| Revision as of 19:49, 5 February 2003 view source172 (talk | contribs)24,875 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:19, 2 January 2025 view source Simonm223 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,699 edits WP:NOTFORUMTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-protected|reason=per proposal at Village Pump - ]|small=yes}} | |||
| I removed the section indicating that the German and Italian Fascists were actually socialists in disguise. The Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" a) to capitalize on the popularity of the word "socialism" - the Social Democrats had recently become very popular in Germany at the time; and b) to annoy their Communist opponents. The Nazis had little sympathy for Marx. And Mussolini did a complete 180 on his opinions of Marxism (despite his former status as the editor of a socialist newspaper), as the quoted text I added from his 1932 "What Is Fascism?" paper indicates.. -kwertii | |||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Warning Fascism left-wing}} | |||
| {{Talk header|search=no}} | |||
| {{controversial}} | |||
| {{Round in circles|search=yes}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=y|vital=yes|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Italy|importance=high|attention=}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Top}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Human rights |importance=High}} | |||
| {{On this day|date1=23 March 2004|oldid1=3116637|date2=23 March 2005|oldid2=16334950}} | |||
| {{Top 25 report|Oct 20 2024 (8th)}} | |||
| {{section sizes}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader={{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize=100K | |||
| |counter=55 | |||
| |minthreadsleft=5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive=2 | |||
| |algo=old(30d) | |||
| |archive=Talk:Fascism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{US English|flag=off}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Talk:Fascism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Fascism/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Annual readership|days=90}} | |||
| :This is a MUCH more complex issue than you imply, and your claims here are fringing on the absurd. (a) socialism was not defined strictly by Marx (b) common social-democrat type policies were very much part of Hitler's program, e.g. building the autobahns, instituting various types of workfare programs, which aren't that easy to distinguish from the ones Roosevelt introduced (c) Hitler overtly stated that 'the economy is based on principles of human nature that we cannot change' in rejecting Marxism early after his ascent to power, but that rejection of communism and radical socialism didn't prevent him from instituting (b). | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| :Beyond that, it's very clear that Mussolini emulated Lenin in many respects, and that Hitler and Stalin and Franco emulated Mussolini in others. Saddam Hussein also emulated Stalin conciously. IT's foolish to therefore imply that this questionable "left-right" axis really matters in comparing these dictators. "socialism" was no more than a tactic to any of them. But it *was* a tactic, and it was effective at buying support from the lower middle class in Hitler's case. Despising Social Democrats as people and as a party is not the same as emulating their policies and instituting programs that at the time were certainly part of 'socialism'. | |||
| == Is this article under 1RR == | |||
| ---- | |||
| The governement of Horthy was not fascist! | |||
| Fascism was installed by Szálasi government for a short period of time! | |||
| http://historicaltextarchive.com/horthy/ | |||
| ---- | |||
| ==== Questions that need to be answered by the article ==== | |||
| What governments were self-described fascist? Only Mussolini, or did others lay claim? | |||
| There's ] for this article saying that the ] applies. This was enacted in 2009 after ]. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like ] or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both {{u|EdJohnston}} and {{u|Daniel Case}} have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? ] (] / ]) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What are some other specific elements of fascism (especially something specific to fascism and not, say, Nazism, or is Nazism encompassed by fascism)?? The Roman-style stiff-arm salute is engagingly specific. | |||
| :At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. ] ]] 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :: Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. ] 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <i>Text transferred from article:</i> | |||
| :::Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. ] (] / ]) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Meant to ping {{u|KrakatoaKatie}}, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? ] (] / ]) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. <span style="color: #9932CC">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, re-issuing the edit notice under CTOP seems wise if someone can check that the topic falls in the correct area. ] (]) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing== | |||
| Any discussion regarding Fascism suffers the risk of being undermitted to political or ideological considerations and concepts which might underline with more evidence certain aspects of the fenomenon rather than other ones, so anything might regard this relatively recent epoque, immediately gets a dramatic temperature. | |||
| As Just Step Sideways ]: | |||
| {{blockquote|This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.}} | |||
| And as {{u|Objective3000}} notes, we already have ] which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.{{pb}}As such I propose that we enact an indefinite ] on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) ]'']'' 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. ] (]) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Italian Fascism was however for its country (and in its country) a deeply and widely appreciated social system in which on one side there were quite thrilling applications of individual controls and deprivations of freedom (even if this is what happened by other means in all Europe at that time); on the other side, during Fascism a poor country as Italy was, was built as a strong nation, finally unified below the same flag (still, after the Unity of 1860 there was no national feeling and no common language), economically brought up to self-sufficiency after decades of emigration abroad. | |||
| :: If editors are incompetent enough to miss the ''bloody great red message'' when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. ] 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The growth of italian economical indexes (industrial development, average income, productivity, ...) coincided with an international political crisis that saw on unconciliable positions Italy and S.D.N. (Societé des Nations, first international global association from which UNO was born after WWII); this resulted in an "embargo" to italian goods (defense of commerce with Italy). | |||
| Italy, or should we say Fascism, answered with "Autarchia", a campaign meant to demonstrate that the nation, still not rich, would have been able to sufficiently survive without foreign economical or commercial contribution (this applied to German goods too). | |||
| So, as a curiosity, really everything was made or produced in Italy: coffee, the national liquid, had been substituted with "ciofega" (made with national cereals), wool was produced in ], there was an italian benzine, and every kind of product or component had to be completely italian. In case of unavailable goods, the State supported the creation of industries or other instruments to make it. | |||
| The expected weakening effect of embargo is still to be clearly verified, indeed. Italians were able to find petrol too in their territory, just before the beginning of WWII, and their economy was effectively self-sufficient. More, the effort to provide any particular product remaining inside the borders, gave this nation a productive system settled up in little time but still central in today's economy. | |||
| For the first time, besides, Italians were able to consider themselves a People with its proper identity, able to claim respect for their nationality. | |||
| I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough. | |||
| Reformations and innovations were brought to everyday's life in an unexpectable manner. Poorness was fought with the first social interventions and suburbs were created and houses built for homeless and poors, actually living in sort of favelas. | |||
| If we shut it down with something like {{collapse top|please see the notice at the top of this page}} the same comment over and over | |||
| Health system was invented, as well as pension national fund for retired workers, unmarried mothers were assisted and instruction was imposed as compulsory, new families were assisted with marriage bonuses and career preferences and tax reductions. | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} seems more likely to be effective. ] ] 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Unhealthy parts of territory were saned ("Bonifiche") and workers were incentivated to better distribute themselves for a better use of land. | |||
| Small rural ownership (Piccola Proprieta' Contadina) was helped to develop in order to share private property among workers; bigger proprietors (latifondisti) were legally fought so to beat down great concentrations of estate richness, while poor farmers were financed and had specially low rental fees or received a permanent use of farms. | |||
| Laws were organised in codes ("Codici") that still are a fundamental basis for latin right. | |||
| :I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Misplaced Pages's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to ''feel'' like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming. | |||
| As an ethic political system, Fascism indicated a scheme of individual values in which merit and dignity represented, together with proudness of national origin (jus soli) and perhaps mixed into this, goals to achieve, better that economical or status (career, even in state administration) success. This is not meant as an achieved result, but it was the mentality. | |||
| :A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. ] (]) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The contuinity with own history, and the progress with no denial of past, was the reason of referring to latin system for icons and slogans. | |||
| ::I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. ]'']'' 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is absolutely the point, agreed. ] ] 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Poor record in war== | |||
| Rural culture was strictly respected as a part of national origin and feeling, in spite of previously rigid rules that separated, in fact and by law, poors and "signori". | |||
| I recently a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation. | |||
| Foreign culture was considered obviously destructive on a political side, but Fascism always tolerated cultural relationship among nations, and inside gave protection to hundreds of leftist intellectuals. Exceptions became famous, as for Gramsci, founder of Italian Communist Party (PCI). Artists were protected until possible, even if the worse enemies of the system. | |||
| For the first time, and with little comparisons, a State organised the production of artworks in most of the fields, from painting to sculpture, from writing to music; a relevant effort was made to provide italy of movie prodution spaces, places, schools and finances. | |||
| The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like {{tq|Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms}}(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic ''more'' weight rather than less. | |||
| About religion, an act is notably to be considered: the 1929's "Concordato" between Italian State and the Holy See (Vatican - Roman Catholic Curch). | |||
| By this act it was finally agreed that State and Church would have been definitely separated, in order to have a "free cult in free state" (libera Chiesa in libero Stato), each one with its competence, without interferences; The Popes' temporal power was ended after some 15 centuries of domain on central Italy. | |||
| The Fascism (at its origins a socialist movement) protected Catholic Church ensuring its concrete freedom of cult. | |||
| Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: {{tq|Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.}}) ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Fascism mostly coincides with the figure of the "Duce" (leader, from latin "Dux"), its leader Benito Mussolini, and did not survive at his death. | |||
| ---- | |||
| The latter parts of this article ]] appear startlingly pro-fascist. They appear to be written by 151.24.189.xxx, apparently a non-native English speaker (perhaps Italian?). They are certainly not NPOV! -- ] | |||
| : Yikes! Where is Fellini (or is it Phellini?) when you need him? I agree that there are serious NPOV issues here. For one thing, many Italians opposed fascism. Moreover, any account of the appeal of fascism in the 1930s has to provide a lot more context. There was indeed a global economic crisis and people in different countries were struggling to find ways out. I have no doubt that fascism benefited some people, but any discussion of Italian fascism has to explore who it did and didn't benefit, and explore its limitations. Was fascism just about getting the trains to run on time, or was it also about bombing Ethiopia? Should this new section be removed to the talk section until it is rewritten? SR | |||
| ------- | |||
| I recall reading several works arguing that Nazism was not a form of fascism, due to its emphasis on race, which was largely absent from other forms of fascism (such as the Italian or Spanish). Also, some mention should be made of French fascism (and I mean the native French fascist movement, not the Vichy government), since although it was unsuccessful I believe it is theoretically important. Some discussion is needed of exactly what fascism is -- the present article just defines it as the political systeme existing under Mussolini, and then says the system was exported to Spain and Nazi Germany -- it needs rather to explain what the features of fascism are (such as nationalism, anti-democratic emphasis on leadership, corporatism). Finally, some mention of fascist philosophers such as Gentile, and also Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a precursor in part of fascism (although the political, as opposed to literary, activity of D'Annunzio is an absolutely fascinating topic in himself, on which unfortunately way too information seems to be available in English). -- ] | |||
| :I have also reverted this content as ]. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in , because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in ]. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. ] (]) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You must have meant "way too little information" about D'Annunizio. Anarchist weirdo Hakim Bey has written a freely-associative and sympathetic portrayal of D'Annunzio's post-war antics in Fiume. The book is called ''TAZ'' and is put out by some anarchist publisher. He's a character that fascinates the whole political spectrum. | |||
| :Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. ] (]) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning. | |||
| Commentary removed from article and placed here: | |||
| ::That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? ] (]) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. ] (]) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}Thanks for the comments, everyone. | |||
| ''The following text is apparently written from a pro-Fascist point of view, and needs re-editing for NPOV:'': | |||
| @Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think: | |||
| {{quote frame| | |||
| '' - sorry, my father was one of those soldiers condemned to death by RSI, so you can imagine I can allow myself no identification at all with fascism. | |||
| {{fake heading|sub=3|Poor record in war}} | |||
| As anyone who suffered from violence, I am not able to consider sponsoring a political position, whatever it be. | |||
| Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) ] wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco) | |||
| However, facts are facts, as written in my premise, and understanding this site as more objective rather than ideological, <u>with no sympathy to fascism</u> I felt I had to add some points for a better comprehension of the fenomenon, and I did it, I dared. | |||
| }} | |||
| I'm not depositary of any truth, so please take it as a simple adding of single facts, but please, do not call me pro-fascist. THX | |||
| Greetings, Gianfranco, Rome - '' | |||
| ---- | |||
| added ] and restored removed paragraph on Concordato, for a better comprehension of evolution of fascism. Still, for a deeper vision in NPOV, it seems to me as if some other elements should be added (maybe in separate article) about the "governmental" fascism, and the practical as well as ideological peculiar aspects of this system, not capitalistic, yet not marxist. | |||
| ---- | |||
| I judge a political movement by what it says, not what it does. Like Nazism, Italian fascism borrowed elements of its language, style, policies and even following from the left, particularly unsurprising given Mussolini's background. There's nothing intrinsically socialist in the 1919 manifesto, and the movement's "anticlericalism" came to little. | |||
| This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled {{tq|differently}}, but I tried a different summary. | |||
| I don't see how the Concordat is so illustrative of Fascism's political evolution: pragmatism had indeed been one of the movement's strengths, and now the Papacy was in on the act. I'm amused by the notion of fascism as a beacon of social consensus: how did this miracle of national goodwill come about? And Italy entered WW2 on <b>10</b> June 1940. <b>Don't</b> change content when it's right and you're <b>wrong</b>. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| I think that facts might be at least as relevant as words, as I never heard of Hitler describing himself for what he is commonly considered having effectively been. If I were to judge by his self-complimenting words only, I could be a nazi, which I actually are not because I use to judge by facts. So I obviously take care of what has been said and then try to see whether facts correspond to promises, as long as the difference is clear to me. Part of what in the manifesto has been practiced only after the ruin of Fascism, as correctly added to that article, but beautiful words always have an undeniable fascinating effect on masses (Mussolini's public figure was made of that, sometimes beyond a least sense of measure), and I only meant that an effect these words effectively had on lower classes too. Then we can discuss (in another place) whether this was a good thing or not, if fascism was good or bad. In another place. | |||
| Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary: | |||
| ''There's nothing intrinsically socialist in the 1919 manifesto'' | |||
| :If you judge by words, as you said, you haven't read it. If you have a mature point of view, as you have, you already know what a manifesto is made of, and this is for any manifesto, so for this one too. You know (''absit iniuria verbis''), they say in Usa poor people too are obese; we say instead, in Italy socialists too are rich... | |||
| :Seriously, we should investigate what socialist party was, as the original leading committee of fascism came in part from there. Now, these are marxist words, in manifesto, we could perhaps conclude that socialists were not marxists (and it has been said, too). | |||
| {{quote frame| | |||
| I am amused, on my side, that a ''regime'' can stay up without any consensus for two decades, and that March on Rome was made only by a dozen of rich intellectuals. This is not what has been seen, at least. We could discuss about what is a general consensus perhaps, and which are the real ways it is obtained and kept, and with which ethical style, but the presence of proletarians in March on Rome, however would you judge it, is not a dream of movie directors. Common people taking active part in Fascism's events, whatever might have been the reasons that moved them, have been seen and filmed, so it's quite a ''miracle'' that I'm learning today they were ten fascists against a whole nation. If you consider that no consensus was collected at all in popular classes, I very attentively am here to learn. I am old enough for having met all the components of the society I am part of, but still I am young enough to read something that might enlarge my narrow views. | |||
| In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter) | |||
| Mussolini is generally described as a little serious figure for his extreme propaganda; but why then he would have used it if not to preserve consensus? | |||
| }} | |||
| And if propaganda could not grant him the effect of creating or preserving consensus, why everywhere they say that one of his main activities was propaganda? | |||
| Which are, tell me please, the classes in which it is wise to suppose propaganda could get a better attention and from which develop support? | |||
| @Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.<br/> | |||
| Statement about the general consensus on a general conflict among classes is obviously not mine, I'll try to find the source (would say it was Mack Smith but I'm not so sure, i read it many years ago) and put it in a clearer form asap. | |||
| --] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk. | |||
| As a late answer to a previous talk, a huge part of common people too considered fascism positively because of what you can see above (removed from article). Be careful: again this is not a judgement of mine, my point of view is different and my only benefit from fascism was my father condamned to death, but a relevant part of lower classes (yes, "relevant part" is a relative concept, but it's better than "a lot of people") thought they were receiving a benefit and this is what I am reporting. To be even more personalistic, just for a while, my family also saw ancient land properties disappear due to the sharing of land (we were so-called latifondisti and fascism fought this part of society). Anyway I live in these times, and looking beyond my shoulder I can see that little farmers, at least, were glad we lost our land. | |||
| :One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, '']'', chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion: {{talkquote|National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (''Grosslebensraum'') of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.}} | |||
| :] (]) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are. | |||
| ::Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war. | |||
| ::Best to leave it out. ] (]) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as: {{tq|Historian ] wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.}} I think this is particularly valuable since the other sources didn't focus on economics; I would probably insert it either before or after the second mention of Morgan in the main paragraph. | |||
| In a neutral point of view (God only knows if this can be achieved on this matter) one describes what happened, the better detailedly he can, starting from the consideration that judgements have to be left to individual consciences (or to tribunals when needed) and that the purpose of making an encyclopedia is better accomplished when there isn't an "official" point of view or an ''ipse dixit'', but a collection of meaningful informations is built in order to allow anyone to develop his own judgement. | |||
| :::@TFD: those are true statements, but I'm not sure how they're relevant to the content, which is sourced to multiple experts. Eco might be an exception, but at minimum he is still a well-known commentator on fascism. In addition, the weight is already minimal given that it's only included in the Criticism section and is presented as attributed statements (if a "Criticism of Fascism" sub-article existed, that could perhaps be an argument to move it there, but summary style suggests the content should be built up here first, through additions like this one). I have also noted above that there is considerably more detail involved than simply analyzing a population of one, so perhaps the description of Devereaux could be expanded to make this clearer. I'm thinking of starting with {{tq|Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes...}} and/or adding {{tq|When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under certain definitions, such as the ] regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their effectiveness in war was also very poor.}} | |||
| If I personally had an emotion on this topic, I already happened to roughly explain it would not be a pro-fascist emotion. But those times are gone (whether they are near or far is a relative sensation) and I think that one day they should be considered, if possible, with the same cool approach we use today in discussing about, let's say, Etruscans. | |||
| {{cot|Updated version including the changes described above}} | |||
| Or, it could be, this idea belongs to Voltaire's times, and maybe I'm outdated. | |||
| {{quote frame| | |||
| {{fake heading|sub=3|Poor record in war}} | |||
| Historians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux <u>evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes, and</u> described a general trend for <u>them</u> to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing. <u>When analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under various definitions, such as the ] regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their records in war were also very poor.(Devereaux)</u> Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) <u>Historian ] wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.(Mazower)</u> ] wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)<br/> | |||
| In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{cob}} | |||
| :::--] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? ] (]) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Does Devereaux use examples from outside WWII in their work? ] (]) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which {{tq|most everyone agrees on}} are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; while they were both destroyed in WWII, he discusses the failures and fall of each of them separately (as do most scholars, I think). He describes {{tq|the next most ‘clearly fascist’ government}} as Spain under Franco, and describes the rest as being much more subject to debate, but summarizes them as e.g. {{tq|the candidates for fascist or near-fascist regimes that have been militarily successful are few.}} A full list of the governments that he explicitly mentions are Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron, Imperial Japan, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Hussein, and Russia under Putin. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Far from so-called revisionism, that showed out some ideological contents, there should be a cooler scientific way to look at fascism by facts, or at least it should be fetched. Or this would become another "political" (=ideological) debate of which we have enough already. | |||
| :::::::I was kind of wondering if he would include Argentina either under Peron or under the ] on that list. ] (]) 13:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Weight says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Given that hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been written about fascism, that limits us to major views that are routinely mentioned in overviews of fascism. | |||
| June 10 is the date of public speech from famous balcony. Determination and diplomat communications are supposed having been in mentioned date. Honestly I am '''ashamed''' of my mistake. | |||
| ::::Eco was not a fascism scholar and his "Ur-Fascism" has not gained any acceptance among fascism scholars. Bret Devereaux is also not a fascism expert and his not submitted his views to academic scrutiny. | |||
| ::::Every major writer alive during fascism's zenith had something to say about it. We cannot mention them all, but can only pick what is significant according to reliable sources. | |||
| ::::Incidentally, what is the evidence that "military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself." Hitler ran on a campaign of "work, freedom and bread." Starting a world war wasn't one of his campaign promises. ] (]) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I am aware of how ] works. :-) As I agreed above, one can make a weight argument that this should be spun off into a criticism article. If you insist (and others don't weigh in), that's the approach I'll take; the large subsections have a lot of specific details that could be spun off as well. That said, in this case I would put more emphasis on weight within the Criticism section, which is poorly developed (e.g. until my recent edits, the genocides were barely mentioned at all) and I would consider this to be an appropriate amount of weight relative to the total amount of criticism that should be but isn't (yet) included in our article. | |||
| Concordat is not illustrative of other than the end of papacy's temporal power, that I would dare suppose is a relevant fact in history. Also, it contains the acceptance by papacy of a role which does not consent any more political activity (theoretically). And In Misplaced Pages too there are already many pages about Vatican in politics. I would not say that only Mussolini could have been able of doing it, and in fact I didn't say that. As far as I am concerned, Gramsci too, just to say someone that could have been at power instead of fascists, could have obtained the same or even a better result. But pictures portraited the Pope with Mussolini and that's the fact, so we cannot investigate what ''could'' have happened, because this would be ideological and not scientific. If after this point we can go a little further, we could also stop a minute to see if Concordato could mean something with reference to fascism. I had recalled that some authors say that first fascism was friendly with everybody and then turned to compliment real important classes only. Well, Concordato could be one of the moments in which this turning became more clearly evident. As an example of such (never denied) pragmatism, it is a point that could be noted. | |||
| :::::Eco is at minimum a significant viewpoint; he is already cited in this article, and comprehensively so at ]. I would consider Devereaux to have expertise in the public communication of history, but the content would still stand if he was removed, and some of the information could also be sourced to others. Morgan, of course, is the author of a Routledge textbook on fascism. Certainly "every major writer alive during fascism's zenith" isn't the right comparison, since while WWII was still in progress they didn't have much of an established military record that could be discussed. | |||
| :::::The centrality of military effectiveness (or at least the appearance of effectiveness) is currently only being presented as part of the attributed argument. On reflection, it will probably always be possible to choose a definition of fascism such that the statement doesn't apply. That said, Morgan discusses this extensively. As an example, from the conclusion: {{tq|The Fascist regime, self-evidently, ‘failed’ against its own chosen measurement of ‘success’, which was war. Fascism’s immediate legacy was, then, military defeat and the foreign occupation of Italy, which was bound to discredit both the system of rule and the aggressive nationalism which Fascism embodied.}} Likewise there is the description from the above content that support for the Italian government had an important dependence on their ability to win the war. Another example is from Paxton, ''The Anatomy of Fascism'': {{tq|Fascist regimes could not survive without the active acquisition of new territory...and they deliberately chose aggressive war to achieve it}} (which logically includes victory as a requirement). | |||
| :::::While Hitler didn't promise to start a ''world'' war, he certainly ]. His ideology is well-studied and encompasses a lot more than his specific campaign promises. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You have not provided an WEIGHT based arguments. People do not have weight, opinions do, henve the reference to "all significant viewpoints" not "all significant commentators. | |||
| ::::::Eco's "Ur Fascism" article for exampled has received great attention in popular writing, although AFAIK, none in academic writing. But the opinions expresssed in that article do not mention fascism and war. | |||
| ::::::Also, while Morgan wrote a chapter about Fascism's failure in war, you need to establishe the prominence of his observation in reliable sources. Do brief articles about fascism routinely mention it? | |||
| ::::::Also, Morgan was writing about Fascism in Italy. It's OR to apply it to anything else. And if his opinions are mentioned, you need to mention him. | |||
| ::::::Anyway, the best approach to ensuring weight is to identify the main literature and summarize what they say. We should not include things just because we find them interesting. It would leave an incorrect impression on readers on how fascism is perceived by experts. ] (]) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have provided a weight-based argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous response. I have also observed that the argument is discussed in multiple sources, which is inherently a weight-based argument that the cumulative weight of these sources is sufficient for inclusion in the article. (Also, people have weight in the sense that weight originates from ''sources'', and if the author is an expert that will greatly increase the weight of the source.) Furthermore, I will also restate that a lot of the content could be rewritten to a form that presents ''facts'' rather than opinions, in which case arguments about opinions wouldn't apply even though the content would technically have even more weight rather than less. | |||
| Monarchists have their own party, in these days they are celebrating because we are allowing the son of last king to enter Italy, abolishing Savoias' familiar exile. They had in the past some relationships with MSI, but it's a long time we don't hear about them for political matters; they are not commonly considered having joined Alleanza nazionale. | |||
| :::::::With regards to Eco, ''Ur-Fascism'' is cited in Google Scholar. Looking within the citing articles provides multiple cases where other scholars use him as an authoritative source on fascism: etc. Your additional claim that his article {{tq|do not mention fascism and war}} is incorrect, and the relevant section is quoted in the above content. | |||
| :::::::In response to your other new objection: part of the content describing Morgan already makes it clear that it refers to Italy. The other part cited to Morgan is cited to another source as well, but his position in that sentence could be replaced by a different source; alternatively, please feel free to propose a version that you think improves the attribution. I have also just provided another source (one that ]) on a very similar point that clearly discusses fascism in general. | |||
| :::::::As I said, I will acknowledge that your weight argument can be supported as well, so I will plan to spin this off into a subarticle instead as I mentioned above. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::OK, I've now created the new ] article, as per my last comment. I also added quite a bit of additional content (and I'm sure even more could be added), so please feel free to review and make further edits. Corresponding edits to the main article are in progress. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Still we miss a deeper look at fascist peculiarity of not being neither a capitalistic system nor a marxist one. | |||
| ::::::::::You did not have consensus for this. ] (]) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :::::::::::I'm confused, but current discussion is at ]. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Despite its diverse origins, Fascism was not a consensus ideology, as exhibited in its militant sloganeering and strong-arm tactics: consensus should not be confused with support, which doubtless existed, though not, it seems, sufficiently to tempt the regime to risk an election under anything resembling the pre-1923 system: much of the veneer of consensus derives from the suppression of opposition rather than a rallying to the fascist banner. | |||
| ::::::::::::Well I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone said this was a good idea for you to make this article. ] (]) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I might be misunderstanding you? But generally speaking, ], and especially not for something that was proposed on talk with ]... ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| @Slatersteven and Trakking: I have no objection to retaining the status quo pending discussion, of course. However, please remember that ] I would appreciate knowing any specific objections you might have so they can be addressed.<br/> | |||
| With regards to Trakking's edit summary: to be clear, the "additions" are a single sentence listing the sections of the new Criticism article, and the "major removals" are a summarization of the existing content to distill out the central points, with additional details being moved to the subarticle. This is a normal procedure in accordance with ]. I also did a cleanup at the same time, and it turns out that a lot of the content (in the status quo version) could be shortened or removed since it's either not criticism, extraneous detail, or can be written in many fewer words.<br/> | |||
| I appreciate both of your edits on the Criticism article. I will take a closer look later, but as some preliminary thoughts: @Slatersteven, the paragraphs that you removed are directly based on the long-standing content in the main article. I could see it being argued either way, but if you want to object to their categorization as "Criticism of fascism", you should probably make that argument here instead. @Trakking, you've made suggestions for content a couple times now but without actually providing sources. Could you please provide suggestions for what sources you're recommending the content could be based on? ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == 2024-11 gallery == | |||
| I see no indication in the article of fascist rule having been imposed by a handful of intellectuals, as you suggest it implies: as the movements's response to the 1920 occupation shows, however, its ideological base was not in the working class, which had hardly embraced fascism when last invited to express an opinion. Once in power, the regime was able to extend its political influence through society; but acquiescent participation should not be equated with positive backing. | |||
| A potential gallery for the FAQ: Nazis sitting on the far right of the German parliament circa 1930 | |||
| The question of fascist borrowings from Marxism is frankly a non-starter. The Italian socialist movement's own origins are as disparate as Fascism's, ranging through syndicalism, mainstream social democracy and Marxism: while some leaders continued to take their theoretical cue from Marx even after the 1921 split, however, the party remained a diffuse collection of ideological currents. | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-10549, Berlin, Eröffnung des Reichstages.jpg | |||
| File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-11035, Berlin, Reichstagseröffnung durch Karl Herold.jpg | |||
| File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-13801, Berlin, Reichstag, Eröffnung.jpg | |||
| </gallery> ] (]) 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Too bad ideology isn't determined by seating arrangements. ] (]) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| But it wasn't the PSI's Marxists who followed Mussolini into Fascism, and again there is nothing in the movement's initial pronouncements to suggest any echo of ideological affinity: progressive capital taxation is common to elements of US Progressivism, British Labourism and other non-Marxist or even non-socialist movements: Britain's Liberals supported nationalisation of the coal industry in 1919 and created much of the welfare state. Bismarck pioneered German welfare provision while prohibiting (however ineffectually) the SPD. | |||
| ::Please remember ]. ] (]) 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do realize Misplaced Pages is not a forum. But I don't see the point in adding these images. It seems like he is just trying to deceive people. ] (]) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see any indication of deception here. ] (]) 18:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While ideology is not determined by seating arrangement, seating arrangement is determined by ideologies in European parliaments. Parties chose among themselves where to sit and that means they sit closest to the other parties they are most likely to cooperate with. Generally but not always this will reflect their relative position in the political spectrum. | |||
| ::::This 1924 plan of the Baden-Wurttemburg legislature for example shows the parties sitting from left to right: Communist, Social Democratic, liberal, Nazi affiliate, national liberal, Christian Democratic and conservative. I saw a 1930s plan of the Reichstag that had the Nazi grouping seated inside the Conservative grouping. | |||
| ::::I don't see though how the picture helps and it's not clear who is a Nazi in the photo. ] (]) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::They're the ones on the right. Kidding. I agree, I don't see any swastikas or any other nazi symbols, and the image quality makes it more or less impossible to identify individuals. ] ] 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I don't think an article is at all the place to discuss whether a historical phenomenon is good or bad, though one's interpretation will inevitably influence the points selected to convey the key characteristics. These issues can of course be raised in a talk page where they may hopefully feed back into the article text after discussion. | |||
| This is a very important discussion; if you want you can contribute. ] (]) 04:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Though elements of the old PDIUM ended up in the AN through their connection with the MSI, I've removed monarchists from the AN's constiuents as those who so joined it are already covered by the MSI. | |||
| PS. What happened to your father? I trust that the sentence wasn't executed. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| The sentence, issued by a military tribunal of RSI (for alleged antifascism, added to general prevision for officers and soldiers who refused to serve in RSI), was executed, as many others were. As a LAST note about personal matters (I might realise now that this personalistic recall was somehow unpolite, so will everybody please accept my sincere regrets), he was not an antifascist, nor he was a fascist, but simply an artillery officer of the kingdom, who continued serving the Crown in his uniform until he could.<br> | |||
| I trust we are used to deal with respectively different kinds of people, with respectively different manners.<br> | |||
| Best regards | |||
| - - | |||
| After an interesting search on Google for "Fascism consensus" , I found that some debate is increasing about the theme. | |||
| First link (read in cached copy), is an interesting work for this talk page. | |||
| You might also wish to read what a partisan association has on his website: - Sorry, it is in italian, but I think they will not be suspected of pro-fascism. In italian too, an interesting interview with Alberto De Bernardi , an historian that has a an engagement in similar organisations, but still a notable scientific correctness. | |||
| - - | |||
| Some monarchists passed to MSI, that's true. It happened, for more recent cases, in the 1970s. Since then, it is supposed we have assisted to monarchic party gradual disappearance, mainly due to the advanced age of members. The few young members are currently running on their own (I wouldn't swear they still use the same name, but I have read something very recently). We'll hear more soon, I suppose, when the son of last king will finally be in Italy. | |||
| Besides, it would not be completely correct to say that all MSI was translated into AN. To be precise MSI-Fiamma Tricolore is the name of a different party which leader is Pino Rauti, historical leader of the extremer minority inside Almirante's MSI, and collects those who didn't go in AN. MSI-FT 3 or 4 days ago elected a new political leader. It has some deputies and maybe it's sensibly nearer to MSI "tradition" than AN. | |||
| ---- | |||
| Very sorry to hear about your father. It was not at all impolite of you to raise his exerience. | |||
| We have been talking slightly at cross-purposes here: the better translation of the Italian <i>consenso</i> would in this case be "consent" rather than the more universal "consensus", which implies agreement among all concerned (in this case, society as a whole) on a minimum body of policy reduced to its least controversial elements. The latter rendition does not, I think you will agree, describe Fascism's programme or actions in government. | |||
| But again, I think "consent" too must be distinguished from the acquiescence which is most citizens' response (because most of us are, for better or worse, on the whole law-abiding except in exceptional circumstances) to the withdrawal of rights, including the right to organised public political opposition. | |||
| The www.romacivica.net/anpiroma site which you cite indeed concedes Fascism an "apex of popular consent", but limits this to the period 1936-40, between the conquest of Ethiopia with its promise of opportunities for overseas settlement, and the declaration of war in 1940 with its deep unpopularity among the many Italians who saw Britain and France as more appropriate allies and viewed Nazi Germany with distaste. | |||
| The rallying to the regime which occurred in 1936 (in the face of international sanctions, however ineffectual) is nothing unique: Nazism similarly reached its peak of popularity after the victories of June 1940, and less authoritarian governments have enjoyed spectacular comebacks under similar circumstances, as in Britain following the 1982 Falklands war. | |||
| War is, however, not only to most of us undesirable, but also particularly unreliable as a device for national solidarity, as the military developments of 1941-43 show. For all the regime's emotional patriotic songs and domestic displays of enthusiasm for the Axis, the Italian army which had recovered so formidably in 1918 from the disasters of the previous autumn proved itself less than wholehearted in its execution of the Fascist design. | |||
| Flagwaving support for the government in times of national crisis or triumph is nothing unique to Fascist Italy or to authoritarian regimes: the question of consent for the exercise of power by a particular political movement or coalition needs, however, to be viewed in the longer term, and to be separated from participation in public structures or expression of loyalty to the state with the government at its head. | |||
| - - | |||
| The monarchists who stayed out of the 1972 pact with the MSI are now called the Alleanza Monarchica following a succession of name changes. I wasn't aware that the MSI-Fiamma had enjoyed electoral success, and shall add it to the article. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hitler a socialist? I don't know where to begin where that's wrong. | |||
| I'd recommend the work of Ian Keershaw to shed light on this debate. While I am a historian, I've been busy lately, so the best I can do now is to side with the contributors opposing that revisionist interpretation. | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 23:19, 2 January 2025
| Skip to table of contents |
 |
Fascism is a right-wing ideology. The lede of the article says that "Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement". This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Misplaced Pages community, based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one. This has been discussed numerous times. Please see this FAQ and read the talk page archives.Please do not request that "right-wing" be changed to "left-wing"; your request will be denied, and you may be blocked from editing if you persist in doing so. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fascism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | 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. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Fascism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Fascism at the Reference desk. |
 | This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is this article under 1RR
There's an edit notice for this article saying that the one-revert rule applies. This was enacted in 2009 after this discussion. Current administrative practice is that 1RR can be applied by the community via discussion at a place like WP:AN or by admins who are empowered by community-imposed general sanctions or ArbCom-imposed contentious topics. I don't think any of those apply here, and both EdJohnston and Daniel Case have suggested this current restriction is not enforceable. Should we remove the edit notice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- At this point in the world, and especially given the specific nature of the recent disruption (not just from one user), AMPOL could apply. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Instead of not messing with it, could we get an uninvolved admin to take over the restriction explicitly under AP CT? We'd use the standard edit notice template, add a talk page notice, and log it at AELOG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Aye, it might be worth not messing with it for a couple of weeks. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Meant to ping KrakatoaKatie, the admin who initially imposed 1RR. Care to make this an AE action? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. Katie 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, re-issuing the edit notice under CTOP seems wise if someone can check that the topic falls in the correct area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with lifting it or with someone else taking it over under CT. It probably needs the latter, imo. Katie 02:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Instant removal of posts arguing that Fascism is either not right wing/far right/or is left wing
As Just Step Sideways commented above:
This is extremely tiresome and I suggest we simply come up with a boilerplate response and speedy close all future threads of this nature.
And as Objective3000 notes, we already have a massive page notice which is only "missable" if one chooses not to see, or read, it.
As such I propose that we enact an indefinite WP:Moratorium on such posts to this page, and that in future any more such posts be simply removed without comment by any editor (perhaps "in good standing" is necessary, I don't know). It would be at the discretion of admins to block the editor for disruption, but the important thing, editorially, is that they will no no longer consume (read: waste) editors' time or energy refuting them, since it has already been refuted in the page notice. (The notice itself can be amended as necessary.) SerialNumber54129 18:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- We have this problem in a few articles since Nazism stands for Nationalsozialismus. But as a certain mustachioed wallpaper hanger said in the 20s: "Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists." I’m good with most anything that can reduce this time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- If editors are incompetent enough to miss the bloody great red message when they post, there's a CIR problem anyway, regardless of what nonsense they've read and believed (a second CIR problem) on social media. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I obviously agree we should do something, but removing the posts might not be clear enough. If we shut it down with something like
| please see the notice at the top of this page |
|---|
| the same comment over and over |
seems more likely to be effective. Just Step Sideways 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- I really like this idea of collapsing these tedious comments with a ref to the FAQ. Misplaced Pages's inner workings can be opaque even to many extended confirmed editors, and even in non-controversial areas where it may be easier to assume good faith with regard to WP's mysteries. Simply removing posts without comment is likely to feel like censorship at worst, and unexpected rudeness at best, to editors who are new to this talk page. Ceasing discussion while pointing to the FAQ would hopefully give a reasonable explanation to many editors who are willing to assume good faith. I'm also uncomfortable simply deleting comments for this reason: As we know, consensus on WP can theoretically change and result in changes to the article. While I don't think the "far right (wing)" consensus is likely to change in the foreseeable future, something as drastic as deletion of dissenting comments would preclude even the theoretical possibility of a new consensus forming.
- A couple more things: Would it be possible to move the big red message to the very tippy top of the page? There are a lot of headers here, and on my laptop I do indeed have to scroll a ways to see it. Also, I happened to notice today that when checking this talk page on my phone, I have to click a button to see the page headers at all, and again scroll quite a ways through the many headers to find that big red message. All of which is to say that a newcomer to this talk page, acting in good faith and even with general knowledge of WP's ways, may well enter talk page discussion understandably unaware of the big red message's existence. CAVincent (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — Czello 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. SerialNumber54129 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- That is absolutely the point, agreed. Just Step Sideways 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's a minor distraction whether we collapse or delete comments; the important thing is that their authors find them starved of oxygen from the get-go. SerialNumber54129 13:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree completely re: collapsing rather than deleting comments. Also I've moved the red warning per your suggestion. — Czello 08:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Poor record in war
I recently added a description of arguments for the failures of fascist governments to achieve success in wartime. It was reverted, but no policy-based objection was presented, so I've restored the content but I'm also starting a section here for further evaluation.
The content is sourced to Philip Morgan, Umberto Eco, etc, so I think it's fairly clear that there's enough weight for inclusion. Also, while I decided to put it in the Criticism section, the sourcing is clearly sufficient to frame it as a factual description instead: something like Fascism failed when evaluated on its own terms
(ref Morgan2004a), etc. So that's a valid alternative, but one that would give the topic more weight rather than less.
Perhaps I missed some dissenting sources when I was researching this topic, or perhaps I could have put a greater emphasis on the attribution, etc; please feel free to edit the content accordingly (of course, I will not be reverting again today due to 1RR). However, the reasoning given for the objection - basically, that the fascists achieved initial success and then only lost due to how strong their enemies were - appears to be entirely OR that isn't supported by the sources. (In fact, it's directly contradicted by one of them, an expert SPS from a historian: Starting a war in which you will be outnumbered, ganged up on, outproduced and then smashed flat: that is being bad at war.
) Sunrise (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have also reverted this content as WP:EDITORIALIZING. I don't agree with Trakking's rationale in their edit summary, because the content you're seeking to add is broadly correct, but that is beside the point. This content is not encyclopedic in WP:TONE. I'm sure there is a way to summarize these sources that is encyclopedic, but we need to make sure that the article doesn't come across as persuasive writing. Generalrelative (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's as simple as saying: historians A, B, and C argue that fascism failed on its own terms. Note that while Eco's essay is a classic, he's speaking from personal experience rather than as a subject-matter expert in the strict sense –– so I think we should handle that source differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for the clarification, although I have three objections. Firstly, pointing out the fact that the Axis powers lost World War II does not constitute a "criticism" against fascism. Secondly, the phrase "poor record in war" is weird since the statistic is simply 0-1. Thirdly, the Axis powers did seem indomitable up until 1943 when the tide was turning.
- That being said, Eco's comment is still quite interesting. How about you incorporate it into some more adequate section of the article—and, as Generalrelative advised you, express it in a more scholarly manner? Trakking (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to workshop copy at article talk too. From the discussion I'm seeing it looks like a good addition to the article could be hammered out that could achieve consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
@Generalrelative: Personally, I strongly disagree that the tone is non-encyclopedic, rather than simply reflecting a factual record that is inherently unflattering to fascism. The parts that can be interpreted as persuasive, in my view, are just following the arguments presented in the sources. That said, I've rewritten it in a purely attributed form, while removing the direct factual statements for which attribution would imply false balance or otherwise undermine their validity. Please let me know what you think:
Poor record in warHistorians Philip Morgan and Bret Devereaux wrote that by losing in World War Two, fascism failed to meet its own standards for success.(Morgan, Devereaux) Devereaux described a general trend for fascist regimes to do poorly in war, despite military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself.(Devereaux) He wrote that of the two unambiguously fascist historical regimes, both were destroyed in wars they started, with Nazi Germany losing its war "as thoroughly and completely as it is possible to lose".(Devereaux) Similarly, he described Fascist Italy as only achieving military successes in colonial wars that were won at great cost and with severe repercussions for Italy’s international standing.(Devereaux) Morgan wrote that when fascism "failed the test that it had set for itself" by being unable to win in WWII, this was a major factor in the collapse in support for the Italian regime.(Morgan a,b) Umberto Eco wrote that fascist rhetoric undermines its own war effort because enemies are described as both "too strong and too weak", leading to governments which are "condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy."(Eco)
This version removes pretty much everything that's not directly included in attributed arguments. The subheading remains as "Poor record in war" since it's a summary of what the criticism is. I'm not really clear on how you think Eco should be handled differently
, but I tried a different summary.
Subsequently, I would also prefer to include the statement comparing non-democracies to democracies, which would probably be a separate paragraph. However, I would consider it to require being presented as factual (only two sources are included here, but they also refer to multiple others). Arguably, this part should be excluded since it doesn't refer to fascism specifically (except by implication, being included in non-democracies). I would argue that it's clearly relevant to the topic, but it can also be left out if necessary:
In general, non-democracies are less likely to win wars than democracies.(Choi, Reiter) This has been attributed to factors such as poor use of resources when compared to democracies, less effective cooperation with allies, and reduced initiative and inferior leadership in the military.(Choi, Reiter)
@Trakking: Those objections are about the merits of the criticism itself, rather than about how to reflect the sources. Since they aren't included in the sources, they aren't relevant to the article. That said, the sources do answer those arguments either explicitly or implicitly. For example: per the sources, the fact that they lost the war is relevant because they defined their ideology around their ability to succeed in war. Similarly, Devereaux goes into detail about the history of many different governments (a much deeper analysis than 0-1). The third point is addressed more obliquely, but I think the response would be that the final outcome is what matters, especially given that the advanced democracies were largely unprepared for the war when it began.
--Sunrise (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sunrise: I think this text does a great job of addressing my concerns. Thanks for taking the time to work this out on Talk.
- One more source you may want to look at for this would be Mark Mazower, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century, chapter 5: "Hitler's New Order, 1938-45". From the conclusion:
National Socialism started out claiming to be creating a New Order in Europe, but as racial ideology prevailed over economic rationality, the extreme violence implicit in this project became clearer. 'Ginger-bread and whippings' was how Goebbels summed up their policy, but there was not enough of the former and too much of the latter. The 'Great Living Space (Grosslebensraum) of the European family of nations' promised life to the Germans, an uncertain and precarious existence to most Europeans and extermination to the Jews. 'If Europe can't exist without us,' wrote Goebbels in his pro-European phase, 'neither can we survive without Europe.' This turned out to be true. The Germans threw away their chance to dominate the continent after 1940 and their defeat led to their own catastrophe.
- Generalrelative (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Per weight, articles should not provide opinions that have not received recognition in the literature. Without commentary by experts, readers cannot evaluate how plausible these arguments are.
- Certainy a population of one (lost war) doesn't allow for statistical analysis. And fascists did not come to power by promising war.
- Best to leave it out. TFD (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as:
Historian Mark Mazower wrote that while the Nazis focused extensively on military production, and fascist rhetoric emphasized efficiency and coordination in the economy, they were unable to succeed on these factors and the German war economy was ultimately outperformed by both the capitalists and the communists.
I think this is particularly valuable since the other sources didn't focus on economics; I would probably insert it either before or after the second mention of Morgan in the main paragraph. - @TFD: those are true statements, but I'm not sure how they're relevant to the content, which is sourced to multiple experts. Eco might be an exception, but at minimum he is still a well-known commentator on fascism. In addition, the weight is already minimal given that it's only included in the Criticism section and is presented as attributed statements (if a "Criticism of Fascism" sub-article existed, that could perhaps be an argument to move it there, but summary style suggests the content should be built up here first, through additions like this one). I have also noted above that there is considerably more detail involved than simply analyzing a population of one, so perhaps the description of Devereaux could be expanded to make this clearer. I'm thinking of starting with
Devereaux evaluated a series of fascist and near-fascist historical regimes...
and/or addingWhen analyzing other regimes that have been considered fascist under certain definitions, such as the Ba'athist regimes of Syria and Iraq, he found that their effectiveness in war was also very poor.
- @Generalrelative: thanks for the comments! I looked through the source you suggested. From my brief review, I didn't see anything in Chapter 5 that directly addressed effectiveness in war, but I found a section of Chapter 4 that works well for this (last paragraph of the "Fascist Capitalism" section). Following the same approach as above, it could perhaps be summarized as:
| Updated version including the changes described above |
|---|
Poor record in war |
- --Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Does Devereaux use examples from outside WWII in their work? Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- So it lost WW2, were they the only fascist nations? Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- --Sunrise (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which
most everyone agrees on
are Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany; while they were both destroyed in WWII, he discusses the failures and fall of each of them separately (as do most scholars, I think). He describesthe next most ‘clearly fascist’ government
as Spain under Franco, and describes the rest as being much more subject to debate, but summarizes them as e.g.the candidates for fascist or near-fascist regimes that have been militarily successful are few.
A full list of the governments that he explicitly mentions are Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron, Imperial Japan, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Hussein, and Russia under Putin. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)- I was kind of wondering if he would include Argentina either under Peron or under the Junta on that list. Simonm223 (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The governments being analyzed are divided based on how broadly accepted the fascist classification is. He says that the governments which
- Weight says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Given that hundreds of thousands of books and articles have been written about fascism, that limits us to major views that are routinely mentioned in overviews of fascism.
- Eco was not a fascism scholar and his "Ur-Fascism" has not gained any acceptance among fascism scholars. Bret Devereaux is also not a fascism expert and his not submitted his views to academic scrutiny.
- Every major writer alive during fascism's zenith had something to say about it. We cannot mention them all, but can only pick what is significant according to reliable sources.
- Incidentally, what is the evidence that "military effectiveness being a central principle that fascism uses to justify itself." Hitler ran on a campaign of "work, freedom and bread." Starting a world war wasn't one of his campaign promises. TFD (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am aware of how WP:WEIGHT works. :-) As I agreed above, one can make a weight argument that this should be spun off into a criticism article. If you insist (and others don't weigh in), that's the approach I'll take; the large subsections have a lot of specific details that could be spun off as well. That said, in this case I would put more emphasis on weight within the Criticism section, which is poorly developed (e.g. until my recent edits, the genocides were barely mentioned at all) and I would consider this to be an appropriate amount of weight relative to the total amount of criticism that should be but isn't (yet) included in our article.
- Eco is at minimum a significant viewpoint; he is already cited in this article, and comprehensively so at Definitions of fascism. I would consider Devereaux to have expertise in the public communication of history, but the content would still stand if he was removed, and some of the information could also be sourced to others. Morgan, of course, is the author of a Routledge textbook on fascism. Certainly "every major writer alive during fascism's zenith" isn't the right comparison, since while WWII was still in progress they didn't have much of an established military record that could be discussed.
- The centrality of military effectiveness (or at least the appearance of effectiveness) is currently only being presented as part of the attributed argument. On reflection, it will probably always be possible to choose a definition of fascism such that the statement doesn't apply. That said, Morgan discusses this extensively. As an example, from the conclusion:
The Fascist regime, self-evidently, ‘failed’ against its own chosen measurement of ‘success’, which was war. Fascism’s immediate legacy was, then, military defeat and the foreign occupation of Italy, which was bound to discredit both the system of rule and the aggressive nationalism which Fascism embodied.
Likewise there is the description from the above content that support for the Italian government had an important dependence on their ability to win the war. Another example is from Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism:Fascist regimes could not survive without the active acquisition of new territory...and they deliberately chose aggressive war to achieve it
(which logically includes victory as a requirement). - While Hitler didn't promise to start a world war, he certainly planned for Germany to expand dramatically. His ideology is well-studied and encompasses a lot more than his specific campaign promises. Sunrise (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You have not provided an WEIGHT based arguments. People do not have weight, opinions do, henve the reference to "all significant viewpoints" not "all significant commentators.
- Eco's "Ur Fascism" article for exampled has received great attention in popular writing, although AFAIK, none in academic writing. But the opinions expresssed in that article do not mention fascism and war.
- Also, while Morgan wrote a chapter about Fascism's failure in war, you need to establishe the prominence of his observation in reliable sources. Do brief articles about fascism routinely mention it?
- Also, Morgan was writing about Fascism in Italy. It's OR to apply it to anything else. And if his opinions are mentioned, you need to mention him.
- Anyway, the best approach to ensuring weight is to identify the main literature and summarize what they say. We should not include things just because we find them interesting. It would leave an incorrect impression on readers on how fascism is perceived by experts. TFD (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have provided a weight-based argument in the last sentence of the first paragraph of my previous response. I have also observed that the argument is discussed in multiple sources, which is inherently a weight-based argument that the cumulative weight of these sources is sufficient for inclusion in the article. (Also, people have weight in the sense that weight originates from sources, and if the author is an expert that will greatly increase the weight of the source.) Furthermore, I will also restate that a lot of the content could be rewritten to a form that presents facts rather than opinions, in which case arguments about opinions wouldn't apply even though the content would technically have even more weight rather than less.
- With regards to Eco, Ur-Fascism is cited 627 times in Google Scholar. Looking within the citing articles provides multiple cases where other scholars use him as an authoritative source on fascism: etc. Your additional claim that his article
do not mention fascism and war
is incorrect, and the relevant section is quoted in the above content. - In response to your other new objection: part of the content describing Morgan already makes it clear that it refers to Italy. The other part cited to Morgan is cited to another source as well, but his position in that sentence could be replaced by a different source; alternatively, please feel free to propose a version that you think improves the attribution. I have also just provided another source (one that has its own WP article) on a very similar point that clearly discusses fascism in general.
- As I said, I will acknowledge that your weight argument can be supported as well, so I will plan to spin this off into a subarticle instead as I mentioned above. Sunrise (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've now created the new Criticism of fascism article, as per my last comment. I also added quite a bit of additional content (and I'm sure even more could be added), so please feel free to review and make further edits. Corresponding edits to the main article are in progress. Sunrise (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- You did not have consensus for this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused, but current discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of fascism. Sunrise (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone said this was a good idea for you to make this article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I might be misunderstanding you? But generally speaking, editors do not require permission to edit, and especially not for something that was proposed on talk with no objection... Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well I could be wrong, but I do not think anyone said this was a good idea for you to make this article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused, but current discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of fascism. Sunrise (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- You did not have consensus for this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've now created the new Criticism of fascism article, as per my last comment. I also added quite a bit of additional content (and I'm sure even more could be added), so please feel free to review and make further edits. Corresponding edits to the main article are in progress. Sunrise (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven and Trakking: I have no objection to retaining the status quo pending discussion, of course. However, please remember that in general, "no consensus" is not a valid reason to revert. I would appreciate knowing any specific objections you might have so they can be addressed.
With regards to Trakking's edit summary: to be clear, the "additions" are a single sentence listing the sections of the new Criticism article, and the "major removals" are a summarization of the existing content to distill out the central points, with additional details being moved to the subarticle. This is a normal procedure in accordance with WP:Summary style. I also did a cleanup at the same time, and it turns out that a lot of the content (in the status quo version) could be shortened or removed since it's either not criticism, extraneous detail, or can be written in many fewer words.
I appreciate both of your edits on the Criticism article. I will take a closer look later, but as some preliminary thoughts: @Slatersteven, the paragraphs that you removed are directly based on the long-standing content in the main article. I could see it being argued either way, but if you want to object to their categorization as "Criticism of fascism", you should probably make that argument here instead. @Trakking, you've made suggestions for content a couple times now but without actually providing sources. Could you please provide suggestions for what sources you're recommending the content could be based on? Sunrise (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
2024-11 gallery
A potential gallery for the FAQ: Nazis sitting on the far right of the German parliament circa 1930
Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Too bad ideology isn't determined by seating arrangements. Liberty5000 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do realize Misplaced Pages is not a forum. But I don't see the point in adding these images. It seems like he is just trying to deceive people. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any indication of deception here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- While ideology is not determined by seating arrangement, seating arrangement is determined by ideologies in European parliaments. Parties chose among themselves where to sit and that means they sit closest to the other parties they are most likely to cooperate with. Generally but not always this will reflect their relative position in the political spectrum.
- This 1924 plan of the Baden-Wurttemburg legislature for example shows the parties sitting from left to right: Communist, Social Democratic, liberal, Nazi affiliate, national liberal, Christian Democratic and conservative. I saw a 1930s plan of the Reichstag that had the Nazi grouping seated inside the Conservative grouping.
- I don't see though how the picture helps and it's not clear who is a Nazi in the photo. TFD (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- They're the ones on the right. Kidding. I agree, I don't see any swastikas or any other nazi symbols, and the image quality makes it more or less impossible to identify individuals. El Beeblerino 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do realize Misplaced Pages is not a forum. But I don't see the point in adding these images. It seems like he is just trying to deceive people. Liberty5000 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump and fascism#Fascism?
This is a very important discussion; if you want you can contribute. JacktheBrown (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- B-Class Italy articles
- High-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Top-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- B-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English