Talk:Fascism and ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

Contents 1 Archive 2 Next stage of discussion 3 Militarism 4 Obscure views belong on this page 5 Neo-fascism 6 New Deal 6.1 NPOV 7 Sternhell 8 "However many" 9 Is this article supposed to cover accusations of fascist-ish policies? 10 Fascism and conservatism 11 Fascism, capitalism and socialism section 12 POV 13 fork 14 Fascism, capitalism and socialism 15 What About Japan? 16 Economic policy again 16.1 Foucault 17 Doctrine of Fascism 18 Marginal libertarian views -- again 19 Lead 20 Mediation 21 Totalitarianism 22 Needs sections added on: Relationship of Fascism to 1. Nationalism 2. Rascism 3. Militarism

[edit] Archive

• /Archive 1

[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-All^T|@|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? --Flammingo^Parliament 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)

Your "NPOV" edit didn't do any good and you are clearly editorializing and doing original research. From WP:RS:

"A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term mainly refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. Primary sources include official reports, letters, eyewitness accounts, autobiographies, statistics compiled by authoritative agencies, and court records. Experts usually have advanced training, and use as many different primary sources as are available so they can be checked against each other. Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources." -- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 14 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)

So you think that we should also include some quotes from National Socialist Program or what? -- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - I am merely arguing that we should provide a balanced selection of quotes (roughly the same number supporting every side). -- Nikodemos 21:19, 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)

And because of that such qoutes shouldn't be used. -- Vision Thing -- 19:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the quotes are very useful to show the contradictory nature of fascist thought. But, of course, we may paraphrase them if you wish. -- Nikodemos 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Balancing them with counter quotes should be enough. However, in both cases, we need to avoid our interpretation of them. -- Vision Thing -- 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the interpretations I provided originate from the same secondary sources where I found the quotes in the first place. I can put in the appropriate references if you wish (I have already done so with at least one paragraph interpreting a quote, I believe). -- Nikodemos 21:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, you requested an explanation of my most recent edit, here it is:

1. Mussolini tweak - I just thought it would be redundant to say that he was a socialist and a member of the Socialist Party (usually, one implies the other). Also, he was certainly not "prominent".
2. Interpretations - they are supported by the same secondary sources that provided the quotes. In the case of an interpretation of a quote you inserted, I referenced one of my secondary sources ("The Fascist Tradition")
3. Moving material around - I do not believe that discussion of the New Deal belongs in this article. See below. In any case, it certainly requires its own section; thus "Fascism and the New Deal". -- Nikodemos 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• He was "a leading member of the revolutionary wing of the Socialist Party" and "editor of the main Socialist newspaper, Avanti". Source is Mussolini and Fascism, by Patricia Knight. p.5
• If they are sourced, interpretations can stay.
• Lets see what other editors have to say before proceeding. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Very well, "prominent" can stay.
2. Thank you.
3. Cberlet unilaterally added the New Deal text, and the three of us are the only editors currently active here. I favor moving the entire text elsewhere, but, for the moment, giving it its own separate section is not too much to ask, is it? Especially since the relationship between the New Deal and fascism has no logical connection to the relationship between the New Deal and socialism or capitalism. -- Nikodemos 22:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made my edits. Vision Thing, note that most of the editing consists of moving paragraphs around rather than changing them. The only content edits I made consisted of (a) removing the redundancy of "socialist and a member of the Socialist Party" (I kept "prominent member of the Socialist Party"), (b) restoring the interpretations (again, the sources are the same secondary sources that I cited for the quotes - do you think it would be necessary for me to cite them twice?), and (c) various small edits to the paragraph about Mussolini's economic practices. -- Nikodemos 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently there are 3 quotes from Italian fascists basically saying the same thing – that they gave statements in which they supported private property and enterprise. That's too much, and I will remove two, leaving one quote from Mussolini. -- Vision Thing -- 11:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is important to note that Mussolini was not the only fascist who made statements in support of private property and private enterprise. You may paraphrase the quotes if you wish, but you should not eliminate all mention of them altogether. -- Nikodemos 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Vision Thing, I happen to own a copy of The Rise of the Nazis, which you quoted extensively in your recent edit. But it is the 1995 edition (as opposed to the 2002 edition you cited), and therefore some of the page numbers are off. As such, I would like your help in locating the statement by Zeev Sternhell which you quoted in your edits. In my edition, page 135 contains Document 6 (The young Hitler on Habsburg Vienna) and Document 7 (Dietrich Eckart writes on the Jewish question). I assume that the Zeev Sternhell quote comes from another document. What is the document number?

The reason I am asking this is because I find it particularly unlikely that anyone in his right mind would say that Fascism was "the result of a revision of Marxism", and I want to see the context of that statement. Hitler himself, in Mein Kampf alone, made literally dozens of anti-Marxist statements. I will quote some for you below (emphasis added by me). -- Nikodemos 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• "The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme forrn, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out."
• "The second thing that angered me was the attitude which they thought fit to take toward Marxism. In my eyes, this only proved that they hadn't so much as the faintest idea concerning this pestilence. In all seriousness they seemed to believe that, by the assurance that parties were no longer recognized, they had brought Marxism to understanding and restraint. They failed to understand that here no party was involved, but a doctrine that must lead to the destruction of all humanity, especially since this cannot be learned in the Jewified universities and, besides, so many, particularly among our higher officials, due to the idiotic conceit that is cultivated in them, don't think it worth the trouble to pick up a book and learn something which was not in their university curriculum. The most gigantic upheaval passes these 'minds' by without leaving the slightest trace, which is why state institutions for the most part lag behind private ones. It is to them, by God, that the popular proverb best applies: 'What the peasant doesn't know, he won't eat.' Here, too, a few exceptions only confirm the rule."
• "Marxism, whose goal is and remains the destruction of all non-Jewish national states, was forced to look on in horror as, in the July days of 1914, the German working class it had ensnared, awakened and from hour to hour began to enter the service of the fatherland with ever-increasing rapidity. In a few days the whole mist and swindle of this infamous betrayal of the people had scattered away, and suddenly the gang of Jewish leaders stood there lonely and forsaken, as though not a trace remained of the nonsense and madness which for sixty years they had been funneling into the masses. It was a bad moment for the betrayers of the German working class, but as soon as the leaders recognized the danger which menaced them, they rapidly pulled the tarn-cap ' of lies over their ears, and insolently mimicked the national awakening."
• "Kaiser William II was the first German Emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger. There is no making pacts with Jews; there can only be the hard: either-or."
• "For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone. And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals. And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist. He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political. Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants the flag of revolution on the very battlefields."
• "It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
• "The best constitution and the best form of government is that which makes it quite natural for the best brains to reach a position of dominant importance and influence in the community."
• "For while the bourgeois parties, because they mostly consisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless band of undisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent human material the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants who obey their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyed their German officers."
• "Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance."

Ah, I have found the Sternhell quote in my own copy of The Rise of the Nazis (page 123, in the conclusion, not the documents). I've also picked up two of Sternhell's books from the library in order to clarify his position. -- Nikodemos 00:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your Hitler quote on the elimination of class conflict, that does not support the view that Nazism is socialist. On the contrary, the class collaboration advocated by Nazis and fascists went directly contrary to the class struggle promoted by socialists. The distinction could be expressed as follows:

• Marxism wants solidarity between members of the same social class (regardless of nation) and conflict between different classes.
• Fascism wants solidarity between members of the same nation (regardless of class) and conflict between different nations. -- Nikodemos 03:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, second case is better example of egalitarianism. Anyway, both views should be presented. -- Vision Thing -- 15:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the introduction of the book The Birth of Fascist Ideology, by Zeev Sternhell (Princeton University Press, 1994), and here are some of the statements I found:

• "If the fascist ideology cannot be described as a simple response to Marxism, its origins, on the other hand, were the direct result of a very specific revision of Marxism. It was a revision of Marxism and not a variety of Marxism or a consequence of Marxism." (page 5; emphasis in the original)
• "Undoubtedly, fascism rejected the prevailing systems: liberalism and Marxism, positivism and democracy." (page 6)
• "This was one aspect of the novelty of fascism; the Fascist revolution was supported by an economy determined by the laws of the market." (page 7)
• "When the Fascist regime in Italy practiced a corporatism based on a liberal economy, when the Fascist movement, long before it came to power, declared through Mussolini that the revolution would relieve the state of its economic functions, this was not mere opportunism." (page 7)
• "[Fascism] never questioned the idea that market forces and private property were part of the natural order of things... Thus, fascism adopted the economic aspect of liberalism but completely denied its philosophical principles and the intellectual and moral heritage of modernity." (page 7)
• "Fascism was antimaterialism in its clearest form. But if it was opposed to liberalism and Marxism, it took from liberalism a respect for the power and vitality of the mechanisms of the market economy, and from Marxism a conviction that violence was the motive force of history, which was governed solely by the laws of war." (page 8)

At this point I stopped reading. It was clear to me that Zeev Sternhell's views could not under any circumstance support the idea that fascism is a form of socialism. I have not been able to find the original source of the Sternhell quote you added to this article, but I suggest removing it because it misrepresents Sternhell's views. Alternatively, we could keep it, but then I would also have to add one or several of the above quotes for the purpose of clarification and balance. -- Nikodemos 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the essay in question (Fascist Ideology) and quote is in part unclear (he indeed sees fascism as an anti-Marxist movement). -- Vision Thing -- 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading more of Sternhell's writings, I must admit I have not the slightest idea what his views really are. You've seen the quotes above; how are they compatible with the quotes you provided? I don't know. For balance's sake we should include a quote from each of these seemingly opposing viewpoints, but I'm sure that will confuse readers. I still say it would be best to exclude Sternhell altogether; however, I leave the decision up to you. -- Nikodemos 07:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Sternhell wants to say that fascism borrowed from socialism at an ideological level but not on a practical level? That would be the opposite of the Austrian argument. -- Nikodemos 07:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that article still needs a lot of work. In particular, Austrian view is not represented correctly; I will try to make necessary adjustments soon. -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, you may do so at your leisure. For the moment I am content to play a reactive role: I will try to keep the two sides of the controversy balanced by adding sourced statements and views when necessary. I may also wish to summarize arguments if a certain view gets described in significantly more detail than the others. Finally, since the Marxist view is only represented by a single sentence right now, I may wish to give it a full paragraph or two (but that is not on my list of priorities at the moment). -- Nikodemos 00:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is just what I'm doing right now, reacting to existing imbalances. -- Vision Thing -- 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Some friendly advice: Avoid using the word "although". Such wording implies that fascists were more serious about one thing than another, which is a judgement call that is not ours to make. All quotes are to be given equal weight. Thus, when you are confronted with the contradictory nature of fascist ideology (which you have no doubt noticed by now), simply put the quotes side by side and mention the fact that they contradict. Try to phrase things like this: "With regards to [issue], fascists made contradictory statements. On the one hand, they said [quote 1]. On the other hand, they also said [quote 2]." You should not hint that either one of those quotes or views represents the "real" fascist view. -- Nikodemos 22:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, I noticed that you have changed sourced statement "some state assets were privatized" to "many state assets were privatized" in one of your recent edits. Can you provide appropriate quote from source to support that change? -- Vision Thing -- 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I seemed to remember that "many state assets" was the original form of that statement before recent edits, so I changed it without giving it much thought. But thank you for drawing my attention to it. The two parts of the statement should actually be sourced to different pages (page 163 talks about the economy in general; specific measures are listed on page 160). The relevant quote on page 160 is:

"Mussolini's first Minister of Finance, Alberto De Stefani, reformed the tax system, enforced a program of drastic economy in government expenditure, and balanced the budget, the deficit of which had amounted during 1922-23 to over three billion lire. To increase its efficiency and reduce its cost, governmental bureaucracy was thoroughly reorganized; 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."

The original text does not include the word "many" and does not really mention the extent of the privatization; as such, I agree that we should use the word "some" by default. I will change it back. I'll also add the part about inheritance tax. -- Nikodemos 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos, you changed austrain definition of socialism saying that "that definition consists of two parts; I believe the second part is more relevant here", but Mises clearly wrote: "My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject." To what other part of definition are you referring? -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mises wrote:

"It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea — by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ." [4]

I thought it is more relevant to use the second part of that definition, since calling socialism "a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized" is extremely vague, rather circular, and requires another definition (what does "socialized" mean? clearly not state ownership per se; then what?) The second part is more explicit.

On a different subject, I would like to see the exact quote where Foucault says that "these ideologies [Marxism and Nazism] don't offer two alternative views", or otherwise implies that Marxism and Nazism are not at odds with each other. I require quotes because the claim you make is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have read the list of anti-Marxist statements made by Hitler above. I regard the notion that Nazism is somehow linked to Marxism (rather than socialism in general) to be so absurd that its inclusion in this article is unacceptable without the inclusion of the mountain of evidence pointing to the contrary. I would not like to have to write several paragraphs providing sources that refute the views you attribute to Foucault, because that would give undue weight to the whole issue. I propose removing the Foucault paragraph instead (especially since I suspect that his views have been misrepresented). -- Nikodemos 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

He latter says on what he thinks when he talks about "socialization": Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.[5]

Maybe we can combine something out of that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Mises defines socialism first as "the socialization of the means of production", then says that socialization means "limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference". We can therefore write that the Austrian definition of socialism is "any ideology that wishes to place some limits on the ability of the owners of the means of production to use their property as they see fit". Would that be acceptable? -- Nikodemos 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about this simple extension: "an ideology which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, either by limitation of the property rights or by nationalization."? -- Vision Thing -- 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foucault

Laura Stoler writes this about Foucault: Thus, unlike Hannah Arendt, who identified the "economic struggle of classes" and the "natural fight of races" as the two prominent "ideologies" of the nineteenth century, for Foucault they are neither independently derived ideologies nor alternate "persuasive views"; their etymology is one and the same. -- Vision Thing -- 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that clarifies a lot. Notice that fascism is not under discussion; the issue at hand concerns the "two prominent ideologies of the nineteenth century". Nineteenth century. Long before fascism came into being. The 19th century idea of the "natural fight of races" was not fascism, but rather the ideology used in Europe to explain the difference in development between different continents, and to proclaim the superiority of European culture over the various native populations encountered by European explorers. I'm not sure if it has a proper name or if it is merely a loose collection of ideas floating around 19th century Europe.

In any case, I don't see the relationship of all this to fascism, or to economic systems for that matter. The primary focus of this article is fascism, after all, and you were editing a section concerned with the question of whether the economic side of fascism was socialist, capitalist or something else. You should consider moving your information to the Michel Foucault article, or to any sub-article about his views. Perhaps The History of Sexuality? -- Nikodemos 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe "ninetieth century" refers to Arendt's views. On the same page, two paragraphs before, she said: "Foucault writes, "On the one side, [you have] the Nazi reinscription of state racism in old legends of the war of races; [on the other side, you have] a Soviet reinscription of the class struggle in the mute mechanism of a state racism". The theme of social war articulated in biopower provides the overarching principle that subsumes both la lutte des races and la lutte des classes." But you are right, Foucault views don't belong to Capitalism and Socialism section, they are better suited for Totalitarianism section where such views are already discussed. -- Vision Thing -- 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Foucault's work is more complex than that (see "History must be defended", course at the College de France, 1976 I think). If it is to be used at all, using the original rather than a commentator would be advised. The part of this course where he speaks of "race struggle" (lutte des races) is actually a reflexion on history, where he opposes two forms of historical discourses: the anterior one, basically founded on hagiographies, and which he has called "history of the Prince" (or of the sovereign) and also "philosophical-judicial discourse" (based on an idealist conception of law and of history). The second, more modern one, which is to be found in Boulainvilliers, and others, and which gives a materialist account of history, formulated in a "race struggle" discourse. This "political and historical discourse" is, for Foucault, the first account of a "history from below", or, rather, as history used as a political weapon: 'let us reveal the truth about this race struggle which has raged over the years, and constituted society as it is, and we will not buy the sovereign's lies about this so-called peace and legitime order' (paraphrasing - rather than understanding it in a "pre-scientific way" as "old legends of the war of races", Foucault insists on its "scientifical" aspect - his conceptions regarding "science" are not simple). From then on (although a resume of Foucault is not the purpose here), it is easy to imagine how Foucault has related 19th century "class struggle discourse" to this "race struggle" (which is not 19th century, but to the contrary, early Modern Europe). Foucault has emphasized in his works that discourses are neutral in themselves, that is, they do not pertain to a specific ideology and can be used, alternatively or in the same time, by rival political groups. Whatever the case, 19th century racism for Foucault is very different from "race struggle discourse", as it was based on a biological conception of race (see scientific racism). This new discourse (scientific racism) mixed biology with hereditary concerns ("blood"), and, blended in with concerns about populations (statistics, as developed in Prussia in the 18th century - he calls all this "biopower" or "biopolitics") would form "state racism". As far as I know, he has certainly not qualified the Soviet Union as having implemented "state racism" as the precedent quotes makes believe. His example for state racism was Nazism, which is a strange mix, according to him, between "blood" & hereditary concerns with modern "biopower" concerns ("sexual dispositive" - see tome I, History of Sexuality). This is the important thing about Nazism for him; and ancient "race struggle" discourse has almost nothing to do with it (it didn't exist anymore: Foucault underlines the great differences between "race struggle" and scientific racism: for instance, "race struggle" believed the nation (France, or Britain) was divided into various races, which evolved during history) while scientific racism believed in ethnic nations, where race was an essential identity (to go to the point, although it is more complex). Finally, "The theme of social war articulated in biopower provides the overarching principle that subsumes both la lutte des races and la lutte des classes" is a clear (mis)interpretation of Foucault, which goes far beyond what he said himself. I don't see the relationship between "social war" and "biopower", and, as far as I know, "social war" (guerre sociale) refers to anarcho-syndicalism (see Georges Sorel, etc.) but has little to do with "biopower" (a regime of control of modern societies, involving simultaneously control of masses and populations, via statistics, public health, etc. - and disciplines, individualization of people, through a close regime of surveillance and disciplines, school tests, etc., which makes it possible to compares individuals between themselves, etc.). To use the term "subsume" is going against Foucault's way of thinking, and giving an Hegelian account of his philosophy. Foucault doesn't believe that things are "subsumed" in history (re-interpretated, "revised" surely, but not "subsumed" - see Aufgeheben). And, again, if he clearly identifies "class struggle" discourse as having common points, and being, in specific senses, a continuation of "race struggle", both are not contemporary, quite to the contrary. And "class struggle" discourse definitely opposed 19th century scientific racism. All of this to (try to) demonstrate the confusion brought by these quotes. Better read Foucault himself to prevent such misunderstandings. Tazmaniacs 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See also last chapter of first tome of History of Sexuality: on the overlapping between the "analytic of sexuality" (modern biopower) and the "blood symbolic", two "discrete regimes of powers" which have overlapped in racism (under its "modern, state, biological form", and concerns about biological race - "degeneration", public health, etc. - and "blood purity") & Nazism, probably the "most naïve and tricky (rusée) combination of blood fantasms with the paroxysms of a disciplinary power"): "An eugenics ordering of society , with the following extension and intensification of micro-powers, under the guises of an illimited statisation (étatisation, extension of the state), was accompanied by the oniric exaltation of a superior blood)." Excuse the horrible translation. Tazmaniacs 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. As for Soviet Union and state racism, see his course "Historical Discourse and Revolutionary Discourse" from 1976. -- Vision Thing -- 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't argue for the sake of arguing: of course, if we are discussing Foucault, Foucault is more relevant than a commentator who hasn't understood him well, and Foucault is more relevant than the comments of a Wikipedian of a commentator of Foucault. Can you please point out to me the chapter where Foucault makes reference to stalinism in the 1976 course (you may be right, but I can't find it; he speaks of stalinism & fascism, and continuation between totalitarianism and democratic regimes in text n°232 of his speeches and texts edited post-humously, but that's all I can find just now). Tazmaniacs 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"In Soviet State racism, what revolutionary discourse designated as the class enemy becomes a sort of biological threat. So, who is the class enemy now? Well, it's the sick, the deviant, the madman. As a result, the weapon that was once used in the struggle against the class enemy (the weapon of war, or possibly the dialectic and conviction) is now wielded by a medical police which eliminates class enemies as though they were racial enemies. We have then, on the one hand, the Nazi reinscription of State racism in the old legend of warring classes, and on the other, the Soviet reinscription of the class struggle within the silent mechanisms of a State racism. And the hoarse songs of the races that clashed in battles over the lies of laws and kings, and which were after all the earliest form of revolutionary discourse, become the administrative prose of a State that defends itself in the name of a social heritage that has to be kept pure." -- Vision Thing -- 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this contestable statement here:

The theme of social war provides overriding principle that connects the class struggle and the race struggle. For Foucault, these concepts are neither independently derived ideologies nor alternate persuasive views; their etymology is one and the same.<ref>Ann Laura Stoler, ''Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's "History of Sexuality" and the Colonial Order of Things '', Duke University Press (1995), p.71</ref>

My justification for this move is the long paragraph above (24 March comment). If it is to be included again, it will first need to be attributed to Ann Stoler, and not to Foucault who never said such a thing. It would also need to precise here, on talk page, what Stoler really said, either by reproducing here a larger extract of that page 71, or by having someone who has access to that book double-check this Wikipedian's interpretation of Stoler interpreting Foucault - with this sole sentence, I can only positively assert that Foucault never said such a thing - please find pages, quotes & chapter in his 1976 course which contradict my claim: I can't even find where Foucault has used the term "guerre sociale" (social war) in his 1976 course). Tazmaniacs 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to count how many times social war is mentioned (and these are just titles) - Society Must Be Defended (1976). -- Vision Thing -- 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing original (translated) source. After quickly checking again, I did find the term "guerre sociale." But on January 21, 1976, Foucault said that the "race struggle" provided a "matrix" for "social war" discourses (paraphrasing for brievity). He goes on saying that the "race struggle" discourse bifurcates towards a biological discourse, supporting itself on philology, anatomo-physiology, and articulating itself with the question of nationalities and European colonialism on one hand, and the class struggle discourse on the other hand. "Same etymology" as wrote Ann Stoler is a metaphor not used by Foucault, which may induce to confusion (etymology is not exactly what is at stakes). The biological discourse deeply modified the notion of race (January 21). The "decentered discourse of race struggle" will be "re-centered" and used as the "discourse of power" (inversion of signs, from resistance to power). This is the appearance of "state racism", an "internal racism" exerced by a society on itself, "permanent purification."

On January 28, he said that this new racist discourse takes off course (détourne) "the form, the end (visée) and the function of race struggle" discourse: he actually opposed both discourses: "The idea of race purity replaced the idea of race struggle. Racism is, litterally, the revolutionary discourse, in reverse" (my emphasis). It defends the state, uses medico-normalisating techniques, passes from law to norm, from judicial to biological, from plurality of races to singular of race, from liberation to purity (January 28, 1976). This day, he did compare (and not assimilated) Nazism and Stalinism: Nazism is the reinscription of this discourse (biological racism) into race struggle discourse, it takes this theme in a "regressive" manner. It is the "Nazi reinscription of state racism in the legend of the struggle of races." Stalinism did the reverse: it is the reinscription of class struggle discourse in state racism: the "state enemy becomes a sort of biological danger." (this is the passage you quoted from the English translation; you have forgotted to say that Foucault described the operations as "reverse" operations, which is not a little point of detail). You will find a similar "reverse operation" at the end of the Will to knowledge concerning psychoanalysis, if my memory does not default me [concerning blood & sexuality; classical "dispositif" of sovereignty and modern biopower based on a "sexuality dispositif" ].

One must note, to be fair, that beside describing Stalinism and Nazism as achieving the reverse operation ("biological racism in race struggle" for Nazism, "class struggle in state racism" for the second), Foucault also claimed state racism was a component of modern states (including democracies - see biopower, March 17, 1976). Enemies are not political adversaries, but dangers for the population. "Racism is the condition of acceptance of application of death (mise à mort) in normative societies;" this mise à mort is not to be conceived necessarily as a direct death: it is also exposure to death, exposition to greater risks, or simply political death, expulsion, reject (March 17). It is neither a traditional racism nor an ideological racism, but a racism related to a certain power technology (biopolitics). Nazism is one of the first society of normalisation; on one hand, "destruction of others races," on the other hand, "exposure of one own's race to the absolute and universal danger of death" (March 17). Socialism failed to criticize bio-power, and would apply it against deviants (March 17).

It fell in this trap because it could not find another way to theorize struggle against the enemy: "racism has been the only way, for a socialist thought... linked to the bio-power themes, to theorize (to think, litterally) the reason to kill the opponent." On this quick reading of his course, I can only conclude that he did not assimilate Stalinism to Nazism, as he described them as reverse. This does not mean one is good, and the other bad, but rather that both were societies based on norms and normalization, something he has theorized as biopolitics, as much as our own society is that way. He has described in the other text I quoted before (n°232 I believe) Stalinism & Nazism as "power pathologies," meaning by that a certain continuation between our "normal" normative societies (if you pardon me the expression) and "pathological" normative societies. All in all, these three lines inserted in the article which I removed are a gross oversimplification of such a complex reasoning. Tazmaniacs 22:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ann Stoler is a published scholar and expert on Foucault, and you on the other hand were not even aware of Foucault's views on social war. I will take her explanation over your anytime. -- Vision Thing -- 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not "taking my or her explanation." You can gleefully observe that, yes, I did not remember Foucault using the term "social war" after having read this text over three years ago. The problem remains that I do not contest Stoler's competency, but the way her views are adressed here, and the revelancy of its inclusion here. It is false to say that they come from the same "etymology", at the very least it must be explained in what sense. Finally, you again ignore the fact that Foucault described both operations (soviet & nazism) as REVERSE, and I'm sorry, but if their is a conflict between Stoler & Foucault on that (and not me), it is Foucault who is discussed here. Tazmaniacs 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Foucault explained in what sense both operations had the same roots: "At the end of the nineteenth century, we see the appearance of what might be called a State racism, of a biological and centralized racism. And it was this theme that was, if not profoundly modified, at least transformed and utilized in strategies specific to the twentieth century. On the one hand, we have the Nazi transformation, which takes up the theme, established at the end of the nineteenth century, of a State racism that is responsible for the biological protection of the race. [...]In contrast to the Nazi transformation, you have a Soviet-style transformation which consists in doing, so to speak, just the opposite. This is not a dramatic or theatrical transformation, but a surreptitious transformation. It does not use the dramaturgy of legends, and it is diffusely "scientific." It consists in reworking the revolutionary discourse of social struggles-the very discourse that derived so many of its elements from the old discourse of the race struggle-and articulating it with the management and the policing that ensure the hygiene of an orderly society." (emphasis is mine)

Please avoid personal interpretations of Foucault and stick with WP:NOR. -- Vision Thing -- 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The personal interpretation is of Ann Stoler who claims that "For Foucault, these concepts are neither independently derived ideologies nor alternate persuasive views; their etymology is one and the same." (Wikipedia quote). It is a non-sense sentence. Tazmaniacs 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see also Nikodemos comment on January 18 (third comment in this sub-section). Tazmaniacs 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it is a non-sense sentence, to me it makes perfect sense. -- Vision Thing -- 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear. Tazmaniacs 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You failed to explain how. -- Vision Thing -- 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine of Fascism

Btw, I thought that "The Doctrine of Fascism" was written after 1926? -- Vision Thing -- 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought the second quote came from one of my 1930s sources. The Doctrine of Fascism was published in 1929 if I recall correctly, but Mussolini contradicted the things he wrote in the Doctrine some years later (the quotes are already in the article: "private property completes human personality" and such things). -- Nikodemos 22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Private property can exist without economic liberty. -- Vision Thing -- 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is formulation "Hitler tried to provide a definition for the "socialism" of "National Socialism" that would remove the economic implications of the word" attributable to source or it is interpretation of the accompanying quote? I ask this because it is contradicted with following Hitler's quote: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." That doesn't sound like removal of economic implications from "socialism". -- Vision Thing -- 13:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Using primary sources to define Nazism is WP:Original research. Furthermore, this quote from Hitler makes it clear that Nazism has nothing to do with Socialism: where have you seen that Socialism criticized the "unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance"? In its Republican form (i.e. not Hitler's), this would be the basis of meritocracy; in Nazism, the basis of... Nazism, once taken into account that "responsibility" is to be understood in relation with the Führerprinzip (that is, lack of individual responsibility - see Adolf Eichmann), and "performance" in relation with the "Aryan race", which, of course, is the most "meritable race" (an expression which is a contradiction in terms). Tazmaniacs 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal libertarian views -- again

I am in the midst of moving in a number of duplicate or similar paragraphs from other pages...again. The cites are messy, and need more work, but I have no more time today. See Corporatism for another struggle over the marginal libertarian view once again seeking new conquests.--Cberlet 15:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the libertarian view is seeking new conquests or not, this article should not serve as a dump for marginal POVs from other articles. This is Fascism and ideology, not Libertarian perspectives on fascism. Indeed, I see no reason why we should seek to drain the libertarian views from all fascism-related articles and concentrate them in one place.

This article, as the name implies, is about fascism and other ideologies. Not about "anything related to fascism that we couldn't fit into other pages". The New Deal section does not belong here because it deals with controversial accusations linking fascism and specific government policies in the United States. Ideology is not an issue there. -- Nikodemos

It seems the only way to resolve this controversy is to start a new article. I will create an article entitled The New Deal and corporatism. It can serve as an adequate sinkhole for all New Deal and corporatism-related material on wikipedia. It will prevent such material from clogging other articles, including this one. -- Nikodemos 22:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This page creation has turned into a disaster in which the marginal liberatarian view is now establisghed as a major page, and the criticisms of that view are systematically being removed. NPOV balance needs to be restored. Several pages are being sanitized and rewritten to favor the marginal libertarian POV.--Cberlet 15:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can dispute the factual accuracy of an article in following cases:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Since I don't see a reason for dispute I will remove a totally disputed tag. If you wish to add it back, please specify your reasons. -- Vision Thing -- 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

<-------It has been written (or edited) by a Vision Thing who is known to write inaccurately on the topic of fascism.--Cberlet 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And where are the examples of those "inaccuracies"? -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Vision Thing. I did not intentionally delete some of your comments, I seem to have had multiple edit windows open in a way that the Edit Conflict window did not catch. Still getting used to Explorer 7. Don't assume bad faith.--Cberlet 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Part about Godwin law is better suited for Fascism article, than for this one. Also, I find part which states: "For the reasons outlined above, claims of a relationship between fascism and certain other ideologies (including those cited in this article) must be treated with caution." specially concerning because it practically says that the reader must assume bad faith while reading this article. That's unacceptable. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD is a guideline, not an actual policy. I do not believe this particular guideline should be applied to this article. The reason is as follows: Virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism. No other ideology finds itself in this situation (that of being discussed exclusively by its enemies). There are no fascist replies to any of the views presented in this article. This situation creates an inherent bias that we simply cannot avoid. The best we can do is warn the reader about it. -- Nikodemos 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

To state the problem again: There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. That is a period of over 60 years when the world moved on and supporters of other ideologies published their views about fascism, to which there was no reply from the fascist side. Who claims to speak for fascism today? No one. Even people who agree with Hitler and Mussolini prefer to use other labels for themselves, such as White nationalism. This is a problem because scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe (the way you can ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative). There is no dialogue with fascists, no arguments back and forth between fascists and anti-fascists (except on the relatively narrow issue of the Holocaust, where there are some Holocaust deniers).

Since all the scholarship on fascism comes from an anti-fascist (or at least non-fascist) perspective, there is bound to be some inherent bias. The bias is made worse by the fact that the word "fascism" has acquired such a negative connotation. No matter what your political views are, you probably believe that at least some scholars are giving a biased view of fascism for the purpose of slinging mud at their own political opponents. Libertarians believe that socialist scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with capitalism, and socialists believe that libertarian scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with socialism. The one thing everyone agrees on is that someone, somewhere, is giving a biased view of fascism. So let's mention that in the lead.

You may notice that this page has carried a POV warning for most of its existence. That alone should tell you something about the extreme controversial nature of the subject matter. You are right that we should not suggest to the readers to assume bad faith, but we should inform them of the fact that this is a highly controversial topic. -- Nikodemos 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a guideline. However, even so it represents "the consensus of many editors" and "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines". Such text, if necessary, is only appropriate for the main article where there is a section which deals with that subject. I will move your text, except for the last sentence which is wrong and OR, there. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article without intent to edit but to read and learn. It would be nice to have a lead that briefly summarized the most important points but I can see the difficulty in doing that when the content is in such turmoil. Currently the lead says simply this is a controversial topic. I think that is sufficient for the moment, but I think the point made by Nikodemos that "virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism" is very important and should be made early in the article.

The thrid paragraph begins, "These difficulties [of definition] arise because there have been few self-identified fascists." I was going to suggest that difficulties of definition have more to do with the "negative connotations" of fascism than a too small sample size. Your argument has caused me to see this statement in a new light, not in terms of sample size but in terms of authority to define. This was not clear to me as a casual reader. I propose adding text from Nikodemos' commentary above to this paragraph so that it reads:

These difficulties arise because there have been few self-identified fascists. There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. Even people who might agree with fascism prefer to use other labels for themselves. Scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe as one might ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative.

Originally... & etc.

What do you think? Baon 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropriateness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarianism

What is the problem with a standard link to Totalitarianism main pages or even the template?--Cberlet 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article for section "Fascism and totalitarianism" would be Fascism and totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not subarticle of this article. For more information see WP:SS. -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Totalitarianism is an article which covers... totalitarianism. What is "totalitarianism"? A concept used to qualify certain political regimes, mainly Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinism (with some disagreements between those who use this suspect). "Fascism and totalitarianism" is an un-needed article when you see the poor state in which "Totalitarianism" is. And, concerning Foucault, you will still have to justify the inclusion of a lame sentence which conveys fairly badly Foucault's thought on the matter (in two words, Foucault has described Stalinism & Nazism as REVERSE operations, which directly opposes this tentative to equates them). Tazmaniacs 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tazmaniacs. Please stop this petty disruption, -- Vision Thing --.--Cberlet 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if any of you two had actually read Totalitarianism, but there is very little overlap between that article and Fascism and totalitarianism section here. I will ask you again direct you to Wikipedia's guideline on this matter which in a nutshell states: When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title. Totalitarianism can't be considered a spin off of Fascism and totalitarianism section in any possible arrangement. As for Foucault, I don't need to justify anything (although I did); for inclusion of content it's enough that it's sourced and on topic. -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The tangential stuff on Foucault is ridiculous--it has nothing to do with this page. Just more POV left-bashing. The issue of fascism and totalitarianism is one of the central issues in scholarship in this arena. The template is appropriate and helps users.--Cberlet 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Foucault's views have everything to do with this page, and they are connected with Levi's arguments. The template is inappropriate, and in "my" version link to Totalitarianism article is the first thing that user encounters when he is reading the section, so your comment is ridiculous. In both cases you are acting against Wikipedia's polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The continuous removal of the

Main article: Totalitarianism

link by User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] is not appropriate. I have restored it, and will add it to the ongoing mediation.--Cberlet 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs sections added on: Relationship of Fascism to 1. Nationalism 2. Rascism 3. Militarism

02 June 2007
This article is incomplete without sections on each of the three topics above. Nationalism is the most important omission which is a major part of fascist ideology.
On the subject of rascism, this article asserts that this was an addition of the Nazis, which the Italian fascists were not interested in. Regardless, it formed such a major part of Nazi ideology and the devoted so much energy to attempts to justify it, and idealise certain races over others, that this such be included in any discussion of fascist ideology. The belief that group A were superior to group B was the ideology behind much of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.180.242 (talk • contribs)

Feel free to add some content on those subjects. -- Vision Thing -- 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "Fascism" in itself, and the basic policy and perspective of it being classified as a "civil religion" more than a political party or movement certainly covers the 3 topics you've listed. At least, #1.) Nationalism, and #3.) Militarism are almost always equated with Fascism. It's hard to find Fascist literature that doesn't mention at least partial characteristics belonging to both categories (Read Oswald Mosley or Achille Starace). As far as Rascism goes, it belongs more to the Neo-Fascist movement where specific races are targeted. Even then, extermination of Jews wasn't on Mussolini's list of things to do. By that token, "Jews" aren't necessarily a race, which can be quite and ironic and comical that Hitler wanted to exterminate those that belonged to a certain belief system and way of life (such as gay, gypsy, or Jew) in order to form a "pure race." In the end, the two spectrums don't match up.

At any rate, just a few thoughts. Nothing to be taken too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.157.226 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)