Revision as of 22:39, 4 December 2005

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

• 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
• /Archive 16
• /Archive 17

Deleting This Word or That Word

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)

The statement: "Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups." This is a recent addition to this entry. The language here is ad hominem to the current political climate. It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ? (talk • contribs) about 30 Nov 2005 (UTC) if someone can work out exactly who wrote this, great, but it was amidst a flurry of activity, and I'm not digging it out of the log -- Jmabel | Talk

I suspect that the above comment is based on a misunderstanding of the term ad hominem, but I honestly cannot work out how that word was interpreted and what this person meant to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent developments in article

It seems to me that a lot of the recent developments in this article are either POV (e.g. calling things "ridiculous" in the narrative voice of the article) or not very relevant (are Hayek's views of fascism really so notable as to deserve a long paragraph of exposition here, rather than in the article on Hayek? I think not). And most of the material claiming to be on fascism in the United States does not strike me as encyclopedic; if it belongs in Misplaced Pages at all (which I doubt), it would seem to belong in Neo-fascism, not Fascism. I'm too busy to work on this right now, but I urge people to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia article here, not a blog. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree, except that von Hayek is notable, required reading on the right. The influence of his "The Road to Serfdom" is probably one of the reasons the U.S. was able to mount an intellectual as well as armed challenge to communism. He did not see much distinction between communism and fascism.--Silverback 07:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We should mention von Hayek on the Neo-fascism page, and we already cite John T. Flynn. But I agree with JMabel that we need to move much of this material onto that page and simply note here that there are arguments from the left and right about the U.S.--Cberlet 13:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's my leftist background, but I tend to see Hayek as less of a player in the Cold War critique of Communism as similar to fascism than Hannah Arendt or Karl Popper. (Remarkably, our article on Totalitarianism doesn't even mention Popper.) Sometimes on topics where I am knowlegable but not expert it's hard for me to evaluate my own perspective, and the Cold War is one area where I know that my reading is uneven. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article should not discuss totalitarianism theory very much. It distracts from what the principal job of this article should be, which is to explain the concept of fascism. Totalitarianism is a separate idea, and I think a brief discussion and a link to the totalitarianism article ought to be sufficient. john k 06:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, but then should it be discussing Hayek? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to move most of this material we are discussing to other pages. There are two distinct critiques. There is the Arendt/Popper/Hoffer critique of totalitarianism; and there is the Hayek/Flynn/von Mises libertarian critique that saw corporatist socialsim in the FDR policies. Both should be mentioned here very briefly, and then the details moved to the other pages on totalitarianism and Neofascism in the United States.--Cberlet 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, fine by me. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to edit most of this article, but I'm going to take the liberty of continuing to point out problems, in hopes that someone can fix them. Recently added:

The issue is not one solely of the past. The League of Polish Families is defined, by Misplaced Pages itself, as both being on the Christian Left and the patriotic Right. The synthesis of collectivist systems of government and a fascination with ultra-reactionary ideas has not gone away and is still hard to classify.

Seems very POV, and why the self-reference.

However, this view, taken to its logical conclusion, would also make Stalin right-wing as he he executed and imprisoned thousands of Marxists, for example Bukharin and others, such as Trotsky, were forced to flee.

As far as I can tell, this is a comment on a comment, both unsourced. This is beginning to resemble the Talmud, not an encyclopedia article.

(Wrote this about an hour ago, forgot to sign; the last-mentioned has now been removed from the article.) -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And now the lead seems to claim that fascism can be defined in strictly economic terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just directed to this article through a conversation at Greek fascism. I'm tempted to add some kind of cleanup tag to it, either for verifiability (lots of weasel terms) or the systemic bias one. What is all this busines about the New Deal doing in this article?!? It's mentioned three times. The KKK is mentioned once, as a "see also". If we need all of this discussion about Fascism in the U.S.A., and I would say that we don't, can we at least make some attempt to discuss the subject in a way that doesn't leave a non-American reader completely baffled? Is there some version of the article in its history that is significantly better? Jkelly 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to reflect the body of the text. Much more work needs to be done.--Cberlet 14:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I just created the page Fascism and Ideology and I think we should move chunks to that page, with pointers to that and other pages. This is not the place for POV political advocates to amplify what are minority views on the subject.--Cberlet 14:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism and ideology, I believe... john k 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. Correct. Just finished the overhaul. There remains an internal contradiction. The text states that Neo-Fascism refers to the new appearance of the Italian model, while neo-fascism refers to the broader spectrum, yet the page we use is Neo-Fascism, which then would be the wrong spelling. Merge Neo-Fascism back into the (now redirected) "Neofascism" or move to "Neo-fascism?"--Cberlet 17:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Burden of proof vrs. op-editing

I understand the lunatics have taken over the asylum, but c'mon... there is no justification for the following (emphasis placed on the portion that needed to be deleted):

There were several strains of tradition influencing Mussolini. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of fascism in the 1920s, had a syndicalist background, but his influence waned as the movement shed all connection to the working-class consciousness of syndicalism.

corporatism, anyone? Sam Spade 15:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Prior to your edits, Sam, it read "…but his influence waned as the movement shed its old left wing elements." Judging by your recent comments elsewhere and your telgraphic edit summary ("-POV, +wl") I presumed you were objecting to the statement that "the movement shed its old left wing elements", so, instead of having what I thought would be an unnecessary fight, I edited to be more specific about what was shed. Syndicalism and corporatism have more than a little in common, but the starkest difference is that syndicalism came out of a background in labor organizing and was loosely allied to other "workerist" movements, while corporatism rejected that class consciousness and called for class collaboration (a fact that we allude to in the next sentence).

What exactly are you disagreeing with here, Sam? Are you saying that Panunzio's influence remained strong? That syndicalism was not a class-conscious working-class ideology? That corporatism was class-conscious? That this transition was not part of the evolution of Italian fascism? I honestly don't see what here is even slightly in doubt. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Was Sam calling you a lunatic, or just a metaphorical lunatic? john k 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new to this, but it seems to me that Sam is a royal pain in the ass. Grow up Sam.

And if the latter, what does the metaphor mean? I would think it would mean "the article on fascism is being written by fascists." But that is clearly not what he means. He means "the article on fascism is being written by wacky leftists." Which doesn't seem to me to be an instance of the "lunatics running the asylum." Sam is advised to use more accurate insulting metaphors. john k 06:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was alluding to the wikipedia in general, and its saddening state of affairs. I had just gotten done reading User:Xiong when I made that comment, and it didn't pretain only to this page and its editers, but rather to wiki-wide dynamics which I feel are being mirrored here.

In any case, to Jmabel, I am objecting to the highlighted portion below:

"There were several strains of tradition influencing Mussolini. Sergio Panunzio, a major theoretician of fascism in the 1920s, had a syndicalist background, but his influence waned as the movement shed all connection to the working-class consciousness of syndicalism.

rather than to the various statements you made here on the talk page. The pertinent detail, as I am sure you know, is that syndicalism and corporatism have ALOT in common, and that fascism in Italy was corporatist. Your opinions regarding shreds of "working-class consciousness" have little bearing on the article. Sam Spade 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The sentence by Jmabel makes perfect sense, if you actually read about fascism in the writings of someone other than the uber-libertarian Friedrich August von Hayek.--Cberlet 22:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First Hayek was certainly not an uber-libertarian, in fact, the Badnarikites would probably purge him.

Anyway I think that something should be added to the article about how Fascism resurrected many of the ideas of Saint-Simon c.f.http://en.wikipedia.org/Claude_Henri_de_Rouvroy%2C_Comte_de_Saint-Simon

and http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/846/marx.html (although this fellow does not seem to realise it) Warm Beer

Please see Fascism and ideology which is where most of these sorts of arguments belong.--Cberlet 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Including New Deal

Is there any editor other than User:Hogeye who believes that this article would be significantly improved by using the New Deal as an example of what fascism is, and that doing so would not confuse every non-U.S. Misplaced Pages reader?

My impression, from the above, and from edit summaries, is that I, User:Cberlet, User:GunnarRene, User:Tothebarricades, User:Nat Krause, User:Jmabel and User:Goethean agree, with varied levels of intensity, that it does not belong in the article. I'd appreciate correction if I have misunderstood the situation. Jkelly 20:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, you have described the situation accurately. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is a request for page protection in order? Is there some other way to resolve this? Jkelly 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think virtually every informed contributor to this article will say that Hogeye is wrong. Nevertheless, the correct response is: "Hogeye, do not violate our Misplaced Pages:No original research policy. If you can provide a Verifiability\verifiable Cite sources|source for a reputable scholar who has made this claim, then you may add it to the article."

On the same vein, however, I'd like to remind people that a long time ago — I mean, in the pre WHEELER days — the article included this paragraph:

Fascism in practice embodied both political and economic practices, and invites differnt comparisons. Writers who focus on the politically repressive policies of fascism feel that this definition also aptly describes communist countries, although the Soviet Union opposed sthe self-described fascist states of Italy and Germany during World War II (during that war both fascists and communists identified each other as ideological enemies) (see totalitarianism). Writers who focus on economic policies of state intervention in the market and the use of state apparatuses to briker conflicts between different classes make even groader comparisons, identifying fascism as one form of corporatism (an political response to the social crises brought on by the global depression in the 1930s and 1940s), of which not only Stalinist Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany, but Roosevelt's New Deal United States and Juan Peron's populism in Argentina, are examples.

I was largely responsible for the last sentence, although what I have pasted in reflects the edits of others. The point is this: among other things, fascism was an example of "corporatism" and there are examples of non-fascist corporatist regimes, including the New Deal. The value of point this out is, it moves us away from a normative description of fascist ideology, and a very specific history of Italian fascism, to a braoder understanding of the Great Depression context. Corporatism was the dominant response among industrial states. In some cases, corporatism took totalitarian form (Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin) and in others it took the form of populism (Velasco-Ibarra, Peron, and arguably Roosevelt) in a democratic context. I continue to believe the article should include this point and elaborate on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Slrubensetein's paragraph is sensible, particularly as corporatism is but one feature of fascism and claiming that, say, the New Deal or Swedish Social Democracy are examples of fascism is misleading to the point of absurdity. Homey 00:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I largely agree with you (although I would point out that the FDR administration supported the development of independent labor unions, hardly a corporatist position). But I don't doubt for a moment that some of the economic policies of fascism were simply products of the era, rather than the ideology: how could it not be so, all of these countries were reacting to the Great Depression. And even beyond economics, while I would not put this in the article, because it is simply my own view, I don't think it is a coincidence that the US and UK had two of their most charismatic leaders (Roosevelt and Churchill) in precisely the same era: I just figure we got off easy, in that we got non-fanatics. In an only slightly different world, we could have had Huey Long and Oswald Mosely. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see there is some support for "my" paragraph. Since I introduced it on the talk page, I would rather leave it to someone else (perhaps someone who has been more active more recently on this article) incorporate it into the article itself. Moreover, I have no doubt that the wording of the paragraph can be improved and hope Homey and Jmabel will try to improve it (e.g. make it clear that typologies cover a range of types and should not be taken to mean that different regimes were identical in every way). I know Wiarda and Malloy have edited volumes on this, but I do not have them. I used to have a book on corporatism, back from grad. school days, but am embarassed to say I cannot find it, so I hope others have reasonable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I added Slrubenstein's paragraph (shortened and edited), and finessed around the New Deal question by addressing it in the definition section (i.e. whether you take the New Deal to be fascism depends on whether you are looking at the economic or the political meaning.) Hogeye 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I also support SL's paragraph, particularly the last sentance. Sam Spade 23:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, that the New Deal is corporatist simply follows from the definition. "Crisis and Leviation" by Robert Higgs is one of many who write about this.

Corporatism "is a political system in which legislative power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups." That's the definition according to Misplaced Pages and other sources. Did the New Deal have industrial boards? Obviously. I don't understand why you have trouble applying a simple definition. I can only guess that nationalistic parochialism (US patriotism) is clouding your judgement. You're USAmerican, probably "liberal," aren't you, with the New Deal your sacred cow? Hogeye 17:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are a few of the "civic assemblies" aka corporations aka cartels aka govt/industry/labor boards from the New Deal:

AAA Agricultural Adjustment Administration - fixed prices, decreed production quotas, etc. in this "program designed to make food and fiber more expensive." (Higgs, "Crisis and Leviathan.)

NRA National Recovery Administration - pattered after the WWI-era WIB (War Industrial Board) and enabled by the NIRA, which "empowered the president to approve privately drafted 'codes of fair competition' or, lacking an acceptable privately tendered code, to impose one of his own design for every industry. The anti-trust laws were explicitly set aside.

FEAP, PWA, etc.

Can anyone read the definition and seriously argue that the NRA is not a perfect example of corporatism? Hogeye 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, I don't think you are getting Jmabel's point, which is not argumentative. As for your own points, the issue is not whether your argument is obvious or not, right or wrong. The issue is, we must comply with our policies, like Misplaced Pages:No original research. In your personal life you can look at a definition and deduce that the New Deal was corporatist and that may be a very logical deduction. But it cannot go into a Misplaced Pages article. Our (us editors) deductions do not go into articles. If on the other hand Higgs has explicitly made this argument, then you can add it (something like "According to economist Robert Higgs, blah blah blah FDR blah blah blah New Deal blah blah blah corporatism"), and provide the proper (verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If you look at my version of this, I am not saying there is no resemblance between the New Deal and corporatism, but that there are important differences. I haven't read your particular source, but I've read plenty on the topic, and if you've quoted him accurately, it sounds like Higgs has an oversimplified definition of corporatism. Corporatism is not mere cartelism. It generally harked back to medieval guilds for a model, and emphasized labor-management cooperation in a way that the New Deal simply did not. The New Deal encouraged workers to organize for themselves independently of management, even if in some cases it then tried to harmonize the interests of those worker and management organizations. Corporatism in fascist countries never, and I mean never, encouraged and only rarely even tolerated, independent labor organizing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, most of the political right at the time denounced the New Deal National Labor Relations Act as favoring unions over management. But I still think that discussions of FDR and corporatism do not belong on this page, but over at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the New Deal was a good example of corporatism, and perhaps social democracy, but not an especially good example of fascism due to the lack of political terror, extreme militarism, paramilitary parades and such. Of course if we can cite an "expert" who disagrees, everybodys concerns can be addressed. Sam Spade 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are no experts who would really say that the New Deal was fascism. There are right wing nuts and propagandists who make this claim, but it is deeply fringe. As to the question of whether or not the New Deal was *corporatist*, I do not know enough to say whether this was true (but, as Jmabel notes, it seems to me that it was a particularly pro-labor form of corporatism. Proper corporatism is basically supposed to involve crushing unions by advocating that labor and management, in fact, have common interests, and thus that unions aren't needed. The New Deal, by contrast, was the period of the greatest growth of the labor movement in American history. But I digress). What I do know is that there is no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist in an article about fascism. The place to discuss that would, I think, be the article on corporatism. john ] 16:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

John: "It seems to me that there are no experts who would really say that the New Deal was fascism. There are right wing nuts and propagandists who make this claim, but it is deeply fringe."

Hmmm. The people that agree with you (who?) are all experts, but the people who agree with me (Robert Higgs, Gabriel Kolko, Barton Bernstein, John Flynn, Kevin Carson, Murray Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo) are all right-wing nuts! Duh.

John: "As to the question of whether or not the New Deal was *corporatist*, I do not know enough to say whether this was true..."

Read the definition of "corporatism" and it's obvious.

John: "Proper corporatism is basically supposed to involve crushing unions by advocating that labor and management, in fact, have common interests."

The first part ("corporatism ... involves crushing unions) is false. There is absolutely nothing in the definition of corporatism regarding crushing unions.

John: "What I do know is that there is no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist in an article about fascism.."

There's no reason to discuss whether the New Deal was corporatist since it follows directly from the definition of corporatism. There is good reason to state the fact that the New Deal was corporatist, since corporatism is one of the five defining characteristics of fascism cited in the article. Note that the New Deal satisfies all five criteria in the definition of fascism. Since it's such a no-brainer, I'm thinking that nationalistic parochialism must be the reason for your resistence to the obvious. Hogeye 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, did you read my last comment? Because what you write immediately above, in response to John, seems to disregard what I wrote. I urge you to follow the links to the policy pages that are relevant here.

As for my own position — just to make clear, I believe that mentioning corporatism is important in order to place Fascism (narrowly defined, Mussolini) in a larger context; and I believe that mentioning the New Deal is important to make clear that not all corporatist states (and I acknowledge that there are different definitions of corporatism; my point is not to define corporatism so narrowly that the New Deal is or is not "clearly" corporatist, my point is to acknowledge that there are different forms of corporatism) were fascist. I think both of these points are important, and however they are expressed, I think they should be included in the article. Slrubenstein | ] 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki: The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Misplaced Pages's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

Note that a simple deduction from a definition (given in Wiki's own article) does not constitute original research. I don't need an expert citation to say a dog is a mammal, since it follows from the definition of mammal.

Slrubenstein: I believe that mentioning corporatism is important in order to place Fascism in a larger context...

More importantly, corporatism should be mentioned since it is one of the five defining characteristics of fascism (small f) given in the article.

Slrubenstein: Not all corporate states were fascist.

Right - we agree on that. But all fascist states are corporatist, by the definition given in the article. Hogeye 18:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I again find myself agreeing w Slrubenstein. Sam Spade 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just went over the text and replaced "some say", "it has been argued..." and other weasel terms with some specific names. I also removed all but one mention of the New Deal (there were three), and took out one of the many times Naziism was wikilinked. This should not be understood as my expressing the opinion that any discussion of U.S. economic policy belongs in this article, or that the sources I found are either reliable or the most notable proponents of their points-of-view. They are, at least, verifiable and and least somewhat referenced. I would like to encourage other editors to also remove any more original research, unreferenced material and over-wikifying. If it happens that this article stabilizes, I'll put in the time to turn these inline links into footnotes. Jkelly 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly, if I read what you wrote correctly, you seem to be saying that Watkins called the New Deal corporatist, and strongly suggesting that he said so without qualification. Do I understand you correctly? If so, could you provide a clear citation for that, because I'd like to verify it. I fully understand your reluctance to provide a full set of citations for your content while the article is about as stable as a tornado. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The inline external link to his website happens at the first mention of his name. Quote from his website-posted essay "...But definitely the New Deal was corporatist". It was the first site on Google that was from an edu domain. Jkelly 04:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy now. The current article makes clear that, using the economic definition of fascism, the New Deal definitely qualifies. Hogeye 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep the Table of Contents Near the Top

Please don't bury the main article's Table of Contents underneath several paragraphs of verbiage. New readers coming to this article should not have to dig through several paragraphs to get to the latest series of definitions. New readers coming to Misplaced Pages for the first time will be served better by seeing the Table of Contents come up at the top of the webpage the first time they get here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.27.12 (talk • contribs)

The lead (as with the entire article) is too long. Jkelly 19:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More work to be done

The article should lose another 20k. I'd suggest cutting the quotes section entirely (we have a pointer to Wikiquote), and to trim the Catholicism and Protestantism sections down to bare bones as a start (what the heck is "Clerical fascism"? I have to wonder if some agenda is being expressed here). A lot of the article remains unreferenced. The sections on Italian Fascism and Naziism could use a good cleaning and copyediting for flow. The international section is too much like an overgrown "See also", but I think it is vital and am somewhat at a loss as to how to improve it. If enough editors believe that what I have done is an improvement, we might want to consider archiving this Talk page and going over the article section by section. Jkelly 04:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Clerical fascism is the term used by scholars of fascism to talk about the religiously-based fascist movements in countries such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, etc. Perhaps a little less agressive trimming and a little more research on the topic would help your editing. I applaud your energy, but some of what you are simply tossing out is important material.--Cberlet 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch either section about Christianity (or any of the international material either). I maintain the Christianity sections should be agressively trimmed. We have an entire other article on Clerical fascism. See Misplaced Pages:Summary style. Can you point to something I actually cut that you feel is important? If, after examining the article, you feel that it represents less research than it previously did, there's no need to applaud my energy; this was an attempt to improve the article's referencing and to insert citations from scholars on the subject, not simply to make it fit the 32k limit. Jkelly 04:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand the intent, and it reads better, but a lot of nuance and complexity has been lost, and the work of Thayer Watkins is now highlighted although his work is not very influential in the field. The section on American support for fascism is gone, and Henry Wallace is now a footnote. But you did improve the article in many ways, so please don't take my comments as overly negative. And if folks (including myself) want to add stuff, we do need to provide cites.--Cberlet 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree about Watkins. If we can identify someone other than Watkins (and User:Hogeye) who argues that the New Deal was closely related to fascism, we should replace the reference to him with a more credible source. Here's the paragraph that you think shouldn't have been cut:

Prominent proponents of fascism in pre-WWII America included the publisher Seward Collins, whose periodical The American Review (1933-1937) featured essays by Collins and others that praised Mussolini and Hitler. The America First anti-war movement fought to keep the US neutral after Britain entered the war in 1939, but was not supportive of fascism. Father Charles E. Coughlin's Depression-era radio broadcasts extolled the virtues of fascism. Henry Wallace, wrote in 1944 during his term as vice president of the United States, "American fascism will not be really dangerous until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information, and those who stand for the K.K.K. type of demagoguery." . A discussion on the

It's a good paragraph, and I was perhaps overly hasty in cutting it, although it has never been obvious to me why so much of this article was devoted to discussing American politics. Nevertheless, there aren't any WP:CITE problems with it. Where do you think that this paragraph belongs? In the "Fascism as an international phonomenen" section, perhaps? Is there anything else that you would like to see changed back? Jkelly 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I don't think the New Deal has any serious role in the discussion of Fascism. We could equally look at post-war British and New Zealand corporatist-compromise politics through the lens of being possibly fascist! Indeed, Robert Paxton in his authoritative and simply excellent work on Fascism (The Anatomy of Fascism) draws the New Deal as being fundamentally different to Mussolini's corporatism. Either way, I agree that his article seriously needs to be focused inwards, though god-knows how this will ever be achieved without starting an edit war Hauser 03:09, 21 November 2005 (NZEST)

<----------There is a controversy over the issue of whether fascism is a right or left form, but the overwhelming majority of scholars place it on the political right. To keep rewriting this page to amplify a handful of right-wing and libertarian voices that are not considered influential in the field of fascist studies is to make this page POV. The minority view needs to be mentioned, but it should not be distorted to satisfy the relentless rewriting of reality by POV warriors.--Cberlet 19:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, your re-write of the lead has improved it a great deal. I'd like to ask you if you could provide the particular works associated with each author that the lead now mentions. I'd like to further suggest that the cleanup tag be removed. The statement by 198.177.27.11 that the "first paragraph is too verbose" does not seem to me to be accurate. Even if it was, I am unsure that would warrant the tag. I would say that the article, with my longish discussion of Watkins, over-represents a fringe view and is still in need of NPOV cleanup. Thoughts? Jkelly 20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can do that, I think, when I get to work in the morning. We have a library with 100's of books on fascism and the far right. I consulted the library to write the section that was moved to Fascism and ideology. I just want to double check. I can add the proper dates to make the references proper cites. We should also highlight the recent work by Paxton. Does anyone else find the complicated notes format an impediment to editing? Do folks care if we edit using standard plain text citation and biblio entires at the bottom of the page, and when the text matures, convert to WikiCites?--Cberlet 20:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism: fascism as 'right-wing'

Ever since WW II fascism has been almost exclusively been labelled 'right-wing'. Despite a majority of socalled historians supporting this vision this does not necessarily make it so. Left wingers have a very good reason to distance themselves from fascism as left wing ideology has much in common with fascism. Communism, socialism and fascism all advocate a degree of control by the state (fascism and communism are quite similar in this regard).

Hitler did not oppose Stalin because Stalin was a communist. Hitler frequently praised the revolutionary zeal of communists and ordered any communist be admitted to the Nazi party immediately). Hitler opposed Stalin and communism because he saw behind communism the 'demonic' figure of the Jew. Hitler opposing Stalin does not mean that Hitler is right wing because Stalin is left wing (false dichotomy).

Mussolini and Hitler both enacted massive public works projects not unlike Roosevelts 'New Deal'. One can hardly call Roosevelt right wing.

Both communism and fascism were violently expansionist, fascism saw war as an opportunity to cleanse the nation of it's weaker elements and communism advocated expansion so the workers of other nations could be freed from oppression. See for example communist aggression in Korea.

Both communism and Nazism used internal enemies to drum up support. The Nazis targeted Jews and Gypsies. The communists usually target those they see as 'upper class' or others who did not 'fit in', see for example Lenin's anti-kulak policies (Lenin advocated wiping them out).

But, some people argue, fascists and Nazis collaborated with the ruling conservative class. That is true. Hitler never made a secret of how he was going to acquire power after 1925. He was going to get into good standing with those who had the power (conservatives, monarchists, land owners). And once he had the power he removed the other groups from power. Factory owners who didn't play ball saw their property seized by the state. Hitler did not collaborate with the conservatives because of him liking their policies, he collaborated with them because they had the power he wanted.

Take this quote for example: True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?

It is not Hitler, but instead Karl Marx' comrade Friedrich Engels.

Or this quote: There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will.

(Hitler Quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940)

How about eugenics then, surely that is to be considered right-wing? During the Nazi era in Germany, eugenics prompted the sterilisation of several hundred thousand people then helped lead to antisemitic programmes of euthanasia and ultimately, of course, to the death camps. The association of eugenics with the Nazis is so strong that many people were surprised at the news several years ago that Sweden had sterilised around 60000 people (mostly women) between the 1930s and 1970s. Sweden, one of those well praised socialist welfare states of all countries continued their eugenics programme well into the 20th century, and only stopped it a generation ago. Again, eugenics does not seem to be exclusively right wing.

Liberal icon Oliver Wendel Holmes once opined this: "In order to prevent our being swamped with incompetents... society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." ...

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.Three generations of imbeciles are enough." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., (Buck v. Bell, 1927)

Hitler certainly would not have supported small government conservatism or even libertarianis. There are no small government left wing ideologies, and not without good reason. Leftists are control freaks who do not like people standing out.

PS: I did not edit the main article as that would be uncalled for at the moment. But I shall not let the leftist historian POV be accepted as the final truth.

Marcel de Vries, anti-idiotarian---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs)

Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research. Jkelly 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Just breezing through, and couldn't help but respond to this post. While it is true that fascism in both Italy and Germany (also in Spain) had a leftwing faction, this faction was crushed in Germany. In Italy, Mussolini arguably enacted many "socialist" reforms (of course, it is infinitely difficult to come to any agreement over the definition of socialism) -- he had been, of course, a socialist before the syndicalist split. But in Germany Hitler and the other high-ranking leaders of Nazism orchestrated the political assassination of the leaders of the brownshirts, the popular leftist tendency in National Socialism. In addition, while it is true that both fascism and Stalinism are totalitarian ideologies, many Marxists -- including both revolutionary communists and democratic socialists -- would contend that Stalin was neither a socialist nor a communist nor even a Marxist. He was, in the final analysis, a megalomaniacal dictator; many would call him a Russian nationalist before a "communist" or Marxist of any sort. Finally, a fundamental difference which you fail to miss between fascism and Marxism is the corporate nature of fascism. Hitler sought to form a corporate structure in which labor and industry would work hand in hand with government, the final arbiter of any disputes that might arise between those other two. Marxism, on the other hand, declares the arrival of a class-less society, with neither industrialists nor laborers and, eventually, not even government (the final stage of communism). Inherent in the corporatist model -- which, by the way, was also adopted by Juan Peron in Argentina and Getulio Vargas in Brazil, heroes among some leftist circles -- is accomodation of industry and capitalist interests, often (certainly in the case of Hitler) leading to the destruction of working-class aspirations. Thus, fascism, at least as practiced by Hitler (keeping in mind its blatant racism as well), was inherently reactionary (a return to Germany's teutonic past...). It's also important to remember that Hitler, unlike the contemporaneous Marxist movements, drew his support not from the proletariat but the petit bourgeois.

~Micah Landau, student

Innacurate portrayal of Hayek's views

'In contrast, some scholars, especially conservative economists, argue that fascism is a form of socialism or left-wing corporatism (von Mises, Flynn, von Hayek)'

This is wrong, Hayek goes out of his way to point out that the terms 'right wing' and 'left wing' are of little importance. Indded if anyhting he said that Fascism was a form of 'right wing corporatism' though he doesn't use that specific term.. The key point is that he identified it as a variant of Socialism. 81.110.202.57 17:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all true, but I object to your wording of 'right wing corporatism' rather than something like 'corporatism' 'national socialism', or 'right wing socialism'. Sam Spade 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it should read just plain "corporatism." I suspect all use of "left" and "right" as political terms. Hogeye 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Since Hayek viewed all forms of state intervention in the economy - in other words, anything short of laissez-faire - as socialism, it is quite logical that he would classify fascism as socialist. The problem with this view is that it uses a highly ideological (specifically, libertarian) and anti-socialist definition of socialism. Hayek's ideas belong in libertarianism-related articles, not here. Fascism only gets classified as a form of socialism if we use a definition of socialism that the socialists themselves do not use. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that what Hayek referred to in his work as "socialism" is actually "statist socialism." This is hardly a libertarian-only usage - most people use "socialism" when they mean "statist socialism." Anarcho-socialism is off most people's radar. Hayek makes perfect sense, given that substitution. And that isn't the only reason fascism gets classified with statist socialism. Mussolini had socialist ties, nazi stands for national socialist workers party, etc. Hogeye 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The term we should use to avoid all confusion is collectivist, I think only a madman would deny fascsism is that. Returning to Hayek's views, whether Fascism is nominally right or left is of no real import. (he himself regarded himself as left and progressive, despite his opinions being viewed by most of the left as those of a 'reactionary loser' ) What matters in politics is whether you believe in freedom or not. A left winger who believes in freedom is commonly known as a liberal, a right-winger who does so as a Conservative (since Disreali); a left-winger who believes in tyranny is a Socialist and a right-winger who does so is a Fascist. 81.110.202.57 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I see it (a picture is worth 1000 words):

Political ideology diagram, showing anarcho-socialism at the upper left and anarcho-capitalism at the upper right. The up-down dimension represents the extent of government; the left-right dimension represents the outward appearance (legal fiction) of property ownership. Hogeye 22:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism ?!? Jkelly 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a term used to describe a certain form of libertarianism. The problem here is that libertarians designed the Political ideology diagram so that Anarcho-capitalism was the only truly "free" political system. This char is interesting, but in fact only a tiny minrity of scholars accept the chart, or the libertarian analysis of fascism. The issue here is an attempt to portray a tiny minority viewpoint as having more weight than it deserves in the text.--Cberlet 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

CBerlet: "The problem here is that libertarians designed the Political ideology diagram so that Anarcho-capitalism was the only truly "free" political system."

Look again. If, by "free," you mean no state authority, then the whole top side is free. Anarcho-socialism, mutualism, and anarcho-capitalism. - all are free from state authority, but prefer different property systems. Hogeye 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Free from state authoritarianism and free to pursue individual wealth through unrestricted capitalism. Socialist "collectivism" is seen as restricting individual freedom. --Cberlet 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because it does. Anyway, interesting graph, but anrcho-Socailism is an idea that could only ever work in someone's head. In Civil War Spain Aragon and a large amount of the Catalan region were run by Left-Anarchists. They found out that it was impossible to impose Socialism and collectivisation without a co-ercive state. The just didn't call it a state. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm

Properly speaking, anyway, right-left is not a matter of your approach to property, but one of mood, looking back versus looking forward. It's high time the left-wing freedom lovers (liberals) and right-wing freedom lovers (conservatives) united against their enemies, Socialists from all their parties. 81.110.202.57 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

fascism really had no ideology

just lies to deceive people . This is taken from the italian wikipedia : http://it.wikipedia.org/Fascismo

L’ideologia del fascismo fu elaborata negli anni '20 da Sergio Panunzio e successivamente stilata in un articolo scritto da Giovanni Gentile durante il suo incarico di ministro dell’Istruzione e poi siglato da Mussolini, ma non venne mai veramente applicata, restando un documento privo di seguito

The ideology of fascism was written in the '20s by Sergio Panunzio but it was never applied in practice, it remained just a document . and , by the way , the neutrality of the italian page is not disputed.

IMHO fascism must be studied from an historical point of view , and not from an ideological one, as it' ideology was just a means for mussolini to maintain his power.

That may be true for capital "F" Fascism - Mussolini's regime - but not for small "f" fascism, which does refer to an ideology. Hogeye 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rodrigues

The following was—probably appropriately, it seems off topic—removed from the article:

Other economists, such as Lucia Rodrigues, use the word corporatism to mean specifically those states that use professional groups "as an instrument in the pursuit and legitimation of its policies".

but the (somewhat incomplete) citation was left, messing up the numbering of notes. I've removed it. In case anyone wants to put it in a different, more appropriate article, I figured they should be together.

1. "Corporatism, liberalism and the accounting profession in Portugal since 1755". Find articles.com. November 17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Our enemies are fascists!"

All groups try to smear their enemies by association with fascism. This behavior is extremely widespread and has in fact been observed right here on wikipedia numerous times. As such, I believe it should be mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this article. I also see it as absolutely necessary that the intro should carry a strong disclaimer explaining the fact that there is no universal agreement on the nature of fascism. The majority view - if it is to be mentioned at all - is that fascism represents the far-right. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Mihnea> "Cite works if you wish to support your argument; name-dropping" "is of little use."

But Mihnea, the relevant works of those guys are already cited in the notes, refs, and further reading sections. Hogeye 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. The fact remains, however, that they do not represent a "majority view"; indeed, part of my point is that we should shy away from declaring any "majority view", even the widely held opinion among historians and the general population that fascism is far-right. Looking for sources to support this view seems to me a little similar to looking for sources to support the view that, say, socialism is left-wing, or conservatism is right-wing. But I will look if you insist. I am also very suspicious of the possibility of misrepresenting the views held by the authors cited, particularly on such a contentious issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about claiming a majority view. Perhaps it needs to be rephrased. Something like "the prevailing academic view." Would that be more satisfactory? To the article's credit, it does say up front that "the exact definition of fascism is unclear and controversial." Hogeye 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

We would need a comprehensive survey of the views held by a great number of academics before we could decide which particular view is prevailing. I have not done any such survey, but my own personal experience has been that (a) fascism is most often seen as right-wing by the general population, and (b) academics generally stay away from politically loaded terms like "right-wing" and "left-wing". The definitions of right and left are themselves unclear and controversial, after all, so deciding whether fascism is right-wing is a bit like deciding whether a widget is a thingy. On that note, the debate around the right or left nature of fascism has been going on for years on the wiki and there is no possible way to end it other than saying "well, some scholars think this, other scholars think that; we really don't know". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Whose definition?

I propose the following rule of thumb in defining controversial ideologies:

The definition given by the creators and supporters of an ideology takes precedence.

It seems only logical to allow an ideological movement to define its own values and goals. Let the fascists define fascism, the liberals define liberalism, the communists define communism and so on. Other definitions should be presented, of course - and in great detail if necessary - but the "default" should be the self-definition used by the actual supporters of the ideology in question. As such, I believe we should rely most heavily on the works of undisputed fascists - most notably Mussolini - in defining fascism. What are your opinions on this? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case, absolutely not. Nearly all of the overt statements of fascist doctrine come from the early years. Many of them are rather idealistic and in no way represent what the fascists did in practice. To put it simply, fascism in power proved to be a largely different and considerably nastier beast than fascism in theory. Fascism in power was not an intellectually honest philosophy, and letting them "define" themselves means a whitewash. Yes, it is important to cite the early definitions from Italy, and we do, but in practice the word came to mean something else entirely. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that in practice the word means everything and nothing. I do see your point - my rule of thumb is rather inadequate when dealing with blatantly hypocritical movements. The only rational alternative I see to it, however, is my earlier proposal of giving no precedence to any definition and simply discussing them all while stressing the fact that the issue is controversial. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, do you disagree that the adherents of most political ideologies try to associate fascism with their enemies? There are a considerable number of essays on the internet alone by libertarians explaining why fascists were evil collectivists, socialists showing how fascism was tied to big business, atheists drawing attention to Catholic fascists, Catholics calling fascists godless, minorities accusing fascism of being majoritarian and majorities pointing out its disdain for democracy... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is actually a large group of academics who study fascism and neofascism. While they disagree on many things, over the past decade there has been an increasing consensus over some key issues. Fascism needs to be discussed as a set of related theories, a series of movements, and several nations ruled by fascism in state power. In an encyclopedia, it is the majority view of scholarship that is highlighted, The idea that the "definition given by the creators and supporters of an ideology takes precedence" defeates the entire idea of an encyclopedia.--Cberlet 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on principle with the idea that the majority of academics can say to a group of people "we know what you believe better than you know yourselves". If I designed a political ideology, I would certainly insist that I - and not academics or anyone else - get to decide what my own views are. I am the highest academic authority when it comes to the contents of my own mind.

But, again, I see how this rule of thumb can be problematic when facing a movement whose ideas are too vague or contradictory, so I won't insist on it any longer here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As for Kolko, a leftist, he was not a libertarian and he analyzed corporatism from a left critique of the New Deal as reformist. He is cited in small doses--and often out of context--by libertarians who like a few of his comments on corporatism. We already give far too much attention to the minority libertaraian view of fascism on this page. It is anecdotal at best.--Cberlet 14:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Kolko was not a libertarian, yet came to basically the same conclusions about the New Deal, makes it all that much more important to include. It demolishes ad-hom claims that the New Deal qua corporatism/fascism is only a libertarian thing.

In The Triumph of Conservatism, Kolko traces the origins of political capitalism in the “reforms” of the Progressive Era. Orthodox historians have always treated the Progressive period (roughly 1900–1916) as a time when free-market capitalism was becoming increasingly “monopolistic”; in reaction to this reign of monopoly and big business, so the story runs, altruistic intellectuals and far-seeing politicians turned to intervention by the government to reform and to regulate these evils. Kolko’s great work demonstrates that the reality was almost precisely the opposite of this myth. Despite the wave of mergers and trusts formed around the turn of the century, Kolko reveals, the forces of competition on the free market rapidly vitiated and dissolved these attempts at stabilizing and perpetuating the economic power of big business interests. It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market that big business turned, increasingly after the 1900s, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations of smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the right. Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko, almost uniquely in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the State and not as a result of free-market operations.

Thus, Kolko shows that, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism and culminating in Wilson’s New Freedom, in industry after industry, for example, insurance, banking, meat, exports and business generally, regulations that present-day rightists think of as “socialistic” were not only uniformly hailed, but conceived and brought about by big businessmen. This was a conscious effort to fasten upon the economy a cement of subsidy, stabilization, and monopoly privilege. A typical view was that of Andrew Carnegie; deeply concerned about competition in the steel industry, which neither the formation of U.S. Steel nor the famous “Gary Dinners” sponsored by that Morgan company could dampen, Carnegie declared in 1908 that “it always comes back to me that government control, and that alone, will properly solve the problem.” There is nothing alarming about government regulation per se, announced Carnegie, “capital is perfectly safe in the gas company, although it is under court control. So will all capital be, although under government control.”

The Progressive Party, Kolko shows, was basically a Morgan-created party to reelect Roosevelt and punish President Taft, who had been overzealous in prosecuting Morgan enterprises; the leftish social workers often unwittingly provided a demagogic veneer for a conservative-statist movement. Wilson’s New Freedom, culminating in the creation of the Federal Trade Commission, far from being considered dangerously socialistic by big business, was welcomed enthusiastically as putting their long-cherished program of support, privilege, and regulation of competition into effect (and Wilson’s war collectivism was welcomed even more exuberantly). Edward N. Hurley, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and formerly president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association, happily announced in late 1915, that the Federal Trade Commission was designed “to do for general business” what the ICC had been eagerly doing for the railroads and shippers, what the Federal Reserve was doing for the nation’s bankers, and what the Department of Agriculture was accomplishing for the farmers.

Hogeye 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the libertarian view seems to get a disproportionate amount of attention; it needs to be de-emphasized. On a related note, I am currently doing library research, sifting through the works of the authors cited to see exactly what their theses were. I am having a bit of trouble finding relevant passages - indeed, there is hardly any mention of right and left (academics tend to prefer working with concrete ideologies rather than such fluid categories). Could the editor who made the citation ("Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Fritzsche, Laqueur, Laclau, & Reich") help me out? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actual text cited on Fascism and ideology, which is the page that justifies the summaries on this page in this regard. I do hope that folks take the time to plow back through previous discussions to see that this very same discussion has been hashed out repeatedly--over and over--to the point of absurdity. A tiny selective portion of the work of Kolko on corporatism is cited on a libertarian website, and that is evidence of what? It merely proves my point.--Cberlet 19:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look over the text and perhaps try to write a summary that is a little more specific without being much longer. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that I did NOT include in this list a large number of liberal, progressive, and Marxist scholars of fascism who would scoff at the notion that fascism was not right wing.--Cberlet 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, some right-wing opinion-formers in the US nowdays are primarily concerned with the conflict between state power and individual economic freedom. They therefore wish to say that all countries/political systems which advocate a strong state role in the running of the economy are essentially similar whether they are traditionally defined as left-wing or right-wing. But in many countries the conflict between state power and individual freedom is not the main point of political division and never has been. The division may be based on rich v poor, religious differences, town v country, or whatever. There is relative agreement between left and right on the general extent to which the state should intervene in the economy, although of course many differences on the details.

I dont know enough about the New Deal to comment usefully on Roosevelt but centre-left governments in Western Europe both before and after WW2 took the inspiration for their experiments from socialism rather than from fascism. I still dont really understand why you dont believe this was the case with Roosevelt. Jameswilson 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism is not defined in terms of where the inspiration came from; it is defined in terms 1) glorification of state above the individual, 2) strong central government, 3) a strong executive, and 4) strong control over industry, labor, and the economy in general. The New Deal satisfies all four. Incidentally, Naziism was also inspired by socialism (National Socialist Workers' Party), but 'no one' claims that they weren't fascist. Hogeye 16:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that there have been some very large number of edits to the lead of this article in the last week, all of which are attempting to define what Fascism is, it really is a shame that we aren't allowed to reference any actual authorities on the subject, and must keep editing to what we, as editors, think fascism is. Seriously, there is a lot of work to be done on this article, and as long as editors continue to see themselves as the experts who should be defining this ideology, the article's lead is going to remain a POV mess. I would like to again encourage editors to avoid inserting their own ideas into the article, whether that be that fascism is mysteriously hard to define, or whether it is that any government with commerce laws is fascist. Any unsourced addition is an open invitation for everyone else's amateur opinion to get thrown into the article as well. Jkelly 17:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I added a few points, but it is a pretty good summary of the views of Payne, Eatwell, and Griffin.--Chip 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeyes 4-point defintion of fascist economics QUOTE - 1) glorification of state above the individual, 2) strong central government, 3) a strong executive, and 4) strong control over industry, labor, and the economy in general.UNQUOTE ....demonstrates the problem we have here exactly. He regards that as sufficient to make Roosevelt's policy fascist. I would argue that virtually all political/economic ideologies except for laissez-faire and anarchism agree on points 2/, 3/, and 4/.

Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, Stakeholder Capitalists, Socialists, Monarchists, Fascists, Communists, would all agree that 2/, 3/ and 4/ were both necessary and preferable to "pure" laissez-faire capitalism. And they have constructed their economic management policies accordingly - ("business is too important to be left to businessmen")

If one says that governments practising 2/, 3/ and 4/ are by definition fascist you end up with a definition of fascism which is so broad as to be useless. Only Republican/Conservative governments in English-speaking countries (and not even all of those) would escape the net.

Hogeye, having read up a bit on the New Deal, I am not denying for a moment that there was an important element of state interventionism, etc, in the New Deal. Just that if you want to prove to us the minority interpretation of "New Deal=fascism" you have to go beyond that, beyond merely demonstrating that it wasnt laissez-faire.

For example, what happened in America as regards the role of trade unions, government reprentatives sitting on the board of companies, economic planning, who benefited from the public works projects, how far was corporatism actually implemented within private companies, etc, etc, and show a parallel, if not with Germany, at least with Italy.

Most importantly, if Roosevelt and Hitler/Mussolini both did X was that just something that all non-laissez-faire governments of the time tended to do, or was X really something that can genuinely be considered uniquely fascist? Jameswilson 23:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, all good points, but I added some stuff and did some rewrites:

A general definition of fascism is a political philosophy that 1) glorifies the nation above the individual by 2) emphasizing the need for a strong central government 3) led by a strong leader not bound by a democratic process; and which 4) exerts absolute state control over industry, labor, and the economy, while 5) calling for the heroic rebirth of the nation, which is 6) narrowly defined in exclusionary ethnic, racial, or cultural terms.

Better?--Cberlet 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, that was a total bogus edit. Please discuss any further changes you want to make. Reverting back to emphasize a minority POV that has been criticized here and which other editors have tried to balance is not fair nor appropriate.--Cberlet 03:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

5 and 6 fall under #1. In 3, "not bound by a democratic process" seems both too restrictive and practically indeterminable. Are you saying, e.g. that Mussolini wasn't fascist since there was still a parliament, or Hitler wasn't until he called off an election in 1934? Could not a government be fascist yet keep the outward forms of "democratic process?" James' objection is that the 4-pt definition is too broad, and could apply to most states. I agree that it is broad, but that may be a good thing. Fascism does not have a clear threshold - it is a relative term. This may be a better way to look at it than defining it so strictly that only Mussolini can possibly be deemed fascist. That seems a cop-out to me - it strikes me as POV to define it so as to guarantee that <name your favorite state> cannot possibly be fascist. Is it really so bad to define it such that one could say that e.g. Roosevelt was somewhat fascist and Mussolini was very fascist? Is is so terrible to admit that most states are, to some degree, fascist? So I would answer 'yes - if Roosevelt and Hitler/Mussolini both did X, where 3 or all 4 of the criteria on the 4-point list can be substituted for X, then Roosevelt/Hitler/Mussolini are fascist (to at least some degree.) You make some good points, fellow editors. I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time, but hopefully I've given you something to think about. Hogeye 04:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I recall, Payne's list is close to twenty items long, sorted into categories. While I don't suggest that we put that into the lead, it seems reasonable to me to pick a simple one line definition from a leading scholar (perhaps Griffin, but I have no strong opinion) for the lead, and leave the expansion upon it to the "Definition" section. That section still needs help, as it is still over-representing a minority view. Jkelly 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Paxton and Eatwell have definitions, but they are also long. Griffin has a really short one, but it is a bit idiosyncratic (although I use it often). Finding a short quote that is also accurate and accepted widely as scholarly is a real problem.  :-) And Hogeye, we have been discussing the idea that fascism is leftist or that the New Deal is fascist for a very long time on this page -- it is a minority viewpoint given its due on Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about the general defintion of "fascism" here. The New Deal question is a done deal - I'm happy with the Thayer Watkins reference pointing out that, using the economic interpretation of "fascism," the New Deal was fascist. Hogeye 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I just found out that Ronald Reagan that the New Deal was fascist: ""Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'" RJII 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Reagan said this in a Time interview in 1976 — long after he had emerged as the leader of the new right, and around the time he was campaigning against Carter. Of course, Reagan was a New Dealer in his youth. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye, with all due resepect, I urge you to read our Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research policies closely. I think that many of the criticisms of your edits stem from other contributors feeling you are not complying with one of these two policies. If you read the policies closely, and comply with them, you will be much more successful in your edits. As to the general discussion here, I agree in principle with Mihnea Tudoreanu with a qualification: how self-identified Fascists who succeded in establishing fascist regimes defined fascism should lead the article. However, I also agree with Jmabel and Jkelly's comments. In order both to comply with our own NPOV policy, and simply to be a good encyclopedia, we must place those definitions in their historical context (drawing, as Jkelly says, from verifiable sources. We should include how social scientists and historians have interpreted those self-identified definitions, and how social scientists and historians define Fascism as well. The crucial issue here is not whose definition we use, but that all definitions are ascribed to someone, and contextualized (i.e. make it clear to readers that x is a definition that y provided when he was trying to win an election against the socialists; a is a definition that be proposed when comparing five different political regimes at that same time in history). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Recreation of Economic fascism

OK, Hogeye and RJII, you are now pushing a POV and recreating the page Economic fascism which was already deleted once, so is this constructive and collaborative editing? I do not think so. Your POV is a minority POV that is already over-represented on this page. The general definition of fascism being offered by you folks has been objected to. You simply ignore this? The theory of economic fascism you are proposing is a tiny minority view. Italian fascism was economic fascism, German Nazism was racial fascism coupled to economic fascism. Being bullies may feel good, but it is not an appropriate part of Wiki culture.--Cberlet 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Only point #4 has to do with economic fascism. Why don't you stop name-calling and discuss it rationally? Hogeye 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hogeye did not have anything to do with creating the Economic fascism article. It was my own doing. I deserve all the credit. And, why are you calling me a bully? What have I done to you? Who have I bullied? RJII 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A mixed economy is not economic fascism. Economic fascism is just part of a mixed economy ..the centrally-planned part. The article defines it as an "economic system," anyway. There is nothing POV about the article. So what if the definition is from libertarian sources? That doesn't make the article POV. RJII 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is POV. Only (some) libertarians believe in this definition. Thus, it is part of the libertarian point of view on the world. And your suggestion that all mixed economies carry an element of fascism is absurd at worst and part of a fringe belief at best. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV. Whoever uses this term defines this term. If libertarians use it then that's where we find the definition. There is nothing POV about that. RJII 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the article, if it is to exist at all, should begin with the statement: "Economic fascism is a concept devised by some libertarians to refer to..." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, who cares? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

RJII I am unsure if that was a serious statement, or sarcasm. If the first, I suggest that you review WP:NPOV, specifically the section on minority views. If it was the latter, why don't you expand your article such that it is more than a personal essay? Jkelly 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Because it can never grow beyond a personal essay or a description of the views held by some libertarians (not all agree) on fascism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. RJII 05:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone object to moving this section to Talk:Economic fascism? Jkelly 05:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. In addition, I would like to note that I have nominated Economic fascism for deletion. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk about fascism. RJII 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So now fascism means disagreeing with RJII (or is this another example of your abovie cited sarcasm)? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I'm using the term loosely in the context of censorship. RJII 15:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, then, RJII, you are seriously misunderstanding Misplaced Pages. You are not being censored for three reasons (1) no one has stopped you from expressing your views on this talk page; as far as I can tell, no one has deleted anything you wrote on this talk page; (2) we are not supposed to express our own views in the article itself (see our NPOV and NOR policies); (3) it is the essence of Misplaced Pages that this is a work in progress. This means that people are constantly working on articles, and this inevitably involves deleting or rewriting what other people say. If you cannot accept this situation, you do not belong at Misplaced Pages. If you do accept this situation, you must understand that no one owns an article, and that the articles we include, and their contents, are always subject to a process of negotiation and change. That is not called "censorship," that is called "a collaborative effort." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's called "irony" and it was meant semi tounge-in-cheek. And, it has nothing to do with you. Don't ever preach to me rubenstein. Now, if I want to talk about "fascism" seriously, you're the first person that comes to mind. You launched a bogus arbitration case against me awhile back to harrass me and prevent progress in the capitalism article. You wanted the article kept as it was because it was your way, regardless of what a fumbling incoherent mess you made it. But fortunately, your case against me fell on its face because it was based on lies from you. As a result, I was able to be an instrumental and crucial force in transforming that article to a drastically higher level of quality beyond all former recognition. It's no longer recognizeable from the disaster you were trying to protect. From my experiences and observations of you, I'm convinced that you do not have the capacity to be a responsible Misplaced Pages editor or scholar of any kind. So, blow it out your ***.

General Definition of Fascism

This goal has eluded scholars of fascism for over 70 years. I do not think that the uncited opinions of a handful of Wiki editors can solve this problem. I have removed the text pending a more extensive discussion here.--Cberlet 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this problem in Misplaced Pages articles before. The editors can't seem to figure out what the term means, so they say something in the article like "there is no clear definition of X." Well, there is. It's just that some or all of the editors don't know what it is. In this kind of situation, the editors should consult the most broadly available popular reference works (dictionaries, encyclopedias) and come up with a definition (or two). Then, state the most popular definition(s) and label it as just that --the "common definition." RJII 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we have already iplemented User:RJII's suggestion in the "Defining" section, and that an entire article on this subject, Fascism and ideology also exists. The point at hand is how to summarize this in the lead of the article, which is the specific thing that is inspiring endless revisions. People who want more detail than we provide in the lead will find it in this article's subsection, or at Fascism and ideology. If briefly quoting a single authority for the lead is too problematic, perhaps we can consult some high school political science textbook. Jkelly 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's the OneLook list of definitions. Encarta and Merriam-Webster's (#1 and #3) look pretty good. Both defs look a lot like our current 4-point def. The Compact definition (#2) is a little too compact. Hogeye 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Hogeye, that should be very helpful! I'll take a closer look when I have a chance. Jkelly 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My bad. This dropped off my radar. I will go look now. Jkelly 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have the Merriam-Webster one in the article! The Encarta one is pretty reasonable. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary one is both short and somewhat lacking in nuance . If the article wasn't already twice the size it should be I would have liked to include the real OED one. It seems reasonable to me to include the Encarta one, clearly stating that a further discussion of definition happens later (and has an entire other article as well). I would like User:Cberlet's input, however. After this issue is settled, I would like to propose some more drastic changes, and am therefore looking forward to having the definition matter concluded. Jkelly 05:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Scholarship on fascism is complicated, and all attempts to reduce this minefiled of conflicting opinions result in short definitions that are lacking in one way or another. I was under the impression that Misplaced Pages frowned on using definitions from outside encyclopedias and dictionaries. I would remove all such definitions from this page, and write a short paragraph that summarized the majority view of scholars, with careful language leaving some items a bit vague. Then the text explains the differing views with preference to the majority views. Of course we have done that about ten times, and each time libertarian and right-wing editors arrive and start an edit war about fascism being left wing, or the New Deal being fascist. Sometimes editors on the left arrive and insert oversimplified claims that George Bush is a fascist. I think we should read this page, read Fascism and ideology and write our own short definition or make a list of core aspects. But, then, the entire page Fascism and ideology is the result of attempts to document the majority view, the libertarian view, and the oversimplified left view.--Cberlet 16:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree, but spell out my position more fully in the preceeding section, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles