theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, trying to shoot him down won't resolve the discussion, it will only result in him claiming that you are undertaking insulting personal attacks against him, which you are. Let's stick to facts. Local Panel, please respond to the point I made that if Mussolini is associating socialism with Marxism as you have claimed and is declaring "war on socialism" then he is still anti-socialist.--R-41 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because it's not something I put into the article or that I'm planning to put in the article. I just thought I'd illuminate you with a little background knowledge to what's going on with these ideas. If you claim I'm wrong about it, I don't care. I can handle that. Let's try to focus on what I actually put into the article ok? Local Panel (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-academic" LOL. "a system universally recognized by experts and historians as being on the Right." That's not true. A significant number of writers consider it to be in the center, and some consider it to be on the left - at least economically. You better to some more research in academia. Local Panel (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please present sources that support your views. TFD (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? It's not a claim that I've tried to write into the article. But if I decide to, it will be sourced, rest assured. Local Panel (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you describe non-historians, economists, journalists, and talk-show hosts as "writers," but they should not be confused with academics, at least in reference to history or political science. I'm betting most of the "writers" you're thinking of aren't even qualified to teach high school. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you stated that Mussolini when stated that Italian Fascism was in a "war on socialism" was referring to Marxist socialism - where did you derive this claim - where is your evidence? But besides, even if he was claiming that Marxism is socialism, then he is still presenting an anti-socialist stance by declaring a "war on socialism", a very different stance that Hitler saying of the Nazis "we are socialists". Local Panel, you are claiming that fascism is centrist or left-wing based from a few scholars whose stances themselves have been critiqued by other scholars, the vast majority consider fascism in practice to be far right - are you claiming that numerous scholars have been wrong about this and on what grounds do you justify such dispute? Don't pass it off by saying its not your problem to answer - you have made a controversial proposal criticized by other users, you have to back up your claims for your proposed controversial changes to be understood, recognized and accepted if they have sufficient evidence that rationally can form the conclusion that fascism is a form of socialism as you have claimed.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument is missing a major point: A quote from Mussolini describing the direction of fascism in Europe may well be relevant to the article enough to be in the lede, and a quote from Hitler describing himself is definitely not. A quote from a leader of a certain national branch of fascism describing himself as a socialist in a speech (speeches being, for Hitler, simple propaganda) does not belong in the lede of the fascism article itself. Of course, the Mussolini quote is only in there to dispel the constant attempts to insert 'fascism-is-leftist content into the lede. Let's just cut the left-right discussion from the lede entirely, put it somewhere else, and remove any insertion of right and left from the lede immediately. Surely saying it is radically nationalist, authoritarian, collectivist and despotic (to paraphrase) in the lede is enough? ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It is undisputed that fascists sat on the right of legislative assemblies and came to power with the support of other parties on the right. TFD (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - asserting any equivalence between seating arrangements and the political spectrum is absurd. The UK Parliament has the government on the right of the Speaker. Whether it is a "left" or "right" government. Various US states have the Republicans on the left or right - fairly inconsistently (in some cases, not even sitting as groups). That particular argument unfortunately fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Alas - European legislators are seated according to ideology, with fascists on the far right, conservatives on the right, liberals in the centre, socialists on the left. You might want to send them the writings of Cleon Skousen and explain that they got their seating all wrong. (Note - the UK is not in Europe, it's a group of islands.) TFD (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When did the UK secede from Europe, pray tell? BTW, it is not only the UK which has the government on the right of the Speaker. And some countries (e.g. Sweden) have no fixed seating by party. Unless, of course, Sweden as being on a peninsula is not part of Europe <g>. Or look at historical France - where for a very long period "left" and "right" did not refer at all to political ideology. (Gauchet, p. 253) [14] shuld be informative. In the European Parliament, all unaffiliated members are on the extreme right! Will you assert that all independents are thus "extreme right wing" according to your prior claims? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The use of the terms left and right to denote ideology stems from where they sit. Of course attempts have been made to re-arrange the seating plan and groups with no specific ideology present problems. None the less the seating in the European parliament from left to right is (broadly) communist, socialist, green, liberal, christian democrat, conservative, right-wing and independent. The British Isles btw became separated from Europe about 6500 BC. TFD (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That was true in 1789. It was not true later, and is not true in many countries - including Sweden and the UK among others. And it is silly for anyone to assert that the UK has no connection with Europe - especially since the Queen has the Channel Islands which are, indeed, very much part of Europe. And the idea that Sweden is not part of Europe is even further afield. And the idea thet the EU is not European is "incroyable." Cheers - you have made my day! Collect (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Channel islands are not part of the United Kingdom. Again, if you don't like the way legislators choose to seat themselves, then you should present your case to them. TFD (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats - you have totally misread what I wrote! I said they belong to the Queen. Care to emend your riposte to be in accord with what I wrote? And I do not give a rat's ... where people sit, just that I am not the one who seems to think that all the independents in the EU body are "extreme right" as you seem to imply. YMMV, but this has run its course when you rebut something I did not say. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect, stop your aggressive tone towards other users. Let's all get back to the main issue, let's forget this sidetracking of discussing whether the UK is in Europe or not. First of all the claim by Local Panel to include the Hitler quote "we are socialists" as a reference to fascism as a whole: this conflicts with Mussolini's statement of declaring "war on socialism" - officially this appears to be a very serious official disagreement that should put Nazis and Italian Fascists against each other - but aside with the crisis over Austria in 1934 the Nazis allied with the Italian Fascists and are widely considered fascists, so the issue of being pro-socialist or anti-socialist does not have a bearing on who is or is not a fascist. Second of all the left-right spectrum is not merely European, it is accepted as a standard political spectrum in the Americas, and Asia, and probably so in Africa due to European colonial influences on political structure there. - Though the seating arrangement basis of it does not exist in all countries, left vs. right commonly refers to the values associated with those two sides left generally meaning support or acceptance for a egalitarian society, right generally meaning support or acceptance for a hierarchical society, with other attributes that I won't fill up this page with. The issue here is that we have two quotes by Mussolini revealing that fascism as promoted by the Italian Fascists is right-wing that confirm widespread academic sources that say that fascism is right-wing and typically far-right at that, and we have two conflicting quotes on the topic of socialism by Mussolini and Hitler.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no "claim by Local Panel to include the Hitler quote "we are socialists" as a reference to fascism as a whole..." What are you talking about? That would be stupid. The quote was to describe the NAZIS' fascism only. This was the statement I put in the article: "However, Adolph Hitler said that the NAZI version was socialist: "We are socialists..." [15] Local Panel (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Then if you are not using the quote in the introduction for generic fascism, and are only talking about the "NAZI'S fascism only" and the Nazis' officially stated socialism why don't you put it in the Nazism article instead that is the article on Nazi ideology.--R-41 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And would someone else please tell him that his usage of the word "Nazi" as an acronym in ALL CAPS (i.e., "NAZI") is hilariously wrong wrong wrong on so many levels? Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigon, you are being extremely condescending to the user Local Panel. Wikipedia policy is that people should be initially welcoming, and if that doesn't work keep a cool head and do not use ad hominem behaviour. If you cannot stop this behaviour at present, as I urged you to do before, then please take a break, or you are eventually going to be reported and perhaps blocked for this. Focus on the topic, not the person.--R-41 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I. Don't. Care. As long as people like Local Panel are allowed to continue their anti-intellectual vandalism of Wikipedia articles without any response, pages like this will always be a warzone, and therefore always a joke. The fact that people care more about my snarky attitude...than his blatantly POV edits...speaks volumes. Furthermore, his recent edit regarding the ludicrous idea that US Conservatives are in favor of "small government" is similarly hilarious. US Conservatives are generally Social Authoritarians, and their "big government" positions are most clearly espoused by support of things like the Defense of Marriage Act, Patriot Act, and other issues, such as their past support for Segregation, opposition to Women's Rights, etc. The only group that is consistently in favor of "small government" are the Libertarians, who are socially Left and economically Right (aka "Classically Liberal"). In other words, he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about, but at least he's consistently wrong! Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh so you don't care about deliberately violating Wikipedia etiquette policy on the grounds that this has become an edit "warzone" and that Local Panel's claimed inappropriate behaviour legitimates you to behave in a condescending manner rather than calmly addressing the issue or you should address concerns about Local Panel to an administrator and not take the matter into your own hands. His POV is his POV, everyone has a POV, as long as they discuss their arguments and back them up with evidence, they have every right to present alternative views, and these views and others will be analyzed, debated, and contested until an NPOV view can be put in the article. I agree more with your statements than Local Panel's but as you do not care about Wikipedia policy reveals that you will continue this behaviour, you are not fit to be a registered user on Wikipedia if you blatantly refuse to follow its guidelines. Though I completely disagree with Local Panel's arguments, I will fully support him should he decide to address administrators on your blatant personal attacks and blatant disregard for Wikipedia's etiquette policies. If Local Panel behaves in a similar manner towards you, I will similarly support reporting him to administrators for blatant personal attacks and disregard for Wikipedia's eitquette policies.--R-41 (talk) 02:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... have any of you ever seen this quote from Mussolini?

I nostri programmi sono decisamente rivoluzionari, e le nostre idee appartengono a quelle che in regime democratico si chiamerebbero "di sinistra".

Our programs are quite revolutionary, and our ideas belong to those that in a democratic regime would be called "left".

This is from a speech in Milan on April 22, 1945 -a few days before being killed. I'm not interested in showing fascism as a left-wing doctrine, like American conservatives and "libertarians" do. I only seek the truth. There's no doubt that this Mussolini, the one from the Salò Republic, the one who had initiated the Socialization of Economy, is not the same than the one who defined fascism as being "right-wing" in 1932. 190.48.113.183 (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

For reasons that are unclear, Mussolini in 1943 advocated republicanism, democracy and land reform. The policies were never carried out. Should we therefore say that freedom of the press, free speech, an independent judiciary and free elections are fascist principles? TFD (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We certainly can state what he advocated as long as a reliable source says he advocated them. Amazingly enough, many things are advocated during active wartime which are "not carried out." We can not "know" much else - all we do is report what reliable sources state. And if that is what they state, then it is not up to us to decide otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we can. What we may not do is present only those aspects of the program that support our thesis that Mussolini was a socialist. And of course we cannot claim that the program represented core fascist ideology unless we have sources claiming that. TFD (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Mack Smith's autobiography of Mussolini states that during the Italian Social Republic Mussolini had become both mentally unstable, unsure of himself, and regretting the fact that Italians turned against him. Smith states that from 1943 to 1945, Mussolini's officially stated political views went all over the place, he talked with former communists on how to make fascism progressive and had a former communist issue public propaganda of an old statement by Lenin in the 1910s praising Mussolini when he was a Marxist; - that is from communists - a group he previously persecuted, he even talked about fascism being compatible with liberalism and democracy - fascism for almost its entire existance and continuing in neo-fascism is anti-liberal and anti-democratic. In any case the Italian Social Republic attacked communists and never instituted liberalism or democracy. Neo-fascism especially in Italy largely follows Mussolini's policies from his glory days, not from his desperate days of attempts to gain meagre support from communists, democratic people, and liberals 1943 to 1945. As you said Collect, this is not the "same" Mussolini of the 1920s to 1943 - the glory-driven, self-confident Mussolini, this is Mussolini facing defeat, humiliation, and even regret that he had abandoned his socialist past in the pursuit of power in the 1920s. If we were to use the definition promoted by Mussolini in 1943-45, Italian Fascism would be a left-wing democratic progressive nationalist regime open to support of liberals and communists - a vast difference from Italian Fascism of 1920s-1943 that is right-wing authoritarian nationalist regime opposed to democracy, communism, liberalism, and socialism (with the exception of fascist socialisms like National Socialism of the Nazis and National Syndicalism of the Falange).--R-41 (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't Collect who said that, it was me.190.48.113.183 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

PD: And, yeah, I totally agree with your point. 190.48.113.183 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Whole "The label "Right" causes some confusion..." Sentence

Here's why the sentence is complete rubbish, and why I'm about to try to make it legible. First off, the actual text from the book that was cited is extremely vague, and makes the mistake of only looking at issues through a "big government vs. small government" lens, which is not the chief distinction of Left vs. Right, either in Europe or America. Secondly, the way the statement is written, even with the recent third-party attempts at making it more closely fit the reference, it is confusing and poorly-worded. So I have now attempted to make the sentence somewhat based on logic and academic definitions of political positions, rather than the way it was. At the end of the day, Fascists and modern American Conservatives agree on many aspects of Social conservatism, but disagree on economic issues. Making it all about economic issues is absurd, particularly when Fascists are most well-known for their far right-wing, social authoritarian policies. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No argument from me. My main concern was that there was something hinky with the reference formatting that was causing it to point to the next footnote, not the one applying. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What you wrote is not what the source says. Social conservatism isn't mentioned. And it doesn't mention "dissent from American conservatives." Elen of the Roads paraphrase is much better: "The label "Right" causes some confusion because current American conservatism is associated with advocacy of laissez-faire, a philosophy applicable to nineteenth century liberalism, but the "Right" here refers to the 19th century continental European conservatism, associated with support of a strong monarchical state." Local Panel (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the source. Look at page 5: http://books.google.com/books?id=GELM5-W_zMwC&pg=PA3#v=onepage&q&f=false It doesn't say what Bryonmorrigan has portrayed it as saying here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=458818763&oldid=458725425 Local Panel (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why we need to explain to Americans what political terms mean. They use the terms liberal and conservative, left and right, differently from other countries, but articles are meant for an international audience. TFD (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like, in the last decade or so...American conservatives have attempted to change the meaning of the words, in order to rehabilitate their associations with defense of slavery and segregation, opposition to women's rights, and other historically conservative positions that have fallen out of the realm of modern politics. Trying to reduce everything to economic issues is deliberate misdirection, and LocalPanel's reference is from a historian playing that game. By saying that American conservatives oppose "big government," he loses all credibility in regards to making comments on American politics...as American conservatives are notoriously "big government" on social and moral issues. My sentence is fully in line with academic scholarship, whereas the previous ones completely ignored the social element, which was the primary aspect of most fascist movements, especially Nazism. This is just another attempt to distance the Right from anything "negative," and is as POV as it would be to go to the pages for Stalin or Communism and try to make it sound like they weren't "really" Left-Wing. Newspeak and revisionism. Nothing more. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If the articles are meant for an international audience then naturally they ought to accommodate an international audience. The meaning of terms differ in various countries, as you just said. Local Panel (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that they differ that much in the U.S., especially among educated readers. No mainstream American politicians call themselves "right-wing", the term usually refers to extremists, such as the Birchers, and groups to their right. The International Democrat Union to which the Republican Party belongs for example describes its member parties as centre or centre-right, not "right-wing". TFD (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The source says otherwise. Educated readers would know that the terms aren't universally applicable, and that therefore they're meaningless without context. What's right or conservative in one country may be left or liberal in another. In the U.S.S.R, the conservatives were the Communists. Local Panel (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, right and conservative are not synonymous. For example, while fascism is typically called right wing, one of its most common definitions includes the fascist negation of "anti-conservative". This is talking about opposition to classical conservatism, not modern conservatism. American conservatives and liberals are both classical liberals. Classical conservatism is like de Maistre, Burke, etc. Modern conservatives do harken back sometimes to the likes of Burke, but for the most part the entire viable American political spectrum falls within classical liberalism. Fascism is opposed to liberalism as well as conservatism. Mamalujo (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fascist opposition to classical conservativism was not an issue of being against it as a right-wing movement. Fascism and classical conservatism shared a preference for social hierarchy over the claimed ill effects of egalitarianism, and supported its emphasis on order and authority. Fascism opposed classical conservatism on its alleged upper class snobbery towards the working class that fostered class divisions within nations rather than the fascist ideal of class collaboration, and on the grounds of its traditionalism that stifled the modernist goals of fascism: the creation of a nation-state that was industrialized, mechanized, and militarized, dedicated to constant changes of advancement to increase the power and unity of its nation.--R-41 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. Fascism entails a radical element, a remaking of the state, and of man. Thus conservatives were bothered by the aspects of fascism which were not traditional - social darwinism, euthanasia, anticlericalism, contempt for the traditional Christian virtues. The fascist negations don't give the best idea of what fascism was for, but they do give a good idea of what it was, and typically is, against. Mamalujo (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You deleted something that was sourced just because you disagree with it. That's not a good enough reason. If fascism is anti-conservative, it's anti-conservative in the modern American sense. Not in the old European sense. The source was actually saying something like what you're saying, so I don't get why you deleted it. Local Panel (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, what evidence do you have that is anti-conservative in the "modern American sense" and "Not in the old European sense"? What sources do you have that demonstrate that fascism is "only" against American-style conservatism?--R-41 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags issue. What are the weasel words? What in this article is unbalanced and POV?

The person who posted these tags needs to directly state what things are weasel words and POV in the article.--R-41 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am against "fly-by" issue tags and if there is no satisfactory reply from the placing editor they should be removed immediately. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing? Was this whitewashed? This page said, for years, that 'fascists' historically have come solely from the right-wing, and rightly called it as such. Is wiki having competition with conservapedia or something to whitewash this? 68.227.169.59 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

collapse OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Protest and Correction to False Article About National Socialism Good day. On the ground that the article is completely false I report it and claim it should be improved. The basic protests of mine is that is not fascism, and that national socialism is socialistic and can be both right and left depending on other factors. Following are the arguments. In end of the post follows the correct action that you should do. First Fascism is not an international movement, it should not be confused with all forms of nationalist socialism. National Socialism should be the correct “universal term” for covering diverse categories. National Socialism does no come only from right nor left wings as right and left are not objective political terms. Originally in 19th century left and right only regarded focus on public health care. Nazism and Fascism are originally left wing because they have massive investment on public health care, support planned economy and the abolish of capitalism. They also include some brotherhood very similar to solidarity. Italian National Socialism was not for example antisemitism and it had performed no genocide until Germany influenced them. National Socialism is world wide phenomena that exists all over the world for the last hundred years. It is simply the result of 19th century world wide nationalist movement which spread to every western and third world country on the globe. Socialism arrived unique in the late 19th century for strong focus on collectivity, anti capitalism, planned economy and focus on the former peasants role as a lower class in a painfully industrialized revolutionary society. National Socialism is simply combination of Nationalism with Socialism and it became more pronounced as we read our way to the early 20thies century. The early socialists predated Marx, and it was first with Marxism that different forms of socialism started to split. Generally nationalism and socialism was the same thing, any thing that talked about democracy, better world, free the masses and especially the poor. Nationalism was humanitarian, liberal and democratic Everyone was was united against the Monarchist and the church was socialist or nationalists. Fascism is the Italian party of nationalist socialism. Nazi is a nickname, yes but the German National Socialism is further a sub-form of the Italian national socialism ( fascism). National Socialism is often left on the basis that left means a strong focus on social and public welfare, strong controlled economy and centralization. Regardless of racism or who qualify to take part in this collective welfare National Socialism is left in “that sense”. Otherwise you can define left as socialism because then every other ideology is right wing according to how polarized and different it is. But that mean that Hitler is most right and that Fascism is left wing because Hitler denounced socialism in all its form but the Italian nationalists never did. German and Italian and Chinese Nationalism have all strong ties to socialism. Kuomintang party split into and founded both Stalinists and Chinese National Socialists. Adolf Hittler reformed a more left lening Nationalist Socialist party and was inspired by the Tule society and Italian Fascism. Mussoline was member of the Italian socalist party who was inspired by dissappointed by the bolsjeviks. Mussolini only merged nationalism with socialism and the Italian Nationalist Socialist party did never have a clear party program. Stalinism was split from Leninism, in the sense that Stalin enforced russian nationalism on his idea of socialism and he was an antisemitist who believed that jews where causing capitalism. Similar parties are the Islamistc Socialist party which was basically a muslim national socialism. The claim that National Socialist creates emotional community through military service is not true because national socialists also use other forms of indoctrinations that are not strictly militaristic such as art and religion. What national socialism is nothing but “heresy” of socialism. It is the same base ideology but they differ only in their idea of themselves being orthodox and the deviant is unorthodox. The idea of Fascism as the cause of everything bad is just a product of the world war and the defeat of the Nazi-Germany but before world war 2 the ideological differences where not that clear cut. There where conflicts between nationalists and socialists as much as there people switching sides or being in the middle. Nazis came from many different backgrounds and there was a general strong hatred for communists in Germany which had nothing to do with national socialism. Communists opposition used violence towards the German nation ever since the Kaiser abdicated to democracy and were responsible killing thousands of “contra revolutionary” middle class Germans. Even Lenin renounced the German Communists, the Spartakists. When the real Nazism where gone the leftist needed to fantasy about an invisible shadow fascism. When the world wide socialists finally became chocked by Soviet and retroactively rejected Soviet. All the concept of the clear cut barriers broke down and the left have fought inside themselves since the 1080thies. Today right as me can't see the difference of socialism and national socialism in measurement of history of atrocities. Leftists who are in the inside of the phenomenon clearly experience disappointment with the inside and expert sociologists try establish new barriers and something to unite all left around ever since. This is the correct solution, that the article must define national socialism as right wing socialism and other forms of socialism as left wing socialism. Nazism and Stalinist are both right wing socialists because they both are nationalistic and preserve old social constructs. This have to depend on fact and not “evil” and we can't take into regard what socialists think is socialistic. We can also not take into account fascism or nationalism as misnomer carrying negative value. Mao was left because he was really not a nationalist at all even though he was atrocious. The modern “Chinese Socialism” is right because it is nationalistic. Both democratic modern right and left should agree that nationalism is right wing and that socialism is left. So if it combined the two features nationalism dominates as the pronouncing feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.129.238 (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC) Do you have any sources for this, or is this original research ? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)