Talk:Fascism/Archive 16

message: What remains to be cleaned up so we can remove the dispute flags?  I have moved much of the marginal material to Fascism and ideology. Is there still a problem with the section on religion?--Cberlet 16:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that it now strangely dominates the article, since so much else has been moved to child articles.  I'm not greatly concerned, but I suggest it is worth discussing what to do with that section.  Jkelly 18:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Why is Robert Paxton's working definition of fascism ("A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion) not cited in either this or the Fascism and Ideology articles? I disagree with the view that definitions should not be part of the article; keep in mind that the text should also serve the interest of the curious general reader who seeks a basic grasp of the concept(s) - albeit perhaps one that is necessarily understood from various angles. While the "definitive" definiton may yet be elusive, Paxton's seems at least as worthy of being cited as Mirriam-Webster or the American Heritage. To leave this one (Paxton's) out seems a significant disservice to readers. Arjuna 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Good idea. --Cberlet 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's both, whereas fascism is mainly a political system. "Communism" in the respect that it at all relevant to this discussion refers to single-party government by Communist parties. - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: I added a book cite to the section because the reference cite above it wasn't working right and wasn't as complete in information (viewed on the edit page - link didn't work on the article page). Also, the ref link is suppose to point out that the citation referenced is from the forward and I wasn't able to make that happen in the book cite. I am not up to the task yet of sorting out how this is suoppose to best display and and be styled so I need some help for that. Thanks. --Ma'ath'a'yü (aka: Proofing) 17:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism and Sexuality Citation Cleanup 

message: Noticeably absent is any serious insight to the economic policies of fascism. A few words are thrown around here or there, but there is nothing concise. But without understanding who was doing what with the $$, there is a big gap IMO -- jce17:20, 15 June 2006 EST]
Please Note: This page has grown long from time to time and topical subsections have been pulled out and new pages created. Please do not complain about information missing from this page until you have explored the Fascism Template pages. Weaving links to existing pages or adding text with pointers to longer discussions is both appropriate and useful. There are already several pages where Fascism and political economy is discussed. See, for example, Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism. --Cberlet 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean? Economic policies? The truth of the matter is that Hitler stumbled into Keynesian Economics by chance more then anything else (surprisingly scholars can agree on this) – Hitler had no economic background. Further Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money wasn't to be released for a few years yet. Hitler was militaristic and thus spent money on military expansion. Although, this did result in economic growth it is doubtful that Hitler actually planned it to do so. - A Wikipedian - 19-06-06
A blurb on Hitler's use of mefo bills and general subversion of traditional economics under Hjalmar Schacht might be helpful because it belies fascism's tendency of mass deception and corruption. Potashnik 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascist Economics

message: Just wondering if there would be any objection to me including "anti-rationalism" in the first line along with the other elements that fascism incorporates? Though anti-rationalism itself has no article, opposition to the intellectual dominance post-Enlightenment, and a focus on urges and social Darwinism were significant aspects of fascist theory, as I have been discovering from several texts I'm reading about it. -Erolos 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-rationalism 

message: This article has come a long way in just a few months. The part involving religion and fascism is particularly interesting. Just a few comments though. I am hoping that the actual scapegoats used by the various regimes will be properly identified instead of been thrown untidily into a single overarching category called “national enemies.”
Lastly, the article states that aristocrats lent their support to the various fascist regimes - I think perhaps this should be substantiated because the various regimes played on the masses and as such drew the majority of their support from the masses and proportionally very little from the elite. -- A Wikipedian - 28-06-06.
I disagree regarding questions of support. Fascist movements drew much support from elites, especially business elites; their funding came mainly from business. This was one of the issues 'resolved' during the 'Night of the Long Knives' where the more populist, anti big business wing of the Nazi party was suppressed in favour of the big business wing. It is important to distinguish between: movements; regimes; movement prior to coming to power; movements in power (regimes); espoused policies; policies carried out;
Pacificbiblio 17:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compliments

message: Note to user Intangible. Please do not add "collectivism" to the entry core definition until the discussion with you at the Nazism page is finished.  Assume good faith.  Continue with your cites to published material that support your views at the Nazism page.--Cberlet 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Changed. Intangible 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. Complete fabrication and distortion of ongoing discussion.--Cberlet 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Distortion? Please provide some quotes for your last change. Until then I cannot be see this a ongoing discussion related to Fascism. Intangible 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collectivism

message: in "The Social Crisis of Our Time" Röpke wrote: "One cannot continually intervene without finally reaching a point where the highly developed nervous system of the market economy refuses to function. The power of the market economy must, then, either be restored by a lessening of intervention or must be completely replaced by collectivism. This crisis was reached in Germany in 1935 and in France at the end of the Popular Front Government; in the former case it was overcome by a step forward, in the latter by a backward turn".
"The Bureaucratisation of the World" (1939)
Bruno Rizzi:
"Bureaucratic Collectivism too has its social base in dominant classes which have established their headquarters in the States in Russia, Italy, Germany, Japan and the smaller States".
Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism." 
"Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?" (2002)
Jacob Golomb, Robert S. Wistrich:
"At the same time Nietzsche also posed serious question for those aspects of fascism related to etatisme and totalitarianism. In this area the contradictions between Nietzsche's individualism and fascist collectivism were difficult, if not impossible, to bridge."
"Key Ideas in Politics" (2003)
Moyra Grant:
"Right-wing collectivism is organic, hierarchical and statist; it stresses the individual's duty and subservience to the state. Fascism take this furthest with its philosophy of "Everything for the state; nothing against the state; nothing outside the state"."
Some other quotes, from Bonn (1940): To Mussolini and Hitler economics are not ends in themselves, they are mere means which society needs for the pursuit of its main purpose "power," in order to dominate other societies and to grow at their expense...economics count only indirectly; neither the pursuit of wealth nor of welfare by individuals matters...this view of society is highly collectivist—in some ways more collectivist than that of the communists, for these people see society as a physical unit, an organic body made by nature not by men.
From Roepke (1946): The best way to understand the Hitler regime is to conceive it as one of those tyrannical collectivist mass-regimes...under the name of Fascism, Communism or National Socialism...That such a government for cogent reasons, will represent itself in the economic sphere as a regime which cannot be termed other than socialist or collectivist is a fact too well established...
:Can I have my edit back? Intangible 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we are still discussing this at Nazism. Behave.--Cberlet 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I wonder how your are going to rhyme "völkisch collectivism" with Fascism. Intangible 02:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe you can explain, here, how holistic third-way nationalism is not collectivism. Intangible 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have asked you how holistic third-way nationalism is not collectivism. Those quotes do not help me solve that question. Intangible 02:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your POV and original research does not belong here. If you want to find an answer to your qustion, go to a library, please do not use wikipedia edits to carry our your quest. --Cberlet 02:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you agree that holistic third-way nationalism is collectivism? Great! Intangible 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is citing the leading scholars of fascism accurately, rather than POV pushing a minority viewpoint. Once again I invite you to take part in a mediation over these issues on the pages Fascism, Nazism and related pages.--Cberlet 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minority viewpoint? Maybe you should talk to Paxton or Laquer. They will reiterate what the quotes provided by User:Vision Thing and me are saying. Intangible 16:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I still cannot understand how you can argue that the organic state, that nazism and fascism seem to pursue, is not collectivist... Intangible 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what DNewhall or you or me (or Chip Berlet, at least in his incarnation as a wikipedia editor) argues.  It matters what actual scholars argue.  And they mostly disagree with you. john k 02:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't disagree about the element of the organic state/society. Which is what collectivism is. Intangible 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Collectivism, as far as I can tell, is basically libertarian jargon used in an attempt to link together communism, fascism, and the welfare state in virtually all its forms.  It is thus both useless (encompassing, as it does, virtually every form of state which has existed in the 20th century) and propagandistic.  It is not a clear term with a clear meaning, and you can't infer that scholars mean "collectivism" because they say something which you identify with your understanding of that term. john k 10:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with john k completely. It is an attempt to smear the welfare state as a form of fascism or communism, which some libertarians claim are two sides of the same collectivist's coin.--Cberlet 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of repeating ourselves endlessly, I wonder if it would be worth the time investment to sort the archives by subject.  On the other hand, perhaps a talkpage banner that reads  "The fascism article should not be written from a United States libertarian point of view" would do the job...  Jkelly 17:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A banner saying "written by collectivists for collectivists" might do. That will keep them pesky liberals away for sure. Intangible 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collectivism quotes (from [[Talk:Nazism]])

message: We are going in circles. Will you accept mediation User:Vision Thing and Intangible?  Yes or no?--Cberlet 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a RFAr is filed against me, I cannot answer this question. Intangible 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My response can be found on the arbitration page: here--Cberlet 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation request

message: Last time i read this artcle it sounded really quite good (not long after i posted "compliments" section.) Can we remove the tags? -Wikipedian(Again) -23/07/06
:I removed the cleanup tag since I can't find any major problems with the article. If someone believes a section still requires clean up can they please put the tag in the offending section and notify us here so we know exactly what you think needs work. - DNewhall 18:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I note that this article no longer has any inline citations at all.  What happened?  Jkelly 02:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, it was a markup error.  Jkelly 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations? 

message: I suggest we spin this section off from the main article to a "Related subjects" article of its own. It's a bit tangential, and since the entire article is getting fairly large, we should become more active in spinning off such material. --Varenius 23:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. --BobFromBrockley 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism and Sexuality: Suggested relocation 

message: The see also section of this article has a couple of very marginal things in it, like Faisceau. Thinking about removing the link to Faisceau made me realise that there is no mention of fascist parties in France, which made me realise it didn't mention lots of other important fascist movements. Should there be some sort of section before the Italy section that introduces the key historical fascist movements and parties around the world? Or a bullet point list of these at the end of the article? --BobFromBrockley 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascist movements and parties 

message: Wow, just the removal of all of those tags has enormously improved the appearcne of this article. The Italian fascism section is thin. When I get the time, I will rip out my DeFelice and other authors and see what I can do.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of tags

message: I tried to fix 66.42.13.122's additions but couldn't so I reverted and made some comments here. The additions completely disregards or glosses over Mussolini's line of thought of the time. There is much, MUCH more to the development of fascism than Mussolini realizing "Socialist revolutions don't work". It also over-emphasises Mussolini's influence on the origins of fascism. The theories were already proposed by the French radical right at the end of the 1800s, Mussolini just adapted them into his own distinct style which he then christened "fascism". He also had many people helping him in the party, it wasn't all him. I agree that the section needs to be expanded but these most recent additions are fasctually incorrect for the most part. - DNewhall 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User:66.42.13.122]] to ''Mussolini's Fascism''

message: On the whole, this is much improved since I last looked in, especially the first half or so. A few comments/questions, though.
* What precisely is "democratic capitalist economics"? I don't believe I've ever heard that term; I suspect that it is someone's made-up formula.
* "An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism." Passive voice; I cannot work out what exactly is being said. I was inclined to rewrite as "These ideas show fascism's affinity with Social Darwinism", but I wasn't even sure that is what was meant and, above all, which ideas are being referred to. There is nothing in Social Darwinism that particularly favors mysticism or opposes class conflict. There may be a coherent thought behind this, but, if so, it is not clearly expressed.
* Y'know, even before I hit the phrase "Watkins, who some accuse of being out of step with the academic mainstream…" I was saying internally "Thayer Watkins??? What's he doing here?" Does this fringe view really belong here? At least we indicate that it is a fringe view. And, unless I'm mistaken (I haven't exactly read him at length, doesn't he use "corporatism" in a way rather unrelated to the Italian Fascists' use of it?
* Should the section "Mussolini's Fascism" really be marked as a stub? It's basically a condensation of an article elsewhere; if we want it longer, we can just bring over a bit more of the material from that article. Then again, looking at that article, it doesn't summarize easily, it's a bit scattershot.
* Mussolini "forced by the Western Allies into an agreement with Hitler"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? Certainly it could be worded more clearly.
* The section "Anti-Communism" seems weak. It is better on the rise of the "threat" of communism than on how fascism was a response and counterweight.
* The sections on fascism and religions (Catholicism and Protestantism) seem disproportionate. Fascism is not primarily a religious issue, but these constitute about 20% of the article. And there is only the most passing mention of paganism or occultism; I realize that is more an issue with the Nazis than with other fascists, but surely it deserves a paragraph if we are going on at this length about Catholicism and Protestantism, and in the latter case mainly about Germany.
* Oh. And from what I can tell, the "Further reading" section looks really solid, good to have.
On the whole, I think this is a far better article than a few months back; I hope my remarks here will be of some help in building it. - Jmabel | Talk 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsolicited assessment 

message: Just wondering why the cited phrase "(which some have argued don't properly fall under the definition of "fascism")" was removed from the intro of the article? - DNewhall 02:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I changed it to "Some authors reject this broader use of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes" and put it at the end, instead of having a parenthetical statement in a short lead paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. Sorry, missed that. Thanks. - DNewhall 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: Please see the Opus Dei article on the latest research on this topic. I quote a portion below:
:Messori (1997), who investigated the claim that Opus Dei is a kind of political party which supported Franco, says this is a longstanding "black legend" spread by the Falange and some clerical sectors. He and Allen state that of the 116 ministers of Franco, only 8 were members. According to English historian Paul Preston (1993), these belong to different political persuasions and Franco appointed them for their technical competence and not for their membership in Opus Dei.  These 8 ministers were technocrats appointed to be part in leading the economic progress later known as the Spanish Miracle. Another historian, Brian Crozier, states that Opus Dei "is not, as its enemies either think or want others to think, a political party; nor is it a political pressure group...Opus Dei was not a group to be conciliated by being given a share in power, as the Monarchists were, or the Falange, or the Army." German historian Peter Berglar, an Opus Dei member, says that it is a "gross slander" to connect Opus Dei with Franco's regime, since the latter prosecuted some prominent members of Opus Dei. These include Rafael Calvo Serer, and Antonio Fontan who fought for press freedom and democracy, and later became the first Senate President of Spain's democracy. Allen states: While two of the most visible Opus Dei politicians in the world -- (Paula) Binetti, (a senator-elect) in Italy, and Ruth Kelly, the Local Government Minister in England -- are now women who belong to center-left parties, there is a sociological reality that the kind of people attracted to Opus Dei tend to be conservative, theologically and politically.
*I will correct the item in this article accordingly. Lafem 09:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opus Dei and fascism

message: I removed the following statement from the intro:
:There is also a school that believes that the import of Fascism was only due to a specific condition, which was the massive failure of democracies. They note that in only two instances, Italy and Germany, was democracy replaced by fascist regimes, the rest of the cases being replaced by royal, military, or party dictatorships.
:An example of this reasoning in in the paper of Nancy Bermeo about surviving democracies in the Thirties.
:
The reason is that it's very broad in scope with only one minor citation and doesn't describe its subject matter very well. Also, and this is the biggest thing, it doesn't belong in the intro. - DNewhall 06:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also Support. --Quoth the Raven 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you believe there is something solid here, there is absolutely no requirement that you use Internet references. Many of us feel that print references are actually to be preferred. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a case for arguing that in the interwar period democracy failed in much of Europe. However, to explain the rise of Fascism in these terms is simplistic. There's a book by Volker R. Berghahn on the wider issue. See: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8042.html However, I think that the failure of democracy calls for an article in its own right and shouldn't be hooked on to this article. Norvo 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failure of democracies reason for fascism

message: IMO, the article SCREAMS the American GOP and George W. Bush. So I wonder when it is acceptable to add his sorry ass to the list or any fascist leader/regime to the list? Once out of office? 10 years after his death? StormBear 04:37 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yep, the Bush junto should be included. But let's start with an even more obviously fascist regime, FDR with his corporatist New Deal. If we can't get that one, over a half century old, mentioned, then I doubt if we can get Bush included. Hogeye 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh* We've had to deal with this a million times before. The Bush administration is not fascist and its actually relatively hard to make a solid case for it being such. The Bush "junta" can be labeled as fascist when a significant proportion of scholars label it as such. Regarding the New Deal, that is mentioned in fascism and ideology and doesn't belong here. - DNewhall 05:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Claims that Bush or the American conservatives are fascist are already presented in the Neo-Fascism article, claims made of course by the "usual suspects." The mention of their claims is not really Wikipedia worthy. Intangible 11:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The 800 Pound Gorilla

message: Let's see if I can't sum up the definition of fascism in a few words, according to the libertarian point of view: fascism is any form of government intervention in any sector of society with the possible exception of the military, immigration control, capital punishment of the less fortunate (oh, I'm sorry, fortune is not recognized by these folks)....the WEAK and the INFERIOR like myself. Governments that fall under this classification: every single one in the history of mankind, past, present and future!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 11:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "libertarian point of view." Saying that there is, sounds like a sort of marxist dialectic. Intangible 11:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no libertarian POV. Intriguing?? What could this possibly mean? Does is mean that there is no single libertarian POV? The term is vague. So what?? The term blue is vague and relative, so is the term green, but that does not stop us from using them. the point is that   the various people who identify themselves as libertarian, notwithstanding their differences, tend to share certain fundamental principles and ideas, otherwise there would not exist a specifiable category of people who fit the bread outlines of the concept "libertarianism". In other words, if libertarianism means everything, then it means nothing. Since it most certainly means SOMETHING and there are people who fit into this vague category, I suggest that the description I have offered above is one of it's central pillars.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could also say that libertarians are not fascists, and be done with it. No need for arguments. People profess viewpoints, concepts do not. The term blue does not have to be vague, I can easily think of a physical experiment and operationalization that gives a determined definition of blue. Intangible 12:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Language is also a convention. But one can assume that during a debate, people speak the same language and use the came conventions. Anyways back to the fascism bit, Berlusconi and Bush are pretty much social-democrats, not libertarians, thus your argument is futile. Intangible 15:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that the premise in your argument is that libertarianism is different than fascism, although your conclusion is that it is not. A false argument thus. You can check yourself if your premise is at fault, or your logical reasoning. Intangible 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one here is arguing that libertarianism is different or not different from fascism.  Jkelly 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, au contraire.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fundamental differences are obvious and have been stated repeatedly by people on this forum and by the major experts on fascism: fascism is not limited to economic corporatism. Fascism involves rabid nationalism, authoritarianism and the abolition of liberal democracy in the broad sense, the cult of the leader personality ("Duce, Duce" or "Fuhrer, Fuhrer"), the creation of a police state, government spying and terrorization of the domestic population (closer to Bush than Roosevelt), elimination of all opposition political parties, the absolute subservience of the individuals to the state in ALL spheres of activity (birth control, abortion, sexual morality, book reading), the total control of the media and other means of communication and information (again closer to Bush and Berlu than to Roosevelt), imperialistic designs and grandiose international aspirations for power(again much close to Bush  than to Roosevelt), an emphasis on past values and the restoration of past glory, traditional values and social institutions (family, marriage, heterosexuality, etc.)....Further, corporatism involved placing even labor unions under the control of the state and the elimination of class warfare by subservience to the state. That was NOT what the NRA and other such agencies were all about. I may have oversimplified in my first comment a bit. But not by very much. If fascism is defined as broadly as some of you folks seem to, then just about every government (past, present and future), including those that DESCRIBE themselves as classical liberal, are fascist regimes.   --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most would say "one or more" of those characteristics (as in the current article) rather than "all." Let's look at some you mention. "Authoritarianism and the abolition of liberal democracy in the broad sense, the cult of the leader personality" - Like buying votes through redistributive programs, thus getting "elected" for an unprecedented 3 times?  Like threatening to pack and ultimately intimidating the Supreme Court to declare something constitutional when they had previously unambiguously declared unconstitutional? To objective observers, these are signs of executive takeover of power and anti-liberal developments. Some USAmericans, with nationalist blinders, don't seem to see this. "Imperialistic designs and grandiose international aspirations for power" - Like getting involved unnecessarily in a foreign war? Like insulting foreign peace delegations, engaging in illegal embargos, thereby goading a foreign govt to attack so as to change the 80% plus anti-war sentiment of Americans at the time?  BTW, you are wrong about the NRA not coercing labor unions - both key unions and firms were controlled by the NRA and various fascist boards, and by govt price-fixing. Hogeye 18:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buying votes? Hmm....when has this ever NOT happened in a democracy? You don't need to give out actual money to rig a democratic system though. How about redistricting, gerrymandering, electronic vote-rigging, excluding people on the basis of not having the proper papers, the right color of skin, the right gender, making promises of jobs in exchange for votes, spoils system, ad infinitum? If we use this kind of stuff as a criterion, than liberal democracy has never existed, and given human nature, probably never will! Court-packing was certainly a bad move, but it wasn't successful and Roosevelt eventually gave up and did not go on to try to take the court over by violent means. "Unnecessarily in a foreign war"---Right!! A Buchananite. I think that one speaks for itself. BTW, I currently reside in Italy, not the US. I have traveled all around most of Europe. I don't write from any sense of American nationalism. I can assure you of this much: if Roosevelt-style corporatism is necessary and sufficient to be classified as fascism, then all the European governments that currently call themselves "liberal democracies" are actually fascist regimes. Every single party in Italy, for example, (there are about 26) embraces some form of social democracy. According to your criterion, they are all fascists, including those who have spent their lives precisely... combating fascism. But this is profoundly absurd. The Italy of today is not the Italy of Mussolini, whether under Prodi or Berlusconi. But, according to your criteria, there would be no such thing as the "Fascist period" in Italy because Italy has always been and continues to be fascist. Surely something is wrong with even the "one or more" definition of fascism. But I'll leave it at that.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, there is another intersting thing about the Italian economy that relates to this subject which I omitted to mention. There is, in fact, a very large chunk of the economy (about 35%) that is completely unregulated and untouched by government: it's called the black market and it is largely controlled by organized criminal organizations. The rules are pretty basic and primitive: power and wealth is handed down from generation to generation through family connections (no estate taxes or anything like that!!); redistubtion is based on the possibility of annihilating the current boss/enterpreneur and his cohorts; interest rates are often very high indeed and the cost of not paying....well....say no more. Slave-labor, prostitution, bribes, the exploitation of drug-addiction for profit and so on are all very successful and effeicent practices indeed from the economical point of view. It's a libertarian utopia!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes. Alright. I got carried away. Apologize for the blogging. --Francesco Franco 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summing up the libertarian position

message: Currently facism redirects here.  Is there a standard policy on redirecting common spelling errors and/or typos to correct articles on wikipedia?  This is the first time I've seen it done. --NEMT 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most articles have common spelling errors redirect to the page they most likely refer to. - DNewhall 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that makes sense.  We just have to hope no one comes up with a political ideology based on people's faces, then we'll be in a real jam. --NEMT 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Facism]] redirection

message: Of the modern ideologies socialism, liberalism and conservatism, socialism is closest to fascism because both support state intervention in the economy, both argue for large scale welfare programs (Nazi Germany was a welfare state).
*That's your opinion, but many disagree, and it doesn't belong in an academic text such as Wikipedia.Spylab 20:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and conservatism (by which you mean modern industrial state capitalism) supports massive state intervention in the economy, on behalf of large corporations and financial companies, much more like fascism.Felix-felix 20:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you kidding me!! This is why I lost control, JMable. THIS right here. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER!! If I have to stop, they have to stop. Eh???--Francesco Franco 08:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, infuriating, huh? john k 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. This tiny radical minority opinion, confined to  a miniscule percentage of that minuscule 5% of the world's population which is the US is, to my mind, OVERrepresented in this article and in many others. I'm strongly tempted to put a POV tag on it.--Francesco Franco 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: At different times, socialists, liberals, and conservatives have all built and maintained large social welfare systems.  In Germany, the social welfare system, was, if anything, begun by a conservative (Bismarck), and the post-war form was also built by conservatives (Adenauer's Christian Democrats).  I'm so tired of this nonsense.  john k 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascism might (that's subjunctive!!) be closest to Socialism among the three given above, but 1) this doesn't make them identical or subsections to each other, 2) might be because the model of only 3 ideologies (created around 1800) does not fit with 20the century realities. And Conservatism is anyway subject to change. Just my two Eurocents. Str1977 (smile back) 18:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here in Italy, it was impossible (no, that's not hyperbole, it was literally IMPOSSIBLE) to get any of kind job, advance through the educatioanal system, etc., without a "racommandazione" from some political or bureaucrat. This post-war practice began under the right-leaning Christian Democrats and kept them in power (and the Communists and Social Democrats out) for over fourty years!! The first large-scale privatizations of many industries took place under the ex-Communist governments of Massimo D'Alema, Guiliani Amato and Prodi (ex-Christian Democrat). The idea that Alcide de Gasperi and company were really fascists is a bit mind-boggling. --Francesco Franco 12:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the argument is that De Gasperi and company were really socialists. john k 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, anyway, the libertarians, Radicali Italiani, over here have long-since abandonded the hopelessly intrusive and Statist right and joined the left, folks. (; --Francesco Franco 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Continental Radicals and Liberals share only superficial similarities with U.S. Libertarians, who are a strange breed unto themselves.  Aren't the radicals rather like the Liberal Democrats in the UK?  (Or, at least, how the Liberal Democrats used to be before Labour moved right and stole all their ideas?) john k 03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting question. I'm not clear about the Lib Dems. Thanks for the link. I will respond further on your talk page so as not to completeley sidetrack this page again.--Francesco Franco 08:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why no mention of the similarities between socialism and fascism

message: Some of the apartheid related articles (e.g. History_of_South_Africa_in_the_apartheid_era) have a tag identifying them as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fascism.  Fair enough, in my view.  Yet there is no mention of apartheid era SA in this article at all.  Why is that?  Paul Beardsell 03:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they should not have that tag since there is nothing about apartheid itself that relates it to fascism. I've removed the tag from that article. - DNewhall 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It lacks totalitarianism, corporatistic economics, anti-Communism, militarism, radicalism, and (arguably) rule by a small select group operating in the name of the people. - DNewhall 06:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Mussolini and Gentile are in some cases considered the founders of the concept of totalitarianism and referenced it a lot in their writings. - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Corporatism is more than just state ownership of business or monopolies as it also denotes a specific method for dealing with trade unions. - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, by not being radical, they were radical? - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How? There is a pretty well-set definition of fascism that all scholars seem to agree on. By definition Mussolini and his party were fascist since they are the originators of the movement and the mark on which all other parties are compared (it's like arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist). - DNewhall 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future, then, whenever someone says "fascist", the words "like Mussolini" will flash through my mind.  I hope you aren't leading me astray.  Paul Beardsell 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of work on comparative fascism.  I think trying to locate the Apartheid regime in that context is the way to go, rather than trying to identify it as fascist based on our own understanding of it.  I'm sure there's literature that discusses a connection, I'm just not certain that South Africa is actually described as a fascist state. john k 02:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the apartheid era South Africa articles are no longer part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fascism the pressure is off:  We don't need to demonstrate South Africa as having been fascist to maintain the integrity of WP.       Paul Beardsell 07:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid 

message: Above it is held that saying Italy in the 1930's was not entirely fascist is the same as "arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist".  But some do so argue.  It would only be a contradiction in terms, not necessarily a real contradiction.  E.g. some Thatcherite beliefs are not things Margaret Thatcher ever said and might be ideas with which she would quibble.  Is fascism, therefore, what was practised in 1930's Italy, or has our idea of what that term means evolved?  Paul Beardsell 11:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...I wonder if you haven't been reading too much Edmund Husserl lately. LOL!!  (I'm afraid only the the philosophically-instructed will get that one). But this is interesting:  Italian fascism was not fascist, Trotski was not a Trotskiest, Stalin was not a Satlinist, Soviet Communism was not Communist, democracy is not democratic, Darwin was not a Dawinist and Intelligent design is not theological. The other day I hear an argument to the effect that fundamenatlists are not fundamentalist. "Words, Words, words"...Humpty Dumty said: "A word means whatever I want it to".--Francesco Franco 08:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "arguing that Trotsky wasn't a trotskyist" 

message: Please note that it is not proper to cite an Italian Encyclopedia for which there is no direct English translation.  There are two official Italian government translations of the basic text, but they differ:
*Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore. 
*Benito Mussolini, 1935, Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions, Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers.
I am restoring the properly cited quotes.
*Fair enough, but the one very long Mussolini quote should be shortened, because direct quotes that long are not considered acceptable encyclopedic style. And if the quotes I pasted from another article are unacceptable, then they should also be changed in the Wikipedia article that I copied them from.Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mussolini cites

message: I moved the list of links from the neo-Fascism section into the "See Also" section because that's where lists of links are supposed to be. The neo-fascism section had no substantial content other than links to other articles, so it didn't even qualify as a section stub. The only sentence in the neo-fascism section said something along the lines of here are a bunch of links related to neo-Fascism. Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-fascism links list posing as an article section

message: The dictionary definitions of fascism should be removed, because dictionary definitions are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Dictionaries and other encyclopedias have no accountability because they are written by anonymous groups of people who don't have their names atttached to the definitions.Spylab 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionary definitions