Talk:Fascism/Archive 3

message: ::::This outlandish bullshit from "User:WHEELER" seems familiar. Am I the only one who suspects that this is JoeM?  172 20:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, I think profanity won't help here, though I certainly don't agree with WHEELER any more than you do.  I do think, however, that JoeM was far less intelligent about his beliefs -- WHEELER seems to have read widely in the classics, which I never saw from Joe M. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my language. Is it possible that User:JoeM has been reading up on the classics since his hard-ban? Hum, that's unlikely - to say the least. Just in case, ask him if he wants to invade Brazil and China, and destabilize France and Canada? 172 20:16, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: accusations

message: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
:I gave this link a bit earlier today, but it seems it could use a second viewing. Don't call me a spammer, darn it! ;) Sam Spade 01:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I archived alot earlier than would normally be necessary because the page grew so fast. We were over 32K and wheeler told me he can't edit big pages like that. Sam Spade 01:29, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Wow, awesome, tnx. Thats almost identical to the link I gave too, putting fascism and communism together, w libertarianism opposite, and Left/right being in regards to economics, not to civil rights. Very cool. Sam Spade 01:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Compass 

message: I directly quote Mussolini who says himself that he is collectivist and Left and some people disagree? Mussolini was pretty politically savvy.  He ought to know where he stands. What's the disagreement?
"Marx is also behind French socialism, which produced Sorel, who in turn is admittedly the spiritual father of the young socialist Mussolini, the admirer of Hus.  And Mussolini influenced Hitler." (Liberty or Equality, pg 211)
"All these philosophies are anti-Catholic, anti-monarchical, anti-traditional; they look solely to the future, want to build a new society, and are 'dawnist'.  They are opposed to the freedom of the person and are collectivist; ...and they all favor the rise of an omnipotent state.  They are materialistic, and claim to be 'progresive'.  All of them have their affinities with the French Revolution.  The whole bitter struggle among them is desperate and pitiless on account of its fratricidal nature.  They do not see in each other strange opponents but competing heresies with a common origin." (Ibid)
Wheeler 830pm
:I love your quotes man :). Focus on the awesome quotes, and avoid pi$$ing people off excessively, and I think you'll make a splendid contributer here. Nothing is quite so nice on the wiki as citations and verifiability (except maybe civil discourse ;) Sam Spade 01:41, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been on this site long enough, so I'm kind of hardened and cynical. This User:Wheeler seems to be a fanatic, and I don't see why we need to give his loopy polemic and POV fiction any credence whatsoever. It's best to stomach an edit war, which will result in the protection of the last stable version - the version up before this nonsense made its way into the article. That was the only way to save Great Depression from degenerating into sheer nonsense under similar circumstances, I recall. 172 11:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have enough on my hands as it is. I'll have to strategically withdraw from this battle. (And it would have been my first edit war too!) Kim Bruning 13:08, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I think any mention of "left" or "right" should be removed from this article unless they are used within a narrow historical context. Those words have no universal meaning; they are defined by the politics of a particular society at a particular time, and even then they are still often inadequate for describing political views and coalitions. Attempts to link fascism to the left or right are just demagoguery. What Mussolini said about being on the left is meaningless... he was a politician, and politicians say whatever makes the people like him. Also, I like the introduction that is attached to the "left/right" article. I should have realized that there was an edit war going on here and just stayed away...  AdamRetchless 15:02, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mussolini

message: Socrates:  I see that your definition of Fascism says that it means fascism is nationalism and ethnism.  Am I correct?
Wikipaedia:  Yes, that is correct.
Socrates: Is this the same for all societies  that promote nationalism and ethnism?
Wikipaedia:  Yes.
Socrates:  Then I take it that the Japanese in the 1800's who were terribly xenophobic and nationalistic and ethnists were actually Fascists??
Wikipaedia:  UMMMM
Socrates:  The Boxer Rebellion in China with its drive to push foreigner out was also by your definition Fascist?
Wikipaedia:  Yes. Yes, All governments and movements that seek to push out foreigners and support their own racial group are Fascist.
Socrates:  Then I take it the Aztecs were Fascist also?  As goes for the Zulus of South Africa?  As for when England pushed out all the Jews in 1243? AD?  As for Spain that kicked out all the Jews?  These governments were all Fascist then?
Wikipaedia:  yes.
Socrates:  What it looks like is that you are taking a term created in the 30's and reapplying it throughout history?
Wikipaedia:  Yes.
Socrates:  So, all along people have been practising Fascism and they didn't know it?
Wikipaedia:  That's right.
Socrates:  Do geese and ducks flock together?
Wikipaedia:  I don't know.
Socrates:  Have you ever observed nature how birds of a feather flock together and that the geese pick on the ducks to shew them away?
Wikipaedia:  No.
Socrates:  But by your definition of Fascism seems that Nature is Fascist too?!?
Wikipaedia:  That seems to be right.WHEELER 16:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your forms of reasoning might be truely strange, but you are not exactly crazy, and I think you'll get there under your own steam somehow. It might be a Good Idea not to use the socrates form like you're using now though. The idea is to actually *wait* for the other people to answer themselves. Else you're not really holding a discussion eh? Oh, right, why are you on to something? Well, apparently fascists were quite fascinated with nature, especially things like natural selection and survival of the fittest. The science of eugenics was especially beloved by the Nazis in germany, which has led to this particular science becoming somewhat discredited as a direct result. Kim Bruning 18:48, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That atheistic nonsense isn't friendly to anyone. Sorry, nothing personal but the banging together of atheism and eugenics that is transhumanism makes me want to smash something ;{ Sam Spade 19:00, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kim's belief that your imitation of Socratic dialogue will not be a very helpful discussion technique here.  For one thing, it sets up a ridiculous straw man in place of the actual opinions of editors at Wikipedia.  Secondly, if someone walked up to me in real life and asked me to discuss something, and then stood there asking questions but answering them for me before I had the chance to respond, well.....I'd think it was strange, surreal, and perhaps even interesting, but I know I would not consider it a discussion.  You have to be willing to consider other viewpoints than your own in order to be successful in reaching a solution here.  Fascism is a human phenomenon, and therefore, like all human phenomena (in my opinion), the best definition of it will tend to be more complex, rather than less.  You are arguing for a very simplified definition of Fascism that I believe overlooks many elements of Fascist ideology.  No one here is suggesting that geese or the Aztecs were Fascist -- we're just suggesting that people we know were Fascist (like Mussolini) describe Fascism in such a way that it incorporates ideas from the right and left, and it looks down on both the right and left with apparently equivalent disdain. Jwrosenzweig 18:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Socratic on Nationalism is Fascist 

message: am I gonna have to archive this page twice a day, or what? Sam Spade 19:05, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From 172"A revert war may be the only way to keep out this bullshit that'll make Wikipedia into a laughingstock among any serious historian of modern Europe out of the article."
I would like to point out the attitude of 172.  Truth is not the object of this person.  What is important is that "We shall not be the laughingstock of the Europeans.  Ayn Rand talked about this in Fountainhead.  Only the ones with the truth had the ability to stand up and not care for anything else.  Socrates was the same way.  Our duty is to truth.  Not how someone should view us.  Truth is practically synonomous with Knowledge.  Truth is "the faithful representation of reality".  172's attitude is not about the search for truth it is about being politically correct and pleasing somebody else.  
Plato created the dialogues to portray the character of Socrates.  He created such a stir in the city.  Young men would follow just to listen how he made his interlocutors look like fools.  He used the principles of Identity, Non-contradiction and consistency.  The Athenians of his day were lawless.  As they were lawless in the physical realm, they were lawless in the metaphysical; in their minds.  
Consistency cuts to the heart here.  People change the rules to suit them, not conform to the rules.  Socrates caught them because they changed the metaphysical rules all the time. As they were in the physical so they were in the metaphysical.  Socrates forced them to see the error of their ways thru consistency and the other principles.  Notice the obedience of Socrates to the rules and, then, his physical obedience not to escape the death penalty.  Microcosm/macrocosm.
All I did was point out the major inconsistencies in the definition just like Socrates would do.  The rules of knowledge do not change.WHEELER 01:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: WHEELER, I feel as though you're still avoiding my desire to compromise with you -- you don't respond to me.  Are you willing to discuss the Mussolini quotations so that we can compromise on how to select representative language?  Are you willing to follow Wikipedia:NPOV (I haven't seen you yet agree that you will)?  Are you willing to accept the deletion or alteration of edits you've made to the article if the consensus on this talk page is in favor of doing so?  I think much of your material can stay, but I want assurance from you that you're committed to the collaborative process here before we dive into it -- otherwise you'll just revert the changes we make once consensus is reached.  Please do respond. Jwrosenzweig 16:32, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: WHEELER, I am a little confused, so I will tell you what I am hearing from you, and you can tell me if I am wrong.  You seem to be saying that you do not wish to follow consensus and collaborative editing because you believe they will lead away from the truth.  If I am wrong, please explain how you support consensus and collaborative editing.  If I am right, I humbly submit that consensus and collaborative editing are the only acceptable methods of building articles at Wikipedia, and your refusal to work on building this article towards a consensus that pleases all of us (more or less) would not be acceptable Wikipedia practice.  You say you will only agree to changes that lead towards the "truth".  I hope you understand that many of us here disagree with you, at least in part, concerning what the truth is about Fascism -- if the only changes you will accept are those that bolster your perspective on this issue, that is not actually consensus-building.  I understand that you feel you are being unfairly targeted by other editors here, but I have to know you're committed to Wiki practice before we can make any progress. Jwrosenzweig 18:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam we haven't reached any consensus because I still feel as though I can't communicate with WHEELER -- every time I ask a simple question (do you agree to work under NPOV, for example) I am hit with quotations, original research, and occasionally Socratic dialogue that serves only to mischaracterize my beliefs and leave me wondering what the answer to my question is.  Given what WHEELER has been saying here, a comment like "If there is good reason to change something, yes, I will change but the change must be towards the truth." coming from him makes me believe that he will only accept edits that accept his assertions about what is true: for example, that all humans naturally love their own race best, that all forms of government not fully right-wing are socialist, that the right-wing is not an ideology but simply the true and natural way of seeing things, etc.  I agree with you that POVs can be included....what I am seeing is an editor who believes that the only good agenda is the truth, and whose definition of the truth is his own very specific POV.  Until he agrees that NPOV is his guide here and that he is willing to talk about how his quotations are biased in their selectivity (and how we can find a quotation that better represents Fascism to everyone's satisfaction), I think we'll be spinning our wheels.  Sure, we all want the truth to surface, but because we are each biased concerning what we believe the truth to be, we have to let NPOV be a guide.  I haven't heard him accept that yet.  It's starting to make me frustrated, as I've asked the question about 6 times, and I feel that consistently evading it is the same as rejecting NPOV openly. Jwrosenzweig 21:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving 

message: This is a NPOV travesty. I am upset by 172's attempts at censorship, and failure to function in a NPOV manner, nor to utilize wikiquette. I see resolving this subpage, and learning to behave decently towards wheeler as our top priority here at this time. Sam Spade 17:10, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Blah, blah, blah. If that bothers you, wait until you hear this: I get to indoctrinate impressionable youths in Marxist academia for a living. 172 17:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Fascism/suggested readings]]