Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] To Do

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

[edit] Definition questioned

Fascism: This whole definition needs to be simplified to eliminate the attributes the word has picked up via post WWII politics. Here is my thought:

Fascism, as it was defined in Italy in it's first modern usage, is a symbolic reference to ancient Italian (Roman) unity. It comes from the bundle of sticks, surrounding the ax at the center. This Italian word was meant to ressurrect the idea of Roman power and supremacy, with singular leadership at the center surrounded by indentical and unified people.

All the aruments about corporatism and alike are really beyond the word's pure meaning. Enemies of the politics of fascism seek to over-complicate the debate. The word has been misused since WWII to describe any totalitarian repressive regime that did not embrace a Communist or other Marxist based economic philosophy. Good motives lead to bad outcomes sometimes.

The word "Fascism" stesses unity through strength. In practice this strength is derived at the cost of the individual's liberty and choices. Nationalism and racism are related terms but not the same, because they miss the economic connotation of fascism. National control of industry is accomplished in the fascist state, but not through nationalization or state ownership. Industry and business are privately owned and operated, but they are coopted and cooerced into aligning with the national interest, as defined by the dictator leading the state. This is done with money and power in the fascist state, not seizure. Thus they are controlled, but this is not corporate necessarily. In a fascist state, propaganda and physical force eliminate the enemies communism and racial / national impurity at all levels, in the small shops and in the large factories. To apply a Marxist analysis, coercion and force are the means and racism and nationalism are the justification for whatever acts are necessary to bring about economic control of the means of production, not the capital. The capital (and the judiciary) are bought off and coopted into the power structure. They are only repressed or killed as a last resort.

The reason for all of these things is the impowerment of the central dictator, the ax, who defines the national identity by relating back to historical symbols and wielding power against enemies of the rising nation. These historical symbols are misused and taken out of context to create a simplified and powerful identity to which the dictator can refer to justify his acts of repression, corruption, coercion and violence.

National socialism, the nazis, were different but modeled on the fascists. They were less political in their means, and more nationalistic in their economic methods of control. National socialism, like communism, was more imperialist and pragmatically military than the original fascist ideology, which was simpler and para-military on the national social level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.138.91 (talk • contribs) 31 Jan 2006.

I believe that the project main page has a simple definition. Correct me if im wrong but isnt the whole point of this project to clear up what it is, and help eliminate untrue assumptions of the project. One thing we could add to help with clarifacation is a popular example of Fascim is the British Government in V for Vendetta(flim). It used violence in the prison V was kept in, censorship through having all T.V.'s show one channel that is run by the government. It has a strong leader, and I believe uses all of the ideas of Fascism. Marxism is not a Fascist idea. It is a seperate Philosophy independent from Fascism. To inlude Marx in the discussion of Fascism is both unfactual and completely off basis. There is an example of both a good example, and a bad one.False Prophet 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on fascism? We are also looking for FAs. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorary Aryan

Honorary Aryan: not a topic I know much about, but I noticed that we were completely without an article, so I started one. Can someone help me out? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military (paperback ISBN 0700613587, cloth ISBN 0700611789) by Bryan Mark Rigg is a good source on this topic. The term was also used, by Hitler, to describe the Japanese. —Morning star 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for the use by Hitler with reference to the Japanese? I'd really like to get that into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I first encountered the description in Revilo P. Oliver's The Yellow Peril [1], but he doesn't provide a citation. I don't have copies of Hitler's Japanese Confidant: General Oshima Hiroshi and Magic Intelligence, 1941-1945 (hardcover ISBN 070060569X, paperback ISBN 0700611894) or India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War (ISBN 3129153403) handy, but they might cover it. —Morning star 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for inclusion

Hi all. I'm not a project member, but I was leafing through some articles (including the list of fascist movements) and it raised some concerns for me. Particularly, in the neo-fascism article, an enormous amount is dedicated to trashing the Clinton and Bush regimes. I don't know whether any of this is related to people in this project, and frankly, I'm not going to bother looking through edit histories. I realize that this is a problem inherent to Wikipedia, and that by posting here I will certainly not reach the entire Wikiverse, but I'm hoping maybe you guys can help me out here anyway.

I've read through the fascism article and the "definition of fascism" here, and frankly, I think the inclusion criteria are far too broad. As someone who is at the moment studying fascism -- in Germany, no less -- I feel qualified to say a little bit about this.

According to The Blackwell Dictionary of Social Thought, fascism is:

a singularly protean genus of modern politics inspired the conviction that a process of national rebirth (palingenesis) has become essential to bring to an end a protracted period of social and cultural decadence, and expressing itself ideologically in a revolutionary form of integral nationalism (ultra-nationalism).

Michael Mann (a leading scholar in the field) echoes this in his book, Fascists, by saying that fascism is "the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism."

Paramilitarism and revolutionary rebirth are the keys to the ideology of fascism. Because of these key concepts, most contemporary scholars see fascism as a dynamic movement rather than an actual political system. True fascist regimes are constantly seeking to 'shed' the 'worst' elements of society from the system. (In pre-war Germany, this was an anti-Marxist movement; during the war, the enemy changed from Marxists to Jews. But the goal remained the same: purification through violence.)

Many things are 'like' fascism in that they incorporate a) exultation of the state, b) a near-religious glorification of the cult of violence, or c) politics of the extreme right. However, a movement is not actually a fascist movement unless it express the social rebirth through paramilitaristic violence.

Furthermore, just because someone calls something a fascist movement, that doesn't make it one. Just because someone said "Clinton invaded Kosovo: he's a fascist", that doesn't mean that his politics are in line with the ideology of paramiliartistic palingenesis. Likewise, just because the Republican Party expresses some very radical views and policies these days does not mean that they conform to Juan Linz's definition of fascism (in Walter Laquer's Fascism) as

hypernationalist, often pan-nationalist, anti-parliamentary, anti-liberal, anti-communist, populist and therefore anti-proletarian, partly anti-capitalist and anti-bourgeois, [and] anti-clerical, or at least, non-clerical.

(Traditionally, fascism was all of these things, especially anti-capatilist, as business and capitalism was associated (in the 1920's, when fascism really evolved) with the left, not the right. Fascism was, at its inception, an anti-liberal movement against the new parliamentary systems that emerged out of WWI.)

I welcome any discussion on this topic, but I respectfully ask you to take my comments into consideration; this will help us do as much as possible to avoid users from turning the fascism-related articles into mudslinging playgrounds.

Thanks. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 18:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Socialism Vs Fascism?

I've only seen this issue mentioned once on the entire discussion page. Though national socialism and fascism share a great number of similiarities, there are some important fundamental differences between them. Economically, the internal workings of fascism and national socialism are extremely different. The country that most resembles Mussolini's italy in terms of economics is North Korea, with Juche being roughly equivilent to Mussolini's failed attempts at autarky. What then are the rammifications of "left fascism" on the project?

One of the earliest leaders of the national socialist movement was Roehm, who seemed to support a thuggish, anti-semitic (homosexuality permitting?) proletarian dictatorship before his death. Before he was murdered, Roehm gave a speech to the SA that said something along the lines of: Though we are nationalists, don't forget that we are also socialists. Can Hitler then, considering his deals with the army and the capitalist class, be a perversion of National Socialism, much in the same way that it is claimed Stalin was a perversion of Marxism-Leninism, or is Hitler to be considered the supreme arbiter of what National Socialism is and is not?

Sorry, sort of got off topic there. I realize the best place to grapple with some of these issues are in the relevant talk pages, but I'm just sort of wondering what the consensus of the place of left fascism and national socialism (if any) in the larger project. Feel free to leave questions, comments, and flaming bags of feces on my talk page if you find it neccessary.

--Irongaard 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

National Socialism and fascism "share a great number of similarities" because National Socialism is fascism. Or at least, a specific type of it. The philosophy of fascism includes clerical fascism, fascio, National Socialism, and many others.
It is important to note that National Socialism is not socialism. While it has many qualities that one might consider socialistic, it is a nationalist movement. The birth of National Socialism was indeed not in Germany, but in France, when Charles Maurras "reinterpreted" Sorel's "conservative socialism" in a nationalist context.
And no, Hitler was not so far off from French NSism. Although the French NSists were primarily monarchists, the goal was to build masculine, hero-worshipping, 'puritanically' cleansed society. Maurras is quoted as saying, "Were we not anti-Semites for patriotic reasons, we would become them out of simple usefulness." Hitler simply put a non-royal face on an old philosophy. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 12:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'm more concerned about the economic variations. My general understanding is that the Nazis nationalized some industries 'vital for war production' and had a roughly planned economy, with some industries heavily controlled while others were left virtually untouched. Meanwhile, the italians had a corporatization in which the capitalist class and the workers were supposed to work together, but I don't know of any major italian industries that were nationalized. Other concerns: How integral is the idea of an 'anti' racial or ethnic group for the society to strugle against for fascism? The germans had the jews and the gypsies, and the italians had... the Abyssinans? Mussolini, shortly before his overthrow glummly admitted to hitler that there was very litle anti-semitism in italy, despite his best efforts. Additionally, I don't see how national socialism varies greatly from 'socialism in one country.' Or is that also not socialism? --Irongaard 04:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler had a partially planned economy because he was a better Commander-in-Chief than Mussolini. It was not because of ideological reasons, but rather because of practical ones. The reason NS is considered "socialistic" is that it was strongly anti-capitalist. It is an industrialist movement based on mobilization of the sub-bourgeois classes, and therefore can be compared to Socialism. But it is also socially conservative and in no way a redistribution movement. It consolidates.
It is also a strictly party movement. Socialist movements generally seek to integrate classes, movements, societal segments, etc. NSism seeks to divide the society into Party members and Party opposers. In fact, it needs these oppositions to continue its ad inifinitum mobilization. That is why war car so quickly after the rise of fascism.
In response to your 'anti' question, it is very important. But allow me to clear up a common misconception: the Nazi Party did not rise to power on a platform of anti-semitism. They were an anti-Marxist party. More than 80% of the SA beatings before 1933 were of SPD and KPD (Social Democratic Party and Communist Party in Germany) members. Almost none were Jews. After the Nazi Party was in power, Marxism was no longer a credible threat, so they turned to Jews.
In Italy, anti-Marxism was also very important. The Jewish population in Italy was not a significant segment at the time, but remember who Italy went to war with: an African territory. While there was no mass-murder campaign, anti-African racism in Italy was rampant at the time. Then again, the Italians did not feel the pressures of "the enemy" in the same way Germany did, and his government was therefore far less successful. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 17:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The term fascism (with a lowercase 'f') is a general category of ideology which includes Fascism (with a capital 'F', as practiced in Italy) and National Socialism. Some reject the categorization of National Socialism as a variety of Fascism and see the two as completely distinct; both scholars such as John Lukacs (see his The Universality of National Socialism (The Mistaken Category of 'Fascism'), PDF), and self-proclaimed National Socialists such as Savitri Devi.
In Pilgrimage, Savitri Devi related a discussion with a German comrade. Her friend stated (in 1953):

"...I am now working for an American-sponsored newspaper, the only work I could find after having lived two years on the State-loan of 20 marks a week. Well, I had to swear—to swear, mind you !—that I am 'not a Fascist', so that I might be accepted. I swore it. In fact, I swore the truth. I am not "a Fascist" but a National Socialist. It is not at all the same thing, save in 'these people's' stupid heads."

I could not help smiling. "During the war," said I, "when my husband (Asit Krishna Mukherji) wished to get rid of some boring fool come to make him waste his time, he used to put him the question: 'Can you tell me the difference between National Socialism and Fascism?' Nine times out of ten the fool would declare that the two were 'the same thing'. Upon which my husband would tell him: 'In that case—since you can see no difference between a way of life based upon eternal principles, and a politico-economic system,—you'd better talk of something else. Tell me, for instance, what price your wife paid for a pound of fish, this morning at the market. That, I suppose, you know.' ...And nine times out of ten, the fool would invent an excuse to go away—to my husband's relief! (p. 243) —Morning star 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't say they were the same thing. Similar, but not the same. I was just pointing out that, in the ways that Irongaard mentioned, they are not very different. The discussion, in fact, was not about Fascism vs. NSism, but rather Socialism vs. NSism. - 134.76.62.176 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal?

Is there a possibility of creating a WikiPortal on Fascism at this time? Here's an example of a portal about a political ideology to give you an idea of what it would look like: Portal:Anarchism

I've never created a portal before, but if people are willing to help I'll give it a go.

Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone willing to help out? Anyone think its a bad idea? Lurker 14:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A portal could be useful however the anarchist portal seems to be designed primarily for anarchists whereas most of the people who edit fascism articles aren't necessarily fascists. However, a fascism portal would provide a way to collect all the fascism articles together for easy reference and would provide a better way to organize support for the fixing of fascism related articles. If there's additional interest in such a project I'd help. - DNewhall
In the long run it's a good idea, but I'm worried that it would be a lightning rod for vandals from both sides. --Stlemur 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I think articles on this subject already attract their share of vandals, and don't see a portal making it any worse.

I will have a go at creating a first draft of the portal sometime in the first couple of days in next week, unless people involved with this project say "wait" Lurker 10:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to DNewhall, a Facism portal is now up at Portal:Fascism Lurker 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratlines, Odessa

Hi - I've been trying to improve WP's coverage of post-war fascist escape routes at the page Ratlines_(history). I think this is a very important area - it also feeds into later development of neofascist movements in Europe as well as the role of ex-Nazis in South American regimes - but it's one that has very scanty treatment at the moment. There is also a more established page on ODESSA, and some duplication between the two articles. My view is that 'ratlines' should be the main general discussion with the Odessa article focusing on that particular network. I have tried to open discussion at the relevant talkpages but there just doesn't seem to be anyone else active there at the moment. So it'd be great if anyone here is interested and has time to have a look, maybe give some feedback on what I've done.Bengalski 13:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No surprise here

It comes as no surprise to find this 'project' on Wikipedia. Just answer this question: will you be doing an identical project on Bolshevism/Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism etc? I mean, lets not just gloss over the 100 million people murdered under the disciples of Marx in the 20th century. When will you be identifying all these organisations and individuals? 81.131.140.91 08:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to found such a project. Wikipedia's always looking for new contributors. See Wikipedia:WikiProject. --Stlemur 13:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism in America?

Please consider adding information about the following to the interesting articles that are already present here: <removed spam from banned user> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.226.197.69 (talk • contribs) 11 April 2006.


Much of the information on Rex Curry's site isn't true (and can be shown to be so by simple research) or he doesn't reference his sources so that someone can verify his claims. I wouldn't take what he says seriously or use it as a source.

1. Incorrect. First, the "Fascist salute" is different from the Bellamy salute (which is closer to the Nazi salute). Second, the salute was used in many instances before that. Bellamy probably got it since it was used as a salute of allegiance in the mid to late 1800s and the Nazi's/Fascists got it from their glorification of the past (they believed that it was the salute the Romans used).

2. Incorrect. First, Mussolini had disassociated himself from the socialists before founding the Fascist Party and the whole point of the Fascist Party was anti-socialism. Hitler wasn't involved in any socialist parties prior to the NSDAP which only added "Socialist" to their name because their Austrian affiliate did (and he didn't make the choice). The NSDAP also target socialists specifically in their reign of terror which doesn't lend much crecedence to their being legitimately socialist. Second, while the Roman salute is generally believed to not have been used by the Romans I haven't seen anyone actually proving without a doubt that they didn't (there are well known pictures of what seem to be it on Trajan's Collumn).

3. Don't know. After looking through the links given I can't find any reference on the site about the swastika being made up of 'S's. Yes, he says they are but he gives no evidence or references for why. The same is for what the 'S' in Hitler's signiture symbolized. No evidence is given for why it measn "socialist". Also, the Volkswagon thing is kind of ridiculous.

4. Probably incorrect. This one almost holds up however. Yes, Francis and Edward were involved in "nationalist"/patriotic activities and they were socialists. But where the National Socialists of the Hitlerian sort? Again, no references or proof given and I think that this would have been something that would have been commented on in scholarly literature. Granted, I know the least about this point but I have read Looking Backward and didn't find anything Nazi-ish in the least.

- DNewhall

I've removed this to avoid Curry getting any Google ranking. He's spammed hundreds of Wikipedia pages with this sort of stuff (and spends his time slandering Wikipedians elsewhere on the net). — Matt Crypto 08:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of misinformation going around. I can't site a source from this, as the book i found it in I do not remember. The hindu peace symbol has the final legs pointing right, while the Nazi symbol has them pointing left. I dont see anything in wikipedia's policy about this, but I am going to assume that the legal system's rule on this is used. Common knowledge is something that is accepted my an overwhelming majority and has been accepted by society. Common law in the legal system is accepted without an actual citation to the law. The idea that the Nazi salute originated from the times of Julius Caesear (excuse me if my spelling isnt correct, its a bit late, but I have a bad memory so I am posting this while I remember it) is generaly accepted, and therefore I think is acceptable to be in wikipedia without a citation. False Prophet 02:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your post is copyright violation. Its from [2]. ---Redattore 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Largely concur on Looking Backward, although it is the blandest socialist vision I've ever encountered, and does have a bit in common with fascist aesthetics that way. - Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grey Wolves

I have just reverted a large deletion of content in Grey Wolves. If anyone here would take a look at this, I would appreciate it. --Moby 11:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grey Wolf movement is not a fascist movement. İt is a nationalist and patriotic youth organization. Labeling a person or a group which you don't like his/her/their political ideas as fascist is very easy but morally flawed. By the way Grey Wolf is just a nickname. Ülkücü Hareket or İdealist Movement is the real name. Isatay 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborators

Hello, I have made an article on some Irish collaborators with nazi germany. My question is does working for a fascist organisation automatically get you label of being a fascist? I worry someone will come and try to include these people at Friesack Camp as fascists in the future when in fact they just were mostly opportunists without ideological thoughts. Thanks. Fluffy999 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning List of fascists

I was going through the list of fascists and I'm wondering what the basis is for including certain people in it is. Roberto D'Aubuisson and Grigory Semyonov don't have any real info in their articles regarding them being considered fascists. Also, Gerald B. Winrod, J.B. Stoner, Gerald L.K. Smith , and Robert Jay Mathews are rascist nationalists but are they necessarily fascists? Someone with more knowledge needs to go through all the Japanese people too. - DNewhall

[edit] Accusation of fascism

Is the act of accusing someone or something of being fascist for rhetorical purposes worthy of an article? We can talk about how (I think it was) George Orwell said the word "fascism" had been stripped of meaning, Godwin's law, Soviet propaganda, the use of the word "fascist" as an epithet... --Stlemur 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You raise a great point Stlemur. The use of the word fascism has been rather indiscriminate at times and is a source of confusion. It appears that a behavior or action (perhaps a single such one) that is consistent with the methods and tools of the ideaology of fascism is often the cause for someone or something being labelled a fascist. It may seem to some that such a view is splitting hairs but I don't see it as such. For example, The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States allowing the grabbing of private property for the express purpose of allowing that property to be used in a manner that will garner greater tax profit for the government is a fascist ruling (IMO), but it does not make the government en toto of the US fascist.
I would support a heading or stub exploring the etymology of the use and abuse of the word(s) fascist/fascism and it/its exploitation for political purposes. Thanks for raising this worthy point. How do you suggest proceeding with this? Anyone else care to voice in on this matter? --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 06:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Talk | @

Should the article reflect how scolars view Fascism only or should it also include how a contemporary use of the word (with or without capital F)?

In 'normal' usage (on blogs, on-line/off-line discussions etc.) by 'normal' people (not historians, but from all walks of life) it seems like a more contemporary use of the word is that fascism covers ethnocentric nationalism; from ideologies promoting ethnical superiority to ideologies that already has led to or are likely to lead to radical behavior like ethnic cleansing, mass expulstion, genocide etc. In that sense, the word covers ethnocentric nationalism like the Rhwanda genocide, the Croat genocide against Serbs (during WWII), the Serb genocide against Croats, but also White Supremacists, radical Islamists, Zionist extremists etc.

In the lack of a similar word as racist for somebody promoting e.g. cultural, religious, or national/country (ethnic) superiority the word fascist seems to be commonly used to describe that form of ethnocentric nationalism. I have never encountered anybody using the word 'ethnicist' about 'racism' based on ethnicity in general.

I hope the above make sense and that it will contribute to the discussion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.180.88 (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.

I don't think "ethnicist" exists as a word, but "ethnic nationalist" and "ultra-nationalist" certainly do. - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity? Your agenda is hardly transparent...

Looking at the American Front article, it's obvious there's no interest in providing factual information fit for an encyclopedia, but rather all I can see is a shared interest of amatuerish writers to push their shared agenda.

You are all failed human beings.

"A meeting was going on at the time, and those in attendance poured out of the shop to stop Heick from continuing any damage. A skinny, 40 year old Hippie, with a pony tail and glasses beat up Heick, whose buddy fled immediately."

"Heick and the White Power Skinheads were pressured out of San Francisco in the late-eighties, relocating to Portland, Oregon where they continued to cause trouble."

Hopeless, absolutely hopeless.

[edit] Brazilian Integralism IS NOT Fascism

It is just a rigth wing movement from the 30's, strongly influenced by Italian Fascism, but it is not Fascism. Totalitarianism was never their agenda, they did not worship a leader, they were absolutely not racist (they actually were one of the few political organizations at that time in Brazil to allow black people to join in).

LEt me examine the 7 criteria:


1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
[OK, they had that] ***personal oppinion > this is not a bad idea at all***

2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.
[Absolutely not and I can prove it if you doubt]

3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
[NEVER, on the contrary, they wanted to be elected, and they were the ones to suffer violence and political supression]

4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.
[No, just some]

5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.
[Ok, they had that]

6. advocating totalitarian systems.
[Not at all! They wanted something more like a direct democracy!]

7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, rexist, etc. movement.
[Never]

I URGE you people to take them out of the Fascism list! They only have 2,5 out of 6!

I'm still inclined to label them fascist unless you can provide sources claiming otherwise. Kevin Passmore labels as them as fascist in his book.
1. Yes.
2. I thought Salgado was their leader of sorts. However, that "rule" is a bit incorrect since other fascist movements would be excluded. Many scholars (my POV is the more correct ones) elaborate that rule to be "stressing loyalty to a single party or leader acting on behalf of the people" which they would most likely fall under.
3. They were heavily into propoganda, had a militia, and fought against communists, so yes.
4. Maybe not "severely" but they advocated it.
5. Yes.
6. I can only find one source that even touches on this and wasn't very specific (text seemed to hint at being totalitarian though but didn't say it), so no opinion on this one.
7. No sources of them saying their fascist but many would consider Integralism to be part of the "etc." there.
I haven't read much about them but what I have seemed to have said they were, in fact, fascist. - DNewhall

OK, Here is the thing: They were not a party and they did not had one. And Salgado said himself: "I'm not the leader: the Leader is an Idea" http://www.integralismo.org.br/novo/?cont=45&vis=

They did not had an armed militia. Yes, they fought against communists, but ideologicaly. In fact, when there was violence, it was usualy started by the comunists.

The regimentation they advocated was not 'from the top' as in a totalitarian regime, but from a type of 'organic democracy'.

Many authors simply say they were fascists becouse this is the easy way to go. But they were just nationalists from the 30's. If every nationalist movement from the 30's is to be labeled fascist, imagine what would happen...

Kevin Passmore in Fascism: A Very Short Introduction on pages 86-87 says:
"Fascism rarely flourished in Latin America because... [reasons]. [Describes what kind of dictaroships they were]. Brazil was sometihng of an exception." [Talks about Varga and "the fascistic Integralists."]
Richard Griffiths in Fascism also mentions the Brazilian Integralists as fascists (very briefly, though) on page 70.
What you say might be correct but scholars label them as fascist so until you can provile a reputable source saying otherwise we'll still have to label them as fascists. - DNewhall

All the references I know of are in portuguese. http://www.integralismo.org.br/novo/? I'll look into this and ask for some help. In the mean time, could the article on integralism at least be flaged as 'neutrality disputed'?

[edit] Israel

An anonymous IP recently added a WikiProject Fascism template to the top of the talk page for Israel. It was apparently perceived as an interesting method of vandalism, and reverted. However, if this was a good-faith attempt to include the Israel article, please let me know and I will work in the future to ensure the template is not removed. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Fascism selected picture

I'm trying to keep a schedule of updating the Portal every two months and in a couple weeks I'll be updating the Portal again. I need a good picture to use for the next featured picture though. I'd like something with some color ideally because black and white photographs leave it looking kind of drab. Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the Selected article or Did you know? sections I'd love to hear those too. Thanks. - DNewhall

How about the Battle of Cable Street? Lurker 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

O.K., a bot removed the previous image because of lack of source information, so I have substituted the Cable Street image. Lurker 13:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazism and Romanticism

I think the connection is tenuous. Hitler was the first head of state to use the airplane extensivly and I think this warrents the same type of attention. "Strength, passion, frank declarations of feelings, and deep devotion to family and community" are not commodites to be owned by the Nazis. Bronte and Austin were 'romantics" as well. I don't think we would find Nazis reading "Pride and Predudice". Please review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justindr660@hotmail.com (talk • contribs).


But here is a question: I believe that we can see an underlining desire to return to a more perfect society of the past in Nazism, in truth a fascination by the party with ancient Volk and Aryan myths. We see this in their architecture (strictly Greek?!?), in their propaganda (Triumph of the Will - the early scenes and Olympia - the montage that links Athens to Nuremberg!), and for their quest for purety. Is that not romanticism? Is it not a nostalgic, romantic even, fascination with the past? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.210.116.2 (talk • contribs) 21 November 2006.

Slightly flippant remark: See Kitsch, Cultural appropriation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something about a death list=

As a person who wa personally approachd by Mathews and laster put on the "death list" which he maintains. I think that it is important that people be privy to the details of this evil mans life. He claimed to be a good christian and "as american as apple pie" but was a brutal murdering revolutionalry who would list some of us to die simply because we were gay or would not join his ideaology. Several of my friends and their family who ended up on this list are dead, and I have come close to death twice under suspicious circumstances. And nothing is done about it, I believe that the chance meeting with the evil man in cheney washington in 1983 was a defining moment for my life, it showed me true evil up front and personal, face to face i nthe most literal way and I stood there telling him that he is wrong. he was wrong then, his ideology is wrong now and forever more. These people are dangerous and should be incarcerated permanently or executed for their murders and their hate of everyone who is not white enough for their taste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.59.102.208 (talk • contribs).

Huh? - DNewhall
What is the policy on potentially libellous comments on Wikipedia talk pages? Lurker talk 11:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fascism and socialism

I understand marxist socialist states, for example Stalin's Russia, are also a form of fascism, a totalitarian dictatorship, state controlled industry. Stroll 09:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For something to be fascist it needs to be more than just a totalitarian dictatorship with state controlled industry (in fact depending on how the industry is controlled it could make a regime not definable as fascist). Stalinist Russia was certainly not fascist because they claimed to be communist. One of the most important defining characteristics of fascism is extreme anti-communism so if a state is communist (or claims to be one) it explicitly defines itself as being in opposition to fascism. - DNewhall 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Only one country proclaimed itself Fascist (Italy) so if you your definition of fascism relies on a proclamation of a fascist state, you better define fascism as Mussolini-era Italy. Mussolini proclaimed fascism to be against communism not because of an ideological issue, but rather because he needed such propaganda to be at war with USSR, which land was conveted by Hitler. Socialism leads to communism which leads to fascism. It's just the end result at the bottom of the road. Just watch Venezuela in 20 years from now. --Childhood's End 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, your statements are incorrect because other countries and movements described themselves as fascist and fascism, both in Italy and abroad, had a deep ideological antagonism towards communism that predates Hitler's rise to power and was not related to the USSR in any way. Franco after taking Spain described him and his movement as fascist. (pg. 103, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths, quoting a French interview with Franco) Also, many of the British and French movements actively described themselves as fascist. (pg. 42-48, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths). The ideological base of fascism is from late 1800s-early 1900s French "radical right" politics that explicitly rejected the standard communism of the day. (pg. 19-20, "Fascism", Richard Griffiths) Also, the original Fascists under Mussolini were explicitly anti-communist well before the Nazi's had a real presence in Germany and Mussolini met Hitler. - DNewhall 17:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
DNewhall, not much point debating with Childhoodsend, so far as I can tell. He's grinding his axe, not making substantive contributions. john k 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont know what this john k is talking about, but anyway... thanks for the notes, as they are material clarifications to this debate. I may have ignored a few qualifications in my comment, which you provided. But I think that the point remains : there is not a real ideological gap between fascism and communism. Although the first allows private property, the State essentially dictates what to do with it, which can hardly be described as private property in a capitalist sense. In the end, both come to uniformity, elimination of dissent, State-controlled economy and property, one-party rule, and so on. The fascists who called themselves anti-communists were playing propaganda games more than they were telling us an important aspect of fascism. --Childhood's End 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Portal

Hi, I saw on Talk:Nazism that this WikiProject covers it and am wondering if anyone would be interested in a portal about Nazism and whether it should be expanded to Fascism in general (in other words abandoned due to cannibalizing the target audience) or further refined. Basically, I want to find the right scope to make it a viable portal rather than one that sits on the shelf unused; in other words, eventually it won't need me to survive because I won't be the only person who visits it. Thanks! Romperomperompe 04:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I realy don't see the point in having a separate portal for Nazism and Fascism. I suggest you abandon the Nazism one and instead contribute to the Fascism one Lurker haver 09:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I question whether a Nazism portal is necessary mostly because it's such a limited topic. For example communism, anarchism, and fascism all were multi-national movements over many years but Nazism is specific to early 20th century Germany. Everyting after that is Neo-Nazism which, while interesting and relevent, is based on stuff that has had little direct influence on history. Also, Nazism is very related to fascism and there is no Nazism wikipeoject to manage such a portal. - DNewhall 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Fascism

Considering the Bush administration's decision to use the term, and the ensuing debate, there should be treatment of the idea of Islamic Fascism somewhere. 75.3.193.243 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is. See Islamofascism. - DNewhall 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen that article. But, it is not incorporated into the fascism knowledge tree and is not discussed in articles about fascism. Even to say that it is an epithet. 75.2.219.247 06:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hrisi Avgi

Hello everyone, please comment on the article about Hrisi Avgi, a former greek neo-nazi party. The article has gone through substantial changes (imho improvements) and expansion, and the wikiProject's opinion would be a good feedback as to what remains to be done about it. Thanks beforehand for your interest. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grigory Semyonov

The Grigory Semyonov article has a {FascismProject} tag on it and was on the List of fascists page. Why is this guy a fascist? There are no sources mentioned in the article. -- DNewhall 23:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi Breeding Camps

Excuse me if I've come to the wrong place. This article has just appeared in the last couple of weeks. I know very little about the subject of Nazi Germany but cannot help but think that it's a candidate for merging somewhere. -- I@n 08:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a candidate for deletion, as such camps are bogus, a misinterpretation of the Lebensborn institutions. Str1977 (smile back) 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were to AFD it, I'd have nothing to say beyond quoting you. Would you please start the process? - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberto Farinacci

I have moved the following from the article over here, as it seems unclear to me:

"(he voted his own order of the day through)"

I also removed the bit that stated that he was forced to flee to Germany. He feld because he was afraid to be arrested, but he wasn't forced to do that. Str1977 (smile back) 07:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That is more or less what "forced to flee" normally means. One isn't sentenced to run away. One runs away because one is endangered. - Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian/Lebanese party, wrongly included in the project

Syrian Social Nationalist Party, despite its name has nothing to do with fascism, and actually his main leader, Antun Saadeh, used to accuse the rival Lebanese Phalangist Party of being fascist.

According to the template, "WikiProject Fascism wants to know if the person or group ... can be reasonably described as fascist. WikiProject Fascism defines an entity which has not come to power as "fascist" if it fulfills six of the following criteria:

1. exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.

-Answer: No. The party only wanted independence from France and then unity with Syria and other countries. It never said the state was supreme, or the race, or the culture.

2. stressing loyalty to a single leader.

-No. The party did have initially a very popular leader, but didn't have a doctrine about single leadership, a duce or a führer.

3. advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

-No. It was involved in a civil war which involved all the Lebanese political parties, but has never advocated suppression of political opposition or violence.

4. advocating severe economic and social regimentation.

-I don't think so.

5. advocating syndicalist corporatism.

-I've never read such a thing in their sources.

6. advocating totalitarian systems.

-Id.

7. declaring itself or holding itself out to be to be a fascist, national socialist, falangist, etc. movement.

-Au contraire, the founder used the term fascist as an accusation against, you guessed, the falangists.

--Filius Rosadis 23:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about the ideology of the party? I'm curious myself because beyond Saadeh's writings, which of course are widely available, there seems to be a dearth of secondary sources on the party, and at the moment anyway I'm in a foreign country where the Ten Lectures aren't to be found (unless they're available on the internet somewhere, in which case I might reconsider). I thought that the party was pretty keen on the concept of a single leader? After all, they still refer to Saadeh as al-za3eem nearly sixty years after his death. Palmiro | Talk 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I know what you mean. The 'awmyeen sooriyeen mention al-za3eem with an almost religious tone. But it's mainly the beloved founder and martyr, and I don't see this reflected in the party's dogma. Some Saade's writings can be found here (in Arabic), but I couldn't find an English or French version of the Ten Lessons.
It's important to mention that in English "Social Nationalist Party" almost equals the Nazi party's name. But in Arabic the question is different. The National Socialist German Workers' Party is حزب العمال الألمان الإشتراكي الوطني , where الإشتراكي (i.e. al-ishtiraki) stands for "socialist", and الوطني (i.e. al-watani) stands for "nationalist" . Whilst The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is الحزب السوري القومي الاجتماعي , where الاجتماعي (i.e. al ijtima3i) stands for "social" and القومي (i.e. al-qawmi) stands for "nationalist". So the association doesn't exist en the original language, where the names sound completely different. The German party is isthiraki and watani, whilst the Lebanese one is ijtima3i and qawmi. --Filius Rosadis 12:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I might have a look at the SSNP website you cite. If you have information on the historic development of the SSNP or any other aspect of the party, please do consider adding it to the article. I've been wanting to get it up to a better standard for a long time but the only sources I've had were a number of general works on either nationalism in the Arab world or Lebanese history, so while the basic ideological outlines of the party are set out and reasonably well-sourced that could be developed further and the history of the party is only fairly sketchily covered. Your comments on the name are of course absolutely right which is why the recent attempt to link to National socialism in the first line of the Saadeh article was outrageous. Palmiro | Talk 13:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The SSNP was listed here as Nazi and based in Syria, and I think it was there just because the tricky name. I've removed it from the list. --Filius Rosadis 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Answer to HSP

The answer to the question asked here is yes; it applies to 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (across different periods - but mostly to 1, 3 and 7 throughout all the time of its existence). --PaxEquilibrium 14:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

...what's the next step? --PaxEquilibrium 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK... the talk pages says to discuss here - but here I am, talking to myself. --PaxEquilibrium 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism artcile

Someone from this project may want to take a turn at dealing with the WP:TIGERS loose at Fascism. Jkelly 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aryan Brotherhood

I am presently involved in a debate about sources and other things over at Talk:Aryan Brotherhood. The article is apparently under the scope of this WikiProject, and presently only myself and this IP are doing anything with the article. I think it would benefit the discussion to get some other eyes in there, as a two person debate is really not consensus. Natalie 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julius Evola

Someone clueful might want to look in on Julius Evola. Some of it, as I've remarked on its talk page, reads like the writing of a breathless fan. - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Goebbels FAC

Joseph Goebbels is up for nomination, but no one seems to be doing much about it. There's been a few comments and an objection to the nomination, but I don't feel it's entirely justified. In any rate, it's very general. Just really "more footnotes", and as I'm concerned the article is well-cited already. I tried my best to conjure up a lead, but I'm no Goebbels expert, so someone needs to look it over.

My personal opinion is that the article is of surprisingly high standard and contains no noticeable controversies. The only thing keeping me from giving outright it support is the length (around 50k should not be a problem) and the fact that no one with any in-depth knowledge about Goebbels has provided it with a blessing.

This is a really worthwhile nomination. Your assistance would be invaluable!

Peter Isotalo 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of missing topics

Since there seems to be no Nazism project, I wonder if anyone of you could have a look at the my missing topics list about Nazi Germany. Thank you - Skysmith 11:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Fascism_8127.html"