Talk:Fascism and ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archive

[edit] Next stage of discussion

The consensus is that the section on the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism should remain here on this page.

Nikodemos posted: "(yes, I agree there is no discussion, but that it because old discussion has died down, not because npov has been achieved)" and flagged the page as totally disputed. So, Nikodemos, who the heck are you talking to? What discussion would you like to have? :-) --Cberlet 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about where the section belongs, but rather about what the section contains. As of now, it has two major problems: (1) It gives enormous undue weight to the Austrian School, and (2) it is biased towards the "Nazis were socialists" side. The rest of the article has bias issues as well, such as the section about allegations of fascism in the USA not containing relevant material currently present in neofascism. -- Nikodemos 09:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would work on it myself, I really would, if only I had the time. I intend to find the time as soon as possible, in fact, but, meanwhile, I believe the page needs at least a NPOV and cleanup tag. The current Austrian School section seems to be an unnecessarily long-winded way of explaining that Austrian School economists consider any form of state intervention in the economy to be socialistic, and therefore the fascists and Nazis (along with Roosevelt, all of Europe and most of the world) fall under the socialist category. -- Nikodemos 09:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who decided that Nazism is a form of fascism? That is no more an accepted fact than that Nazism is socialism. NPOV =/= majoritarianism, poll results, or any other form of popularity contest. You can discuss if nazism is fascism, and if fascism is socialism on this page, but the debate as to if nazism is socialism needs to be had elsewhere, for the sake of neutrality. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

Sam Spade 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I don't care where the discussion gets placed, as long as it stays there. -- Nikodemos 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Scholars who have worked out a definition of "fascism" as a phenomenon broader than just Italian Fascism have "decided that Nazism is a form of fascism," in the same way that the scholars who defined "totalitarianism" decided that Nazism was a form of totalitarianism. While either of these concepts - "fascism" and "totalitarianism," may be invalid, it doesn't make any sense to talk about them without talking about Nazism. The former concept was derived at essentially out of efforts to compare Nazism to Italian Fascism, while the latter derived from comparisons of Nazism to the Soviet Union. Nazism is a fundamental part of any scholarly definition of either fascism or totalitarianism. It is not a fundamental part of any definition I have ever seen of socialism, although various writers have tried to make a connection between the two. Categorizing Nazism as socialist is a fundamentally different activity than categorizing it as fascist or totalitarian. The latter is an essential part of any discussion of "fascism" or "totalitarianism" in general, while the former is a controversial theory which is not widely accepted, and is certainly not essential to any discussion of "socialism." john k 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you havn't noticed there has been a rolling battle to cover such a discussion up, I assume because of the stigma it has for leftists who want to distance themselves from appearing nazi-like. The funny thing is, censoring is what totalitarians do. Sam Spade 10:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. This article currently goes out of its way to find links between fascists and the left. By the way, I will vehemently oppose any attempt to make arguments based on reductio ad Hitlerum or give extensive coverage to such arguments made by others. You seem to be looking at inclusion the wrong way around. Regardless of whether Nazis were right or left, it is beyond absurd to affirm that half the political spectrum (either half) is "nazi-like". -- Nikodemos 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You couldn't have understood me less. First of all the wikipedia is no example of any part of the political spectrum. Instead it is a tiny fish tank, where the views of a handful of people are over-represented, and the views of the majority (and significant minorities) are often ignored. Lastly I only used the word "leftist" for lack of a better word, the left right dichotomy is a false one. In short, this information has been moved all over heck and back because it embarasses socialists. It started at Socialism, moved to nazism and socialism, then went to Nazism in relation to other concepts, and is now here. That was not done in the interests of the readers, but rather because of the agenda's of the editors. Sam Spade 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the way this issue has been tossed around. One of my pet ideas is creating some sort of permanent NPOV tag to be placed on controversial articles that are more likely than not to be POV at any given time. I am of the opinion that certain articles and sections are hopelessly POV and will always remain that way (though the actual POV may change depending on which side gains the upper hand). -- Nikodemos 11:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Template:Calm talk? It is supposed to be like that. Sam Spade 11:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a Talk page template... -- Nikodemos 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
To Sam Spade. The vote was to keep the material on this page. At least give it a rest for a few months. The claim that Nazism is not a form of fascism is a marginal view not share by the majority of serious scholars of fascism. We have been over this and over this.
To Nikodemos. Putting a dispute tag up and then saying you don't have the time or inclination to edit is just rude and disruptive. While marginal, the Austrian School arguments are well-known and deserve to be discussed in some detail.
This page attempts a compromise that has reduced edit warring on several pages. This in itself is worth supporting, and sometimes that means that editors have to live with some material with which they disagree. Think about it. There is much material on this page that I find annoying, and even dubious. Let's add more cited text rather than contining an endless round of circular debate.--Cberlet 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how a dispute tag can be disruptive; a tag is merely a warning to our readers regarding the contents of a certain article, and the quality and neutrality of those contents does not change depending on whether there is discussion on the Talk page or not. I will, however, re-arrange my priorities and get to editing this article ASAP.
As for the Austrian School's arguments, the way to deal with marginal or fringe views is to discuss them in detail on the page dealing with the persons who expressed those views. In other words, a detailed discussion of the Austrian School belongs on the Austrian School page. What we should have here is a summary. At the very least, I am sure you realize how inappropriate it is to give roughly equal space to the Austrians on the one hand and everyone else on the other. -- Nikodemos 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the idea of discussing Nazism in a separate article is not necessarily derived from an assumption that Nazism is not fascism. There are several cases on wikipedia where a prominent branch of a wider ideology gets treated with the same standards (similar articles etc.) as its parent ideology. Liberalism and libertarianism have corresponding articles, for example, and so do socialism and communism. -- Nikodemos 17:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is not a parent ideology for nazism. They happened to form a coalition, and were hierarchical socialist axis powers the similarities don't go much further. Sam Spade 23:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We are all aware of your views, Sam Spade, and most of us are aware that you repeatedly ignore the consensus to push your POV. It would be refreshing if you would seek consensus rather than misrepresenting the majority scholarship on this question.--Cberlet 03:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be awesome if you read consensus and NPOV sometime. Sam Spade 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus in my reading does not extend to include one person ignoring a vote to keep certain text here[1], and recreating a page with the same text that now has been moved to other pages,[2], and removing the redirect [3].--Cberlet 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one claiming consensus, or believing in the power of votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Nazism =/= fascism. Sam Spade 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But NPOV is not a synonym for "what Sam believes to be true". As far as I can tell, "Nazism in relation…" is effectively a POV fork. When the POV is yours, that does not magically make it neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be a good page to discuss whether or not Fascism =/= Naziism?

[edit] Militarism

This was added anonymously by someone whose remark explicitly claims it to be NPOV; I quite disagree.

"Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in America who support the military and even call for increased military spending. Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives. Left-wing activists and intellectuals often claim that Neoconservatives, like Hitler, see the military as a paradigm for problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or unethical)"

  1. While I agree that militarism is more extensive on the right than on the left in America, calling it "most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism" is going awfully far. Fascism absolutely glorified the military as a model to aspire to, not really a particularly popular view on the American right.
  2. "American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives"? Depends on what you mean by "traditionally". And whom you call a liberal. Eisenhower, a centrist, coined the phrase "military-industrial complex". The vast majority of U.S. military casualties in the last century of so have occurred under liberal Democratic presidents, and most of the ones under a Republican president are under Eisenhower, who inherited the Korean War from Truman. Certainly the U.S. decision to retain a large standing military after World War II had as much support from liberals as from conservatives (though not from the farther left). Yes, far more opposition to war in the U.S. this last 50 years has come from the left than from the right, but support from liberals (or "liberals") is not hard to find. Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign. Or Hillary Clinton's incipient 2008 campaign.
  3. Neoconservatives, on the whole, are pro-military. But the reductio ad Hitlerum here just seems to me like a random cheap shot. (And why is it always Hitler, not, say, Mussolini or Dollfuss or Horthy?) None of the neoconservatives people follow the fascist style of adopting military garb, or applying military organization to their own party.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you removed that POV garbage...this is what I don't like about anon editing...I wish login was more rigorous, and required. Anon changes should ned approval or something...Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you are saying about this.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Obscure views belong on this page

As much as I am inclined to agree with the ridiculousness of comparing American neo-conservative militarism to ideological fascism, equally as ridiculous is the INCESSANT COMPARING of Roosevelt's New Deal to IDEOLOGICAL fascism. Does anyone else here think it's given far too much time in discussions where it could simply be put as a minor footnote? After all, it's a view that is held by a tiny proportion of academics (I'd argue the same size as those who compare neo-conservativism and fascism) and is in reality absolutely nothing to do with Fascist ideology. I am thus editing it to make it more reasonable. Cheers, Hauser 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Relax. This is exactly the page to detail these claims in an NPOV manner. This entire page is a "footnote" to the various other pages on fascism and nazism. Please do not cut material simply becasue you disagree with it. And we probably should add a section on those who "compare neo-conservativism and fascism." I have restored the cut text. The rewrite was otherwise very good. Please be aware that this page was created preceisely to air these claims. Check the discussion history.--Cberlet 14:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Sorry if I stepped on your toes there (I'm a non-American fan of the PRA, if you don't mind me saying!), and I probably was not clear enough about why I chopped out the text (particularly the quotes of Flynn and Stromberg).I did not cut out the material simply because I disagreed with it, but rather that my edit of the section effectively synthesised the meaningful elements of right wing criticism of the New Deal. The problem with that which was posted there now is that it no longer coherently flows in that there is a clear paragraph about the criticisms of FDR's policies by those on the neo-liberal right, then there is that seperate section entirely again seeming to claim it is exactly what is already dealt with in the above section. I deleted the quotes of Stromberg's because, primarily, they are unnecessary, and hardly represent a 'historic view' by the Right on FDR's policies (considering how recently they were written). Following Wikipedia policy, I think it's absolutely imperative to get rid of quotes that can only really be presented in a manner that deceives the reader into thinking they're part of widespread POV, when in fact they are not . With regard to Flynn, it just seems totalyl extraneous having that large list, something that a) takes up far too much room b) is a relatively unusual perspective and c) looks rather ugly with regard to the flow of the page. It just seems silly to me that so much of the page is dominated by a discussion of Fascism in the United State, when in fact the discussion of ideological fascism inside the United States is nowhere near as important academically as ideological fascism in Europe. As part of the Wikiproject Fascism, it really does get tiring looking from page to page seeing huge chunks of text devoted to totally unacademic comparisons of FDR and Fascism! Cheers,Hauser 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should change the name of the page to Debates about Fascism and Ideology, but what you are not giving enough weight to is that this page was a compromise arrived at after lengthy and often acrimonious discussion. I am in favor of moving all the detailed discussions about FDR and Fascism to this page, and removing the tiresome attempts by a tiny handful of POV editors to spray their ideological territory in wider Wiki acreage. We can take a spade and weed the garden, but simply digging it up and composting it is not a useful option. Yes, much of this discussion is based on the views of tiny minority arguments, but by having it here and can be tended to in a neat space. I agree with everything you say above, excpet for how easy it is to remove the text. Just wait. :-) --Cberlet 16:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-fascism

"Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neofascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page"

It is not fair to simply trim a list when the pages linked are relevant. Not everyone agrees, but since the list is prefaced with "allegations of neofascism" it is appropriate to list the KKK, and de Benoist, etc.--Cberlet 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the linked articles would have anything to do with Neo-fascism, I would expect the start of the those articles to make such a qualification. Any thoughts? Intangible 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the linked pages do, in fact, mention neofascism. Your approach seems overly didactic to me. Especially if there are "allegations" of neofascism that are disputed. An encyclopedia is supposed to help readers explore ideas.--Cberlet 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Mind if I add George W. Bush to the list? Intangible 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to have a serious discussion, fine. If you want to waste my time with silly games, I do not want to play.--Cberlet 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So when should someone who is alleged to be a (neo)-fascist be included in the list? If there is no clear wikipedia consensus in the first lines of an article to qualify the subject as neo-fascist I think you cannot include them in the list. Intangible 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is pure sophistry. The issue has nothing to do with consensus on this page or on how the target page is written. It has to do with sending readers to pages where there is a meaningful discussion involving neo-fascism, which is itself not the main aspect of this page. The consensus is represented on the linked page, which mentions neo-fascism. The KKK is an example where the link is questionable. If you want to ask for comments from other editors, please do so. Otherwise this is a total waste of time. If you want to go to each target page and argue that the mention of neofascism is improper, please do so.Otherwise this is a total waste of time.--Cberlet 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. KKK - No mention at all it is an (alleged) neo-fascist organization.
  2. Nouvelle Droite - Except for a unsourced statement alleging it's a neo-neo-fascist organization, nothing else. So who is alleging the Nouvelle Droite to be a neo-fascist political movement?
  3. Alain de Benoist - Only a reference to a 20+ year old article by Sheehan. Who is alleging de Boist to be a neo-fascist - only Sheehan 20 years back? Benoist has written tons of articles, so you would expect more allegations then.
  4. producerism - From the the article: "Variations of producerist narratives can be found in political movements and parties across the political spectrum." So linking to this form the here is spurious at best, since it is not a defining characteristic of neo-fascist movements.

Intangible 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

<-----I note that Intangible is sytematically going through Wikipedia sanitizing articles about neo-fascist movements. I understand there is room on Wikipedia for apologists for neofascism, but I do want to make it clear that arbitrary confrontations in support of a POV favorable to conoversial groups and movements identified by some scholars as neofascist is not appropriate. It is POV pushing. --Cberlet 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Sanitizing? See also, Wikipedia:NOR. Intangible 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather than simplying deleting, challenging existing text, and adding fact flags, how about adding cites to back up what is well-known research into neofascism? This is not about original research, it is about dismissing 20 years of scholarly research into neofascism.--Cberlet 16:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not just list the books instead, and leave the rest of the article empty? That will do the job then. Intangible 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Note though that your listing in the further reading sections is POV pushing. Did GRECE and Alain de Benoist never write anything? Intangible 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Citing the major scholarly works is hardly POV pushing. If you want to add quotes from Benoist or material from GRECE, please do so. It would improve both articles.--Cberlet 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide some specific text snippets for GRECE and Alain de Benoist in their respective articles? Furthermore, I have not yet seen a rational for the inclusion of the KKK and producerism. Intangible 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sure the books I referenced are available through a local library. Check the indexes.--Cberlet 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Whisking away with a further reading section is hardly appropriate here. Surely Lee and Laqueur must have put forth arguments for the characterization? Intangible 15:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Deal

<-----Intangible, at least try to do some serious research. The paragraph on Reagan was reverted because there was no cite, and the weasel words "no doubt."--Cberlet 20:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The cite to Reagan is fine in the section on the right-wing views. The additional material is not needed and stretches the underlying cite beyond the breaking point. This is not a page about Reagan and the debate about neofascism. There is little evidence that Reagan renewed the debate, and he is hardly an oft-quoted scholar of fascism --Cberlet 21:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to make the subject line give a link to Talk:Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 21:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that time it worked...sigh...--Cberlet 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1954, however, Richard Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR’s N.R.A. and fascist corporatism Where does this one reference to? There has been ample debate after 1954 about the New Deal and its fascist connections...Intangible 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But this article is not about the renewal of the current debate, nor is it about Reagan and his bio. You need to pay attention to what you are writing and where it fits in the entry. You need to spend more time trying to help make a better article, not just plopping your pet paragraphs down to push your highly partisan POV. Find more cites, edit them in an NPOV and focused manner, and go ahead and add more text, but pay attention to what you are doing as an editor of a serious encyclopedia. This is not a drive by Blog.--Cberlet 22:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on the missing Hofstadter cite, though. Improved the article.--Cberlet 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned about having "Hofstader chided the debate" at the beginning of this whole passage. As if the story is over, nothing is left to be debated.
The 1985 book Hugh S. Johnson and the New Deal by Ohl, described that some believed General Johnson to have fascist inclinations. Who is Johnson? He was the NRA director until he resigned (or got fired) by Roosevelt in 1934. He even gave a farewell speech to praise Mussolini. And historian David Schmitz has pointed out that even Roosevelt is not free of love for the Italian Duce, "that admirable Italian gentleman." The links of New Dealers and (fascist) corporatism certainly need mention. Nothing should be chided. Intangible 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Please post at the bottom of the page. Go ahead and rewrite it to be fair and NPOV. Add some cited text. Make it balanced.--Cberlet 23:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NPOV

I have added a disputed NPOV tag at the top of the page. This article seems to revolve around the Libertarian-formented discussion that seems to happen on absolutely every single page about Fascism that Roosevelt was a Fascist. I think it would be a lot more academically justified for this page to discuss Fascism and ideology in Italy, Germany and the war time politics o countries like Hungary, Spain and Romania where there is a clear academic debate surrounding the role of Fascist ideology. Remember that if corporatism constitutes Fascism, we should be spending an equal portion of this article dedicated to the analysis of Fascism in teh policies of Australian Labor Party's rule in the mid 1980's with the Corporatist Accord, and an equal proportion to the role of the tripartite corporatist economic development/labour-capital bargaining system and the heavy involvement of the state in the Singaporean economy (with a good measure of analysis of militarism fostered by Singapore national army service). I'm sure I could trawl through some references to Singapore being a potential Fascist state that would fit in with the rest of the article as it stands! Cheers, Hauser 02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous pages about fascism on Wikipedia. This is the page created to house the discussion prompted by libertarians, the Austrian School, and a few others. Your outrage is misguided. Feel free to add to the discussion on the many other pages on fascism. Feel free to summarize the text plopped onto other pages by those who support the marginal views of the libertarians and the Austrian School it is indeed tiresome to find the same arguments on page after page. But this is the page for that very text. There was recently a vote (now archived) where a number of editors voted to house this discussion on this page.--Cberlet 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sternhell

The work of Sternhell seems to be a bit neglected in both this article and the fascism article. Intangible 16:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because the work of Sternhell, although brilliant, is idiosyncratic and marginal to the main body of contemporary scholarship on fascism.--Cberlet 17:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "However many"

From the article: "Georgi Dimitrov developed the idea promoted by the Communist International that fascism is 'the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital,' however many contemporary Marxists question that view."

Two questions, one grammatical, the other more substantive.

As this reads, the last phrase means "regardless of how many contemporary Marxists question that view." Is that the intent? Or was it meant to read "'…elements of finance capital'; however, many contemporary Marxists question that view." (Bolding strictly for emphasis on the repunctuation.)

Either way, it says that many contemporary Marxists question that view. I can't think of any, offhand; can someone cite for this? - Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All Trotskyists, most cultural Marxists, and many socialists and communists.--Cberlet 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Really? I guess I had too many CP'ers and ex-CP'ers in my family. So, what is the Trotskyist / cultural Marxist line on this? - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The theme is earlier Cominterm discussion made more sense, especially the part about fascism being a genuine mass movement, and that the best Marxist work was outside of the Cominterm after Dimitrov farted. See: here and my own "Cultural Marxist" addition to the hot dog (Frankfurt) conspiracy: Chip Berlet. (2005). “When Alienation Turns Right: Populist Conspiracism, the Apocalyptic Style, and Neofascist Movements.” In Lauren Langman & Devorah Kalekin Fishman, (eds.), Trauma, Promise, and the Millennium: The Evolution of Alienation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 17 July 2006.
"after Dimitrov farted"???
Sure, there certainly was a real mass movement that brought fascists to power. So did Dimitrov deny that? I always thought his (an most other Communists I've ever known about on this, but apparently the range was narrow) theory was more about who captured it from within once it took power. - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Nah, this is an old and vigorous debate even among Marxists. You need to get out more often. :-) --Cberlet 02:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article supposed to cover accusations of fascist-ish policies?

I was just wondering... the introduction says this article talks about the place of fascism in the political spectrum and its relation to other ideologies. How do the accusations that the New Deal = fascism fit into this? Isn't this article supposed to cover widely accepted cases of fascism, and the various interpretations given to them? -- Nikodemos 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because they underlie the claim that fascism is not really a right-wing ideology, but at core a "collectivist"--and thus left-wing--ideology. Having both discussions on one page makes a marginal set of claims more understandable to Wiki readers. As a side benefit, it reduces disruption by aggressive self-impressed libertarians who feel the need to spray all over this and other Wiki pages to establish territorial and ideological dominance. Nice editing, by the way, so thanks to Nikodemos. --Cberlet 13:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
But those accusations are about the New Deal, not about fascism. They are meant to underlie the argument that the New Deal was fascist, not that fascism itself is anything in particular. I think the article Fascism as an international phenomenon would be a perfect place to move the discussion of the United States that is currently present here. I have proposed a merger... -- Nikodemos 23:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious if anyone here knows of Dr. Fredrick Schwartz and his very simple graph of political structure? It was in his book, The Three Faces of Revolution. Publius —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.183.184.253 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2006.

Is that Fredrick Schwartz of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade or another person of the same name?

[edit] Fascism and conservatism

User:PPGMD claimed that I have personally written and added the section on fascism and conservatism seen here. That is incorrect. The section was already present in a very similar form before I started editing the article, as seen here. However, it was indeed uncited, so I have begun a rewrite. -- Nikodemos 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That section also covers things that really should be in articles under each of the countries, for example, it mostly deals with Fascism in the UK during the 1940-50's and making vague claims of Fascism in the United States. At the very least the US based stuff should be in the already created United States section, and if what remains appears to be mostly about the UK the section should be titles Fascism in the UK. PPGMD 05:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I started rewriting the Fascism and conservatism section from scratch. It is almost inevitable that some countries will be mentioned, since fascism cannot exist in a vacuum - every historical example of fascism must have happened somewhere. However, this is an article about ideologies, not countries. That's why I suggest moving the existing United States section to Fascism as an international phenomenon. What do you think? -- Nikodemos 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism, capitalism and socialism section

What happened? Why only two lines about the critique of Hayek and Mises? Intangible 17:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the logic of their critique is as follows:
  1. State intervention in the economy is socialist.
  2. Fascist governments intervened in the economy.
  3. Therefore fascist governments were socialist.
That's pretty simple and straightforward. Most of the older section consisted of explanations about the exact nature of fascist intervention in the economy, and it said the same things over and over again ("They both pursued similar goals, including controlling their internal prices and wages"... "put in place capital controls, wage and price controls as means of controlling the economy"... "presence of wages and price controls"). It clearly needed to be cut down to size for the sake of not repeating ourselves. I cut it down to the bare bones of the logical argument. Maybe this was too much. I'll get to work on making it longer. -- Nikodemos 17:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. The Austrian view has now been expanded to three paragraphs. -- Nikodemos 21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So, how about my proposal to move the United States section to fascism as an international phenomenon? Will no one comment? It seems only logical that accusations of fascism in a specific country should be located in the article about fascism in specific countries. -- Nikodemos 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: the discussion for this proposal, by Wikipedia convention, takes palce over at Talk:Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#Section_merger_proposal.--Cberlet 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I got one for the often-seeked relation to socialism: Walter Ulbricht was surprised to meet young German workers in Soviet POW camps who still believed strongly in the success of "German socialism" and nazi ideology; he was unable to convince them that they had been suppressed. Walter Ulbricht, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung II ("on the history of the workers' movement in Germany"). Stuttgart 1953, p. 258. Couldnt positions like this be mentioned here? --FlammingoParliament 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Statements like "And, indeed, Italian Fascism followed a laissez-faire economic policy before the Great Depression, including the privatization of some state assets" make this article more and more into a socialist mouthpiece.

Two sources tell me:

  • "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire" Calvin B. Hoover (1935). "The Paths of Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World". American Economic Review 25 (1): 13-20.
  • "The traditional liberal position, laissez-faire, finds no place in the ideology or policy of the economic state. All economic and social activity becomes state-directed activity." Arthur E. Burns (1934). "Some Theoretic Bases of the Economic State". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 174: 173-178.

Intangible 13:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, calling a section "Historical view from the Right" is holistic hogwash. Intangible 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because most editors disagree with you, Intangible, is no justification for you to come here and post POV flags but not offer one shred of constructive critical commentary or and suggestions for improving the text.--Cberlet 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The constructive comments are above. Let me quote some more from Hoover:
"It is significant that there are many aspects in which national socialism and fascism show a surprising likeness to the soviet system. Contempt for democracy, for libaralism, and for pacifism characterizes all three systems. The paramount importance of the group and the small importance of the individual is likewise a concept common to all three...To the extent that fascism and national socialism are likely to develop an economic and socialist system in which personal rewards in pecuniary income and social presitage are determined as nearly as possible by service to the nation or race, there would then be a strong resemblance on this point between them and the soviet system which makes personal rewards dependent, in theory at least, on service to the soviet society." Intangible 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to provide any evidence that the specific statement above (that Italian fascism followed a laissez faire policy before 1929 and privatized some state assets) is untrue. john k 17:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the editor who included this bit can first provide for a direct quote from his source. As stated above: the essence of Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Somehow you think this does not apply before 1929? Intangible 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And actually, this question is more related to Italian fascism than to fascism as ideology. Intangible 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly provide a quote from my source. Two sources, in fact:

"Throughout these first four years the action of the Fascist government in the economic sphere differed little on the whole from the type of policy current under traditional liberal political regimes. Perhaps too much occupied with the problems of internal political consolidation, the Fascist government did not go much beyond the point of stimulating private agricultural and industrial activity and remedying such patent weaknesses in the country's economic structure as a badly unbalanced budget." William G. Welk. "Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment", Harvard University Press, 1938. Page 163 (emphasis mine).
"If we take the whole span of the Fascist experience, it is unquestionable that, save for the four initial years of laissez-faire boom, marked by inflation and devaluation, which made the fiscal retrenchment carried out at the same time by the Fascist government acceptable to the part of the population directly engaged in production, we can detect a strong continuity between the Fascist years and the experience of wartime economic dirigisme." John A. Davis (general editor). "Liberal and Fascist Italy", Oxford University Press, 2002. Page 74 (emphasis mine).

Regarding the privatization of government assets:

"To increase its efficiency and reduce its cost, government bureaucracy was thoroughly reorganized; some former government monopolies (such as the telephones) were turned over to private enterprise, and some Socialist legislation, notably that providing for inheritance and other direct taxes, was repealed." William G. Welk. "Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment", Harvard University Press, 1938. Page 160.

All scholarly sources dealing with the economy of Fascist Italy confirm that the fascists did not have a consistent economic policy. They used laissez-faire at first, then tried some heavy-handed monetary policy to stabilize the lira, then moved into corporatism after the Great Depression. And this has a lot to do with fascism as an ideology, since Italian Fascism was the very first kind of fascism after all. -- Nikodemos 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See, that shows the problem with this article. The liberal Alberto De Stefani was a finance minister between 1922 and 1925. I think this is what they are referring to when talking about "laissez-faire policies." But this has nothing to do with fascist ideology. It has to do with Italian fascism till 1925. Intangible 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It was the fascist ideologue Benito Mussolini who put De Stefani in office. If De Stefani's policies went contrary to fascist ideology, why did Mussolini not dismiss him? (in fact, Mussolini did eventually replace De Stefani, but that was only in 1925 and because De Stefani began promoting international trade) -- Nikodemos 19:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: If you are going to say that the policies of fascist governments have nothing to do with fascist ideology, then you cannot use the Hoover argument (the argument that the governments of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were totalitarian like the Soviet Union). In fact, the entire claim that fascism is similar to socialism is based on the policies of fascist governments. If you are going to ignore those policies, then the entire "fascism is socialism" camp has no ground to stand on. -- Nikodemos 19:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How can these policies be ignored? That's like saying that history does not look at the actions of human beings (i.e. that history is no social science at all!). To look at what people like Gentile wrote is only second to the argument of what Mussolini actually did in practice. The practice which pretty much was alike to the actions of Stalin, and therefore indistinguishable. Intangible 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you shouldn't ignore the policies of fascist governments. But it seemed to me you were saying we should ignore them (just a few minutes ago when you wrote "But this has nothing to do with fascist ideology. It has to do with Italian fascism till 1925."). If you agree that fascist policies must be mentioned in this article, then you agree that the 4 years of laissez-faire must be mentioned (among many other things, of course).
Regarding your comment on Stalin, that has no basis in historical fact whatsoever. The only thing Mussolini and Stalin had in common was that they were both dictators. But this is a trait they share with Napoleon, Louis XIV, the Emperor Constantine, Julius Ceasar, and many, many others. To say that all dictators are the same is to ignore the 4800 years of human history before the rise of liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. I think that policy should be mentioned in Italian fascism and Nazi Germany, ideology can be mentioned in fascism and nazism. Some policy can be mentioned as well in the latter two articles, when need be. But in the case of laissez-faire, this clearly is not part of the fascist ideology. Still the current article, Fascism and ideology, seems to be redundant.
  2. I'm not saying that all dictators are the same (qua human being), but their policy and dirigism is clearly alike, otherwise they wouldn't be called dictators in the first place. Intangible 22:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Economic issues in general are not part of fascist ideology. Or, at the very least, there is no consensus among fascists with regards to economics. That is why we need to look at fascist policies in order to determine the relationship between fascism, socialism and capitalism. And, again, this article is too long to merge with any other article.
  2. There is at least as much variation between the policies adopted by dictators as there is variation between the policies adopted by liberal democracies. The only thing you need in order to be a dictator is to have absolute power over a country. What you do with that power is another matter. Different people do different things. -- Nikodemos 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fork

There is an article about fascism in Italy, namely Italian fascism. There is also an article fascism. It seems that this article, Fascism and ideology, is a POV content fork. Everything that is discussed here can and should be discussed in the Italian fascism and fascism articles. Intangible 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting how you never seemed to consider this a content fork as long as it was biased towards your POV. In any case, the reason this article is separate from fascism and Italian fascism is because of its size. The issue of the relationship between fascism and other ideologies is complex and lengthy. -- Nikodemos 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism, capitalism and socialism

This section contradicts itself and makes no sense. At first it says they also argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists). In essence, fascists supported state-enforced inequality, which is opposed by liberal capitalists because it is state-enforced and opposed by socialists because it is inequality. Then it goes on to say And, indeed, Italian Fascism followed a laissez-faire economic policy. state-enforced inequality is the direct opposite of a laissez-faire policy. I put a disputed tag on the section. SnowShoes talk here 01:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This page consists of a variety of different claims about fascism and ideology. It is not a POV fork, and it is not supposed to be consistent. It is supposed to discusss, in an NPOV way, a variety of competing claims about fascism and ideology. Please do not try to impose your own unilateral POV on this page. It defeats the purpose of the page.--Cberlet 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not the one pushing POV. Whoever made the claim that fascism is laissez-faire needs to do some studying up on fascism and laissez-faire economics. It actually sounds propagandistic, so off-the-wall is this claim. SnowShoes talk here 22:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The person who made the claim is William G. Welk, in his book Fascist economy policy; an analysis of Italy's economic experiment, published by Harvard University Press. You are welcome to debate the issue with him if you wish to. But he is not the only author who points out that the Italian Fascist government of Benito Mussolini followed a laissez-faire policy during its first years in office. This is established historical fact. No one is arguing that laissez-faire is part of fascist ideology - the point is that laissez-faire was an economic policy adopted by a Fascist government for a certain period of time. Fascists were never particularly consistent about keeping their promises or doing what their ideology said they should do. -- Nikodemos 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we had this discussion before on Economics of fascism, in my view another content-fork article. It is almost impossible to keep track with all those fascism articles, and nowhere is it really demarcated which article is what about. I already suggested to keep fascist policy to the article Italian Fascism, also because that policy can be ascribed to the finance minister Alberto De Stefani, and he was indeed know then for his economic liberalism, but this certainly does not imply that fascist ideology endorses a laissez-faire economic policy, especially since De Stefani was fired in 1925. Intangible 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Your idiosyncratic views are fascinating, Intangible. Alas, they are marginal POV, and have little to add to the contructive editing of this entry. Sorry.--Cberlet 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much point in this article, in any case. SnowShoes talk here 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is. The point of this article is to list the (claimed) relationships between fascism and other ideologies. It would certainly be possible to include all this information in the main fascism article, but there is simply too much of it - that is why a separate article was created in the first place. Also, Intangible, it does not seem reasonable to me to discuss fascist ideology without discussing practical fascist policy (or vice versa). -- Nikodemos 03:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clarify the issue, see if it does make more sense now. -- Vision Thing -- 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About Japan?

I ask this question not to stir the pot around here (that seems unnecessary), and not to press a view of my own either (believe it or not) but because I'm genuinely curious. What, if anything, is the scholarly consensus these days about the proper classification of the government of Japan during the period of its alliance with the fascist governments of Europe? They were militarist, by anybody's understanding of that point. And the hereditary monarch, Hirohito, seems to have been a more active presence than his Italian counterpart. But fascistic? I'm not sure. Anybody? --Christofurio 19:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! This is a can of worms. But there are already two articles on Wikipedia that address it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_fascism (decent cites)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_European_Fascism_with_Japanese_ideology (no cites)

I think a case can be made, and the following does an excellent job:

Japanese Fascism Revisited Marcus Willensky http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan1.pdf

But I have a broad view of what can be called fascism within scholarship -- not political epithet.--Cberlet 05:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic policy again

"Italian Fascism followed a laissez-faire economic policy before the Great Depression… However, De Stefani was replaced with Giuseppe Volpi in 1925, and from then on laissez-faire and free trade were progressively abandoned…" 1925 is 4 years before anything like the Great Depression. The first sentence tends to suggest that it was only the depression that made the regime abandon laissez-faire, but I gather from the second sentence that is not the case. - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

True, I restored previous, more accurate version. Also, I removed quotes that give false impression of fascist economic policies. Given without a context they mislead a reader. -- Vision Thing -- 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
No, what you did, Vision Thing, was delete material you disagreed with, and then introduced highly POV and biased wording into the text.--Cberlet 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Some examples of POV would be nice.-- Vision Thing -- 22:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, it is dishonest to hide the fact that the fascists themselves claimed to support private property. Now, you may think that their support for private property was merely propaganda - just like I think the "socialism" of "national socialism" was merely propaganda - but this is a matter of POV, isn't it? Furthermore, it is especially dishonest to add quotes that support your view (the "national and social" Hitler quote) while removing or hiding quotes that support the opposite view. -- Nikodemos 06:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that fascists made contradictory statements, and often claimed to represent some sort of impossible combination of opposite ideas (e.g. Mussolini's statement "I am a reactionary and a revolutionary"). -- Nikodemos 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/s/Talk%7EFascism_and_ideology_3adb.html"