Talk:Fascism/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this should settle the question re TDC. Mussolini himself makes it quite clear that fascism is anti-socialist accordingly any state adhering to a socialist ideology cannot be fascist:

pg 12: "Fascism repudiates any universal embrace... (pg 13) Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history; according to which the history of human civilization can be explained siimply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production."

"And above all Fascism denies that the class war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society. These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted, nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration - as old as (pg 14) humanity itself - towards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated. But here again Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness, to be realized by Socialism and, as it were, at a given moment in economic evolution to assure to everyone the maximum of well-being. Fascism denies the materialist conception of happiness as a possibility..." (source: The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolin, translation by Jane Soames published by the Hogarth Press, London, 1933)130.15.162.71 19:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

1 Doctrine of Fascism
2 The Philosophical Basis of Fascism
3 Why are we talking?
4 wikiquette

Doctrine of Fascism

Look Andy, I don't dispute that many Catholics supported Fascism. Just like many Catholics support the Democratic Party here in America even though the Democratic positions on many things are anti-Christian. Explain that.

I must be the only one that read the Doctrine of Fascism. From the Doctrine:

"The Fascist State is not indifferent to religious phenomena in general nor does it maintain an attitude of indifference to Roman Catholicism,the special, positive religion of Italians...The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre at the height of the revolutionary delirium of the Convention, to set up a "god" of its own; not does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man."

"The Fascist state claims its ethical character: it is Catholic but above all fascist, in fact it is exclusively and essentially Fascist. Catholicism completes Fascism, and this we openly declare, but let no one think they can turn the tables on us, under cover of metaphysics or philosophy. (The the Chamber of Deputies, May 13, 1929, in Discorsi del 1929, Milano, Alpes, l930, p 182)"

The original liturgical language of Rome was not Latin but Greek. Sometime in the 5th century, it changed to Latin. With that change brought the Latin or Roman mentality into Christianity. Latin mentality and Greek mentality are very different. This affected huge changes within Latin Christianity. I was raised Catholic and was one for 40 years. I am now Orthodox.WHEELER 23:42, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lenin called Mussolini "a Confusionist". This man was totally loopy. He contradicts himself in many places. The man was confused. None of his writings or his philosophies can be seen in any rightist before Mussolini. Rightists don't have ideologies.WHEELER 23:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mussolini makes it clear he was anti-Marxist and anti-Socialist. That rather destroys your argument about Fascism and socialism doesn't it?

And WHEELER, it's not just that "many Catholics supported fascism" it's that many *clergy* including *senior clergy* supported fascism. It's also that Fascist ecnomic policy comes not from the Communist Manifesto but out of the 1891 papal encyclical! How do you explain Msr. Tiso being the fascist dicator of Slovakia? Or Catholic priests joining in and helping direct the Ustashe's genocide of Serbs? Sorry but John Kerry and Edward Kennedy may be Catholics but they certainly aren't clergy so your comparison doesn't stand up. As for Orthodoxy, look at the support the Romanian Orthodox Church gave to the fascist Iron Guard! Andylehrer

So what's your point?WHEELER 23:50, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rightism is for the monarchy or of mixed constitutions. Democracy, Socialism, Fascism, Anarchism are all on the left. In the Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini writes page 10 of 17 of worldfuturefund.org, "It is not reactionary but revolutionary." All Rightist are reactionaries. Not revolutionaries. Revolutionaries are on the left!!!WHEELER 23:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You and your silly generalisations. Depends which definition of right and left you're using doesn't it? Terms like right and left are plastic and used in different ways by different people. Many would say the Catholic Church is left wing because of its anti-materialism.

Anyway, point is that a) the Catholic Church (not just individual Catholic lay people) supported the fascsist movement even taking leadership roles b) Fascism was, by its own definition, anti-Marxist and rejected the central tenets of socialism c) the Fascist movement was heavily influenced by Catholic social and economic thought particularly the papal encyclical of 1891 d) that the Pope acted to support fascism and actively discouraged Catholic parties over which he had influence from opposing fascism. Andylehrer

From the Doctrine: "A party governing a nation "totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference not of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else."WHEELER 23:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please Andy read the Doctrine. Who did Mussolini quote as the philosophical basis for Fascism: Sorel, Peguy, Renan and Lagardelle. Both Sorel and Peguy and Renan were influenced by the Jewish French philosopher Henri Bergeson. This "vital" thing Mussolini always keeps talking about, comes from the Jewish philosopher Henri Bergeson and his 'elan vitale".WHEELER 00:02, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You realise that the quotations you're using actually *disprove* your point regarding socialism and fascism and prove my point about fascism and Catholicism? Or have you abandoned those claims in the face of overwhelming evidence against you? Andylehrer

It was Bergson that demolished scientism and mechanical evolution and materialism of the Marxist ideology. If you want to know where Mussolini got his anti-Marxism, he got it from the Jewish philosopher Henri Bergson. WHEELER 00:06, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah so what? Who cares where he got his anti-Marxism, the point is that he was anti-Marxist. Thaks for *finally* admitting it. Now we can move on. Andylehrer

I asked you to read the archive sections. I already stated that Mussolini and Hitler were anti-marxists. Did not stop them from being socialist? Socialists fight all the time among themselves. Please WHEELER 00:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Marxism are brothers. Heresies fighting among themselves for power and control of the Masses. Mussonlini did not think Marxism was rightist at all.WHEELER 00:08, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Heresies fighting among themselves for power and control of the Masses" And complete ideological opposites fight each other as well.

"These two fundamental concepts of Socialism being thus refuted, nothing is left of it but the sentimental aspiration - as old as (pg 14) humanity itself - towards a social convention in which the sorrows and sufferings of the humblest shall be alleviated. But here again Fascism repudiates the conception of "economic" happiness, to be realized by Socialism and, as it were, at a given moment in economic evolution to assure to everyone the maximum of well-being. Fascism denies the materialist conception of happiness as a possibility..."

"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism, " You do understand the phrase "complete opposite" do you not? On the one hand, Mussolini says "Fascism completes Catholicism" on the other he says that fascism and Marxism are "complete opposites". Anyway, you've admitted what I tried to get you to admit so I think we can all move on now. Andylehrer

OK Wheeler, here's the moment you've been waiting for. Our library here happens to have the 1932 enciclopedia italiana. I have volume XIV in front of me and here, I am about to reveal whether your Herbert Hoover book correctly translated Mussolini as saying fascism is of the "left" or if he said it's of the "right". Have the websites you quoted deliberately substituted "right" for "left" or is the translation Herbert Hoover used in his book just wrong.

are you ready?

volume XIV, article is called fascismo by benito mussolini. on page 850, 1st column, about the middle of paragraph 2, Mussolini writes as follows:

Si puo pensare che questo sia il secolo dell'autorita, un secolo di <<destra>>, un secolo fascista;

Now, I don't know a lot of Italian but I do happen to know that "sinistra" means left and "destra" means right so the translation of "un secolo di <<destra>>, un secolo fascista;" would be "a century of the 'right', a fascist century."

My email address is andylehrer@sympatico.ca Send my your snailmail address and I'll send you a photocopy of the page just in case you don't believe me. Or if you think I'll falsify the photocopy use your interlibrary loan system and ask Stauffer Library at Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario) to send you a photocopy of page 850, volume XIV, Enciclopedia Italiana call# REF AE35 E5 v.14Andylehrer

"From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital." So if you're using this to argue that Mussolini thought fascism is socialistic then you'd also have to argue that fascism is liberal and democratic. Good luck trying to persuade anyone of that. Sorry WHEELER but Mussolini makes it quite clear in the Fascismo article that fascism is opposed to socialism. He also makes it quite clear, it can now be said, that fascism is *right wing*. Your assertion that Mussolini thought fascism was either left wing or socialist has been proven wrong so please be a gentleman, admit you were misled by a poor source and drop the issue so we can move on.

Mussolini identifies himself as right wing (Yes, believe it or not Herbert Hoover can not be trusted when it comes to translating Italian. )and as anti-socialist and virtually every scholar does as well so wikipedia is not in a position to buck the trend. If you have an unorthodox opinion then write an article and post it on your own website or send it to some journal but wikipedia articles are not the place for it. Just because you really really believe something or really really want something to be true doesn't mean that thing has to be accomodated. Try writing the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana and convince them to say in their books that fascism is left wing or that fascism is a form of socialism and see how far you get. Wikipedia's standards shouldn't be any lower.

And yes, compared to feudalists and believers in the divine right of kings and in the ancien regime of the seventeenth century Mussolini was left-wing but in the context of twentieth century history and politics he was on the right and that is the context in which the article is being written and certainly those anti-modernists and a great number of monarchists and others who reject the French revolution and all it wrought saw Mussolini and fascism as an ally rather than as an enemy, an ally against socialism, Bolshevism, liberalism and democracy so yes, he was to the "left" of royalists but he was considerably to the right of the socialists, liberals et al, so much so that most people you would have identified as being "right wing" in the early 20th century preferred fascism over the other alternatives so in that context too he was "right wing". Even Churchill had good things to say about Mussolini in the 1920s and early 1930s as did most of the British establishment.

Churchill after meeting Mussolini in 1927:

"I could not help being charmed, like so many other people have been, by his gentle and simple bearing and by his calm, detached poise in spite of so many burdens and dangers."

Mr Churchill declined to discuss Fascism in its national aspect, he said:

"Different countries have different ways of doing the same thing…If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against…Leninism. But in England we have not yet had to face his danger in the same deadly form…. But that we shall succeed in grappling with Communism and choking the life out of it - of that I am absolutely sure."

Extract from press statements made by Churchill, January 1927

Andylehrer

"Better Hitler than Blum" was the cry of the French right in the 30s...and the French right was much more sympathetic to Mussolini (and Franco) than they were to Hitler, who was, after all, the hereditary enemy. john 04:19, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Herr Chancellor, on behalf of the British Government I congratulate you on crushing communism in Germany and standing as a bulwark against Russia"

- Lord Halifax then British Deputy Prime Minister (later Foreign Secretary) addressing Adolf Hitler, November 1937. Andylehrer

Of course, we should not take the comments of statesmen who are complimenting their hosts too seriously... At any rate, this is not constructive. How to begin work on a new way of organizing the article? I'd love to write about French fascism (which isn't really covered here, anyway), but we really need to resolve the basic organizational questions, first. john 04:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Halfax was seen as something of an appeaser. Anyway, I wasn't suggesting it for the article just trying to settle the point with WHEELER and hopfully TDC though I suspect at least TDC may continue on his quest to prove that fascism isn't associated with anything on his side of the political spectrum Andylehrer

Question Andy: Is Henri Bergson a rightist or a Christian? What Jew is a rightist? None. It is clear that the *vitalism* in Henri Bergson is the same *vitalism* of Mussolini. Bergeson was not a rightist at all. May have been a mild leftist. He was certainly NOT marxist but he was not rightist either. There is no doubt that Sorel, Peguy, Renan, and Bergeson were the philosophical basis for Fascism.WHEELER 17:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorel was definitely leftist for much of his life, right before WWI he became a rightist and supported monarchists but after WWI, he heavily supported and defended Lenin.WHEELER 17:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because Henri Bergson is Jewish Mussolini must be a leftist? And that is based on you assertion that no Jew is right wing (implying that all Jews are left wing). I think you're overgeneralising just a *wee* bit there.

"What Jew is a rightist?"

David Frum, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz come to mind along with Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Elliot Abrams, Norman Podhoretz, Elliot Cohen, Midge Dector, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Irving Kristol, Allan Bloom... shall I continue?

I think you have a very limited conception of what is "right wing" and that is clouding your analysis. Andylehrer

Rightist means for the monarchy. None of those are. Conservative doesn't mean rightist. WHEELER 18:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Republicanism and Monarchism are almost identical. I point to Sparta and see the Talk:Republic None of those above promote the Republic as the original Founding Fathers wanted it to be. So they are really not conservatives either.WHEELER 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It totally amazes me that the "Doctrine of Fascism" is never mentioned in the original article. There are no quotes and there are no references to it. It is not even mentioned as a Source material. How the heck can we call ourselves encyclopaedists when we don't refer to original documents and constantly using secondary sources??? This is unreal.WHEELER 18:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This from someone who used a mistranslated quotation from Doctrines of Fascism published in a book by Herbert Hoover as evidence.

Andylehrer

The Philosophical Basis of Fascism

In the Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini says the source of Fascism is Sorel, Peguy, and Lagardell. Later on in Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini quotes from Renan who he said had "prefascist intuitions". Both Sorel and Peguy were influenced by Henri Bergson. Henri Bergson demolished scientism and mechanical evolution and materialism of the Marxist ideology. Henri Bergson promoted an *elan vital* as an evolutionary process. Both of these element of Bergeson appear in Fascism.

Sorel was interested with and influenced by Roman ideas and wanted to restore the greatness of Rome and its culture. He "collabrated with Benedetto Croce and Antonio Labriola in propagating Marx's idea's in Italy. Italy was Sorel's second home. In this period of his life, Sorel, was an anarchosyndicalist. Before WWI, dissatisfied with anarchosyndacalism he associated himself with extreme right wing groups, monarchists, ultra-nationalists and Catholic revivalists. But after WWI, he "put his energies into defending Lenin". It was he who propagated a "Theory of Violence" as necessary. WHEELER 18:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It looks to me that the greatest evils of the twentieth century, Marxism and Fascism came from the works of Jews. Marx was a Jew and Henri Bergson was a Jew. Practically all the elements of Henri Bergson is evident in the Doctrine of Fascism. This is fascinating.WHEELER 18:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha! Wheeler's an anti-semite. Huzzah! Does that give us any right to ignore him? john 18:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't you also ignore Marx?TDC 19:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One down, one to go... john 19:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not at all my dear man. I am just pointing out facts. The realization hit me.WHEELER 19:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, if you're going to begin attacking the Jews, you will lose what goodwill you have built with a few editors here. Please don't. Even if you are anti-Semitic, please keep it quiet here or I know trouble will ensue. Jwrosenzweig 19:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The opinions of editors, whether they be hatred of jews, or love of chess, are to be of no importance. This means mainly that there is no use in presenting them. I implore you wheeler, please keep unpopular opinions to yourself, they in no way increase your ability to place unpopular facts within the article. I personally have a negative view towards racism, communism, political correctness and environmental degredation, but that is really irrelevent to making this a better article. Lets focus on facts, and discuss our opinions, popular or otherwise, elsewhere if at all. Sam Spade 19:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, I think that, to be fair to you, I need to emphasize that the above is Sam's opinion. In fact, editors who express racist ideas here repeatedly can be blocked as violating community standards. He is right that anti-Semites can edit here. What they can't do is bash the Jews openly. I think Sam would agree with me that I am describing the reality of the situation, even if he feels that your personal opinions should not matter. Jwrosenzweig 20:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Rightist means for the monarchy. None of those are. Conservative doesn't mean rightist." Benjamin Disraeli was a monarchist (like Marx he was of Jewish ethnicity but baptised as a child), Michael Howard, the current leader of the Conservative Party in Britain is Jewish and a monarchist, so are a number of other Jewish Tories such as Leon Brittan and Michael Rifkind, . Anyway, by your definition, the Republican Party isn't right wing, nor is George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, nor was Barry Goldwater. Again, I think your definition of "right wing" is far narrower than the one used in academia or indeed, by anyone since the 18th century or so. Andylehrer

"The Prince of Wales (Charles) descends from the Colonna family who were Jewish in origin. He has also a descent from the Khazars (see below) who adopted Judaism as their religion. The Queen, her husband and her children have another Jewish descent from an historical figure named Makhir. Makhir was a Jewish Prince of the Davidic Royal House sent by Caliph Harun-al-Rashid as ambassador to the Emperor Charlemagne at the end of the 9th century. Makhir remained in Europe where he founded a family, one of whose descendants marries into the medieval English Royal Family." Source:Monarchist League of Canada Andylehrer

And of course, there's King David.

Thanks for the information Andy. I appreciate it greatly.WHEELER 21:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

These genealogies sound dubious. It should be noted that the Jews of Austria-Hungary were notable as the most loyalist ethnic group in that monarchy. At any rate, this is silly. WHEELER is an anti-semite - let's not debate him. john 20:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"It looks to me that the greatest evils of the twentieth century, Marxism and Fascism came from the works of Jews." Some would add Christianity to the list, after all that too "comes for the works of Jews", Jesus, Mary, the apostles were all Jewish. Andylehrer

"By that logic, shouldn't you also ignore Marx" Virtually all European gentiles before about 1900 or so could probably be said to be anti-Semitic at least to some degree. Indeed, if you look at the writings of 19th and early 20th century Zionists you'll find a lot of what we would now recognise as anti-Semitism there (need to reject the shtetl, Yiddish, the Jewish religion and mercantalism as backwards, go to Palestine and become a New Jew and "normal" like everone else etc.. read not only Moses Hess but Gordon, Herzl et al). It's one reason you have to look at context othewise we'll have to go through the wikipedia and add a politically correct phrase to the biography of every pre-20th century figure explaining that they are sexist, anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic etc because virtually all of them were! Even the women, Jews, non-whites and gays!)130.15.162.62 21:03, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I may be wrong about the Jews not being monarchists or royalists. Ariel Sharon is not a monarchist. I worked for two and a half years as a shabbas goy of a conservative synagogue, I attended every service and knew all the hymns. I enjoyed it thoroughly. WHEELER 21:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bergson wanted to become Catholic but wanted solidarity with His fellow brothers in l941. A Catholic Priest did say prayers for him at his funeral per his wishes.WHEELER 21:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mussolini followed Sorel. This from the Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. "But Sorel adopted the accounts of the heroic and decadent phases of society given by Giambattista Vico in his cyclical theory. Sorel and Croce stimulated the revival of interest in Vico, and Sorel regarded his own social theory as a Viconian revision of Marxism.

Andy wants to throw around that because Mussolini was anti-marxist makes him rightist. Sorel attack Marxism from within using Vico and Bergson demolishes the materialism and scientificism of Marxism. That is where this comes from.WHEELER 21:16, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know politically where Bergson stood. I can find no information on that. But Bergson had a great influence of the time. I studied Nikos Kazantzakis who was also heavily influenced by Bergson. I wrote an article called "The Swastika and Nikos Kazantzakis". A biographer of Kazantzakis has a picture of a form of a swastika on the front cover.WHEELER 21:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Croce said that Sorel and Marx were the only original thinkers Socialism ever had." This in Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. This is an Italian Socialist saying Sorel is one the 'original thinkers' of socialism. Fascism is not of the right at all. WHEELER 21:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Italian Fascism was not anti-semetic.WHEELER 21:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, read the article Left-Right politics. Your definitions are far too rigid. You have to understand that meanings evolve over time and that the way "right-wing" and "left-wing" are applied in the twentieth century as well as today are different from the way they were applied before. We're not living in 1789. Moreover, your rigid definition of "right" and "left" is not the one used in modern political science or by historians of the fascist period therefore we can not use your definition in this encyclopedia, we have to use the academically accepted usage. Do you understand? You may well be correct but until you can convince scholars of that we cannot use your usage of left and right in the wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mechanism to convince scholarship that it is wrong, it's not a forum for opinion and persuasion. You'll have to go somewhere else for that. If you like I'm sure there are people here who can hope you establish your own webpage or blog where you can put forth your opinions and try to persuade people but this isn't the place. Andylehrer

Why are we talking?

Just a reminder: the purpose of each article's talk page is to discuss ways of improving the article.

Try to keep this in mind, when asserting that one point or another is true or not. We'd like each point discussed to result in an addition or other improvement to the article.

Remember, we're not here to convince others that we are right. Rather we're here to distinguish among the various points of view: some like fascism and wish it had been more successful; others despise it and wish it had never existed. I doubt any of us are going to change our minds in the next few weeks. --Uncle Ed 22:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I hope that you are not inferring that I wish Fascism had been more successful. I am simply tring to bring up the issue that many serious historical thinkers believe that Fascism has many of its roots in marxist/socialist theory, and have it include in the article without being obliterated every time I put it in.

Please do not misconstrue the point I am getting at. TDC 22:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Although I suppose some might like Fascism, I doubt that you will find anybody posting here who admires fascism and wish it had been more successful. That is not what we are arguing about - it's a straw man. john 22:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, for the constructive advice. But don't be fooled by TDC's lies -- "I am simply tring to bring up the issue that many serious historical thinkers believe that Fascism has many of its roots in marxist/socialist theory" is just an attempt to confuse the issue. If you want to, you can go through all the talk pages but you will not mind mention of any serious historical thinker who has argued that Fascism has roots in Marxist thought. All we have here is a crank who thinks Wikipedia is a vehicle for personal essays, rather than an enecyclopedia. Slrubenstein

" that many serious historical thinkers believe that Fascism has many of its roots in marxist/socialist theory"

That's an unsupported statement, TDC. Please name six serious historians who argue that. Andylehrer

Joshua Muravchik, Paul Lawrence Rose, Daniel Pipes, Friedrich Hayek, Victor David Hanson, and I am sure there are others, but those are the ones I am most familiar with. And dont start with the line that these are not serious academics garbage. TDC 04:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Andy -- I predict that TDC will list six different serious historical thinkers, none of whom claim that Fascism has its roots in Marxism, but TDC will nevertheless provide long quotes filling up the page and then restate the false claim as if the quotes prove it, either oblivious to what the quotes say, or simply with malicious delight at wasting our time. Just a predication ... Slrubenstein

Hey, I dont give a fuck what you think does or does not prove my case. Serious academic believe that Fascism has many of its roots in marxist/socialist theory.

I am done, it goes in as soon as the page is unprotected. :p TDC 04:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Andy and Slrubenstein I just produced evidence, Facts, on Sorel. Sorel is a socialist. He provided the framework and philosophy of Fascism to Mussolini. The Encyclopeadia of Philosophy proves TDC right. It is from Socialist and Marxist ideology. What about your biases of protecting your false idea that Fascism is of the right? WHEELER 01:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, some scholars say that Sorel was one of several people whose work influenced Fascist thought. That is not at all what you or TDC are claiming -- not at all. One could just as accurately say that "Fascists appropriated certain ideas of Sorel." Or you could say that, since the Fascists used printing presses, "The printing press made Fascism possible" -- true, in a way, but meaningless. The same scholars who claim that Sorel influenced Fascists name Nietzsche as an influence. It is clear that the Fascists misinterpreted Nietzsche; virtually all Nietzsche scholars argue that Nietzsche would have been vigorously opposed to fascism. And it would be silly to write "Fascism is a form of existentialism," just because Nietzsche also contributed to existentialist thought. So my prediction is coming true: people with no clue about how to interpret historical or scholarly documents present them as if they prove one thing, when they do not prove it at all. Exactly what I said. Slrubenstein

Who is not being fair here. Slrubenstein already calls what TDC says lies. If he has facts they are facts not lies. WHEELER 01:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see: http://www.policyreview.org/aug00/Beichman.html WHEELER 01:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I already know about James Gregor, the man is a Nazi sympathiser and a supporter of eugenics and racial segregation. This is probably why his book takes great pains to differentiate fascism and Nazism and probably why he argues that fascism is left wing and Nazism is right wing (that's right, according to Gregor, fascism and Nazism or on the opposite ends of the political spectrum). Gregor has praised what he describes as "last phase ... [of] National Socialist race theory," calling it a "scientifically sound and emotionally satisfying" philosophy. Gregor has also said that there is "compelling evidence of Negro biological inferiority"

Thank you but one person doesn't make a consensus, certainly not if that person is Gregor. The consensus in academia is quite clear in relation to fascism. The point remains, WHEELER, that your claim is not supported in academia so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Do you not understand that? Convince the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encyclopedia Americana that they should describe fascism as left wing and then come back here and say we should do the same. Andylehrer

TDC, can you just agree to stop listing the Soviet Union as a fascist country so that the page protection can be lifted and we can return to editing? Can you just do that one thing please???? Andylehrer

As for Gregor, you can find more information about him here The Funding of Scientific Racism He's a very scary individual and I don't think we should take him as a credible source. AndyL 02:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)