Talk:Fascism and ideology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Cut from Fascism and the political spectrum

I cut the following from the section "Fascism and the political spectrum":

Ironically, this can be a good argument to consider fascism as "rigth-wing": in European political tradition, refusing the left-rigth division is, usually, considered a rigth-wing position itself (because the left-rigth terminology was, in great, wat, "invented" by the "left-wing").

Odd spelling, but that is neither here nor there. It may be possible to take this "ironic" view, but unless there is some citation for this, it does not belong in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, good edit. Sam Spade 01:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Cut by Sam Spade

This edit cut:

The majority view is that fascism is a movement of the right that co-opted certain tactics, rhetoric, and even policies of the left.

Sam's edit summary is "various, if you want to cite a 'majority; view, please do so". Sam, are you saying that the statement is inaccurate, or merely that it needs citation? And what would qualify as acceptable citation? The opinion of a scholar that this is the majority view, or what?

In any event, if we want to cut uncited statements from the article, may I point out that by that criterion the following should be removed. (By the way, the first four I would certainly want to keep, and think that their removal would fall under WP:POINT. I'm just pointing out why I am inclined to imagine that Sam's removal of this was motivated by something other than a general dislike of uncited material.) Some of them are clearly POV or poorly written, to boot:

Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested.
Despite this ideological difference, in practice many—arguably most or all—communist states have had much in common with fascist states, in matters ranging from militarism to censorship.
There is some controversy about the ideological impact of the conservative element in fascism.
The relationship with right-wing ideologies (including some that are described as neo-fascist) is still an issue for conservatives and their opponents. Especially in Germany, there is a constant exchange of ideology and persons, between the influential national-conservative movement, and self-identified national-socialist groups. In Italy too, there is no clear line between conservatives, and movements inspired by the Italian Fascism of the 1920s to 1940s, including the Alleanza Nazionale which is member of the governing coalition under premier Silvio Berlusconi. Conservative attitudes to the 20th-century fascist regimes are still an issue.
Likewise, claims that classic liberals, neoliberals, or even neoconservatives, are fascists is equally ridiculous given that their economic preferences are those of openness, free trade, and limited government interference; the exact opposite economic preferences fascists.
  • Rather POV, to boot. - JM
Others see them as being so dissimilar as to be utterly incomparable.
  • Probably not even true. While many writers consider Nazism and Stalinism very different, I've never seen any assert that comparison is impossible. In fact, some of those who most reject the similarity do so by means of feature-by-feature comparison. - JM
While the view that there are certain fascist elements obting within the United States is believed by many people, certainly very few scholars would call the U.S. in its entirety, a fascist country.
  • Except for the mysterious word "obting" (is this a word? If so, can someone provide a definition and perhaps substitute something less obscure?), I happen to agree with this, but it is exactly as uncited as what Sam removed. - JM
The idea of fascism developing in the United States was first presented in the 1935 satirical novel It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis.
  • If we remove "first" this is self-evident, but there is no citation for "first" and, frankly, I doubt it. Any objections to removing that word? - JM

Anyway, Sam, to reiterate the questions I started with, are you saying that the removed statement is inaccurate, or merely that it needs citation? And what would qualify as acceptable citation? The opinion of a scholar that this is the majority view, or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You could cite a scholar who thinks that, sure. That still won't make it it true. These "most scientists think JFK is a Jelly Donut" or "Most scholars comb their hair w brill creme" claims are complete balderdash.

For one thing, ALOT of scolars are chinese, muslim, african, russian, and etc... non-western, and not likely to be thinking the same as most scholars you are familiar w. So, in sum, I'd rather you cut thru uncited claims w a machete then see something like:

"The majority view is that fascism is a movement of the right that co-opted certain tactics, rhetoric, and even policies of the left.

stand. Its worse than uncited, its unverifiable, the worst sort of rhetorical claim. Sorry, but having been a scientific pollster and sociological researcher, I have little patience for claims like this which are impossible to prove. Its just one of those things that aggravates me, nothing personal.

You found alot of crappy material while making your point btw, I agree w most of your assessments of it, and would like to see much of it reworded or removed. Sam Spade 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm not saying I'd just leave the sentence intact and footnote it, I'm saying that I would cite who makes this claim, probably a list of most of the leading scholars in the field. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, lets see it. Sam Spade 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Check any of the recent major texts on fascism and neofascism and it will be clear that Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Frtizsche, Laqueur, Laclau, Reich and more recently Paxton and Redles represent the majority view: fascism borrows from the left, but eventually consolidates with the right. In contrast, only a handful of conservative economists have written text arguing that fascism is a form of socialism or left-wing corporatism (von Mises, Flynn, von Hayek). Most of these are older texts. Sam Spade has been deleting accurate summaries about fascism for months. I have repeatedly provided cites. In the real world where scholars of fascism operate, there is an awareness of these marginal claims that fascism is on the political left, but they are seldom given much attention. I challenge Sam Spade to check the footnotes of the books I have cited, and demonstrate that his argument has any weight in fascist studies.--Cberlet 00:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have checked plenty of texts, and as you say, they generally agree that fascism is based on socialist/syndicalist ideas, but tends to find support on the right in its factional fight against marxism. Other rightest tendancies include their acceptance of support from big business, royalty and/or the church. None of these sources you mention is the "majority view", nor do they stand in opposition to one another.

I understand your POV, as a "scholar of fascism" (partisan leftist), and the reasoning behind it. Thats not notable here. There are as many conceptions of the left-right (false) dichotomy as their are analysts of it. One that I recently heard from a professor is that at the extreme right is anarchism, and at the extreme left is totalitarianism. That is not however my view. I find "left" and "right" arbitrary an intentionally obfuscating appeal to 19th century French politics regarding unrelated differences between modern political opponents. In sum, cite an expert refering to what they feel is a majority view, or move on. Sam Spade 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I cite experts, you ignore them. I cite experts, and apparently without reading their books, you claim they do not say what they say. I cite experts explaining how fascism is ultimately right-wing, and you claim that your view is somehow accurate, but the experts that I cite--the recognized experts in the field--the majority view--is wrong. I have cited the leading experts in the field. Recognized by their peers. Who are you citing?--Cberlet 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if that is the majority view, it is a common view but in those of scholarship, the academic field it's about 50%/50%. Though when you consider each "expert" has a differing opinion on what constitutes "right wing" it gets even more confusing, when Wippermann & Burleigh say Nazism was modernizing, progressive, but racist & barbarous, yet they call it out of habit "right"; do the "progressive" anti-conservative, "modernizing" factors place it to the left? Is racism always a part of the right somehow? (I can't see why) Is left or right a question of opposing the previous establishment? One cannot say what is intrinsically forward looking, or even if that means "left", is the "left" just what is for the individual even if reactionary? It seems, anyone who is a scholar of a particular political movement, cannot be a scholar enough of every other movement to clearly define for them or anyone else what are the basic tennets of "right", except that it is conventionally & easily referencable that the term "right wing" has become entrenched for Nazism historically, and that it is a reference point, that communication needs stable terms to convey ideas, and whether it was ideologically motivated by the surviving "leftist" movements of the time made to distance themselves from Nazism or not to continue to call it right doesn't matter when trying to convey clear ideas. In retrospect, Nazism was clearly in the middle as far as I'm concerned; they consciously attempted to be, and this I believe was the inspiration from Mussolini's regime (besides the authoritarianism) and why Nazism is (wrongly) called Fascist today (or rather, why "fascist" became a broad term rather than one solely for the ideology of Italy during a specific time period.) Nagelfar 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam: you say "lets see it"; Cberlet, at my request, cites seven works (Payne, Griffin, Eatwell, Fritzsche, Laqueur, Laclau, Reich), all of them in the article's reference list; you delete the references with an ad hominem remark about who made the edit. I have restored them. While I would prefer, if possible, that the citations were more specific than just the names of works, (Cberlet: do you think you could come up with some key passages and footnote to them, instead of just mentioning entire books?), the works I am familiar with in his list (Fritzsche, Reich) certainly do put forward the opinion for which he cites them. I could also add David Schoenbaum (Hitler's Social Revolution) as saying the same thing; in fact, it is the central theme of that very well-researched work. Are there any of these citations you specifically doubt? If there are, that would suggest in which book it would be most important to do the work necessary to give a more specific citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody cited anybody saying "most". Cberlet's citation attempt was fraudulant, Jmabels correction is acceptable. Sam Spade 05:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

D'Annunzio

There are any source about D'Annunzio being anarchist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.81.171 (talk • contribs) 15 Nov 2005.

A quick Google search turned up Hakim Bey's famous essay on the Temporary Autonomous Zone], which puts D'Annunzio at the center of the post-WWI anarchist experiment in Fiume (which can also easily be confirmed from any number of other sources). Fits in with what I've heard elsewhere. Do you have any reason to doubt it? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Until I read this article, I never heard calling to "Fiume under D'Annunzio" an "anarchist experiment" (even the essay of Hakim Bey don't do that).
The Constitution of Fiume does not seem "anarchist". Excluding some peculiarities, like the "corporations" and the "commander", it is more or less similar to the modern constituitions of the western countries.--194.65.151.17 12:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. I suppose "anarchist" is too strong a word (and, admittedly, I don't know a ton about it). Still, it seems, from what I know, to have been an evolution out of anarcho-syndicalism, and to be part of the chain through which certain "direct action" anarchists drifted toward Fascism. But I could be seriously mistaken: I'll admit I don't know a lot about this. I wish someone who did would step forward. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I do, you assessment is correct, Jmabel. The debate about what anarchism really means is better had elsewhere, we are simply referring to the man as he and others referred to himself. Sam Spade 22:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, what I am saying I do not know a lot about is the short-lived republic in Fiume, and I have seen no signs that you know a lot about that. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I will ignore your comments on the subject in the future. Sam Spade 00:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand that: because I am not an expert, I may not go out and to research on the topic? And there is no chance that I will gain knowledge on anything I do not already know?
On my user talk page, you strongly imply that you "know a great deal about" the Republic of Fiume (or, I suppose more properly, the Italian Regency of Carnaro). As I remarked there, currently, we don't have an article on the topic, just a few remarks in passing in our article on Gabriele D'Annunzio (where your contributions are minimal, and don't touch on this subject) and stubs at Constitution of Fiume and Alceste de Ambris (to which you did not contribute). Again, I will suggest that if you know a lot about the topic, we could really use a solid, factual article on the actual events. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, because you suggest that I am lying regarding my knowledge on the subject, I see little use in attempting dialogue w you regarding it. I appreciate your request for the unrewarding task of donating writing on the subject (and the likelihood that you will request assistance from POV wiki-partisans to harry me in such an endeavor), and I will consider doing so, but not until after midterms, and my return from france ;) Sam Spade 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, let's see if I've got this: I am supposed to presume your good faith at every turn, but you are to doubt mine? As for the link in your previous paragraph, I invite people to follow it: I left a note on the user talk page of a person who has published extensively on this topic, suggesting that, on a point where you challenged me to provide citations, he probably has citations more readily at hand than I do, and asking if he could save me some research by providing those citations and saving me some time in the library. How on earth is that is an objectionable act? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You contacted a guy who is currently in an arbcom case (in which I am involved) for being a POV pushing extremist. That was unfortunate. As far as me assuming good faith on your part, i do. You seem capable of neutrality, despite various errors. I have my complaints w some of your actions, comments and edits, but i get the impression you are someone capable of progress and dialogue. Thanks, Sam Spade 05:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea you were in an arbcom case. Might have crossed my sights at some point, but generally I don't keep track of those things. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't assume you knew, and I'm glad to hear you didn't. Here are a couple of links regarding that matter: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Sam Spade, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others#Case_against_Cberlet.

Sam Spade 09:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"we are simply referring to the man as he and others referred to himself"

But did he (D'Annunzio) refer to himself as an "anarchist"?--212.113.164.104 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say he called himself an anarchist, but De Ambris, who mainly wrote the constitution, is generally referred to as a anarcho-syndicalist, and the pirate based economy of Fiume reminds me of somalia, how about you? ;)
Sam Spade 14:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Fascism & the State

Mussolini & most scholars make it clear that fascism considers the "state" to be of primary importance, not the "nation" or the "collective." Marginal libertarian and conservative views on this subject deserve a brief mention, but they should not be allowed to claim a central place in a serious scholarly discussion of fascism. See Mussolini on this subject here.--Cberlet 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you remove mention of the state in your revert? Please don't revert blindly in the future. Better to discuss and compare citations. Were all aware of your POV regarding views you describe as conservative, but please try to keep that POV from censoring the article. Our readers deserve a balanced source of information. Sam Spade 18:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to force a marginal viewpoint on this article as if it represents the main thread of serious scholarship.--Cberlet 18:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Please listen to your own advice. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is not a marginal viewpoint. Sam Spade 18:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The cited text is both a marginal source and POV. In addition, the cited text opens by pointing out the Mussolini promoted the "state."--Cberlet 18:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is a marginal source, and/or POV. Sam Spade 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It would appear that Library of Congress differs with Cberlet's POV on this particular. I think we know which is considered a more expert witness, yes? Sam Spade 18:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is a private website run by economic libertarians. Nicely done. Serious scholars involved. But it is not a major book or journal article, nor a primary source document. The main scholars of fascism--along with Mussolini--argue that the "state" is primary in fascism. The arguments about collectivism, so-called "liberal corporatism," and the similarities across totalitarianism deserve to be mention, but they should be mentioned as representing minorty viewpoints. For the mainstream viewpoints, see Eatwell, Payne, Griffin, Laqueur, Paxton, etc.--Cberlet 18:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that is completely unacceptable. You asked for a source, you got one. You disputed it, and I provided verification of its standing. Rattling off names and continuing to dispute my sources standing without evidence is in violation of Wikipedia:Citation and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I am thru doing your research for you. Please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine#Precision_of_citations. Sam Spade 18:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Library of Congress merely lists hundreds of available databases. The claim that the LOC has placed some sort of imprimatur on the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is simply false.--Cberlet 18:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Read the link, an overview is given:
"Description: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE) contains a broad collection of essays that provide an understanding of what economists actually think on a wide range of issues—and why. Search or browse articles by title, author, or category. Edited by David R. Henderson.

Part of the Library of Economics and Liberty Online Books and Essays containing the full text of hundreds of classical economics texts ranging from works by Adam Smith to Karl Marx and Friedrich A. Hayek. Also includes biographies of the the major thinkers and writers in economics.
Sam Spade 18:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith.--Cberlet 18:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
How does that apply? Sam Spade 18:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
"Please move along" is snotty. The LOC is merely providing a list. The overview on the LOC website--"understanding of what economists actually think on a wide range of issues—and why." is simply lifted from the self-description on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics website. The listing at the LOC is descriptive--nothing more. Nor does the LOC website place this disagreement in context. The libertarian view of fascism is a minority view. The authors I cite are the generally recognized leaders in the field.--Cberlet 19:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for being "snotty", I have rephrased. Please re-review. Sam Spade 19:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed your inaccurate portrayal of my citation as libertarian POV, along w some excessive quoting. Sam Spade 19:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The quoting is not excessive since it demonstrates that your claims represent a minority viewpoint, while the well-known scholars quoted represent the majority viewpoint.--Cberlet 20:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Those scholars are neither well known, nor do they contridict my claim, which is that the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE) is something other than a marginal Libertarian source. Sam Spade 20:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have cited the leading scholars in the field. That you do not recognize them as such is immaterial to their international reputation, nor does it show that your marginal views on this subject should crowd out the leading scholars in the field. --Cberlet 20:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You have thus far cited nothing in this conversation and series of reverts. Sam Spade 04:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment/question: There is no question (in my mind at least) that the Italian fascists exalted the State rather than the Nation, but Nazism, which is almost universally considered fascist, exalted Nation or Race rather than the State as such. No? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For the Nazis, nation and race were synonymous. Thus the term racial nationalism. The Volk were the nation. Italian fascism was also a form of ultra-nationalism. The ultimate arbiter of what protected the nation, however, was the state, even in Nazi Germany. Hitler embodied the state and protected the race which comprised the nation. Thus the nation had expandable boundaries to collect in the Volk. But sometimes people suggest that Fascism exalted the state and nation and sometimes race, as a way to establish general themes that cover both Italy and Germany. So it is complicated, but you are pointing out one of the central questions scholars debate. For Sternhell, the racism of the Nazis moved Nazism out of the category of fascism altogether, although this is a minority view. Sternhell on how there are left roots of fascism is a more widely accepted thesis.

There is nothing inherently racist about fascism. This is most clearly evidenced by the lack of persecution of Jews in early Facist Italy. Nazism however has an inherently racial character. It didn't have to be genocidal, but it had to be supremacist. There are arguments made that Nazism was less racist or antisemitic than was common at the time, and a suprising about of good evidence for that (aryanization of certain jews, persecution of blonde and blue slavs, coalition w the japanese and Italians despite their lack of indo-euro descent), but no one rationally argues the Nazi's were without racism. The difference between nation and state is clear: a nation need not have a state, borders, or etc... see kurdistan, or the roma. A state need not be of a singular racial stock, as evidenced by nearly all modern nations. Hitlers plan was nationalist, not statist, and thus arguably not fascist, but rather national socialist. Sam Spade 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To argue that Hitler's plan was nationalist, but not statist, is an opinion not shared by most of the major scholars of fascism. To argue that the Nazi theory of nation was not fundamentally racialist is an opinion not shared by most of the major scholars of fascism. Nazism is sometimes called racial nationalism. Most scholars consider Nazism to be a form of fascism. Sternhell is one of the few exceptions. To suggest that the Nazis were "less racist or antisemitic than was common at the time" is a central argument of Holocaust Denial, and at best is a marginal opinion so outrageous that the vast majority of serious scholars would never even suggest such a claim. The Italians took less extreme measures toward Jews, but their treatment of Ethiopians was quite racist. The marginal opinions posted above--based on a tiny handful of right-wing theorists--are fascinating, and when cited to reputable published sources, could be part of this article; but they represent a tiny theoretical position not shared by most of the major scholars of fascism. I have assembled a list of the leading scholars of fascism below. Although there are disagrrements among them, a surprising amount of consensus is emerging.--Cberlet 23:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
What consensus? Nobody has discussed your list. I thought it was a positive gesture, something similar to the "recomended reading list" 172 put on the Talk:Fascism page awhile back. Similarly, my immediate concern was not the value of the given list, but its exclusionary nature. We will certainly not be restricting our citations to your list, Cberlet. I understand that these are authors you enjoy, and books you probably own or have easy access to, thus sources you could appropriately cite. Others are likely to cite from alternate sources (such as the The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics). Any verifiable POV can and will be included, so long as it is expert or notable on the subject. Sam Spade 23:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember that Giovanni Gentile, who Mussolini regarded as the "philosopher of Fascism" to whom was relegated the position of prime mover of the content of its ideology, claimed that; "Nationalism was a presupposition"; if Gentile is as all arrows point the measure of Italian Fascism & its own theory; then Fascism was not ultra-nationalism or even nationalism at all; the national element was simply the constituent part of the state which in turn made the nation real; the state was the focus, the nation was secondary or less; but it certainly to them couldn't exist on an international level without ceasing to be such a state, because a 'world nation is not a nation' and the interests therein are what constitute the state. Fascism is then; the incorporating of all divergent interests which form one community into a single governmental state; which could alternately be seen as the preempting of all individual interests to that of statist ones in the name of such a corporative syndicalism Nagelfar 02:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Leading Scholars of Fascism

Part of the problem with editing this page is the understandable ignorance regarding who are considered the leading scholars of fascism. In a contentious field, the list itself is contentious. Yet there are some obvious ways to compile such a list. One is to see who is published by the most respected academic publishers. Another is to see who edits major scholarly compilations and readers. Another is to see who is cited as authoritative.

For example, Roger Griffin wrote the entry on Fascism for Encarta, and then the editors of Encarta compiled a list of suggested reading[1]:

  • Eatwell, Roger. Fascism: A History. Penguin, 1997. Overview of the history of fascism.
  • Griffin, Roger, ed. International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus. Oxford University Press, 1998. A reader on fascism in Europe and elsewhere.
  • Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, 1997. A wide-ranging study of the many faces of fascism by one of America's foremost historians.
  • Lee, Martin A. The Beast Reawakens. Little, Brown, 1997. Chronicles 50 years of neo-Nazism, from its beginnings in post-World War II Germany through the fall of the Berlin wall and the emergence of skinhead groups in Germany and the United States.
  • Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. Knopf, 2004. Examination of why fascism took hold in Germany and Italy but failed elsewhere.
  • Payne, Stanley G. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. University of Wisconsin Press, 1995. Fascism in Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania, and Japan, as well as movements in other countries.

The Oxford University Press Reader on Fascism is edited by Griffin. Roger Griffin and Matthew Feldman edited the five volume study of fascism for the Routledge Series: Critical Concepts in Political Science.

Many of the most significant scholars of fascism are already cited on the page we are editing:


  • De Felice, Renzo. 1977. Interpretations of Fascism, translated by Brenda Huff Everett, Cambridge ; London : Harvard University Press
  • Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1990. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195057805
  • Gentile, Emilio. 2002. Fascismo. Storia ed interpretazione . Roma-Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & Figli.
  • Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • Griffin, Roger. 1998. International Fascism: Theories, Causes, and the New Consensus. Oxford University Press.
  • Laqueur, Walter. 1966. Fascism: Past, Present, Future, New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  • Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press
  • Weber, Eugen. [1964] 1982. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Other books can be added from other sources:

  • Mosse, George L. 1985. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Fascism. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Mudde, Cas. 2000. The Ideology of the Extreme Right. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
  • Gentile, Emilio. 1996. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy, translated by Keith Botsford. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Who is missing from the list of the leading scholars of fascism? Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn. Why? Because while they are serious scholars of economic libertarianism and conservative politics, they are simply not considered to be in the first rank of scholars of fascism. Check the books listed above and see who is cited as a aerious scholar. Many of the other names on the list appear in many of the books and articles. How many times do the names Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn appear?--Cberlet 04:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As you point out, Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn are serious scholars of economics and politics. Therefore their opinions regarding Fascism are expert, (it being a political and economic theory). Full stop. Do not attempt to censor based on your well known political POV. There is absolutely nothing about conservatism or libertarianism that separates one from "serious scholarship", except perhaps in the eyes of Chip Berlet. Sam Spade 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam, you seem to be misquoting Chip. He wrote, "serious scholars of economic libertarianism and conservative politics". You transformed that into "serious scholars of economics and politics." It's not the same. The argument you make seems analogous to saying that Linus Pauling is a scientist, so he must know all about Vitamin C. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

False analogy. The terms libertarian and conservative are suggestive of the POV of these experts, not of some sort of formal appellation. Sam Spade 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems a perfectly good analogy to me. These days, just about every academic subject is too big for anyone to be an expert in all of it. Hayek, Mises and Flynn were not scholars of Fascism. Of course, they had opinions about Fascism and quite a bit of knowledge of it, but they were not experts on its history and development. It's true enough that "libertarianism" and "conservatism" are not subject areas, but this is irrelavent to Chip's main point. Cadr 23:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That experts with whom he disagrees should be excluded based on their politics? Sam Spade 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't really what he was saying. He was correctly saying that the "experts" you mentioned are not experts on Fascism. Perhaps you need to read what he actually wrote again more carefully! Cadr 19:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

moved from article

Some scholars, such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and John T. Flynn, dissent from the idea that fascism is a right-wing movement. This view also stresses the collectivist aspect of organizing the fascist nation.

Requested: specific citations from each of these three either explicitly disputing that fascism is on the right or stating that it is on the left. Stating that it is "socialist" is another matter, since they may be classifying it as "right-wing socialism".

The above was hacked apart and reassembled during an edit war, and is dubious at best. Sam Spade 16:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! Stand by your man!
===Regarding von Mises: "He pointed out that it was “important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships” and that both had been “committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters.” He reminded his readers that before the First World War, Benito Mussolini had been one of the leading socialists in Italy. His major heresy from Marxian orthodoxy had been his strong endorsement of Italian entry into World War I on the Allied side as a means to “liberate” Italian-speaking areas under Austrian control in the Alps." --Richard M. Eberling [2]
===Regarding Hayek: "Hayek never accepted that fascism was a capitalist phenomenon. To him, Stalin and Hitler were two suits in the same closet, and the closet was marked "collectivism." Hayek dedicated his book "To the Socialists of All Parties." It was directed primarily against "classical Socialism," by which he meant "nationalization of the means of production," but what made it so controversial was the comparisons he drew between Nazi Germany and the way things were heading in the democracies. "Although few people, if anybody, in England would probably be ready to swallow totalitarianism whole, there are few single features which have not been advised by somebody or other," Hayek wrote. "Indeed, there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler’s book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes." John Cassidy [3]
Regarding Flynn: "The United States followed the same course. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was a conscious and active attempt to impose a fascist type of economic order on America. And even after much of the New Deal had been declared unconstitutional in 1935, the Roosevelt administration continued on the collectivist road with economic regulation, deficit-spending, public works, welfare-statism, and monetary central-planning through the Federal Reserve System. ... Indeed, outside of the Soviet Union, the competing collectivisms were merely different forms of economic and political fascism. The common denominators of all of them were economic nationalism, government control of the economy, and political absolutism. And this applied to the United States as well. As John T. Flynn concisely expressed it in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, the only difference is whether one thought of these policies as "the bad fascism" or "the good fascism," with the distinction being determined by whether it was some other government carrying out these policies or one's own." --Richard M. Eberling [4]
The basic theme across all three authors is that capitalism and individualism are the antithesis of left-wing corporatism and collectivism. This is in part how the Nolan chart was developed. They just omit the reference to the political right, which they in some aspects exemplify. --Cberlet 23:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet, it would be interesting to me to see how you would word this and with what citations. I'm not claiming much expertise on these writers; I never heard of Flynn until this last few months here. My questions that I'd hope to see addressed are:
  • Did each of these writers embrace the left-right dichotomy but place fascism on the right? Reject the left-right dichotomy? Something else?
  • Do I understand correctly that Flynn's argument amounts to defining "fascism" very broadly, and that in his view it includes any collectivism that was not in service of revolutionary socialism?
In short, I'd be interested in seeing these people's views clarified rather than just alluded to. (If that can't be done in, say, 6 or 7 sentences altogether, it may involve some "see also" references to somewhere it can be better explained; I suspect that will be the case for Flynn.) If we are going to mention them, we do the reader a lot more of a service by summarizing things than just alluding to them. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Any such explanations might also be transfered, to, or elaborated on in greater detail at, John T. Flynn's article (which is a rather sad little stub). Sam Spade 02:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These are fringe theories from a handful of libertarians and conservatives who are not considered major scholars of fascism. They deserve a mention here, nothing more. They all wrote texts that explain their views in great detail. Many of their writings are enshrined on libertarian websites. I object to Sam Spade's repeated attempts to inflate their views into the lead of this page, and inflate the significance of their ideas in general on the subject of fascism. They used their analysis of fascism to promote right-wing ideology and attack liberals and the left. This was political polemic, not scholarship on fascism. If folks want to add their views on fascism to their respective Wiki pages, that is fine with me. This page already is overloaded with these fringe libertarian/conservative views.--Cberlet 05:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarian theories about fascism

A libertarian advocacy website does not trump dozens of academic scholars. The primacy of the Nation and the State are the primary hallmarks of fascism. Collectivism is one of many other secondary aspects. The libertarian concept of fascism as ultra-collectivism is hardly given any credence in serious scholarship on fascism. The fascist idea of collectivism, as posted above, was that the State organically represented both the individual and the collective. The failure to provide any serious cites other than Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn should settle this question. This same debate is now taking place on three Wiki pages: Fascism and ideology, Fascism, Right-wing politics. Can we at least seek to have the discussion only on the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would also like to note that fascists characterized themselves as right-wing and anti-socialist. To suggest that libertarian advocacy trumps not only scholarly work, but the words of the fascists themselves is pure absurdity. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Reductio ad Hitlerum. Fabulous! This is precisely the problem...--Cberlet 02:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

EugenicHegemony 10:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Never did they characterize themselves as "anti-socialist". Where would you ever get such an idea? You can read the words of the German National Socialist's, ergo, Fascist's, here: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm Mussolini said: “It is the State which educates its citizens in civic virtue, gives them a consciousness of their mission and welds them into unity." Now the U.S. has installed one of the worst compulsory education systems in the world, and it's all controlled by the state. Information found here: http://www.feltd.com/domo3.html (UTC)

You mean other than Hayek, von Mises, Flynn and Richman, right? Thats 4 citations. One should do, 4 experts is overkill. Please stop defying central wiki policies such as NPOV and WP:CITE. Sam Spade 02:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

500 preening libertarians denouncing fascism as leftist anathema would not counterweight the majority views of serious scholars of fascism as right wing and based on exalting nation, state, and race. Just as 500 preening Stalinists citing the Comintern definition of fascism as the "the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital,"(Dimitrov, p. 2) should not be allowed to take over this page and push a minority POV. Citation of scholarly sources requires more that a haphazard Internet search for the keywords "fascism" and "collectivism." There is a majority view in most scholarship. I have identified it and cited the major theorists for fascist studies. I have read the conservatives and libertarians such as Hayek, von Mises, Flynn and Richman on fascism. Which of the major works on fascism has Sam Spade read? Payne? Weber? Eatwell? Laqueur? Griffin? How about the conservative scholar of fascism Rhodes? Sam Spade, have you read Rhodes? What do you think of Rhodes? You were advised to learn more about proper citation by the recent arbitration. You should take the advice more seriously.--Cberlet 02:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Quick lesson on citation & the Internet.
  • Searching the terms "fascism collectivism socialism" returns 80,400 hits on Googletm
  • Searching the terms "fascism capitalism reactionary" returns 185,000 hits on Googletm
Using the methodology proposed by Sam Spade, this entry on Wikipedia should downplay the libertarian thesis on fascism, and highlight the Communist Cominterm thesis that fascism is "the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital,"(Dimitrov, p. 2).
Why not? Because it is not a competent way to do research or use citations in an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide the reader with a fair and accurate summation of the majority scholarship on a subject, while paying reasonable attention to minority theories, identified as such. An encyclopedia is not a place for original research, or biased POV pushing. A good encyclopedia writer can be a centrist, a leftist or a rightist. What matters is the ability to identify and properly report the majority scholarship, while being sensitive to portraying minority views in proportion to their importance.
Counting Internet hits for your POV is not a persuasive way to identify majority scholarship. Neither is measuring the number of available cites. Neither is claiming that four or five cites mean a specific POV should be highlighted. What matters is the majority view of scholars in the field. --Cberlet 03:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I advocate no such method, please refrain from speaking for me, Cberlet. Instead, review strawman and WP:CITE, wherin the superiority of cited info is clarified. Your uncited POV regarding "the majority view of scholars" and random name dropping of authors (instead of actual citations) is not germane to this discussion. Sam Spade 19:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Leading theories of Fascism

There are a number of discussions about competing theories of fascsim available online. Here are some of the better theoretical discussions by leading scholars of fascism:

  • Roger Griffin. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism." Chapter published in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991 (Routledge, London, 2000), pp. 185-201 [5]
  • Roger Griffin. "The Concept that came out of the Cold: The Progressive Historicization of Generic Fascism and its New Relevance to Teaching 20th Century History." [6]Check out footnote 69!
  • Roger Griffin."Interregnum or Endgame? Radical Right Thought in the ‘Post-fascist’ Era"[7]
  • Roger Eatwell, Professor of European Politics,University of Bath. "The Nature of Fascism: or Essentialism by Another Name?" A response to Professor Roger Griffin's 'Fascism's New Faces (and New Facelessness) in the post-fascist Epoch' for the journal: Erwägen, Wissen, Ethik (2004)[8]
  • Liah Greenfield, review of Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future.[9]
  • Mabel Berezin. "Fascism." Forthcoming in: Encyclopedia of Sociology, George Ritzer, ed. London: Blackwell.[10]

Berzin References

  • Acquarone's Alberto. 1974. L'organizzazione dello Stato totalitario (Reprint). Turin: Einaudi.
  • Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life. New York: Oxford.
  • Allardyce,Gilbert "What Fascism is Not: Thoughts on the Deflation of a Concept," American Historical Review 84 (1979), 388.
  • Arendt, Hannah. [1951]1973. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Baldwin, Peter "Social Interpretations of Nazism: Renewing a Tradition," Journal of Contemporary History 25 (1990): 5-37;
  • Berezin, Mabel. 1997. Making the Fascist Self: The Political Culture of Inter-war Italy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell.
  • Bermeo, Nancy. 2003. Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times: The Citizenry and the Breakdown of Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Browning, Christopher R. 1992. Ordinary men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Collins.
  • Brustein, William I. 1996. The Logic of Evil. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
  • Burleigh, Michael. 2000. The Third Reich. New York: Hill and Wang.
  • De Felice, Renzo. 1977. Interpretations of Fascism, trans. Brenda Huff Everett. Cambridge: Harvard.
  • De Grand, Alexander. 1991. "Cracks in the Facade: The Failure of Fascist Totalitarianism in Italy, 1935-9." European History Quarterly 21: 515-535.
  • De Grazia, Victoria. 1981. The Culture of Consent. New York: Cambridge.
  • De Grazia, Victoria. 1992. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922-1945 Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Eatwell, Roger. 1994. "Why Are Fascism and Racism Reviving in Western Europe?" Political Quarterly 65(3) (July - Sept.):313-325.
  • Einaudi, Mario. 1968. “Fascism.” Pp. 334-341 in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol.5, David L. Sills, eds. New York: Macmillan Company and the Free Press.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1990. Rehearsels for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. New York: Oxford.
  • Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge: Harvard, Cambridge, 1998.
  • Gentile, Emilio. 1993. Il culto del littorio. Rome: Laterza.
  • Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. 1996. Hitler’s Willing Executioners. New York: Knopf.
  • Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin's.
  • Koshar, Rudy, Ed. 1990. Splintered Classes. New York: Holmes and Meier.
  • Laqueur, Walter. 1996. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York: Oxford.
  • Levy, Carl. 1999. “Fascism, National Socialism and Conservatives in Europe, 1914-1945: Issues for Comparativists.” Contempory European History 8 (1): 97-126.
  • Linz, Juan J. 1976. "Some Notes Toward a Comparative Study of Fascism in Sociological Historical Perspective." In Fascism: A Reader's Guide, edited by Walter Laqueur. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Linz, Juan J. 1980. "Political Space and Fascism as a Late-comer." Pp. 153-89 in Who Were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism, edited by Stein Ugelvik Larsen. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Linz, Juan J. 2000. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. London: Lynne Riener Publishers. (Reprint with new introduction of Chapters 1-6 in Handbook of Political Science, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1975.)
  • Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1981. Political Man (Reprint). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
  • Luzzatto, Sergio. 1999. “The Political Culture of Fascist Italy.” Contempory European History 8 (2): 317-334.
  • Mann, Michael. 2004. Fascists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Merkl, Peter H. 1980. "Comparing Fascist Movements." Pp. 752-83 in Who Were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism, edited by Stein Ugelvik Larsen. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Mosse, George L. 1979. "Towards a General Theory of Fascism.” In International Fascism, edited by George L. Mosse. London: Sage.
  • Mosse, George L. 1991. The Nationalization of the Masses. Ithaca: Cornell.
  • Nolte, Ernst. 1969. Three Faces of Fascism, trans. Leila Vannewitz. New York: New American Library.
  • Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Knopf.
  • Payne Stanley G. 1980. Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Sternhell, Zeev. 1994. The Birth of Fascist Ideology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Stone, Marla. 1998. The Patron State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Von Beckerath, Erwin. 1931. “Fascism.” Pp. 133-138 in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 5, Edwin R.A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson, eds. New York: Macmillan: 133-138.

Reading Lists from Courses on Fascism

Serious libertarian scholarship on fascism

  • David Ramsay Steele "The Mystery of Fascism."[11] Note that "collectivism" is barely hinted at, and one cite to von Mises notes: "In the late 1920s, people like Winston Churchill and Ludwig von Mises saw Fascism as a natural and salutory response to Communist violence." Who knew? Isn't research fun!

What do we see in this literture review? 1) The leading scholars of fascism are easy to identify; 2) Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, etc. are not contenders; 3) Collectivism is not a central theme of the studies. --Cberlet 20:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats a hell of alot of links, are you planning on listing them in a references section, or what? Have you read all of them? Did they influence your writing of this article? In what ways? Why are you listing them here and now? So long as you are aware that no such list is exaustive, nor in need of political censorship, you will find no argument from me about placing such a one in the article as a reference. Sam Spade 01:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Sam Spade, I have read more than half of the Berzin References, thanks for asking. And you? I am demonstrating that: 1) The leading scholars of fascism are easy to identify; 2) Hayek, von Mises, Flynn, etc. are not contenders; 3) Collectivism is not a central theme of the studies. I thought this was made clear in my previous post. I also read the relevant Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn texts in the 1960s. I am listing the references above because of resistance to the idea that some theories of fascism are more important than other theories. If you are willing to accept that Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn are not leading theorists of fascism, and their views do not deserve to be highlighted in the lead, but should get their proper exploration in the body of the page, then we can move on to constructive editing.--Cberlet 04:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Follow EffK a.r.t template

This is a pure example of why. All source, all POV within the NPOV, even the error to be reported, all the hagiography. Jimbo needs to raise the bucks is all. There it is at Vatican Bank/talk- I'll set you out a mock-up for any d... Article. All the arguments are corrupted by lack of the template as here we see, and reject. I can get short, 'cause it is refreshing at times... EffK 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, what are you talking about? Does this relate to the exchange Cberlet and I recently had with you on another page? And if so, how? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I, too, am very confused by the EffK post.--Cberlet 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked at the pettiness of the inter-actions here which culminate in precisely the a.r.t. anyway. its all a lot of shoving done in some cases like schoolboys. I have been through this at twenty times the length elsewhere, so I have the solution. The unity of majority view is interfereing with the work, and is a chimera.

All this on one page:

why I am inclined to imagine that Sam's removal of this was motivated
complete balderdash
Sam Spade has been deleting accurate
seldom given much attention
a tiny theoretical position
I challenge
None of these sources you mention is the "majority view"
your POV...not notable here
I cite experts, you ignore them
summaries about fascism for months
with an ad hominem remark
Nobody cited anybody saying "most". Cberlet's citation attempt was fraudulant, Jmabels correction is acceptable.
you strongly imply
you suggest that I am lying
I am supposed to presume your good faith at every turn, but you are to doubt mine
You contacted a guy
Might have crossed my sights
Marginal libertarian and conservative views
revert blindly
do not attempt to force
marginal source and POV
they should be mentioned as representing minorty viewpoints
that is completely unacceptable
is simply false
is snotty
generally recognized
your inaccurate portrayal
your claims represent a minority viewpoint are neither well known, nor do they contridict my claim
you do not recognize them
your marginal views
Most scholars
a tiny handful
a surprising amount of consensus
its exclusionary nature
Any verifiable POV can and will be included
understandable ignorance
Do not attempt to censor
' misquoting
You transformed that
False
hacked apart
fringe theories
I object
overloaded
is pure absurdity
stop defying central wiki policies
preening
haphazard
You were advised...take the advice
should downplay
biased POV pushing
properly report the majority
What matters is the majority
refrain from speaking for me
Your uncited POV
a tiny theoretical position
thanks for asking. And you?
on to constructive editing

Yes, my suggestion would obviate such as all this.If people properly sourced with page numbers and allowable fair use, each arsehole could simply justify his contribution by that means upon discussion, and spend more time reading source than friggin about in discussion with people who have axes to grind. I believe this fighting for a 'priority' or singularity or this majority would precisely be preventable by my suggestion towards inclusivity.The strength of any one scholarly viewpoint would be in proportion to the length of the list of ISBNs cited. It would be possible to order the sources displayed under the angles of those sources by virtue of very short phraseology appended to any work. take the friggin dustjacket and cut it down to 4 words.

And no, the reactions to me at Concepts do not lead us forward, but, sadly, personalisation seems to charge ahead of thought. From close reading of this page I see Jmabel is not grinding an axe, but that the whole discussion is typical of source dispute. At least here there are two sides to source, however imbalanced, but the user who characterises all history I have sourced by actually texting into WP, with no contrary source whatever produced- as "Very unusual theories with many critics" does ,sadly, because I could have agreed with his 'standpoints', not instill me with confidence. I fail to see upon what basis such a statement can be made, on a subject which undoubtedly enters even here. EffK 20:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what EffK is talking about. If anyone else cares to try to explain it, I would be appreciative.--Cberlet 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging in and combining

FOLKS - PLEASE DO NOT FREAK OUT. Thanks. I just moved in a big chunk based on discussions on other pages where a merge is happening. If the libertarian/U.S. section gets too big, it might make sense to carve it out into a page titled something like Fascism, Corporatism, and the Welfare State. In any case, please try to edit out the duplicate material and make it read better. Let's all step back from arguing for a week while we make it a better article for the readers.--Cberlet 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Every word is contested by someone

I scanned through this article and found this paragraph:

" In 1947, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises published a short book entitled Planned Chaos. He asserted that fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships and that both had been committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. He argued that Mussolini's major heresy from Marxist orthodoxy had been his strong endorsement of Italian entry into World War I on the Allied side. (Mussolini aimed to "liberate" Italian-speaking areas under Austrian control in the Alps.) This view contradicts the statements of Mussolini himself (not to mention his socialist opponents), and is generally viewed with skepticism by historians."

I cut out the last sentence because it it rather obvious that the person who wrote that line was trying to discredit the person who wrote the rest of the parapgrap and the contents of that paragraph itself. There is also no source given for the statement that Mussolini's himself contradicted the view of von Mises. There is also ambiguity: is the sentence saying that Mussolini and modern historians contradict the view that Mussolini aimed to liberate the Alps or is it directed at the whole paragraph.

It is a better stargety, IMHO, to let such controverisal paragraphs stand, and then continue with ATERNATIVE VIEWS in the next few paragraphs, than to contest each single position, assertion, paragraph, sentence....all the way down to single words and phonemes.... I understand that people take this question very personally, for some reason. I live in Italy, for heaven's sake!! But let's try to just post information (or views in this case) and indicate the sources of these views.--Lacatosias 15:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Austrian School is by no means notable enough to have such a large section dedicated to it in an article about fascism. Austrian economists tend to believe that any government intervention in the economy whatsoever constitutes "socialism", so it is no wonder that they consider Nazism to be a form of "socialism". My advice is twofold:
  1. First, move the section about Nazism and socialism back to Nazism in relation to other concepts, then trim it down significantly to reduce the undue weight given to Austrian POV. The Nazism in relation to other concepts page has had a section dealing with socialism for a long time now, and many links regarding Nazism and socialism point there. It would be disingenious (not to mention confusing to our readers) to move that section to another article. Particularly since that section deals with Nazism, while this article is about fascism.
  2. If necessary, create a different section in this article dealing with fascism and socialism. Nazism is, at best, just one form of fascism.
-- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There are actually very few active pages (mostly archives and user pages) that link to Nazism in relation to other concepts. I will be happy to fix those links. There are fierce defenders of the Austrian School and they deserve a place somewhere on Wikipedia to fully lay out their views. Most of the text that moved in applies equally well to fascism in general as to Nazism in particular. Please note that I personally loathe the Austrian School and their minions, but fair is fair, that's what NPOV is all about. This is not a new issue, and to avoid endless conflicts, this is a page where people with different points of view can work to make sense of these disputes. Plus, the Austrian School discussion makes the discussion of collectivism, corporatism, and FDR on this page make much more sense. Simply by editing we can have paragraphs on "Fascism and socialism" and "Nazism and socialism" but the the Austrian School critique really covers both. Give it a few days for comments from others.--Cberlet 23:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean that the Austrian view should be censored, but that it should be given far less space than it currently occupies. The whole Austrian point could be summed up in one sentence: "The Austrian School of economics defines socialism as state intervention in the economy; fascist states intervened in their economy, therefore the Austrian School considers them socialist". Granted, we should probably give them more than that, but I think one paragraph would suffice. The place where fringe opinions can be fully laid out, as WP:NPOV explains, is in the main articles dealing with the fringe groups in question. The Austrian perspective on fascism can be discussed at length in the article on the Austrian school of economics, but it should not be given undue weight here. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
As for keeping information here vs. moving it back to Nazism in relation to other concepts, I am certainly willing to wait for other people's opinions before taking any action. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Because there is little about this specific to Nazism (as against fascism), I think it is probably better off here. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Note to Ehusman re: last edit and nasty note on my user page: I am not censoring anything, and your assumptions about my views are false. Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn all wrote about similarites among fascism, national socialism, corporatism, and the U.S. welfare state. Your ignorance of this has created your anger. Please chill out.--Cberlet 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't feel angry. Maybe the problem is yours. Ehusman 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Unreconstructability

"The implication of unreconstructability for socialism is that class identity can be inherited, in the sense that guilt can be transfered from one generation to the next." What is the source for the claim that socialists consider unreconstrucability to be heritable? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacking any response, I am deleting this sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of fascism

Would the treatment of the topic here and in the fascism article benefit from a supporting article devoted to issues in the definition of fascism and excerpting notables sources? I have the idea that such an article could be structured around Ernst Nolte's idea of a "fascist minimum", exceprt authors who have provided such a minimum (eg. Payne, Griffin), and summarise criticisms of the idea of the fascist minimum is a useful way to understand fascism.

I'm proposing this article mainly because I think it would be useful background to the question of whether any modern Islamist movements can properly called fascist, cf. discussion at Talk: Islamofascism. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That might be useful, but there is already a lot of that discussion at Neofascism and religion.--Cberlet 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, there used to be just such a discussion on this page, but it keeps getting gutted by supporters of the obscure libertarian viewpoint. Quotes from Griffin, Eatwell, and others keep getting deleted. See for example this deletion by Sam Spade: here.--Cberlet 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's pretty much nothing in either the text Sam Spade deleted or at Neofascism&religion that actually gives definitions of fascism: ie. something that provides some sort of positive criterion for deciding whether or not a given regime or political movement answers someone's definition of fascist. What I'm proposing is pretty far from what this article should be about, but it's here that most content disucssion has taken place. Maybe if I steal a summary of Payne's fascist minimum, it will be clearer what sort of sources I intend:

A. The Fascist Negations:
  • Antiliberalism
  • Anticommunism
  • Anticonservatism (though with the understanding that fascist groups were willing to undertake temporary alliances with groups from any other sector, most commonly with the right)
B. Ideology and Goals:
  • Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models
  • Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist
  • The goal of empire or a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other powers
  • Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture
C. Style and Organization:
  • Emphasis on esthetic structure of meetings, symbols, and political choreography, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
  • Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia
  • Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence
  • Extreme stress on the masculine principle and male dominance, while espousing the organic view of society
  • Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation
  • Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective

From Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Payne 1980), via Orcinus. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Time to remove dispute flags?

Any objections?--Cberlet 20:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and socialism

[Editors of this page should be aware that the folowing discussion started on the user page Sam Spade. I moved it here because this is where the discussion belongs.--Cberlet 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)]


If you want to go to Fascism and ideology and make a case for recreating the page Nazism and socialism please do so. If you continue to attempt to enforce your tiny minority viewpoint on numerous pages over this issue, I will file an arbitration, since mediation has already failed.--Cberlet 14:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your assumptions. I'm certainly not expressing a tiny minority viewpoint, I am disagreeing with you about what page a certain peice of information should be placed on. You have refused to discuss, so arbitration (after about an hours disagreement) strikes me as more than a bit hyperbolic... Assumably your request would be thrown out. Sam Spade 14:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
This dispute has been going on for months. If you are serious about a discussion about proper pages, then go to Fascism and ideology and propose carving out the section on Nazism and socialism instead of creating a needless confrontation.--Cberlet 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please step back and find another way to think about things. Yes, we have disagreed in the past, and now we are disagreeing about the placement of text on Nazism in relation to other concepts, but there has been no dispute going on for months. This is a brand new issue, to which I bring no emotional baggage. If you have other issues I suggest you deal with them separately. Sam Spade 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The text you inserted was 95% a duplication of the text on Fascism and ideology. You made no effort to raise the issue on Fascism and ideology. You did not challenge the merge discussion on the page Nazism in relation to other concepts. There has been a group of editors working on a project involving several pages for months. Rather than joining us, you simply stamped duplicate text onto a page from which it had already been moved. It has been on Fascism and ideology for many weeks. Editing has moved forward. This is not a new issue. And you can achieve what you want simply by going to Fascism and ideology and joining in the ongoing editing and discussion. --Cberlet 14:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't agree, but at least you are discussing the text I restored. Would you care to explain why you changed the page into a redirect? Sam Spade 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not an issue of the two of us disagreeing. The issue is that you are not abiding by a collective editing process. That text on Nazism as a form of socialism was moved many weeks ago. That move was discussed. Since the text was moved, it has been edited, discussed, and re-edited by a number of editors. What you did was create a POV fork by stamping back into the page Nazism in relation to other concepts, older text that you prefer and which reflects your idiosyncratic minority viewpoint. In doing so you ignored the discussion where it was clear that the text remaining on the page Nazism in relation to other concepts was being merged into several other pages. All I did was finish that process. There are now new pages on Nazism and religion and Nazism and race (a stub at least but I plan to grow it). There is also now a page called Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation).
I know you have been peddling the idea that Nazism is a form of socialism on several pages for many months. As you are well aware, most editors disagree with you, challenge you claims on discussion pages, and edit your text. If you wish to avoid the appearance that you are simply continuing a long, contentious, and disruptive attempt to once again force your view on the subject back onto the pages of Wikipedia, may I humbly suggest that you go to Fascism and ideology and join in the ongoing editing and discussion on the issue of whether or not Nazism is a form of socialism, where 95% of the text you recently plopped onto the now redirected page Nazism in relation to other concepts, has been for many Weeks.
If you wish to show good faith, please consider not reverting the redirect of Nazism in relation to other concepts, and remove the call for the deletion of Nazism in relation to other concepts (disambiguation)]]. This discussion itself should move to the page Fascism and ideology, and so I am taking the liberty of duplicating it on that page, where I will be delightd to continue the discussion.--Cberlet 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You are in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. Do not yell and scream at other editors. --FOo 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am confused. How am I yelling and screaming? Do you mean the caps? They are to highlight the actual issues. Is that considered yelling and screaming? --Cberlet 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Always has been. --FOo 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, clueless. I thought that meant not posting entire messages in CAPS. will remove.--Cberlet 14:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, whether fascism is a form of socialism is a second order issue to the fact that the majority of leaders of fascist movements in Italy, Germany, and all over Europe came from Marxist (or syndicalist) backgrounds. What should be discussed is the ways in which fascist theory grew organically out of Marxism. User:Mattm1138

Hi, actually, that history is very well detailed on the page Fascism. --Cberlet 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, I'm new here, so bear with me if I'm not familiar with all of this yet. Mattm1138 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

On what page does section on socialism belong?

Users should only edit one position or view, for each dispute, other than to endorse.

Dispute

Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?

Here at Fascism and ideology

The discussion over the relationships among Nazism, fascism, socialism, and collectivism is complicated. For the most part, the claims that fascism or Nazism are forms of socialism or collectivism originate from a small group of primarily libertarian theorists influenced by the Austrian School. These claims need a place to be aired on Wikipedia, but in a larger context that is best served by having the material remain here at Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 15:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Cberlet 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Stlemur 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    Rough agreement: I agree with the first and third sentences, but think the origins of the claim are rather more complex. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Changed to Neutral/undecided for now, but leaning towards my suggestion below. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Agree, but no matter where it's placed any discussion of Nazism and Socialism, at least, needs to mention the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler's violent purge of socialists within the Nazi party. I'm surprised that it appears to have gone unmentioned on so many of the other pages discussing this. --Aquillion 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Leaning this way. In any case, let's keep it in one place. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Seems like a better title, easier to find for readers as well.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Seems like the best option. john k 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Seems reasonable to me. Str1977 (smile back) 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On Nazism in relation to other concepts

(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Besides other authors who have noted the links between Socialism and Nazism (including Hitler himself and students of the electoral strategies of the KPD, SDP, and NSDAP in the pre-1933 period), the Austrians (Hayek and Mises in particular) wrote about the relationship between socialism and Nazism, but did not write so much about Fascism (if at all). Putting their arguments on the fascism page is an implied assertion that the two are identical without any proof. This discounts sociological factors in the creation of extremist movements that are important distinctions between Nazism and Fascism, including differentiation in their national and ideological history, racism/antisemitism, view of classical liberalism, position WRT Soviet Russia, etc. In fact, there is no good argument for not having a separate Nazism and Socialism article, but it seems to upset people and putting on NiRtOC seems a perfectly reasonable compromise, which is probably how it got there in the first place.

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ehusman 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Fascism and Nazism are not identical; we need to restore a Nazism-specific article or create a new one, called something along the lines of Nazism and ideology. -- Nikodemos 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

On new page Fascism and socialism

(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

  1. There's a lot that can be written on this particular topic, I say it deserves a page of it's own Mattm1138 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


On restored page Nazism and socialism

(add summary here of the position of one side, and provide evidence and references to back it up, where appropriate)

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

Suggestion #1 - It may be better to have an article called something like Influence of communism on other ideologies, which could then cover:

  1. The rivalry between the Marxists and German Social Democrats;
  2. Fascism as a reaction to the perceived failure of communism;
  3. Hitler's appropriation of socialist ideas;
  4. The 1950s flight from communism to Anglo-American conservatism and European Christian democracy;
  5. Former Trotskyists in the neoconservative movement.

This might cover the topic better than an attempt to accomodate it in a broader context of analysing fascism. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

(add further neutral suggestions for a solution here)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed below this line.

  • Wrt to the claim by Chip that the "Hitler was socialist" claims can be traced back to the Austrian school: I recall a diuscussion of Orwell about a claim by Hitler to the effect that "National socialism contained the essence of communism" - my recollection is that he did not regard the idea that Hitler was socialist as being absurd. Further Ayn Rand appears to arrived at this same conclusion indepently of Hayek and co. Furthermore conservatives seem to push this idea with as much enthusiasm as libertarians. I don't see why this problematical claim needs to be tacked onto the issue of where the material should go. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was aiming at a neutral explanation, but looking at the text, I see that it pushes the Austrian School too much. Good point.--Cberlet 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm open to Charles Stewart's idea about putting it in a separate page to discuss the influence of communism, but this brings up a new problem: the fact that Germany had a long history of non-Marxist socialism that influenced the thought of the country (including LaSalle, Bismark's concessions to the socialists, and most of the proto-socialist predecessors and contemporaries of Marx like Hegel, Ficht, Nietzsche). That ideological pedigree is described in R. D'O. Butler's The Roots of National Socialism. Much of the "response to the Austrian school" (not just in the existing article, but elsewhere) seems to fall along the lines of, "Nazis weren't Marxists, therefore they weren't socialists", but this is an assertion that all socialists are Marxists. Given the amount of infighting, it's not even clear that Marx was a Marxist ;~) so that assertion is at least questionable. Ehusman 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, in Mein Kampf, Hitler mentioned 'scatterbrains who have not yet understood the difference between socialism and Marxism'. Mattm1138 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Comment

We should not be surprised no current socialist publically identifies with the Nazis. The term has simply become so pejorative the only ones who want to use it are "far right whack jobs who don't know the philosphy they're espousing is anything BUT far right". The fact that we can even argue over this is highly indicative the Nazis, at the least, were not FAR right - or there would be no argument.24.10.102.46 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (moved by --Cberlet 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

yes, it's my opinion that the Nazis were barely right of center, definitely had co-opted kernel socialist & non-capitalist ideas, and potentially with their programs, had wanted to go further left if it weren't for Hitler's immediate expansionist desire that had to hold off on any weighty reforms. Nagelfar 02:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there are people who argue that people never landed on the moon. The fact that there is argument does not mean there is evidence. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the point is that no socialists ever identified with the Nazis (other than the Nazis themselves, if you want to count them). It's not just a modern thing caused by the pejorative connotations of the Nazis today. -- Nikodemos 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)