Talk:Fascism and ideology/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, good edit. Sam Spade 01:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut from Fascism and the political spectrum

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cut by Sam Spade

message: 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:
*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.  
*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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Leading Scholars of Fascism

message: 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 
*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." Check out footnote 69!
*Roger Griffin."Interregnum or Endgame? Radical Right Thought in the ‘Post-fascist’ Era"
*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)
*Liah Greenfield, review of Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future.
*Mabel Berezin. "Fascism." Forthcoming in: Encyclopedia of Sociology, George Ritzer, ed. London: Blackwell.
===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
*http://www.aicgs.org/resources/daad/1995009.shtml
*http://warwick.ac.uk/staff/David.Baker/F&N/Semtop1/t1-3.htm
*http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/courses/faf/fafguide2004.htm
*http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/doug.skopp/history385a2002f/default.htm
*http://www.kingston.ac.uk/~ku01577/radright/bibindex.htm
*http://www.people.memphis.edu/~jjudaken/8440-Intellos.htmlNote Eatwell cite for general European history course
*http://hist.ucalgary.ca/courses/F2001/333L01.htm
*http://www.colby.edu/govt/faculty/jay/GO359.html
===Serious libertarian scholarship on fascism===
*David Ramsay Steele "The Mystery of Fascism." 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Leading theories of Fascism

message: *David Ramsay Steele "The Mystery of Fascism." 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Serious libertarian scholarship on fascism

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging in and combining

message: "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)
replies: text: Lacking any response, I am deleting this sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreconstructability  

message: Any objections?--Cberlet 20:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to remove dispute flags?

message: 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)
replies: text: #Cberlet 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #Stlemur 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #:Rough agreement: I agree with the first and third sentences, but think the origins of the claim are rather more complex. --- Charles Stewart(talk)</sup> 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #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)

text: # Leaning this way. In any case, let's keep it in one place. - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: #Seems like a better title, easier to find for readers as well.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 06:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: #Seems like the best option. john k 19:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: #Seems reasonable to me. Str1977 (smile back) 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here at [[Fascism and ideology]]

message: Suggestion #1 - It may be better to have an article called something like Influence of communism on other ideologies, which could then cover:
#The rivalry between the Marxists and German Social Democrats;
#Fascism as a reaction to the perceived failure of communism;
#Hitler's appropriation of socialist ideas;
#The 1950s flight from communism to Anglo-American conservatism and European Christian democracy;
#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)
thread_title: Outside view

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Misplaced Comment

message: template:sfn admonishes editors to discuss changing a citation style before doing so. This article is rather weighty, and I think it can be made both easier to read and easier to edit by reducing many of the repeated citations to sfn format. We heavily cite numerous pages of several key works, all of which are already in the bibliography, so it's a natural fit.
I'm drafting it up in my sandbox; if it looks good and no one objects, I'll implement it in the article. pauli133 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are all in agreement that it's actually a pretty minor thing - it is done. Saved almost 10% on file size, and the references are much easier to read now. pauli133 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching to SFN 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fascism and ideology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528214237/http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/home.php to http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/home.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830130336/http://www.fascismoeliberta.net/ to http://www.fascismoeliberta.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the problem with a standard link to Totalitarianism main pages or even the template?--Cberlet 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Main article for section "Fascism and totalitarianism" would be Fascism and totalitarianism.  Totalitarianism is not subarticle of this article. For more information see WP:SS. -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Totalitarianism is an article which covers... totalitarianism. What is "totalitarianism"? A concept used to qualify certain political regimes, mainly Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinism (with some disagreements between those who use this suspect). "Fascism and totalitarianism" is an un-needed article when you see the poor state in which "Totalitarianism" is. And, concerning Foucault, you will still have to justify the inclusion of a lame sentence which conveys fairly badly Foucault's thought on the matter (in two words, Foucault has described Stalinism & Nazism as REVERSE operations, which directly opposes this tentative to equates them). Tazmaniacs 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Tazmaniacs. Please stop this petty disruption, -- Vision Thing --.--Cberlet 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: The tangential stuff on Foucault is ridiculous--it has nothing to do with this page. Just more POV left-bashing.  The issue of fascism and totalitarianism is one of the central issues in scholarship in this arena.  The template is appropriate and helps users.--Cberlet 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foucault's views have everything to do with this page, and they are connected with Levi's arguments. The template is inappropriate, and in "my" version link to Totalitarianism article is the first thing that user encounters when he is reading the section, so your comment is ridiculous. In both cases you are acting against Wikipedia's polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The continuous removal of the  link by User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] is not appropriate. I have restored it, and will add it to the ongoing mediation.--Cberlet 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totalitarianism 

message: 02 June 2007
This article is incomplete without sections on each of the three topics above. Nationalism is the most important omission which is a major part of fascist ideology. 
On the subject of rascism, this article asserts that this was an addition of the Nazis, which the Italian fascists were not interested in. Regardless, it formed such a major part of Nazi ideology and the devoted so much energy to attempts to justify it, and idealise certain races over others, that this such be included in any discussion of fascist ideology. The belief that group A were superior to group B was the ideology behind much of their actions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.180.242 (talk • contribs) 
:Feel free to add some content on those subjects. -- Vision Thing -- 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sections added on: Relationship of Fascism to 1. Nationalism 2. Rascism 3. Militarism 

message: I noticed that this page isn't linked to from the main Fascism article, any reason why not? Theosis4u (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly?  Because it's not a very good article.  It was created primarily to avoid having a small number of fringe viewpoints and popular talking-points among political talking heads from around the time when it was created overwhelm the main Fascism article. It doesn't really say much that's meaningful or useful, and its content is heavily-colored by the fact that most of its contributors were more interested in establishing fascism as similar to some political position they disagree with or another than in actually discussing or examining fascism itself in a useful fashion. Very little would be lost by deleting this article entirely; everything it covers is covered much better and in a more neutral fashion on the main fascism article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, it seems to have been much improved over time, and now is a decent-enough history of Fascism and its relation to other ideological movements of its day. --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Reason This Isn't Referenced In Main Fascism Article 

message: This article does not seem to have much coherent substance to it, it is very random. I suggest that this article be re-written to focus on fascism's relations with other ideologies. Independent articles on fascism's relations with nationalism, communism, liberalism etc. have been scrapped because administrators have stated that these could be on one article about fascism's relations to other ideologies. I believe this article should serve that purpose.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest, instead, moving this to its redirect, Ideological origins of Fascism -- which is the capacity under which it is currently linked to from the man Fascism article anyway.  The problem with trying to define relations with other ideologies in any other fashion is that, in general, it's too hazy -- an article listing every time anyone ever accused a political opponent or an ideology they disagreed with of being fascist would be a thousand pages long and list every ideology that has attracted even the slightest commentary since the mid-20th century.  Those accusations and comparison are, generally, too vaguely-defined to write an encyclopedic article on them, and too omnipresent to be worth documenting.  An article focusing specifically on the documented ideological origins of and influences on fascism, on the other hand, can probably be made much more encyclopedic; I think that this could be salvaged if it were converted into that. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is very haphazard, I suggest a total re-write 

message: Two short sentences saying 'fascism's ideological position on the political spectrum is contentious' in different ways is not a lede.  Additionally, it fails WP:LEAD -- the article itself, while, yes, presenting some controversy, generally makes many definitive statements about the generally-agreed on ideological origins and tenor of fascism.  The most basic of these belong in the lede in one fashion or another. --Aquillion (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has responded in...  nearly four years, I've taken it on myself to throw something together from the main points of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede to this article is ridiculous. 

message: Why is Alessandra Mussolini being branded as a neofascist? According to the wiki article on her, she's a member of Il Popolo della Libertà, a centre-right party. I'm removing her from the article.
The.valiant.paladin (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Her original party, the National Alliance, was widely seen as a post-fascist or neo-fascist party. john k (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alessandra Mussolini a neofascist?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Fascism and ideology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222175741/http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm to http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/research/polecon.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050915163028/http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=585 to http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=585
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040825075040/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified