Talk:Fascism as an international phenomenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] To do

This is a section from the Fascism article. I've taken see also, references and external links along, some of the entries can probably be removed. I've made all country entries into subsections, but now we have titles containing links. Please fix unless I have done so already. Also consider whether cleanup tag is still needed and introduction can probably better.

Huh, forgot the c in Fascism but someone conveniently created a redirect for it. Piet 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I've though about a shorter name but didn't find anything better. If you do, go ahead. The ones I didn't like included "International fascism" as that seems like one movement, "Fascism internationally", "Worldwide fascism", ... Piet 19:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Belgium was a democracy so I would move the Belgian section to "democratic nations". OTOH There was probably a puppet government under the occupation, but the movements described played a role when Belgium was still a democracy. I'm hesitating, comments? Piet 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought I would propose a new sectioning:

  • Axis
  • Other regimes in the 1930s
  • Fascist movements in democratic countries
  • Regimes under the occupation
  • Overture (is that word correct?) to the Muslim world

Piet 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I don't really think occupation regimes should be in this. They were not movements and rarely had any popular support, and some were not really even fascist, like Vichy France. I think we should have this:

  • Axis
  • Fascism in Authoritarian States
  • Fascism in Democratic Countries
  • Overture to the Muslim World
  • Fascism Outside of Europe
  • Questionable Fascist Movements

Also what about Action Francaise? GANDALF1992 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be an improvement, but I'm not going to do it myself since my task list is already too long. But please go ahead. Piet 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section merger proposal

Section on U.S. from Fascism and ideology. I oppose the proposed section merger. There is already a short section on this page. The entire contention that the US was or is fascist has almost no serious scholalrly support. The public debate on this matter is miniscule. Fascism and ideology was created in part to allow marginal right-wing, libertarian, and other views about fascism in the US to have a home here on Wikipedia. If we are talking about serious mainstream scholarship, the one paragraph on this page is sufficient.--Cberlet 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that any one article should be set aside for any POV; but, if we are to do such a thing, we should at the very least make the POV absolutely clear in the article name itself. We could move the section to Libertarian perspectives on the New Deal, for example. Otherwise, we should eliminate the libertarian POV and integrate any meaningful content in this present article. -- Nikodemos 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, after reviewing the section in question, I do not believe it is POV. Granted, it discusses a marginal viewpoint at length - so it may be giving it undue weight - but it is certainly not biased in favor of that viewpoint. I have reorganized it slightly and integrated it into this article. -- Nikodemos 02:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Gee, that's a relief. For a moment I was worried that you might actually discuss my comments.--Cberlet 03:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but wasn't my first comment a reply to yours? You made the following points: (1) public debate on the matter of the New Deal being fascist is minuscule; (2) Fascism and ideology was meant in part to appease the crowd of libertarian POV-pushers who kept trying to impose their POV on other fascism articles. My replies were: (1) true, but we have to discuss that marginal POV somewhere, and this article seems like the most logical choice; (2) POV-pushers should never be appeased if we can help it. You are an extremely valuable contributor on far-right issues and I wish we could work together. -- Nikodemos 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added {{pov-section}} to the section under discussion, as it over-represents fringe views on the subject. Jkelly 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan is not marginal: "Reagan says many New Dealers wanted fascism." New York Times. December 22, 1981. Cberlet's viewpoints are marginal. --Timeshifter 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That quote might belong at fascist (epithet). I hope that you are not seriously offering it as a thoughtful expert perspective on international fascism. Jkelly 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point. I don't agree with that viewpoint of Ronald Reagan. But I don't delete viewpoints I disagree with. That would be against NPOV. By the way, that viewpoint is pretty common in the Republican Party. --Timeshifter 20:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? I've never heard Bertie Ahern say anything remotely like that. Seriously, the ideology of United States politicians is certainly a valid matter of encyclopedic summary, but belongs at Fascism and ideology, not as a serious consideration of historical international fascism. Jkelly 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Nikodemos gets what I am saying. He just created this page: The New Deal and corporatism. People discussed this issue back then, and they continue to discuss these issues today. The Republicans have frequently railed against the New Deal. The comparisons of economic corporatism or corporativism (or similar words) between Italy and the USA have long roots. Some people take it as far as fascism. Usually it is people on the left though who make the fascism comparison today. See War Corporatism. But some people on the right have made that comparison too. And there actually was a coup attempt in the works at one point during Roosevelt's time. From the right. So all of it is relevant. And this is actual history, not just ideology. It makes much less sense when the history is separated from the ideology. Corporatism is a word with multiple meanings. It is a word that is getting much more use by both the right and the left. The job of an encyclopedia is to show those verifiable definitions and viewpoints, not to judge them, nor to pigeonhole them for use exclusively by the right or the left. --Timeshifter 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

<-----It might make editing easier, Timeshifter, if you did not assume JKelly is a clueless newbie. A major problem with your edits, is that they do not take into account what fascism-related pages a number of other editors have spent months juggling text around on in order to avoid duplication and to keep coherent and focused. Please stop lecturing us on how to edit an encyclopedia. It is what we are all doing. Your superior tone and aggressive opinionated style makes it hard for me to find a way to edit collaboratively in a way that you do not dismiss as my utter ignorance or failure to appreciate your consumate skills. Sometimes it is not that we have missed your point...it is because we think you are wrong and have failed to do your homework.--Cberlet 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like projection on your part, Cberlet. Note your smug, underhanded-insult on the talk page today for War Corporatism. Note my reply, too. And stop playing the gamesmanship in trying to set people against each other. Jkelly can speak for himself. You have been the one doing the aggressive editing, blanking, moving parts of stuff around, and deleting other parts. I moved stuff at Nikodemos request from the Corporatism page to this page. You also wanted that stuff moved off the Corporatism page. I then rewrote the remaining short section on the Corporatism page to meet the needs of Nikodemos concerning relevance to the page. You then just deleted the rewrite and put back the old problematic stuff. Yeah, you really know how to collaborate. Next time I suggest you edit rather than delete. That is what I did. I further edited that section. At one point you wanted that whole section deleted, so I was really surprised when you put back the problematic stuff. Maybe because you had originally written the problematic stuff? Anyway, I further rewrote the problematic stuff, too, and incorporated it in the section. --Timeshifter 21:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not make edits just to make a point. We disagree on what is a useful and constructive edit. We disagree on what is, and is not, problematic text. We disagree on when quoted text is needed or overly detailed. We all could have tried to coordinate better. There was much duplication of text, and text that now is better integrated on other pages. Nikodemos did most of this work, and should be thanked for it. I did not intentionally post a "smug, underhanded-insult" on the War Corporatism page. I asked for a reputable published cite, since after an extensive search the term appears to be from one homemade internet animation video. Hardly a notable source for a term in an encyclopedia. Your personal attacks are getting more detailed and nasty. Please consider cooling off.--Cberlet 21:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22war+corporatism%22 - The Google search pulls up 17,300 web pages using the term "war corporatism." 17,300 web pages do not point back to a video. I made no personal attack. And I was not rude. I only pointed out your rudeness. Pointing out someone else's rudeness is not rudeness. People can decide for themselves by going to the talk page: Talk:War Corporatism --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s., Jkelly is a Wikipedia administrator, who deserves a bit more respect than this subject line: "revert blanking by Jkelly who has no previous edits on this page. Roosevelt is not accused of fascism. Fascism and corporatism are not the same thing. If you had more edits here you would understand."--Cberlet 21:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand by that edit comment. It is not rude. I have discussions with admins on various wikipedia pages. We get along fine. I speak my mind. I do not insult. --Timeshifter 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to respond to this by noting that we really expect everyone to be treated with respect, administrator or not. It is probably worth pointing out, however, that administrators, and especially members of the m:OTRS team, might be making unusual edits for reasons which have nothing to do with their personal editorial discretion, but due to concerns over, for instance, copyright infringement, removing the contributions of banned user, or as a response to any number of other problems. Ideally, such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here. Nevertheless, there are real, practical reasons why one should adopt a practice of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and discussing instead of repeatedly reverting, and edit summaries such as the one Cberlet quotes above are inappropriate under any circumstance. Jkelly 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am quite capable of apologizing. But what exactly am I apologizing for? Do Wikipedia admins get to delete large parts of a section without being questioned on it? As you said "such editing should be clearly indicated at such, and that definitely wasn't the case here." All I saw was deletion. Nikodemos and I had done multiple editing on this page. Cberlet had one previous edit. You had none. I am quite willing to listen to other admins on this issue also. But what wikipedia guideline have I broken? Wikipedia:Assume good faith also says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Only now do I learn you are an admin. So now I have more trust in your edits. In any case the issue has been resolved because people took it to the talk page. I have been taking it to the talk page a lot more than Cberlet. Look at the Corporatism talk page where all this started. My edit comment "If you had more edits here you would understand" may have been short, but edit comment space is limited. For that shortness I apologize. I should have added the 2 words, "See talk." --Timeshifter 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I regret having set you off with my ponderous and sometimes snippy style, but you have now turned this into an unrelenting series of personal attacks. I apologize if I have insulted you, please stop insulting me.--Cberlet 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I still do not honestly know how I have insulted you, though. By questioning you? Tell me how I have insulted you, please. This is a serious request. --Timeshifter 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My general apology, and a proposal.

I apologize for my abruptness at times. And for any abrupt editing.

I have a proposal. I propose that we all try to take things to talk before major changes, or abrupt changes. For example; deletions of material. Or mergers. Or reversions of good-faith rewrites. I suggest editing first, before deletions or reversions. If deletions, reversions, or mergers are still felt necessary, then I suggest first going to talk for a day or two. --Timeshifter 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fringe theories

Fringe theories abound for fascism. Reliable sources will be required for all statements. Rjensen 12:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Published material cannot be deleted simply because an editor detests the percieved political POV...as you well know.--Cberlet 13:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
there is no reliable source--no historian or reference book accepts the oddball claim of Smedley Butler--a man of the far left--that big business decided on him to lead a march on washington and become America's dictator. (Butler said he was told that by a salesman). Let's get real. But in any case Wiki insists on reliable sources. Rjensen 13:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

General note: When you object to a specific piece of content, please remove that specific content rather than entire paragraphs. Also, please make sure that your edits do not disturb the flow of the text (for instance, if you remove a paragraph, you may also have to remove the words "however" or "on the other hand" from the beginning of the following paragraph). -- Nikodemos 06:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, if you wish to exclude Butler's claims because he was "far left", shouldn't we also exclude the claims of extreme libertarians and conservatives regarding the alleged ties between the New Deal and fascism? -- Nikodemos 08:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
yes that's a good point--I think those claims are false and are made out of ignorance or spite (not research). As for Butler he is a joke--does anyone believe big business would choose a far left anti-biz anti-bank character like Butler as dictator? Hundreds of scholars have looked at his tatements and I think no reliable source believes that nonsense. Rjensen 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to retain at least mentions of both. Butler was hardly "far left" when he was approached. This is a rewriting of history. Please name the hundreds of scholars who have dismissed Butler's claims (at least a few). Some scholars find the evidence weak, but there are others who say at least part of the story seems to bear up under scrutiny. Just because you do not like the authors who support the claim, there are several published books that discuss it it seriously. Your aggressive POV on this matter is not constructive, Rjensen.--Cberlet 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Butler had been violently denouncing bankers for over a year when he was "approached" by big business to become their leader and dictator. Imaagine that! There is no evidence anyone except a lowly salesman approached him. The point is that all historians and ref works dismiss this as a hoax --what scholars believe it???? Let's be critical and not believe the stuff you see on the web. Wiki REQUIRES reliable sources. Rjensen 17:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Your personal biased opinions have no weight here. The material is properly cited. Please stop deleting material based on your bias.--Cberlet 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the text after Rjensen's latest revert. It isn't obvious to me that this doesn't deserve a mention, and Rjensen's comments above don't seem to match up well against the well-sourced discussion of different viewpoints in the Business Plot article being linked to. Is there any reason, beyond the personal experience of editors, to think that this material is more fringe than the "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" argument? Jkelly 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
the issue is reliable sources. No reference book or history book or textbook or biography accepts this fringe theory. The fact that it was published by a fringe publisher 50 years ago and NOT accepted by any experts weighs against it. One ex general claimed that he planned to overthrow FDR He implicated a salesman as the key thinker. This does not exactly compare with Mussolini Rjensen 09:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Several published works discuss the claims by Butler, and it is not appropriate to simply delete them. Rjensen is welcome to dispute the claims by citing other published works that question Butler's claims. I agree that the Butler material falls into the same category as "Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist" claims from the libertarians, but I defend including mentions of both. That is what encyclopedias do with well-known marginal theories--mention them.--Cberlet 14:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

<----lets see the citations to these several published works....the issue is RELIABLE source...a source that is accepted by reference works like Wiki. ALL material has to come from a verified secondary source.

Preposterous misrepresentation of Wiki guidelines is most amusing.--Cberlet 19:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal "conservative authoritarianism" bollocks!

This article is highly unverified if it is listing O Estado Novo as bieng "quasi-fascist". Being a Portuguese, and fascist myself and having members of my family who were members of the party/military and even close to Salazar I have to say nothing is further from the truth. Salazar adapted many of Mussolini's ideas into his system and also based it moderately on Franco's Falangist regime. I am fed up of seeing Nazism always thrown in just because the Nazis were allied to the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Do you see us constantly brandishing the Soviets as Capitalists? no, because even though they were allied with the U.S. they didn't adhere to the systematic doctrine that the U.S. was preaching. So in short the information regarding O Estado Novo is incorrect, it was, and will always be considered a Fascist regime by Portuguese nationalists and loyalists, get your facts straight. And the overall poor attempt of an apologetic tone for this article is pathetic, "not as restrictive as the Italian, Spanish and Nazi regimes", who the Hell is writing this? I can only imagine a pro-democracy anti-Fascist. Piecraft 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you are confused and not just looking to start arguments on the internet. Wikipedia articles are written according to WP:NPOV, which instructs us to present mainstream positions on our subjects, mention significant minority viewpoints, and leave out fringe ones. Being a fascist, you are very unlikely to see your point of view represented at all in Wikipedia articles, as it is definitely a fringe position. Because just about every reliable source we could use to write our encyclopedic synthesis from is written by pro-democracy anti-fascists, our articles are certainly going to present that as a position one takes for granted. If you have reliable sources to point us to in order to expand or clarify our coverage of modern or historical fascist movements in Portugal, please do provide them. That would be helpful. Jkelly 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post World War Two Fascists

Following the defeat of Fascism in 1945, few serious politicians identify themselves with Fascism. However, the Peronistas in Argentina and the Falange in Lebanon both could be considered continuations of Fascism, and acknowledged a connection to earlier Fascist parties. Also, there are similarities between many right-wing dictatorships and Fascism. --The Four Deuces (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)