Talk: Fascism

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.

Talk:Fascism/suggested readings,
Talk:Fascism/ archive1, Talk:Fascism/ archive2, Talk:Fascism/ archive3,Talk:Fascism/ archive4, Talk:Fascism/ archive5, Talk:Fascism/ archive6, Talk:Fascism/ archive7, Talk:Fascism/ archive8, Talk:Fascism/ archive9, Talk:Fascism/ archive10, Talk:Fascism/ archive11, Talk:Fascism/ archive12, Talk:Fascism/ archive13, Talk:Fascism/ archive14, Talk:Fascism/ archive15

Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary reasons for deleting the word "reactionary" from the Nazism article and putting the word "Revolutionary" back into this article.

This article is a selected entry at Template:March 23 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Repeated quote

The following text is repeated twice on the page:

Mussolini wrote in his 1932 treatise, The Doctrine of Fascism: "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State."

It seemed to fit in both locations, so I wasn't sure which should be removed. Any ideas?

jaredwf 07:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Fresh thoughts

I may be fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think someone should be calling down God seventeen times in one passage during a discussion about an unbiased treatment of fascism. Besides the fact that I don't think God would be terribly thrilled with the idea of fascism, WHEELER (especially the God of which I read in the Gospels), it has no relevance at all. Marxism is explicitly atheistic, indeed, but besides that I don't know how you're arguing it is offensive to some sort of divine plan and therefore fascism arose to protect us from evil godless commies. Wally 01:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

You answer your own question, by pointing out the atheism of Communism. Thats the only thing that seperates it from facism, IMO. Anyways, this is an argument that is not going to be solved here, because the words Left, Right, and Socialist mean different things to the different people involved. They are poorly defined words in the best of situations, and we'd prob. be MUCH better off w/o them, both here and in general. In anycase the wiki is ment to provide opposing POV's, not take a particular POV as its own. NPOV is to be found in the diversity of thought, not the singularity. Oh, and BTW, this entire discussion can be solved with one word: Totalitarianism. Sam Spade 02:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

So much for NPOVAndyL 02:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Saying that communism and fascism are only seperated by religion or lack thereof is like saying the only difference between Geraldo Rivera and Rush Limbaugh is weight and hairstyle. For one, there's theoretical communism and fascism and actual communism and fascism. In theory, communism is intended to be neither oppressive, nor concentrated, nor run, nor initiated in an agrarian society. In theory, too, for fascism the object of total devotion to the state is invariably betterment of the people through total devotion to the state (and the strong government it provides). One must look at politics as having four spectrums, not two, a la the Political Compass. Communism is, in theory, both socially and economically liberal - in practice, Russian Communism (big difference) is economically liberal but socially ultraconservative; also, while fascism is intended to be socially ultraconservative and economically so as well, in reality oftentimes it ends up being broadly Keynesian. So it is, perhaps, true that as you move farther towards any extreme it narrows towards the same end destination, but the reasons for arriving there can't be summed up by Jesus or no-Jesus.

Also, why bother comparing socialism/communism to fascism in this article anyway? Why not just link the two and note they're ideologically repellent? We'd save a crapload of space (and this article is wordy in the extreme), as well as a big sore spot, namely having to sort out the morass that occurs when the two clash.

Where the words are concerned, frankly, I don't think it's that big an issue. Any educated person knows the true definition of a word, knows the ideas, thoughts and history - bad and good - behind it and then makes an informed decision and takes sides based upon their own ideology, not that that someone else gives them. I'm proud to be both a liberal and a socialist (if a democratic one - revolution isn't my cup of tea), despite the negative connotations the press tells me I should feel towards them; likewise, I'd hope a fascist would just come right out and declare themselves such, because fascism is not (to my mind) inherent racist, or necessarily make one a maniacal Jew-killer (much in the same way my being a socialist doesn't of necessity mean I kill rich people). If a person cares to, they can know what's really behind the words they use - only the uneducated attach solely negative connotation to others and solely positive connotation to their own.

Besides, in whatever case we can't really avoid discussing the left and the right in an article like this, can we? Wally 03:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course we must, but I would suggest as little, and as fairly, as possible. Sam Spade 03:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Gah, Wally, be careful with the word "liberal". Any place other than the US, it would make no sense to say that socialism or communism is "ultra-liberal" economically. john 07:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Is the word "left" any better? I find it pathetic how much time we waste debating w/o bothering to clarify terms. Semantics is the root of most arguments, not difference of opinion. Sam Spade 07:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The word left is far better. Whatever it's imprecision, it clearly includes socialism. Liberalism can be, and often is, used as an opposite to socialism. john 07:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel's two cents

It looks like there has been a lot of discussion here over the past few days. I'm not sure I can address everything that has been said, but I'm going to do my best to address as much as I can.

The claim that "...fascism and socialism are the same thing..." seems to me disingenuous. There is, indeed, a perfectly good (albeit controversial) word -- totalitarianism -- that refers (correctly in my view) to certain fascist states and to certain states that claim to be socialist. Yes, the Soviet Union and its satellites (especially in the Stalinist era) had much in common with Hitler's Germany and the puppet regimes it established elsewhere. However, this is a large part of why so many socialists today (and many even at the time) reject (or highly qualify, as when the Trotskyists referred to the Soviet union as a "deformed worker's state") the description of these states as "socialist." (The other large part being the creation of a privileged coordinator class.) Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler's Germany "wasn't really fascist?"^* Similarly, does anyone seriously claim that Sweden even in its most socialistic era was totalitarian? I suppose a few might claim the latter, but they tend to be the same people who called Eisenhower a communist, so I have a hard time taking them seriously. The resemblances seem to me to belong in the article on totalitarianism. I would expect a certain amount of discussion of totalitarianism in an article on fascism or on state communism, and about a one-sentence mention in an article on socialism. I would expect that the issue of totalitarianism being a point of resemblance between fascism and state communism would deserve a section in the article on fascism and the article on state communism, but I would not expect it to permeate either article.

* I suppose the case could be made that the term "fascism" should only be applied to a narrow band of ideology closer to that of Mussolini, but there is no question at all that in common usage in every language of Western Europe, "fascism" includes "Nazism." I think the article as it stands does a good job of treating with both meanings.
On the other hand, the degree to which early fascism, especially in Italy, had some roots in the left is probably worth explorationin this article, with solid facts and documentation. Much as we have a section "Nazism and socialism" in the article on "Nazism" (which, by the way, could certainly use expansion in its discussion of Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser, and Ernst Röhm), this article deserves a solid section on the involvement of former socialists (including Mussolini himself) and anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists in the formation of fascism. In particular, there is clearly a direct link from the anarchist doctrine of Direct Action into the tactics of the Italian fascists. The Futurists certainly fit into this context as well. However, again, I think it is important to see that these people were (maybe not instantly, but over time) leaving socialism behind as they became fascists and as the doctrines of fascism solidified. Saying that they remained socialists is like saying that Irving Kristol remained a Trotskyist. It's worth quoting some third party to that effect, and it's worth looking at the influence of a person's early ideological orientation on his or her later thinking, but it is -- I find myself using the same word again -- disingenuous to pretend that there was no political conversion involved.
It is reasonable to quote a particular scholar to the effect that the origins of fascism can be traced to the French Revolution, just as it would be reasonable to quote another scholar who traces them back to Plato. However, it would be absolutely inappropriate to state this controversial thesis as non-controversial fact, stated in the narrative voice of the article.
Is anyone actually objecting to the substance of the paragraph in the article that currently begins, "The Doctrine of Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile..."? I would consider that rock-solid and well-researched. I would hope we could all agree than any further discussion of the origin of fascism would be supplemental to that, rather than replacing it.
I find myself pretty much in agreement with Diderot's various remarks. He seems to have more detailed knowledge on some points than I would, but on everything I know about, his remarks seem to conform to what I know. Nothing more to add on that front.
I'm having trouble understanding some of what Wheeler is trying to say. Wheeler, are you claiming that Proudhon and the anarcho-syndicalists should be considered fascists, rather than merely people some of whose ideas and tactics influenced fascism? Or if that's not what you are trying to say, could you give me a paraphrase in a few sentences of what you see the relation being? Present-day anarchists also consider Proudhon an important (if problematic) intellectual ancestor. Surely you are not saying that all anarchists are secretly fascists. Or maybe you are. I really can't tell. (And, by the way, while there are many topics where I think Marx's opinions are to be taken seriously, his assessment of his anarchist rivals is certainly not one of them.)
As I read through this page, I find it harder and harder to take Wheeler seriously. Fascism as "leftist"? The Tower of Babel?
BTW, I don't think more than a passing reference to "left" and "right" is needed in this article. I'd let the facts speak for themselves.
By the way, despite my ethnic background, if there is a vast international Jewish conspiracy, they've never asked me to join.

Jmabel 04:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that overall. I esp. like the acceptance of differing views, the embrace of the term "Totalitarianism", and the shunning of the Left/Right dicotomy. Sam Spade 04:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am in general concurrence as well. I still wonder about the idea of not having socialism or communism vs. fascism sections in the relevant articles - perhaps that could be its own page? Or maybe it doesn't need to be treated at all - just link them, and let people draw what other conclusions they will. Wally 04:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Spin Off's

There used to be a Socialism and Nazism article, but AndyL turned it into a redirect. The future of such pages seems mixed, and they tend to be focal points for debate and edit wars rather than high quality articles in their own right. Sam Spade 04:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Even so, if those pages are being made into debate and edit war pages, than the serious ones on the political systems themselves are largely freed of such conflict, yes? Wally 04:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

That is definitely a way of looking at it. Another reason they are made is to prevent excessively large article pages, difficult to read and impossible for some browsers to edit. Sam Spade 04:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

So, ergo, a good idea. By the way, part of this page needs to be archived; it's far too long.

It's long, but it's all from the last 72 hours, so it's a little early to archive. -- Jmabel 05:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving stupid discussions to spinoff articles isn't a good way of dealing with things. In any case "X vs Y" articles are not encyclopedic. If we go ahead with Fascism vs Socialism articles we'll end up with Fascism vs Christianity, Utilitarianism vs Surrealism, Feudalism vs Postmodernism and an endless procession of articles saying "x is like Y in these ways, x is unlike Y in these other ways". Great if you want to be a repository of sophmore essays but useless for an encyclopedia. I'm fine with taking "Fascism vs Socialsm" out entirely and not spinning it off. AndyL

I don't find the "taxonomic" aspects very interesting, but the issue of historical influences is. As I remarked above, the fact that some of the same currents of thought influenced both socialism and fascism (or anarchism and fascism) is a little uncomfortable for some of us, but should not be evaded for that reason. Conversely, that doesn't mean that we have to pander to those who find these facts delectable and would like to exaggerate their importance and try to use them to discredit anyone to the left of John McCain as a thinkly disguised combination of Stalin and Hitler. -- Jmabel 05:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Good, because I was a little worried that, following certain persons' proffered advice, I'd have to hates Jews, Nazis and Communists to keep being a liberal, and you know there's just so many hours in the day. :\

Like I said, I move to delete the whole whatever vs. whatever stuff wholesale. AndyL made a good point about not having them as articles (and he's right - I figured I might as well bring it up nonetheless to be devil's advocate), but if we wouldn't make something like that its own article, why on Earth would we put it into an article? The two sides can fight without our helping them, methinks. Move to excise.

And if somebody doesn't archive the top part of this page, I'm going to call the police. ;D Wally 05:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I find the above tremendously poor reasoning for eliminating examination of socialist aspects of fascism within the article. Sam Spade 07:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Debate over terms

As far as I can tell, no one is rejecting examining "socialist aspects of fascism." What they (we) are objecting to is larding the article every point of coincidence between the two ideologies, for the same reasons that I (at least) would object to larding the article with every point of coincidence between fascism and U.S. government policies. -- Jmabel 22:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Coincidence has nothing to do w anything that should be in the article. We are talking about BIG, obvious stuff, like this [1]. Sam Spade 23:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

You sure know how to pick 'em, Sam. Once again, I'll ask why you insist on contributing on this subject when you clearly know very little about it, and have, in the month I've been arguing with you about it, made absolutely no effort to find out anything beyond whatever right wing rant sites a google search brings up. john 23:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the info on that link? Your insults are uncalled for, and I will stop responding to you entirely if you persist with them. This portion is particularly telling, BTW. [2] Sam Spade 23:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I've certainly read the NSDAP's 25 Points before. What is notable about the more quasi-socialistic ones is that they were completely ignored in practice. Further: the comments of Time magazine in 1939 are hardly authoritative. And anyone who says that the Labour Front, which replaced labor unions with an organization dominated by employers, was a socialistic measure deserves to be laughed out of the building. Once again, you're assuming that state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic, despite the number of times it's been explained to you that this is not the case. john 09:54, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right that I think "state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic". So do these [3] [4] references. As I have been telling you all along, until we settle on one definition, its useless to discuss anything w words you have redefined to fit your ideosyncratic idealism. Sam Spade 18:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what the "means of production" are, Sam? The government did not own the means of production in Nazi Germany, nor did it do so in New Deal America. The government owning the means of production is not the same thing as any government intervention in the economy. john 18:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what a Volkswagon is? How about War economy or John Maynard Keynes? Sam Spade 19:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I know what a Volkswagen is. But one company does not ownership of the means of production make. John Maynard Keynes's economic theories have very little to do with socialism. And Germany's war economy was no more socialistic than that of any other country. At any rate, you're changing the terms of debate. You said that the dictionary.com and encyclopedia.com definitions support your view that "state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic." But they do not - they say that state ownership of the means of production is socialistic. That is not the same thing. It certainly has nothing to do with either Keynes or the welfare state, which seem to be the main basis for your arguments. john 19:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Perspectives

I don't think that there's anything particularly problematic in claiming that the revolutionary nationalism and the ideological ferment of the late 19th century are at the roots of socialism and fascism. The thing is, that same context is at the roots of radical libertarianism, anarchism, Christian fundamentalism, and encompasses the intellectual ancestors of neoliberalism. The problem is investigating it in a way that doesn't require a full PhD thesis to explain properly. If we are to link the roots of fascism and socialism, we need to point out that the same kinds of links tie capitalism to fascism and socialism.

As for the "socialist aspects of fascism", I object to any effort to highlight them above the "capitalist aspects of socialism" - e.g., its links to German industry, to Taylorism, to financiers and industrialists like Ford and the Junkers clan, to the market nationalism of the old Prussians. Gregor used to claim that fascism was a synthesis of all the poltical doctrines of the 19th century. He considered that a good thing and I don't, but as far as it goes it might have some truth to it. But if that is the direction this article is going to take, it needs to show how fascism drew on many - by all appearances more - right wing doctrines than left wing ones.

Diderot 12:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I second Diderot. There are plenty of aspects of the roots of fascism which could well be examined. The goal is not to prove Fascism left or right, socialist or non, but rather to provide the reader w an informative article. Examining these various aspects would serve the reader well, I should say. Sam Spade 20:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

To the question Fascism has its roots in Proudhon. It is Proudhonian philosophy that has guided it. Fascism is a revision of marxism. It has no reactionary philosophy in it to make it "right wing". Mussolini himself says, Fascism is revolutionary not reactionary and they are futurist. When are the words, revisionist marxism, futurist, or revolutionary going to appear in the definition of Fascism. My guess is never.WHEELER 16:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you're simply restating your original claim and ignoring everything everyone has said. Please read the comments people have made and address them. AndyL 19:54, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Address to Sam's Last in "Spinoffs"

I'm sorry, but I must agree with Jmabel. I think it's a fairly common historical fact that the "national socialist" agenda really has little to do with actual socialism; what's more, the website you linked can hardly be considered either a credible or a professional, nonbiased source. It is blatantly propagandistic in nature, and whoever wrote it has an obvious agenda outside the truth.

Do socialism and Hitlerian, Mussolinian fascism have some common threads? Sure. If anything, it's because socialism sounds really good. No matter what you think of the doctrines therein, to most people, it just does. Before the word became demonized in American press, and people had attention spans such that they'd read deeply into the subject, it's a very appealing idea, especially to a desperately poor, unenfranchised people. It promises the stars; free this, free that, we can help you. Whether fascism erupts out of that, obviously, depends upon the leader. It seems clear to me that what Hitler and Mussolini did was, essentially, piggyback socialism into office and then proceed with their higher agenda, by which time people were so enamored with them that they didn't see a need, nor possess a desire, to object to their action. Hence why Hitler KILLED all the Leftists (first part banned was the Social Democrats, you know).

In any case, the idea that they're inextricably linked at their very core is foolhardy and an injustice to the productive, harmonious, free and safe socialist societies out there (Sweden was mentioned, Norway also, Denmark, Britain, France, Spain and Italy in major ways...). There are ties, but not ones that are particularly significant today or, for that matter, then - only a matter of political expediency to those with an agenda, like blaring about despising taxes in an election year. Everyone despises taxes - until they're the ones spending the money. Wally 03:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps s/socialist/social democratic/ . Due to the fact that there are americans editing wikipedia, both socialism and fascism articles are as confusing as can possibly be. Hmm, I'd speculate that this might be because folks from the US have little practical experience with either, but still make up the majority of editors. see also : Talk:Socialism#Interlanguage

Actually, Hitler did not kill all the leftists, and the Communists were the first party banned. I have no idea what this comment directly above mine means. john 09:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

democratic socialism/social democracy

~~WHY DO YOU DISCUSS THESE TOPICS HERE?? IT IS NOT THE PLACE HERE TO DEFINE THESE TERMS.~~

Sorry, a regexp slipped in there. In Wallys comment, perhaps he meant to say social democratic instead of socialist, else his statement might appear ambiguous or misleading to people from the USA. Hmph, this place is confusing enough as it is. Kim Bruning 11:47, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Although an American, my impression of social democracy is that it's simply a watered down version of democratic socialism. When I think of socialism, generally it's Nordic-style democratic socialism that pops into my head, not revolutionary socialism a la...well, not so much Russia, but I guess that's close enough (when I think of revolutionary socialism, that gets tagged as communism in my mind, perhaps erroneously). Sorry if that lends confusion, but I don't think social democracy is necessarily something that can simply be subbed in there - there seem to be major divergences to me.

Of course, I could just be crazy, too. Could someone correct me if my terminology's wrong? Wally 16:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Looked 'em both up on wikipedia itself. As the names already suggest, there's not terribly much difference in practice between social democracy or democratic socialism I think. Either is ok for EU membership, so there you have it. :) Kim Bruning 17:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Surely the big difference is that private property is still considered legitimate in Social Democracy, whereas in democratic socialism most things would be publicly owned. Social Democracy is essentially capitalist. Cadr

The countries which are given as examples of democratic socialism on wikipedia also recognize private property. I'm beginning to doubt if there is a significant amount of difference between the 2, especially not if applied by a coalition government. Kim Bruning 12:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a fairly clear instance of Wikipedia being wrong. If there's private ownership of the means of production on any large scale, it's not democratic socialism in the usual sense of the word. Refering to countries such as Sweden as socialist seems to be mostly an American thing, perhaps because the political spectrum there is shifted to the right so much that there's not much point making fine distinctions between opinions on the left. Cadr

The terms were largely interchangable in the past and prior to WWI everyone from Eduard Bernstein to Vladimir Lenin called themselves social democrats. In practice today people who call themselves democratic socialists tend to be on the left wing of social democratic or labour parties and believe that a transformation to a socialist society is possible. People who call themselves social democrats tend to be on the right of these parties and don't in practice believe a socialist transformation is possible and believe that all that is possible (or even desirable) is to make capitalism more humane. Those who remain Marxists (but not necessarily Leninist) would be more likely to call themselves Democratic Socialists though not all democratic socialists are Marxists. I don't think you can really speak of "social democratic" countries versus "democratic socialist" countires, at least not at present. AndyL 13:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

ADDING: I don't think there are any "democratic socialist" countries at present either (nor do I think there are any socialist countries but others on the left would contest that). You can argue that states with a highly developed welfare state and income redistribution are "social democratic" as long as that doesn't mean the aren't also capitalist. AndyL 21:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

While not claiming expertise, everything AndyL says here sounds about right to me in terms of how I've heard the words used by people in roughly that part of the political spectrum. But why are we discussing these nuances in a page about fascism? -- Jmabel 23:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Topic drift, I guess.

So does anyone object to deleting the Nazism vs. socialism section, then? Haven't heard any nay votes yet, if I recall, and that could at least be a start at chopping this mother down a bit. Wally 23:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Proudhon was a socialist. an anarchist. He advocated private property and the keeping of it. (That is just how much you people know.)

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, Indianapolis, 1981. "Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships." "Guild socialism". "Communists and Fellow travellers stigmatize Nazism and Fascism as the last and most depraved stage of capitalism." "Fascism was a variety of Italian socialism." Communists label "all non-communist countries and parties are essentially undemocratic and Fascist." pg 523.WHEELER 00:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, I'm fully aware of who Proudhon was, I'm just saying that his influence on fascism is relatively indirect, mainly via the anarcho-syndicalists, most of whom did not become fascists or anything like. I really don't like it when people presume me to be ignorant, and choose to be nasty about it, to boot. I didn't spell out everything I know about Proudhon (which would take quite a while) in the discussion above because this is an article about fascism, not about 19th century anarchism.-- Jmabel 00:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just reread the "Fascism vs. socialism" section. It could certainly use some good editing, and maybe a new title, and maybe it doesn't even all belong in one section, but I have to say, most of the content there belongs in an encyclopedia. The long Mussolini quote is apt (though Gentile's presumed role as ghostwriter should be mentioned). The views of Arendt & Hayek on totalitarianism are relevant, as are those of their critics (some of whom should be named and possibly quoted). The rest is less crucial, but if someone wants to remove them outright from the article, I think they need to be taken up one by one. -- Jmabel 00:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jmabel, Lagradelle was also a syndicalist. Most of the anarchosyndicalists moved into Italian socialism. Look up all the names at the syndicalism site here. Two of the Italians were with Mussolini in l919 and created it with him. Proudhon developed out the France and the dialectic made by the French Revolution. It is his spirit that moves Fascism. WHEELER 14:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, the fact that some anarchists became fascist does not make fascism and anarchism (or fascism and syndicalism) the same thing. You're being very crudely determinist in your analysis. A lot of western missionaries who went to China became Maoists (quite a lot actually) and, indeed, quite a number of Christian ministers became socialists and Marxists in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. By your logic this means that Marxism is Christian. Do you not understand that fascism is the product of a number of influences? It amazes me how the dozens of writers who point out how fascism is a reaction to the French Revolution and the industrial revolution completely fail to make an impact on you. It seems to me that you're approaching this whole question with tunnel vision. You hunt and peck for small grains that support your viewpoint while ignoring grainaries full of evidence that do not support your thesis and then you isolate the one or two grains you like and say THIS IS THE TRUTH! IT'S SO SIMPLE, A LEADS TO B THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION. To say that fascism *is* Proudhonism is absurd beyond belief. An influence in fascist rhetoric, ok, the alpha and omega of fascism? Don't be ridiculous. AndyL

Category:Anti-Semitism

have removed Category:Anti-Semitism. the fascist government both protected and attacked jews; and some jews were members of the party. Badanedwa 00:51, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've restored Category:Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was a key component of fascism in Germany, France and the UK, as well as a number of other countries. In Italy, anti-Semitism was a less important factor, but still a factor.

It's true that there were Jews in the party, and Jews who supported the party without joining; that Mussolini, first and foremost an opportunist, courted the Jewish population when he thought they had something to offer, even supporting the Zionist platform; and that there were no legal provisions against Jews until 1938, and that some individual members of the party protected Jewish friends and acquaintances against the party line (I'm not aware of the party itself ever passing leigslation that protected Jews). Italy didn't have an existing anti-Semitic culture to exploit, as most countries in northern Europe did, so anti-Semitism was not as important in the Fascisti as in other fascist movements - but it was there.

There was a strong under-current throughout the history of the Fascist party, which bought into notions, popular in Germany and other countries in the north of Europe, of damaging miscegenation among the people of southern Europe; this was subsumed by the nationalist impulse which saw the Italian people as special and having a manifest destiny, but there was a clear drive to prevent further "miscegenation". Most importantly, there was active discrimination against Jews in Italy from at least 1930 - it wasn't written into law, but Jews (including Jewish members of the party) were purged from employment in government institutions. I believe the Fascists' stated reason was that Jews had mixed loyalites.

-- Gregg 14:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This proves, once again, that we need separate articles on Italian Fascism, and Fascism in general. Sigh. john k 17:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel 18:39, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

To my mind it'd be better to split it up (probably same with communism) into a page on the doctrine and then a page on the movements. On the doctrine pages purity of thought and scholarship within the movement can be discussed, and on the movements page the real world effects can be detailed. That way, we can do a sort of umbrella thing instead of having a page for Italian fascism and a page for everything else, which would rather be like having a page for the UN Security Council and a seperate one for the US Ambassador. Wally 02:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Italian Fascism, and the Italian Fascist Party, were a specific political movement, and ought to have their own page (or pages) just as we have Nazism and National Socialist German Workers Party. Fascism, more broadly, is a concept which might be said to include a system of government, a type of political movement, and a doctrine (or whatever). Conflating the two can only be confusing. Beyond that, I don't think splitting up discussion of the movement and discussion of the "doctrine" is very valuable. Unlike, say, Marxism, where doctrine was important and relatively consistent, I don't think it can really even be said that there is such a thing as a Fascist "doctrine" or "purity of thought", or whatever. Fascist movements in different countries have been so widely varied in ideology, that such discussion is probably not very worthwhile. What unites fascist movements is not ideology, but method - it is as political movements that they show themselves to be similar, not as ideologies. john k 02:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There should definitely be an article on the FIC/PNF, and some of this page's content could be moved there. But I think a separate article on Italian fascism would be misleading and would simply duplicate information which would need to remain on this page to detail the history of fascism. All political systems are manifested with different characteristics in different countries, but these are united by core ideology (and the core ideology of Italian fascism is the same as the core ideology of British fascism, Spanish fascism, etc.). It would be profoundly wrong to treat Italian fascism as a different system. I'd say the only manifestation of fascism that really merits separate consideration is Nazism, because of its historical impact and because its individual doctrine was very particular and complex. (Incidentally, fascist movements haven't been that widely divergent in ideology. There is a core ideology common to all of them, and the variations in doctrine are down to the spin, if you like, put on this ideology by the over-riding cultural factors and political situations of each different nation.) -- Gregg 04:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should not be under the category of Anti-Semitism. In fact, Jabotinsky admired Italian fascism and modelled his own movement on it. Danny 02:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jabotinsky was another opportunist and several times proved himself happy to over-look anti-Semitism if he thought the anti-Semite in question could be of use, particularly when it came to fighting the British. I doubt he had any genuine admiration for Mussolini, even if he publicly declared otherwise, and I presume he ended this public support in or before 1938. This article should be listed under the category of anti-Semitism because every fascist movement was anti-Semitic to some degree, and that includes the movement in Italy (and a seperate article on the PNF should be included in this category as much as Vichy France). -- Gregg 04:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, many individual fascist movements, (the Nazis most spectacularly) were certainly anti-semitic. Italian Fascism was not particularly so. This article is consistently unclear as to whether it is about fascism generally or Italian Fascism. Which is why we need to split it up first. I'd add that I'm not sure a Category:Anti-Semitism is appropriate to begin with. john k 02:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i was to restore it, but user gregg did. it is appropriate if the party was ever misojudaic. (the term "anti-semitism" is incorrect and should be changed.) User talk:Badanedwa 04:49, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why on earth should anybody take anything seriously coming from somebody who says that we should be using the term "Misojudaic?" Seriously. john k 04:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem. the definitions of "semite" and "judaic" support such usage. only slang opposes it. Badanedwa 21:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that "misojudaic" has a better etymology than "antisemitic", but "antisemitic" is a common English-language word, and "misojudaic" is not. -- Jmabel 22:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - obviously. hence i will not strongly oppose its usage. Badanedwa 04:44, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

English language usage is not "slang". "Anti-semitic" is an English word which means "person who hates Jews", whatever its etymology. "Misojudaic" is not a word - it's in neither the OED nor dictionary.com. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing words. The suggestion that we should be making up words when there is a perfectly good word that already means what you want to invent a new word is silly. The fact that you want to use this made up word in an encyclopedia is absolutely ridiculous. john k 22:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

more ad hominem. "misojudaic" is in less-common usage, and was not my invention. "perfectly good" requires existence of another term for "dislike of semites". Badanedwa 04:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem? I never said you invented the word. I said it is a made up word. Which it is. It is not to be found in dictionaries, and it comes up with all of 20 google hits. And "anti-semitism" is never going to mean "dislike of semites," so that's a red herring. If "Misojudaic" ever becomes a well used term, to be found in dictionaries and common usage, then it would be fine to use it. But it's ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia should start using a term nobody's heard of before that comes up with 20 hits on google just because its etymology is better than the word that is actually used to mean the same thing. john k 05:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i suggest users not base factual decisions on this kind of hyperbolic emotional commentary. Badanedwa 04:52, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Emotional? john k 04:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and: "And "anti-semitism" is never going to mean "dislike of semites," so that's a red herring." is wrong, as that is what the word means, ipso facto. Badanedwa 04:58, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not. The word means "hatred of Jews." It has always meant this, was coined to mean that, and shows no signs of stopping meaning that. john k 04:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"anti-semitism" was created as a self-description for opposition to the "danger" of "semites" mixing nation and race, and to political "semitism". Badanedwa 22:56, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

social composition of Fascist movements

The following paragraph has been removed.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes and the middle classes. Also with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capitalists. A key feature of fascism is that it uses it's mass movement to attack the organisations of the working class - parties of the left and trades unions.

May I ask if it's considered factually false, or if it's just the wording that motivates its removal?
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

as the edit comment stated, it is phrased as marxist propaganda. i am unfamiliar with the relavent composition stats. Badanedwa 04:31, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak to it, but it seems factually accurate to me from where I am; I'm not intimately familiar with the movements themselves, however, rather more with fascists in government and post-revolution. Wally 06:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think it could be phrased better. It seems a bit gratingly marxist as it stands. But I don't think it's essentially wrong, and I think it could probably be salvaged. Of course, the article as a whole is kind of a mess, so perhaps it's not worth it. Among other things, we need to separate out a discussion of "Fascism" as general phenomenon from a discussion of Italian fascism and the Italian Fascist Party of Mussolini. john k 06:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Social composition of fascist movements

I have reworded my previous, clumsy, contribution:

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats and the middle classes. Fascism also with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. A key feature of fascism is that it uses it's mass movement to attack the organisations of the working class - parties of the left and trades unions.

Now, this may be Marxist. It MAY be used as propaganda. It is accurate, however. There has been research done on the social composition of fascist movements which supports this. As for the attack on the left and unions, well...could anyone argue the accuracy of that? John Ball

I certainly wouldn't. I would say that Nazism, at least, was quite successful with the non-unionized working classes, as well. Don't know if this was the case in Italy. john k 16:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only part I can envision as not being totally accurate - without, mind you, having any concrete information either way upon which to call - is the bit about the bureaucrats. Middle classes, smaller capitalists make sense, and it's beyond dispute that the working poor took to fascism under promise of stronger government and jobs. But I've not ever heard of bureaucrats being a force in any fascism - take it with a grain of salt, however, I'm shooting from the hip.

Also, "Fascism also with great success in rural areas" should probably be fixed to something that makes sense. That, and what are "slum workers", exactly? Wally 22:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "slum workers" sounds clumsy. I mean what Marx would have referred to as "lumpen proletariat" but such a term sounds terribly dated. "Disposessed", "socially marginalised" I guess would be more modern sounding terms. And the "making sense" bit.....makes sense. By "bureaucrats" I mean the lower managers, civil servants, supervisors and foremen...perhaps I should say that? John Ball 14.20 22/6/04.

I don't see a reason not to use lumpenproletariat, since we have an article for it to explain what exactly it qualifies (which is how I learned what it was); otherwise, to an "intelligent layman" (if you like) it's going to seem like groups of the poor fighting for fascists against communists or socialists is inherently... contradictory.

And as long as "bureaucrats" is accurate, I see no reason not to use that... I was just unsure as to the veracity of it, but I definitely defer to you on it - I'm here to contribute general advice, not specific doctrinal/historical critique. Wally 16:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, lumpenproletariat it is. I've also trawled through the Marxist Internet Archive: http://www.marxists.org and that helped clarify. John Ball

Lumpenproletariat is accurate, but a little... unwieldy. If I understand the meaning of lumpenproletariat correctly (and I've never been sure), the current equivalent term (in the UK at least) is "underclass". -- Gregg 14:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to what we have here at Wikipedia, "lumpy proles" (as I'll call them in lieu of writing the whole god-awful word) are the underclass, yes, but remember that regular proles are also the underclass. Realistically, lumpy proles are a seperate and distinct underclass, those engaged in sociologically non-productive labor who are unwilling to take coordinated action even to support themselves and are often supported by the largesse of the upper classes, whom they will then have a vested interest in preserving and thus function as a counter-revolutionary force (albeit not a terribly effective one). Wally 16:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lumpenproletariat is fine with me, but it should be in scare quotes. john k 02:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Wally 03:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If Fascism attacks trade unions why did it evolve out of the Anrch-syndicalist movement??? It didn't attack trade unions. It came from the syndicalist movement.WHEELER 13:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're saying that fascism, which attacked trade unions, didn't attack trade unions? You're saying that fascism, a conservative and reactionary system, evolved out of anarcho-syndicalism, the very picture of progressive and revolutionary ideology? (In reaction to, yes, in part; but not "out of".) I'm sorry, but you are inverting historical facts. -- Gregg 14:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fascism did not really evolve out of anarcho-syndicalism or come from syndicalism, the relationship between the two seems superficial. Trades unions were suppressed under Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. John Ball

Fascism certainly did not "evolve out of" anarcho-syndicalism. Mussolini himself was never an anarcho-syndicalist, and in most countries there is little overlap between people who ever adhered to the two ideologies. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that a significant number of Italian anarcho-syndicalists did become fascists, and there is little doubt that anarcho-syndicalist "direct action" influenced fascists tactics. -- Jmabel 18:52, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Look at a fairly successful social movement that preceded you, take what works, leave the rest. Fairly common prescription for power in the last century. Wally 01:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hate to throw cold water on you people but Mussolini did not coin the term Fascism nor start the core party. From Zeev Sternhell; pg 140 Birth of Fascist Ideology:

a number of revolutionary syndicalists not left the USI and at the beginning of October 1914, founded the Fascio rivoluzionario D'azione internazionalista. Mussolini joined this movement.WHEELER 17:00, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere either in the article or the talk page where someone has said that Mussolini coined the term Fascism or started the core party. On the other hand, the article should probably make it clearer that he didn't. Someone should edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 21:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, yes the that first fascist party I stated was made by anarchosyndicalists. Read the ideological section.WHEELER 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On preventing duplication of effort (it)

Hi, I've just noticed the request posted by Kim Bruning on it:Discussioni:Fascismo, for a coordination of the articles in en: it: and de:. Itlaian wikipedia is still relatively small, and this is a subject on which we are starting to discuss. As you can imagine this is a hot topic in Italy, as we have some problem to discuss it in an NPOV fashion. I still haven't read the english article, but I would like to tell that, afaik, the term fascism in english has a broader meaning than in italian. In Italy, Fascismo is bound to italian fascism, the extension to other similar forms of regime (especially nazism), is always debated by the right, while the left tends to make no distinction of the two. Aniway seems we are starting to discuss on it, if the thing evolves, we will let you know what we will come up with. Regards, Snowdog 07:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the extraneous/non-fascist sections will have to be removed first. after that, i'll assist. Badanedwa 04:57, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

english/american spelling

My impression was that more often than not, British English spellings were used over American English spellings in this article, but that the article wasn't sticking to either dialect exclusively. This is a problem, as we should stay consistent in each article, either using American English exclusively or British English exclusively. Since my impression was that the article leaned toward the latter, I changed the spellings changed some spellings so that the words are compatible with American English. 172 19:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wait, but if it was leaning towards British English, why did you change it to American? My opinion is (and I am American, mind you) that we ought to default to British English when there's a conflict, as it's more likely to be internationally-recognized. Wally 00:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When I regularise the spelling of an article, I opt for the variety that happens to predominate within the text. In this case, if British was dominant, I feel that the US forms should have been changed to British. Also, I regularise the entire article, not just "some spellings". Ditto for punctuation (the use or otherwise of the "Oxford comma") and other stylistic matters.

I agree that the British forms, being international, should be preferred. Shorne 06:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can be inconsistent and call it Canadian spelling ;) AndyL 20:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most articles of any length have inconsistent speelings on Wikipedia, since most people are confortable spelling things the way they were taught. Kingal86 17:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) (from South England)

This discussion provides an excellent example of regional variations in English: here in Canada, we write the plural noun form as 'spellings' instead of 'speelings'. ;-) Kevintoronto 19:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tiny error

In the part about either the origins of fascism or the history of fascism and the church, the article previously and wrongly stated that RerumNovarum was authored and propounded by Pope Leo XII. Its from 1891, not 1820's, and it was authored by Pope Leo XIII. But its meaning and content was otherwise dead on. Hey whats up Jmabel!!? Its meeee. Capone 12 Jul 2004 (WTF)

Philosophical origins of Fascism in 'Actual Idealism.'

I find it odd that there is no mention of Fascism's attempt, by sanction of Mussolini's work of Giovanni Gentile's, to define Fascism by that theory given by them to their politics constructed to be without "presuppositions" in the meaning of Gentile's own philosophical stand-points on the reality of nature. That the material world, because it is external to perception, has no conceptual reality except known in the act of preceiving it, and thereby refuting Marxist Dialectical Materialism as an impossibility because it is disconnected from the realm of thinking. This "Fascist Idealism" also thereby justified all positions it had taken as they were similarly construed as a politic "without theoretical presuppositions or intellectualizing"; i.e. Democracy has no utility because it "presupposes" objectified conceptions held as tangible between divergent interest groups, the individual thinking of the external world was the nature of it's own being rather than an external material world so therefore the individual was not separate from the state. Social welfare for it's own sake "presupposed" an understanding outside of one's own thinking situation and therefore could have no reality or utility for persons, etc. So ultimately an entire form of orthodox Solipsism was created to compete with the Egalitarianism prevalent in so many of the other new political theories that were borne from Materialism. Nagelfar 05:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that the omission is because we have enough bad things to say about fascism without pointing out that Gentile, their house intellectual, engaged at times in freshman-level pseudo-philosophical wanking. -- Jmabel 07:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "at times," it seemed rather that he dedicated his entire career, very successfully before Fascism I might add, to what you call "pseudo-philosophical" without probably reading any dissertation by anyone about it's content except out of context elements floating about the likes of what I have here put down. If it was pseudo-philosophical, the whole work of Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer & Nietzsche are too, since it directly amends and makes look foolish some considerations to the first three. Nagelfar 08:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hand me a gun so that I may shoot you in your head, and prove for you in all finity the death of any notions of Solipsism and Idealism, and the very Realism of Materialism. To any Neo-Platonic fascist of the Gentilian variety or other; the cave you dwell in is yours and yours alone. Welcome to reality . . . Capone Aug 15 04

For an encyclopedia I'm afraid the cave of knowledge is everyone's, so please bring value to present at this discussion. This isn't the place for discussion of which philosophy is the correct one, go be a materialist or realist and presuppose everything as external on a philosophy board where you can preach to the converted. What I am presenting is a suggestion only to add a non-point of view addition of the underlying philosophy which was very central to the entire development of Fascist policy, and there should be a segment tying in Actual Idealism, whose very belief structure extolled implementation of itself to society, to what was really nothing more than it's social manifestation called Fascism. Nagelfar 10:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What "everyone"? I hate when I contradict myself. Capone Aug 18 04

Even in Solipsism, which this isn't, all language terms exist don't they? So where-ever in your mind you see contradiction leave it to a philosophical debate board. Otherwise move beyond debate fillibuster and into the conversation of the concrete. Nagelfar 08:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, Nagelfar, try writing it up in the article, but don't be surprised if you have trouble getting consensus. Radical solipsism as a basis for politics still strikes me as just plain silly.

As for the philosphers you tick off, some I know well, others not. I've probably read Kant at least as closely as the average philosophy Ph.D. (among other things, a seminar under Louis Mink on the Critique of Pure Reason and one under Paul Grice on the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals); I would say I know Nietzsche pretty well, although just from reading on my own; Fichte, Hegel and Schopenhauer I know only secondhand and would not presume to write about them in an encyclopedia.

Kant certainly was no solipsist. He did agree with the solipsists that we only know the universe through the filter of our own perceptions, but essentially argued that the universe is ordered in such a manner that (even on such matters as aesthetics and morality) we all ought to reach the same conclusions. Nietzsche's philosophy does not seem to me to have been (epistemelogically) solipsistic at all; on the other hand, he certainly believed that people's radically different natures and radically different situations in the world would lead to very different conclusions about philosophical matters.

I'm certainly not closely familiar with Gentile's writing. All I've seen is quotations in politically-related context. None of them ever led me to take him seriously enough to go read him. Please understand, this is not an inherent bias against reading philosophers associated with fascism. I have read quite a bit of Heidegger and am more than passingly familiar with Cioran. -- Jmabel 16:25, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

From reading two works on Actual Idealism myself, it is made clear that even though it has largely been associated with Solipsism, Actual Idealism is not in-fact Solipsism. If only because Solipsism requires an Ipsus or self by which it is egocentric, Actual Idealism sees such consideration of an ego as a presupposition and is more truly considered autologocentric.

Gentile's consideration about "reaching the same conclusions" as you put Kant's philosophy is to him a presuppostion outside thinking, it cannot be known what outside conclusions to one's act of thinking are, only what they appear to be about for others to the self. Take for example language between 'persons.' To Gentile it is not learnt, the meaning of language is synthesized arbitarily from perceptions the self is left to in reflection, a maieutic extension of idea trapped squarely within one's own thinking, seen in the same way as what Hegel saw happening interpersonally with an external reality which he called the dialectic of the absolute. To know that language could possibily be shared as the same common mind experience is impossible because of, using a term from physics, the "self-similarity" which forms a uniformity of verification with verification's requirements within one thought process alone. It must be understood that any such verification drawn from the meaning of anything in language is so drawn from one's own distinction of what verification means; thus the only source of uniformity of differences making verification is the self which has already defined the terms of what the verification is to be regarding for the identification of it as then an 'imagined' outside concept & it's self developed requirements for proof . Nagelfar 20:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am working on putting a detailed study by which every point of Fascism, rightly or wrongly, derived it's purpose from Actual Idealism, and I am trying to do so in as NPOV way as possible. However I work better when people put down there own ideas and immediate observations first which are obvious to them as maybe a person not thoroughly familar to the philosophy, if only because it would start from a point more obvious to the type of reader that this encyclopedia is directed toward; one who doesn't already know the facts about the subject. Nagelfar 20:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my earlier post directly above, I stated that rightly or wrongly Fascism derived its purpose from Actual Idealism. I was not clear in what I meant by "purpose", so perhaps sometime in the next few days I will be more clear in what I meant. Also, I apologize for making up the word 'autologocentric'. It seemed the best word for what I was trying to describe in contrast to the ego centered nature of my incoherent ramblings. Capone Aug 18, 1982

Also, why is there mention of the Nolan chart at all? This is not an article about Nolan OR Libertarianism - and besides which the Nolan chart is not even consistent in its own right where it is appropriate on the Nolan or Libertarian page as it compares theoretical models to models which existed. You just can't do this and I hope this idea will find some traction. Capone Aug 18, 2004

Actual Idealism is not Solipsism, move beyond your presupposition & ignorance. No conception (i.e. self) properly exists to the Actual Idealist. Logocentric has been a word used by authors for over 63 years relating to Gentile's work, and if you've educated yourself on this matter soever you'd know also that in context of Actual Idealism every word used formerly in Hegelian conception is prefixed further with "auto-" to differentiate it from Hegelian Absolutism. By Purpose I meant Purpose; It is to Fascism as Dialectical Materialism is to Communism, it's the philosophy and method that leads to it's complete reasoning. Erudition within the matters of which you speak could enhance your entire ability to communicate. Speaking in the tense of my person further may very well bring me to the point of needing to make a report of impersonation against you, if for the very fact that people may become confused and misconstrue your unlinked name being mine rather than my account. Nagelfar 08:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your empty threats will be met with laughter wherever you seek to pursue them. I never stated or implied that actual idealism and solipsism were the same thing. I signed my name and everyone knew the point I was making since the philosophical and logical short-comings of solipsism and actual idealism are made hysterically apparent with this interchange as proof. How can you presuppose that I am not you and you are not me in the first place? I/you can be really stupid sometimes, sorry. Since you say that solipsism makes no presuppositions, and you presented that as how you see things (instead of the divorced npov), you are now screwed because you cannot prove that you even exist. So why should we respect the ramblings of a non-person? Funny how this ideology loses any value when used as an applied science. As far as I'm concerned, you are to have me believe that you are simply an extension or projection of what's going on upstairs with me. You are really no different than a thought which is mine and mine alone to either represent, deal with, or ignore. Silly nagelfar. The manner of your writing also means that you are incapable of getting your ideas across in any meaningfull way, which may be why you have a hard time gaining traction. The semi-esoteric manner ala Lyndon LaRouche in which you write your arguments also may have something to do with this.

 Capone 9-27-04

You didn't sign your name with tithes as one would do who has an account, sometimes people sign their real name when not logged in, and this could generate confusion, and you certainly did imply an analogy as such from somehow considering "self" as anything to do with Actual Idealism. This exchange only proves to me not to put much weight into discussion of post-Hegelian philosophy with someone who presumably doesn't even have a basic understanding of Kant. If only because it is continually your POV on how "this conversation proves the shortcomings of Actual Idealism" with no discussion as to why. 100% POV, baseless and irrevelent. How does "presupposing I am not me or you, you" figure into anything? Presupposing is completely against what Actual Idealism is all about, so your critique of what you think to be it is in fact the critique of it's opposite. This assumption might just well be from where our argument started. You started POV, and you keep every response POV and therefore cannot allow any advancement on the historical relevance of the subject. I'm keeping an open mind, you started with attacking me personally. Was it your position that Actual Idealism did not figure into the construction of Fascism? You didn't say as such, let alone give any reasons. You simply attacked me personally. That certainly isn't a sign of a great contributor of information in any regard. There was nothing "semi-esoteric" about anything I have thus far written, I used all terms in the context of the Philosophy at hand, words that weren't meant to be 'hidden/occult' but descriptive, and I used them as such. I never said Solipsism made no presuppositions, I said Actual Idealism was built to act as such as the only way in which "Solipsism" can have a defensible meaing. Except 'Solipsism' wouldn't be a defensible term for it, because it implies an objective self in it's very name. I now recognize my mistake of saying orthodox Solipsism at the beginning of the page when meaning a new form created philosophy extrinsically resembling, and having distinctions drawn around, Solipsism (so many writers have called it Solipsism as to make confusion for a synopsis with being familiar with those writings) Actual Idealism doesn't say a self does not exist, it says it cannot be real except as subject. Solipsism doesn't work for the same reasons laid out by G. E. Moore in his refutation of Idealism, where perception is the same as experience, and experience is identity which makes 'self.' Experience is the object seperate from the subject of perception in Actual Idealism, so whether the self exists or not has no bearing on it's reality. This is the philosophy's context and I am regurgitating my knowledge of it NPOV, not trying to 'prove it,' this is not the place for discussion on the validity of a philosophy in a real world sense, only on the validity of it's definition and here it's definition with regard to what intimate relationship it had as a method for defining the politics called Fascism. Nagelfar 06:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So instead of hammering away at it in the talk page, try to write up something comprehensible in the article, and expect that it will be "edited mercilessly" by people, some of whom will probably disagree, some of whom probably won't understand, etc., because that's how it goes. -- Jmabel 16:42, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I want to get everybodies critique to see if any strong critiques of the connection with Fascism & of the validity of their association become apparent before I try anything there first. That is, if I can get past arguing about the item in itself and on to the suggestion of it's impact on the development about the topic for the article of which this is the talk section of. Nagelfar 06:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then put a staged contribution at Talk:Fascism/Actual Idealism and let us engage with an actual text rather than with your intention to write one. -- Jmabel 15:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Because I am not interested in what people think of Actual Idealism, I am interested in what people think of it's weight on the meaning of Italian Fascism. Regardless of what the implications of Actual Idealism are of itself outside that link to Fascism. Nagelfar 10:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, name the section whatever you want. My point is, instead of harping on talk about the fact that no one else has written anything, write your proposed added section as a staged contribution so we can react to actual proposed content rather than your desire to engage a topic. -- Jmabel 19:34, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nolan chart

Moving the chart was a good compromise. Sam [Spade] 01:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "fascism is socialism brigade"

Once again we have an anonymous visit from the "fascism is socialism brigade", preaching the gospel according to St. Hayek. There may be something useful in what was added, so I'm not reverting immediately; conversely, I won't be surprised if there was something useful in what was deleted without comment.

Would someone else take this on this time? I've waded through an awful lot of these ideological edits lately in various articles, and I'm getting really tired of looking for the pearls among the dung. -- Jmabel 22:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Another view of Fascism

My search for "fascism" redirected me to G. W. Bush's entry. Mildly humorous, unless you've talked to someone who lived under a "real" fascist regime.

This article provides a different point of view on Fascism and its history. It might factor in to the entry.

http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm The Mystery of Fascism <end of an anon contribution>

This anonymous poo-poo head lies. For one, fascism did not redirect anyone from George W. Bush, unless he spells George W. Bush "fascism".

[Actually, a vandal briefly had Fascism redirecting to George W. Bush. And please don't make ad hominem attacks on people] - Jmabel 17:37, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Secondly has anonymous talked to someone who lived under a 'real' facist regime, or was that just another empty rhetorical platitude? Even if so, who cares about this anecdote? I know several holocaust survivors, one who's autoboigraphy I helped ghostwrite in 1993, and while he is dead now, he contended that even George Bush Snr. was a fascist. Perhaps jewish survivors of fascism are too 'paranoid' or 'sensitive' about creeping fascism when they seem to feel it, but you can't have it both ways. Few would say that the U.S living under a fascist regime, yet, but a leader being a fascist or having fascist tendendies or desires ala Bush who said "It'd be a heck a lot easier if America were a dictatorship . . . so long as I was the dictator!" is a seperate matter.

For thirds . . . The article on Mussolini linked by the anonymous coward has many interesting factual name references, but makes many errors in logic and in history. Anyone else who cares to read it may find the same. Look for the stunning contradictory reversals in the article re the basis of fascist support. First it claims it was not a tool of big business, then it claims it was. It claims Mussolini was on the extreme left wing of the Socialist Party in 1914, but he was not. It deduces this from the fact that Mussolini, like many many leftists at the time and today, had contacts with other leftists outside of their immediate party circle. It starts out saying that syndicalists were to the left of the Socialists. It then says that Mussolini became a syndicalist. It then shows how syndicalists started fascism (along with non leftist intellectuals who are adequately listed). But the revisionist trend in syndicalism which called for syndicates which united managers with workers was actually a right wing trend within syndicalism, a small one at that, (not having support among the rank and file) and, could be placed along side the revisionist right trends with Bernstein of the Social-Democrats and right leaning Italian Socialists. Then there are some post hoc fallacies regarding economics, and there are also outright falsifications, for one, claiming that Mussolini's turn away from liberal economics came before the Great Depression. This can only be viewed as true if one places the begining of the Great Depression in Italy in 1929. But the 1920's did not see much real growth in Italy given its mutilated victory in WWI. Italy suffered as if it been on the losing side, even though it was on the winning side. Italy could not even annex Fiume, to the dismay of right nationalists and right syndicalists, like D'Annunzio and co. The economic slump hit Italy and other developing nations of Europe and abroad (like Mexico)as early as 1925. A modern analogy is the Tiger Markets crash of the middle-late 1990's (1996) which led finally to the world stagflation which started towards the end of the summer of 2000. Italy's Corporatist model developed in the middle 1920's could best be, in retrospect, considered Keynesian. Or perhaps Keynes could just be considered a 'statist', whatever. You say potayto, I say potahto. This model allowed Italy to emerge from the depression in 1934, well ahead of the more 'liberal' economies of western europe and the u.s.

Again, there is much interesting factual information, and even usefull analysis in this article, but, unfortunately is based upon ill-informed assumptions and makes conclusions which are questionable at best. Capone 9-7-04

Capone, could you please open an account so that we can have some confidence that all of the contributions signed by you are all really from one person? This is as much as anything for your own protection. It would be so easy for a troll to fake being you. -- Jmabel 17:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, while dissenting from Capone's ad hominem remarks, I basically concur with his evaluation of the article: it has some good research behind it, and it's worth reading, but it's ultimately wrongheaded and anyone who wants to take material from it should exercise great care, probably going back to the sources it cites rather than trusting the article itself. -- Jmabel 17:44, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

For what its worth, I found this to be rather interesting

http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html

TDC 21:52, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

China

Does the PRC as it exists today fall within the definition of a fascist state? I am thinking about adding it to the list of nations as I beleive that it is a near perfect fit. Comments and feedback please. 21:36, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

[Unless I'm mistaken, the above is TDC, although he didn't sign it -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)]

    If you were the same anonymous that posted the publiceye article on fascism, and you thought that criteria was fitting (as I thought it was more or less sound)then by that definition, no.  Ok, I have an account I realized as I tried to log in.  But what's that shortcut for signing the name with the official UTC stuff?

Capone 9-8-04

Just use 4 tildes: ~~~~ -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Responding to the anon remark above (which I believe was TDC:

I think a reasonable case could be made either way. I don't think just adding it to a list would be useful, but relevant cited quotations on both sides of the question probably would.

Certainly it had many of the standard characteristics: much of the wealth in private hands, but in the context of a rather centrally directed economy; lack of democracy; militarism; irredentist nationalism. On the other hand, it clearly got there by a route where its intellectual heritage is in State Communism rather than the states historically known as fascist, and teh word "Fascist" carries connotations of an intellectual heritage as well as a form of government and society. Also, the present-day PRC is not very big on the cult of personality. But my opinion doesn't belong in the article as such: if you want to follow this up I strongly urge citing relevant, reasonably authoritative sources. -- Jmabel 00:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ardent nationalism basically sums up every nation I can think of on the face of the planet at present. It makes sense that a nation would extol the virtues of itself, right? The PRC does not have a cult of personality, does not glorify male youth as fighters, does not glorify female youth as future incubators. Mysticism is missing from official Chinese pronouncements too. Also missing is the stated goal of said society. Left Totalitarian regimes like China see a future where a hierarchy of work-production, and distribution can be overcome once production is more automated with robotics and technology and economic scarcity can be overcome. Allowing private property is a means towards an end in the case of China (market socialism). Right Totalitarian regimes see hierarchy as the natural and permanent order of things, and the existence of private property is not a mean to an end, but the end to be preserved within itself. A broad definition of fascism which would more correctly have to be termed corporatism if we say that mysticism, gender roles, and ideological heritage/stated aims aren't necessary conditions, then that would also allow us to place countries like the U.S since the 1930's, social-democratic Germany, and Keynesian Japan in that category. The main difference between fascism and capitalist-democratic or more benign corporatist states is the right for trade unions and combinations to engage in collective bargaining and even work stopages (strikes) against the immediate consent of the state or business. Unions have this right in China today, to a limited extent, as in the U.S to a limited extent. On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions. Unless I can be swayed from this line of thought, and I am open to it, I will mercilessly edit out grouping the PRC as fascist. Capone 19:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"On an economic basis, Germany may be considered more corporatist or economically interventionist than the U.S, but politically the citizens have more rights to protest and engage in collective bargaining or form new unions." I hope you mean Germany today. If you are saying this about rights to protest, etc., in Nazi Germany you are off your rocker. -- Jmabel 22:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I was speaking of both China and Germany in the present, market-socialist China and capitalist-social-democratic Germany. Sorry if that wasn't clear to others. But all this aside, I may indeed still be off my rocker! Capone 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Race and nation

Italian facism does not exalt race, who is a typical national-socialist concept. When the Italian governement started its racial policy in the late 1930s, it was because he was following Nazi Germany, not original fascism. (unsigned, anonymous)

Which is exactly why the article says "and sometimes race" (emphasis mine). -- Jmabel 23:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

There were two wings in Italian fascism, one of which was very concerned with race. There was discrimination against Jews in public bodies from at least 1930 onwards - it just didn't become a matter of law until 1938. In addition, this is an article about fascism, not just the FIC/PNF, and the exaltation of race was a key component of fascism in most countries. -- Gregg 23:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christianity/Roman Catholicism

I see that the section "Fascism and Christianity" has been changed to "Fascism and the Roman Catholic Church". That does seem to fit in with the material currently there, but certainly the Iron Guard were closely tied to the Romanian Orthodox Church; I'm guessing that there are other analogous situations in other non-Roman-Catholic countries, but I don't know much about this. Does someone else? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Prof. Roger Griffin: fascism not right-wing

I'm kind of surprised that noone has made use of Prof. Roger Griffin's article "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" (PDF), in which he attempts to circumscribe an actual scholarly consensus on fascism. I mention this particularly in relation to the introductory characterization of fascism as "right wing," but Griffin contends more or less explicitly that it is not--at least insofar as "conservatism" is synonymous with "right wing." Herewith the quote:

The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself as a body of ideas, slogans, and doctrine. In the inter-war period it manifested itself primarily in the form of an elite-led ‘armed party’ which attempted, mostly unsuccessfully, to generate a populist mass movement through a liturgical style of politics and a programme of radical policies which promised to overcome the threat posed by international socialism, to end the degeneration affecting the nation under liberalism, and to bring about a radical renewal of its social, political and cultural life as part of what was widely imagined to be the new era being inaugurated in Western civilization. The core mobilizing myth of fascism which conditions its ideology, propaganda, style of politics, and actions is the vision of the nation’s imminent rebirth from decadence.

Vorpal Suds 08:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Just because a prof's own website touts that he has created a "new consensus" doesn't make it the case, nor does Open University accepting a view make it the standard in academe. I think the broad consensus remains that fascism is right wing. Nevertheless we should probably mention Griffin and his theories. AndyL 12:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that Fascism is anti-conservative as well as anti-liberal. Nonetheless, the dominant consensus on the use of "left" and "right" places fascism on the right; similarly, liberalism and Marxism, quite opposed to one another, both sit on the left. No problem mentioning Griffin's views, as long as we don't mislead into presenting them as dominant. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Proto-fascism

It would seem to be a service to the reader to note that fascism does not spring fully formed upon a society and that there are features or fascistic tendencies that can be discerned and should be resisted.

Does NPOV mean that fascism=bad is not allowable?

Yes, it does, although quoting a condemnation of it by an important scholar or political figure might be appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the part of the definition that reduces the use of the term to a fringe critique of globalization essentially means that this term is no longer relevant to current political discourse. Perhaps it is overloaded or maybe wiki's aren't good for dealing with disputed topics.

For instance, it seems unlikely that wikipedia could ever include an entry that observed that the current executive of the U.S. espouses fascist ideals. Bush II extemporaneous comments about how it would be easier to advance the agenda if he were a dictator come to mind. (Anonymously posted 24 Nov 2004)

While there may be current important political movements that are parallel to, or even influenced by, fascism, there are very few anywhere that are explicitly fascist. I don't like Bush one shred, but clearly an encyclopedia can't call him a "fascist". -- Jmabel | Talk 18:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Original poster (again anonymously, sigh): Agreed -- hyperbole is not appropriate, however well it illustrates a reality-based anxiety. Have a look at the para I added at the end of the fascism in practice section. It follows your advice about quotations as a way to avoid NPOV and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions about the risk of fascism in the U.S. today.

Thanks Jmabel, your edits improved what I added, in particular the references section (where I added a link to an archive of the original document)

Last Contributor: Anonymous - Article Talk Page: Discussion - GNU FDL: Verbatim Source

Open Encyclopedia