Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 20 March 2012

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 20 days

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2004 and March 23, 2005.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 20 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.

Template:Pbneutral

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.

Lead too confusing

The lead gives us a very specific example of fascism, and leaves out the very general meaning of fascism. Most official definitions seem to do this as well, so I can't find a source to back my point. Instead of making reference right away to political "this and that", I think it would be better to simply call for it's more essential properties in the lead before bringing up that mess. Something like, "Fascism is the belief that a society, or group of persons, has a unified objective, goal, or purpose." The extrapolation, then, from this meaning gives rise to the more garbled notions of "dictators", and "national identity". Sorry but the lead is just a turn-off, and the first sentence is so pretentious, it's retarded: "Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology." Remember: while true, this is not the best way to explain what people are saying when they call someone a fascist. I'm going to write what I feel deserves to be the first sentence, in a simple attempt to move in the right direction, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.81.81 (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add, under this section, the suggestion that the last sentence in your lead may be a bit confusing. "Major elements of fascism have been deemed as clearly far right, such as its goals of the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements; and in the case of Nazism, genocide of people deemed to be inferior." This sentence appears to suggest that Nazism was a form of fascism instead of a form more closely related to socialism and could use some revising. It could also be said that your lead is a bit one sided in that you include the major elements that suggest fascism to be on the right side of the political spectrum but leave out the major elements that also associate it with being on the left side of the political spectrum such as a government controlled economy and the strong emphasis on a very large centralized government along with a dictatorial style similar to that of communism. So perhaps your lead could be a bit better balanced which would help to illustrate the trouble that today's political scientists have with placing fascism directly on one side of the political spectrum or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invidiaderceto (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We go by sources. The sentence is fine, and 'so pretentious it's retarded' is not an argument. Naziism is a variety of fascism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue of indigenous fascism in post-colonial states - especially in Africa, i.e. "tropical fascism" and "Afro-fascism"

As mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of fascism in post-colonial states is admittedly a controversial topic amongst scholars but still a relevant one. There are Western scholars like American historian and political scientist Robert Paxton who reject the idea of fascism being developed in "Third World dictatorships" and though he admits there have been post-colonial regimes with resemblances to fascism including Zaire under the rule of the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Mobutu Sese Seko or the regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, he denies that they are "legitimate" fascist regimes in Africa. Similarly Roger Griffin claims that aside from white South African fascism, there is no real phenomenon of African indigenous fascism because he claims that the "conditions" are not right - in that indigenous African societies have not been affected by liberalism, secularization, and cultural nationalization that he claims are needed for the rise of fascism, and claims that such indigenous societies where traditional religious culture has resisted Westernization are not susceptible to fascism. However there are other scholars such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz, a scholar on African history, has identified a list African regimes as being part of the phenomenon of "Afro-fascism", including: Francisco Macías Nguema's regime in Guinea, Mobutu Sese Seko's regime in Zaire, Idi Amin's in Uganda, Gnassingbé Eyadéma in Togo, and Mengistu Haile Mariam's regime in Ethiopia. (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25.) Other scholars have used the term "Afro-fascism" as well, it is mentioned in Stuart Joseph Woolf's book Fascism in Europe . Another example is the term "tropical fascism" used to describe a variant of fascism used to describe the nature of movements and regimes in post-colonial and Third World states. (African geopolitics , Issues 17-20. OR.IMA International, 2005. Pp. 104.), , , , , ) Bear in mind that I have excluded from this list POV sources - such as by politicians (especially on the far left) who throw the term "fascism" as a slur.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not just say that in the article. Instead you present a source that refers to the CDS as "fascist", then use it as a coatrack to describe what they did. Instead it would be better to explain what scholars said about their relation to fascism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Zaire and Mobutism should be listed in the article as being disputed amongst scholars as to whether it is an example of indigenous fascism in Africa or para-fascism/quasi-fascism, just as just as the allegedly "Austrofascist" regime of the Fatherland's Front in Austria is debated as to whether it was fascist or para-fascist but is considered important to the study of fascism. From my readings case for Mobutu being either fascist or at lease para-fascist is strong: Mobutu sought to purify Zaire of Western white culture through revolutionary nationalism, his party was anti-communist and anti-capitalist, it applied the claim of being syncretic - common to fascism - claiming to be "neither left nor right nor centre", the MPR's supporters trumpeted single-party and single-leader rule, in one speech an MPR supporter denounced the idea of multiple leaders and political parties in the country saying: "In our African tradition there are never two chiefs...That is why we Congolese, in the desire to conform to the traditions of our continent, have resolved to group all the energies of the citizens of our country under the banner of a single national party. (Wrong, Michela. In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz. Harper Collins. ISBN 0060934433). The Mobutu and the MPR sought to replace Christianity in Zaire with a religious devotion to Mobutu and the MPR with interior minister Engulu Baanga Mpongo once saying to supporters of the MPR: "God has sent a great prophet, our prestigious Guide Mobutu. This prophet is our liberator, our Messiah. Our Church is the MPR. Its chief is Mobutu. We respect him like one respects a Pope. Our gospel is Mobutuism. That is why the crucifixes must be replaced by the image of our Messiah". (Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa. PublicAffairs, 2006. Pp. 297.). The Manifesto of N'sele laid out the intentions of the government which included expansion of the national government's authority, a program committed to upgrading labour standards, having the country gain economic independence, and the creation of an "authentic nationalism" in Zaire. (Simpson, Andrew. Language and Nationality in Africa. Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. 228) This should not be considered sources that deliberately say that Mobutu was fascist or para-fascist/quasi-fascist - there are other ones, only those that say so should be used for such a claim. However these sources can be used after such a sourced statement to show the nature of the regime. I myself don't buy the argument that indigenous Africa is not economically or culturally "ready" to have fascism or that it universally does not have the "conditions" as those of Western culture - many African leaders have been Western-educated or Westernized. Also, poor economic conditions in Latin American countries didn't stop Latin Americans from forming fascist movements. In the case of Mobutu he directly addressed Western political concepts - nationalism, the left-right political spectrum, anti-communism and anti-capitalism, etc. Plus though Mobutu could not fulfill all his plans or achieve complete totalitarianism or that it was a corrupt kleptocracy as some point out - neither could Mussolini achieve a totalitarian state and the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany were notoriously corrupt. Plus Mobutu's regime was organized enough to organize the kind of well-organized, gigantic mass rallies dedicated to his regime like those of the Italian Fascists and the Nazis, take a literal look for yourself of such rallies in the first minute of this video and the militarist display of personality cult saluting of Mobutu at 6:14 to 6:44 in the video: . Be aware that I am not totally in favour of listing every African dictator or genocidal despot as a fascist - I agree with Robert Paxton that Idi Amin's regime was not fascist - it was a military dictatorship that was genocidal.--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what arguments you or I find more persuasive. Unless there is consensus that a party was fascist, we cannot say it is, and cannot use the claim as a coatrack to describe what the party did. All we can do is explain the claims that it was fascist, while clearly stating the extent of acceptance of that view. TFD (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is disputed just as the concept of Austrofascism is disputed, the MPR and Mobutism is a prominent example of a disputed example - but bear in mind that that it is "disputed" between scholars - some say it was not fascist (and by saying that they are revealing that it is an issue in scholarship on fascism) and others say it was fascist or quasi-fascist. We have included quotes by fascists in this article and descriptions of their policies, we should mention that Mobutism is a disputed example, but also mention key points from its ideology and quotes from its leadership figures on the issue of single-party state, Mobutu as a supreme leader, its radical nationalism, its syncretic politics, anti-communism, etc, and also Paxton's and others views in order to give the readers a background - it allows them to understand the nature of the regime and the debate of whether it was fascism, quasi-fascism, or neither.--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found a prominent scholar on fascism, Walter Laqueur who says: "And finally, the racism of the Nazis and the admixture of nationalism with quasi-religious elements of other fascist movements have found new expression in Third World ideologies ranging from Mobutism to Qaddafism." "...these regimes do contain fascist elements, if as yet in a primitive framework". --R-41 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be replying to my comments. See WP:COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." BTW prominent scholars have found influences and similarities to fascism with a whole range of modern political groups, including the American Right, which we could mention, but we do not therefore add sections about the Moral Majority, Tea Party, etc. TFD (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur is a reputable and respected scholar on fascism whose works are included in this article and he appears to be seriously addressing the close similarities of Mobutism to fascism and not merely out of a political attack on Mobutism as some biased scholars with an axe to grind do on topics of the Tea Party. Plus with respect to the addressing of Mobutu as fascist or quasi-fascist or not fascist by respected scholars in Europe and Africa, it is not a trivial point like that of ridiculous claims that the Tea Party is fascist - no respectable scholar on fascism has addressed the Tea Party as fascist, but multiple respected scholars on fascism have addressed the issue of Mobutism in connection to fascism. I am not saying that we only include sources that speak of the similarities of Mobutu's regime, we can include others that negate the claims, such as Robert Paxton and others who claim the regime did not have the organizational capacity or power to achieve any of its agenda and that they claim that it was a regime of a paternal autocrat and kleptocracy alone that was disguised in revolutionary overtures.--R-41 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Laquer does not say that Mobutism is fascism just that it is similar, and you have not even established what degree of acceptance that claim has. Regardless many things are similar to other things and it is coatracking to start adding narratives about all the things that have been compared to fascism. One could say for example that Australia is similar to Canada, but it would be coatracking to add the history of Australia to the article about Canada. TFD (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the source that includes Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz's assertion of the existence of "Afro-fascism" that includes the regime of Mobutu in Zaire? (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25). Doesn't this demonstrate that Mobutism's connection with fascism is an issue addressed by scholars? I am not saying that it is positively asserted that it is fascist, but that it is a subject of discussion and debate amongst scholars, just as the concept of "Austrofascism" is discussed and debated as to whether the Fatherland Front's ideology was genuine fascism. We used to have a section in the article on para-fascism that included known movements with fascist influences and others under substantial debate by scholars as to whether they were fascist, para-fascist, or not fascist, I wish it could be restored.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism". Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "Afro-fascism" was used by Algerian politician Hocine Aït Ahmed, he was a radical socialist revolutionary though - so I would question him on bias issues, though it has also been used by other scholars such as in these sources : , , . The first source acknowledges that the term exists, but believes it is an exaggeration. Could you please explain in a very short and simple way what coatracking is. I don't understand it--R-41 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism". Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. Coatracking is using the relevance of another topic to move on to a discussion of that topic beyond its relevance to the article's topic. So one could on an article about dogs mention that they are similar to cats, but turning the article into a discussion of cats would be coatracking. TFD (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I just showed you a series of other sources on "Afro-fascism" and "African fascism". As I said, there are sources that directly discuss African fascism a.k.a. Afo-fascism, and sources - including Paxton, Laqueur, and Payne that discuss the issues of fascism in Africa. Paxton and Max-Liniger-Goumaz address claims of Mobutu's regime being fascist.--R-41 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have found sources that compare African tyrants with fascism and possibly one or two that call them fascist. In order for us to consider them fascists you would need a source that says they are considered fascist. The book Fascism and the far right briefly mentions the CDS and never says it is fascist or far right. This treatment is similar to that of other books about fascism. Yet you think in this brief article it deserves an entire paragraph. Obviously your weighting of different topics is outside the mainstream and is contrary to neutrality. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require an entire paragraph, I suggested more lengthy focus on Mobutism, but that is not necessary. It can be one or two sentences. Liniger-Goumaz, Laqueuer, and Paxton are all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist. There are similarities and disimilarities according to these authors. As I said, it can be one or two sentences mentioning that "there is debate amongst scholars on the appearance of fascism and quasi-fascism in Africa, such as in the case of Mobutu's MPR regime in Zaire whose relation with fascism has been addressed by scholars on fascism and African history. Most scholars believe that though Mobutu's regime had outward similarities to fascism that it is not fascist,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) scholar Walter Laqueur claims that Mobutu's regime contained elements of fascism,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) and a minority such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz claim that Mobutu's regime is an example of "Afro-fascism".(REFERENCE PLACED HERE)". I am not claiming that every African tyrant or despot is a fascist, but the Mobutu regime has been addressed by two major scholars on fascism and Max-Liniger-Goumaz who used the term "Afro-fascism", these all discuss its relation with fascism - that is worth noting in this article.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) No they are not all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist, they are merely comparing them to fascism. So that is what the article should say. And in order to even mention Liniger-Goumaz you would have to show that his views are significant in fascism literature. TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Max-Linger-Goumaz's material on African fascism is mentioned in many scholarly works and as an important work of literature, see here: . In particular, Michael Ugarte ascribes to use Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism" - originally used by Goumaz based on his focus on the political phenomenon he first discovered in Equatorial Guinea, to describe multiple regimes, including Zaire under Mobutu. Another source from the University of Arizona describes a recently published novel that accepts Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "afro-fascist" to describe the regime of Francisco Macías Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. and an encyclopedia listing Maz-Liniger-Goumaz's "afro-fascist" description of Equatorial Guinea .--R-41 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link shows that a number of books about Africa refer to Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism", although there is no evidence that any of them have accepted it. More importantly your link shows that the concept has been entirely ignored by writers on fascism, which is why we should also ignore it. Tbis a classic example of POV pushing. TFD (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tbis a classic example of POV pushing" - You are overreacting. I am rationally discussing this with you. Many scholars reject that "Austrofascism" was a real fascist ideology, but we have an article called "Austrofascism" and Austrofascism is discussed by scholars on topics of fascism. Laqueur says that Mobutu's regime had "fascist elements". Other scholars address the issue - they address it because Mobutu's regime has been claimed to be fascist. What is the problem with having a few sentences that address the issue of Mobutu's regime and perhaps Nguema's regime, just as books on fascism address claims of austrofascism or claims of Peronism being fascist or quasi-fascist? I have presented a series of sources that are for the description, against the description, and Laqueur against but claiming that fascist elements exist in Mobutu's regime. Also, be careful with what you accuse someone of, assume good faith, and be polite - you were uncivil, not polite, nor assuming good faith in just out of the blue slandering me as POV-pushing: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH).--R-41 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to add things to the article that mainstream books on fascism ignore. That violates neutrality. If you believe the experts are wrong then you should publish your articles and correct their errors. But this article is not the place to begin that campaign. And could you please keep your posts brief. TFD (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur and Paxton - scholars on fascism specifically mentioned Mobutu's regime in relation to fascism - so it is addressed by mainstream scholars on fascism. I included these specifically because they address the claim of fascism on Mobutu and reject the claim - though Laqueur claims it has "fascist elements". Plus, as I said you did not adhere to this: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH)--R-41 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So historians say Mobuto was not fascist, although Laqueur(whose views tend to be outside the consensus) says he was influenced by them, and you want to use this as a hook to write about Mabuto. That's a coatrack. TFD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine, I rescind my proposal. I gave sources but it's too bad that Western society can't take seriously claims of fascism in Africa such as Mobutu's MPR and others. Maybe you're right TFD that I should do my own independent research project on it - I'm almost at my undergrad degree for Political Science and History. I am disappointed with Western scholars' treatment of Africa as lesser than the Western world and such a foreign, "backward" place that Western political ideologies have not taken resonance there. I thought I would find more sources on Mobutu as a quasi-fascist though I didn't think there would be many legitimate ones saying that his regime was all out fascist. But anyway, fine, I'm canning the proposal - you are right that more sources are needed.--R-41 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fatal problem with the article

The article does a good job describing historical fascism, particularly as it pertains to the 1920s-40s. It's clear why there is such an emphasis on this period: the WW2 era coloured all our perceptions about fascism and we seem unable to stop associating the ideology with little men brandishing funny moustaches. But it is dangerous for an encyclopedia to stop the analysis there and not delve deeper into fascist thought. There are subtler, less stereotypical forms of fascism around us in the western world to this day. For example, I would argue that modern corporatism (and government support thereof) takes a nod from fascism, in the sense that it leads to more centralization of resources in a capitalist context, often with direct links to government. The fact that no major political parties are calling themselves "fascist" today does not mean that fascism is gone. So let's stop talking about this as though it magically disappeared in 1945.

There are only 2 sentences I can find in the whole article that hint at fascism beyond 1930s stereotypes. Both sentences appear at the beginning of the section "Variations and Sub-forms". They are: "Movements identified by scholars as fascist hold a variety of views, and what qualifies as fascism is often a hotly contested subject. ... Para-fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian regimes with aspects that differentiate them from true fascist states or movements." Everything else in the article seems to stick to historical models. In fact, some of the sections are blatantly written using the past tense, as if fascism "ended".

Some questions that come to mind, and are not addressed in this article:

-What sort of political parties / groups exist today that do not call themselves fascist but espouse ideas strongly linked to fascism (either because the ideas are fascist or developed out of fascism)?

-How much does a group have to stick to the key elements of 1930s fascism to be fascist? e.g. the intro section in the article is written as though dictatorships and eugenics experiments are necessary elements of fascism. Is this really the case? That's a terribly restrictive view.

-Since fascism traditionally considered itself the natural enemy of communism, did fascism (albeit under different names) play a role in opposing the Soviet bloc during the Cold War? I honestly have no idea on this one!

-What do we make of a country like China? It claims to be communist, but it has clearly moved to a business-oligarch economy while preserving authoritarian government. This meets 2 of the conditions of historical fascism. So what are we left with? (For the record, I don't think China is fascist. But there's some real food for thought here.)

I don't expect someone will be able to just add a simple section to the article to address these issues. This requires time and thought, not to mention expertise. But I really hope some of you take up the call. In responding, please do not interpret my comments as another rant from a right-wing (or left-wing) American ideologue. Let me be clear that I'm not writing any of this from an American perspective, or from the perspective of American current events (I'm not even American). This is a much bigger issue than the Republican candidates' race.

Thanks :) Nojamus (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The reason there is not more emphasis is that we do not give much coverage to fringe views, and do not present the original ideas of editors in articles. TFD (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nojamus, I don't know what article you have been reading, but this article in much of its sections is well-developed and well-sourced and has provoked little controversy amongst most users, surprising for such a controversial topic. The heyday of fascism is important to be aware of, it is linked to a specific period of time, in specific circumstances, and in specific susceptible areas. If you want to know the mindset that brought it forward, learn about the fin de siecle, Friedrich Nietzsche's challenge of morality and claiming the need of an "ubermensch" ("superman") - his works had influence (it is said everyone who was anyone at the time read Nietzsche because he caused so much controversy) - leading to a loss of confidence in Enlightenment politics amongst the bright minds of Western society; Sorelianism - and its legitimation of revolutionary violence, and themes and figures of Italian nationalism - especially Gabriele d'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini. Knowing these is a good start to understanding the background that fostered fascism.--R-41 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Paragraph?

NPOV violation: fascism's position towards democracy

A user keeps removing a sentence, even after I informed them that the sentence is sourced. First of all it is true that all fascists rejected the mainstream conventional form of democracy as practiced in the Western world- that is majoritarian democracy. But fascists claim in their ideology that they advocate an authoritarian democracy. Note that I say "claim", I leave it open to review of their actions as to whether they fulfilled this authoritarian democracy. Authoritarian democracy involves an authoritarian elite that seeks to represent the interests of society. I personally don't see fascism as having much association to democracy, still the fascists claimed that "authoritarian democracy" was distinct from conventional democracy.

Here is what I added that was removed by another user: "Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy—majoritarian democracy that assumes human equality, and instead claim that fascism represents an organized and centralized authoritarian democracy."

As you can see, it clearly indicates that fascism opposes conventional democracy and says that fascists "claim" to represent an authoritarian democracy. I added this sentence, it is a paraphrasing of this scholarly source: (Arblaster, Anthony, "Democracy" in Concepts in social thought (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994) pp. 48.). The source is not POV because even the author is strongly skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic, but all the same the author states their position anyway. Multiple fascists promoted "authoritarian democracy" or its equivelent "organic democracy", including the Italian Fascists, the Nazis, and the Falange.--R-41 (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the section on fascism's position on democracy to include more sources. Here is what it is now:

"Fascists reject the conventional form of democracy—majoritarian democracy that assumes human equality and governments based on the "rule of numbers". Instead fascists claim to advocate a form of democracy that advocates the rule of the most qualified, rather than rule by a majority of numbers. A number of fascists have called this authoritarian democracy."

1. Alexander Rudhart. Twentieth century Europe. Lippincott, 1975. Pp. 444.
2. Alexander Rudhart. Twentieth century Europe. Lippincott, 1975. Pp. 444.
3. Arblaster, Anthony, "Democracy" in Concepts in social thought (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1994) pp. 48.
4. Blamires, Cyprian, World Fascism: a Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 2006) p. 589.
5. Donald J. Dietrich. Catholic citizens in the Third Reich: psycho-social principles and moral reasoning. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers, 1988. Pp. 113.
6. Dylan J. Riley. The civic foundations of fascism in Europe: Italy, Spain, and Romania, 1870-1945. Pp. 4-5.

--R-41 (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arblaster wrote, "Yet Mussolini, or his ghost-writer Gentile, paid lip-service to the term by defining Fascism in the next sentence as 'organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy'". It is a leap to say that they claim fascism is a form of democracy, not supported by the source, and the passage is too insignificant to be mentioned in this short article. You might however mention the New Right view that fascism developed out of the democracy of the French Revolution. TFD (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you noticed what I said, I acknowledged this view by the author himself when I said "the source is not POV because even the author is strongly skeptical of fascism's claim to be democratic, but all the same the author states their view anyway". The intro clearly indicates that fascism rejects the conventional form of democracy, and that they claim to represent an authoritarian democracy - such as Alexander Rudhart. Plus I have added other sources that state that fascism officially claimed to support authoritarian democracy. I don't know why you are bringing up the completely unrelated topic of academically-unsupported views of some on the "New Right" - fascists - including the Italian Fascists and the Nazis - explicitly denounced the French Revolution. This has nothing to do with what you state is the "New Right"'s claim, and besides the original conception of democracy did not emerge in France amidst the French Revolution, it emerged in ancient Greece.--R-41 (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If an author is extremely sceptical of an isolated comment in a fascist document, it means it should not be included in the article. The New Right (i.e., Furet, Courtois) claimed that nazism derived from the democratic ideals of the French revolution. (Remember all the fascism = socialism discussion?) TFD (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well those authors were dumb enough not to even read what Mussolini, Hitler, and especially Goebbels said about the French Revolution - and that was condemnation of it. If they are that stupid not to look up what fascists themselves said about the French Revolution their material is not worth the paper it is written on. Authoritarian democracy is a concept promoted by fascists - it is mentioned in multiple works on fascism, including Blamires encyclopedia of World Fascism , again Blamires states that fascists claim to represent authoritarian democracy, and clearly notes fascism's strong opposition to democracy as at least the West conceives of it. Dylan Riley in his study of fascism in Italy, Romania, and Spain, believes that this conception of authoritarian democracy by fascism was not necessarily a gimmick, and says it was a key basis of achieving legitimacy through replacing electoral democracy with state institutions to account for interest representation and represent the "general will" that fascists claim that electoral democracy has failed to do.. The intro accounts for divergences of opinion on this, by saying that the ideology "claims" to represent an authoritarian democracy, it does not say that it necessarily "is" one - and I will assume the readers' intelligence to be able to analyze the article and sources for themselves to view the basis of that claim.--R-41 (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia makes only a brief mention of the same passage to which Arblaster refers. Articles are in any case supposed to be based on secondary sources, not what fascists said about themselves. Riley admits his view is controversial and therefore of too little significance to include. TFD (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should Riley's view be excluded? I imagine why he admits his view is controversial - because no one in the West wants to acknowledge the beloved word democracy to be even a mile close to vile word fascism. We include in the intro of the Nazism article that Nazism advocated the supremacy of the Aryan Race - that is acknowledged as being the goal of Nazism - the reality is that there is no such thing as the Aryan Race, it is pseudoscientific fiction - but that is what the Nazis advocated. Remember that authoritarian democracy as the fascists described it involved rule of a dynamic qualified elite to represent the interests of society and act for the general will. Alexander Rudhart states that the fascists advocated a form of democracy that was the rule of such a qualified elite over a majority, they rejected majoritarian-form of democracy. Certainly it is not conventional democracy - and not a democracy in my personal opinion, and I doubt that it would be a form of government that most today in the Western world would support or see as legitimate, but that is my opinion, and I will not violate NPOV by merely going by my gut instinct that forms my opinion, the sources clearly state that fascism opposes conventional democracy.--R-41 (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A fascist uses an expression once and one writer devotes a chapter of a book to it. It does not appear to have any significance in the literature. "Democracy" btw was not one of the values of the French counter-revolutionaries. TFD (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A fascist uses an expression once and one writer devotes a chapter of a book to it. - No, multiple fascists said they advocated such an authoritarian democracy. Multiple authors have acknowledged this. Your point that an author devotes a chapter of a book to it does not diminish what was said, it says nothing other than that an author wrote a chapter about the topic. Your evaluation of his in a diminishing manner in combination with your intention to reject the inclusion of multiple scholarly sources provided for this that acknowledge authoritarian democracy as being officially advocated by fascists, reveals a POV on your part. The intro says fascists "claim" to represent authoritarian democracy - it is NPOV because it does not decide what is "true" - it states their claim, and assumes the reader will be intelligent enough to be able to investigate that claim for themselves in the article and through the sources provided. It's just like the term people's republic - we should assume the reader should be intelligent enough to investigate whether such republics do represent their people. We are not talking about French counter-revolutionaries, neither Benito Mussolini, nor Adolf Hitler, nor Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, acknowledged French reactionaries as the basis of their ideology - Mussolini declared fascism's opposition to the reactionary politics of Joseph de Maistre and Hitler's Nazis and Primo de Rivera's Falange publicly rejected and denounced reactionary politics.--R-41 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sources refer only to the one use of the term in fascist writing. Also, Riley writes, "I first develop a definition of fascism as an "authoritarian democracy"" (p. 2). It's his concept, it may be good or bad, but has not entered discourse, hence should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

His concept is in the discourse because it is in a scholarly book that is peer reviewed. Fascism's advocacy authoritarian democracy has been acknowledged and investigated by multiple other authors of scholarly works, so WP:WEIGHT does not qualify as a reason to remove the material. For instance, here is another example of scholars acknowledging fascism's claim to be a form of democracy based upon rule of the qualified rather than rule of quantity.. Here is the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right acknowledging fascism's claim to be a form of democracy: . In articles on topics such as Marxism-Leninism, Marxist-Leninist claims such as democratic centralism are investigated - they are not acknowledged as a "truth", but as a part of the ideology. Authoritarian democracy was a concept promoted by multiple fascist movements and this claim has been acknowledged by multiple authors - so there is strong reason for this claim to be addressed in the article. The obvious reason this was originally brought up by a users is because they find the idea of association of the word democracy with fascism as offensive, but neglecting this issue that has been investigated by multiple authors because users find it offensive would be in violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Due to the fact that the claim by fascists to be supporters of an authoritarian democracy is acknowledged by multiple authors, it is an established part of the discourse to investigate this claim by fascists, and removing it because of opposition to it would be a violation of WP:NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.... Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." It has nothing to do with whether or not they are published in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sources acknowledge this claim. Also, the sources clearly say that fascism is opposed to conventional democracy. The book The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right is not a fringe source - it mentions fascism's claim to be a form of democracy, you yourself have used this source in the past.--R-41 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, the issue is WP:WEIGHT not WP:RS. Now find a source that refers to Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy and explains the degree of acceptance it has received in the academic community. TFD (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanley G. Payne - a major historian on the topic of fascism, said of Riley's work The Civic Foundations of Fascism that it is "The most original and provocative new analysis of the preconditions of Fascism that has appeared in years, together with an often persuasive interpretation of the development and failures of civil society." (Stanley G. Payne, International History Review). Max Whyte of the American Journal of Sociology commended the book, saying "Riley's account of the civic foundations of fascism succeeds not only in throwing new light on old questions, but also in redefining the theoretical parameters for understanding fascism. It will change the way we think about fascism in the future." Political scientist Jeffery Kopstein said of the book: "This is a book to be taken seriously."(Jeffrey Kopstein, Perspectives on Politics). And there are other statements by multiple historians, sociologists, and political scientists on Riley's work. All these reviews by these scholars are available to be viewed here at Amazon Books: .--R-41 (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

These arguments are typical of people who get an idea into their head about something they believe belongs in an article then Google search for sources. The result is articles that are slanted to obscure viewpoints. I asked above, Now find a source that refers to Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy and explains the degree of acceptance it has received in the academic community. I believe that request is straightforward. TFD (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find many reviews of term, thus far I have found a few, but I must have an outdated PDF viewer because I cannot view it to see exactly what the first one says, but here is a review that examines it: . Here is a review where the author says about Riley's description of fascism as authoritarian democracy, "I feel it is one of the stronger contributions of his work." . Here is a review that mentions Riley's description of fascism as authoritarian democracy it says "According to the classic Tocquevillean model, countries with strong civil societies should develop into strong liberal democracies. Drawing from secondary sources, he argues convincingly that these three countries developed strong civil societies" - but unlike Tocqueville's thesis, none of these countries were liberal democracies at the that time, and goes on to say "While Riley gets some details wrong, his comparative model raises important questions and focuses attention on the role of civil society and the concept of authoritarian democracy in trying to understand fascism" this is a review by historian Dr. Paul Arpaia of the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. So there you have reviews of it, and besides what I provided already is acceptable - I have provided multiple scholars, including Stanley G. Payne - one of the foremost scholars on fascism, they say that Dylan Riley's work, The Civic Foundations of Fascism is an important scholarly work on the topic of fascism. Payne and others reviewed the book, including the material you mentioned and other material and evaluated the book as valuable. You call it an "obscure viewpoint" even after I showed you multiple positive reviews of the book where the reviewers didn't say that - "obscure viewpoint" that is your point of view, a dismissive POV at that, and users' opinions are not of value to Misplaced Pages, only sourced material. You are not approaching this from NPOV, you have already made up your mind that it is an "obscure viewpoint" - regardless of the positive reviews of Riley's particular work that focuses on it, and should you continue to pursue that dismissive POV, now that you have been informed that scholars do accept that book by Riley as an important scholarly work on fascism, then you are in clear violation of Misplaced Pages NPOV policies.--R-41 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The book review says that Riley makes a "dramatic challenge to the scholarship.... fascist movements not as antidemocratic as the existing literature says they were." In other words Riley's writing on authoritarian democracy has not received acceptance in the academic community. TFD (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the reviews by the multiple people I included. One said that his statements on authoritarian democracy was the strongest claim in the book. Stanley G. Payne - a very prominent historian on fascism - was entirely positive on the book. Many books have changed the way people have viewed things, that doesn't mean that they are not accepted by fellow scholars. What you are calling for, now that you have been informed of multiple reviews of Riley's work that accept his work as a serious and valuable contribution to the study of fascism, is censorship because you say not every single scholar may agree - so then, Marxist intepretations of fascism are not accepted by all scholars, they have been deemed controversial, and have been rejected by a number of scholars, so should we censor those out too? The bottom line is that authoritarian democracy is recognized as a policy of fascists by multiple scholars, just as democratic centralism is recognized as a policy of Marxism-Leninism. Democratic centralism has been criticized as not being truly democratic, but the concept is an important policy promoted by Marxist-Leninists just as authoritarian democracy would be criticized for not being truly democratic, but is an important policy promoted by fascists.--R-41 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As for other sources, now that I am at my university campus, I am able to access JSTOR here. At JSTOR, the article "Barres and Fascism" by Robert Soucy focuses on the influence upon fascism by Maurice Barrès , one of the key points Soucy addresses from pages 87 to 89 is Barres' advocacy of "authoritarian democracy" that emphasized the need of a strong leader connected to their nation. Soucy paraphrases what Barres said, saying that Barres believed that: "True democracy, in other words, was authoritarian democracy. What counted most in the government of a nation was not the shibboleths of liberalism which vulgar politicians mouthed for their own nefarious purposes, but the psychic link, the mystical bond, that existed between the leader and the people. Those who protested that there would be a loss of freedom under such a government failed to understand that true freedom sprang not from individual rights and parliamentary safeguards but from heroic leadership and national power." This is the source: "Barres and Fascism" by Robert Soucy, French Historical Studies , Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), pp. 67-97. Duke University Press. Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/285867.

And there is also this source that I added that describes fascism's claim to promote an authoritarian democracy: Alexander Rudhart. Twentieth century Europe. Lippincott, 1975. Pp. 444.--R-41 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please stop making long postings and could you please reply to the points made. New books are published all the time and are reviewed. Whether or not they become part of the literature is determined by reading literature written after they are published. So far you have provided no academic writing that relies on Riley's theory. Therefore we should ignore it per WP:WEIGHT. If you think the book is so important, then start an article about it. On the other hand, if you want to present the view that fascism derived from the French Revolution and was not a reaction to liberalism, then get the sources and put it in, provided you do not present it as consensus opinion. TFD (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that it has been positively reviewed by scholars such as the prestigious Stanley G. Payne. It is a relatively new source, but it has received positive reviews by Payne and others - you cannot deny that. You are ignoring that the topic of fascist authoritarian democracy has been addressed by other authors as well such as Robert Soucy over forty years ago. This has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, multiple scholars have reviewed fascism's claim to support an authoritarian democracy. TFD, let's face it, the real issue here is that you do not want to see the word democracy associated in any way with fascism - you want to remove it out of this POV. Removing these multiple sources and returning to the false claim that fascism completely rejects "democracy" - is not verifiable and is a misrepresentation of the ideology, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Also, this has nothing to do with opinion on the French Revolution, and the French Revolution does not equal democracy - democracy existed before then, please stop bringing up that point. R-41 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is right that the word 'democracy' should in no wise be associated with fascism. Fascists were 100 per cent opposed to western liberal democracy as it had developed in 19th-century Europe since 1789. Any other form of 'democracy' mentioned is out of context and therefore a red herring (cf. German Democratic Republic!). Kim Traynor 02:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution for the NPOV issue about fascism's position on democracy

The current intro that says that fascism simply rejects "democracy" as a whole is disputable and not verifiable, given what has been investigated by scholars, multiple fascists claimed to officially support an authoritarian form of democracy that advocates rule of the qualified while rejecting democracy based on majority rule - because fascism does not view an unqualified majority of an electorate as equal in quality to those deemed qualified. It seems to be based on the theories of Gaetano Mosca who supported a merit-based aristocracy of a dynamic "organized minority" elite. It is certainly not conventional democracy as practiced in the Western world - and that is exactly the answer to what needs to be addressed. What is accurate and verifiable from both scholars and fascist policy positions is that fascism clearly opposes conventional democracy (majority rule representative democracy).--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted the following material originally on TFD's talk page. The solution to is to present both the view claimed by fascists and to mention scholars' skepticism with that claim - the author Arblaster does this - he mentions both fascist claims to represent an "authoritarian democracy" and then says that he is highly skeptical of the claim, thus I propose the following sentence in the intro: "fascism rejects conventional democracy based on rule of a numerical majority, though it claims to represent an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the qualified, but this claim to represent democracy by fascists has been viewed with strong skepticism by many scholars".--R-41 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I posted this dispute to WP:NPOVN#Fascism. TFD (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Woshinsky source on page 156 and 157 talks about fascism and the far-right

"As one moves even farther Right, one finds ever more stronger the conviction that one set of people is superior. Phrases like master race start being used to characterize the chosen few. In fascism (of which German Nazism was a variant), a mystical notion prevails that one people on earth stands above all others. Its mission is to assert its dominance, purge all "inferior" elements and lead the world to glory and greatess." Oliver H. Woshinsky, Explaining Politics: Culture, Institutions, and Political Behavior, page 156.--R-41 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit made it much closer to what the source actually says.

On related note, is there a reason why we have a full paragraph in the lead talking about place of Fascism on political spectrum? Lead should summarize the article and while sub-section Position in the political spectrum is currently overrepresented in the lead, section Origins and development is ignored. -- Vision Thing -- 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Italy articles
• High-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• 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
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (March 2005)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics