Talk:Fascism/Archive 14

message: Talk:Nazism/Revolutionary not Reactionary reasons for deleting the word "reactionary" from the Nazism article and putting the word "Revolutionary" back into this article.
Nazism is only revolution(Ary) in that way, that it is strugglingi it's way back to the Reaction(Ary) times way back in then in the days of Negro Slavery and bigotry. BAH! So it's both, only not changing social order forwards (Communism) but backwards to the hillbilly times. And has this anything to do with fascism in general? Knock it off, it's a sort of sub-sort racial Fascism! --OleMurder 10:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

message: You can also just look at Hannah Arendt or The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism. Didn't she invent the term "totalitarianism"? Sam Spade 22:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse socialism in the marxist sense and socialism in the European sense used nowadays. Sweden was never socialist in the marxist sense. True, it had and still has a lot of state intervention, but it never departed from the principle of capitalism (indeed, Sweden has many internationally reputed companies and is considered one of the most competetitive economies despite its huge taxation levels). Also, there is a lot of socialist parties in Europe, all of them only mildly left-wing (Spain and Portugal, for instance, have socialist governments right now).Luis rib 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Poland and Yugoslavia remained authoritarian dictatorships until 1989, however. Solidarity thrived despite state repression, not because of a lack of it. And Yugoslavia only remained together while Tito could crack the whip. As soon as communism crumbled, the oppressed populations demanded independance, starting with Slovenia and Croatia. I would say that these countries were still totalitarian, but that their power had eroded, which is why they seem to us as authoritarian. Luis rib 18:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannah Arendt 

message: Was the Iranian Shah fascist? Sam Spade 11:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shah 

message: Sam Spade continues to rewrite parts of this page despite endless discussion where his views are shown to be ill-informed and Right-Wing POV that damages the integrity of the encyclopedia. IDo others think it is time to seek sanctions to stop this bullying and failure to edit collectively? Sam Spade has a long history of this type of abusive activity on other pages. He is now following me around Wiki abusively editing my edits. --Cberlet 21:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise you to review conflict resolution. This talk page is not a place to make personal attacks. Sam Spade 21:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note I have now filed for formal mediation.--Cberlet 22:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sam's right, this talk page is not a place to make personal attacks. As he can attest, the proper place to make personal attacks is email, where you can get away with all manner of vulgar insults without fear of being held accountable! FeloniousMonk 07:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you FM, for your insightful comment. Sam Spade 10:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you both for choosing wit and humor as your weapons. 4.250.168.100 22:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And let's not overlook his fine use of insults and personal attacks combined with attempts to side-step policy and game the system. FeloniousMonk 01:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanctions against Sam Spade?

message: Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber are among the top scholars of fascism in the world. I picked them to cite because they are among the scholars most reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology, yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neofascism ends up allying itself with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism or hatred of the political left, or simple expediency.
Laqueuer: "But historical fascism was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right." Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future (New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 223.
Eatwell talks about the need of fascism for "syncretic legitimation" which sometimes led it to forge alliances with "existing mainstream elites, who often sought to turn fascism to their own more conservative purposes." Eatwell also observes that "in most countries it tended to gather force in countries where the right was weak." Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (New York: Allen Lane, 1996) p. 39.
Griffin also does not include right ideology in his "fascist minimum," but he has described Fascism as “Revolution from the Right.” 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.
Weber: "...their most common allies lay on the right, particularly on the radical authoritarian right, and Italian Fascism as a semi-coherent entity was partly defined by its merger with one of the most radical of all right authoritarian movements in Europe, the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI)." Weber, Eugen. [1964] 1982. Varieties of Fascism: Doctrines of Revolution in the Twentieth Century, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, p. 8.
So even these scholars, who see both left and right influences on fascism, and studiously avoid stating that right-wing ideology is part of the "fascist miniomum," end up admitting that in practice, fascism gravitates to the political right.
Now, having mentioned Laqueur, Griffin, Eatwell, and Weber, I would point out that there are many, many scholars of fascism that are quite willing to call Fascism a right-wing ideology.--Cberlet 19:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that folks are passionate about this view, but it is a microscopic position compared to the scores of books that plainly call Fascism a right-wing ideology. As I have shown above, even the most cautious scholars eventually see Fascism starting on the left, merging left and right influences, and then drifting toward the political right.--Cberlet 22:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Scholarship

message: The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished. (from Political spectrum ) 4.250.168.100 22:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John Kenney, except I would add that the two dimensional model is of historical value in understanding America during the Cold War. The orthogonal axis makes assumptions about the state and private property that were ideologically powerful during the Cold War and are still of importance to many proponents of Capitalism. That said, John is quite right that it does not help us describe or analyze fascism. Slrubenstein | Talk  23:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice that you all agree, but remember the no original research rule? The major scholars of fascism in academia have a variety of views. Cite some... --Cberlet 03:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the issue is the NOR rule, the question is whether Eysenck is an appropriate source. Did he actually do research on fascism? The title of the book suggests that it is not based on research about fascism. Slrubenstein | Talk  13:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Hmmmm... I think you are right. I missed the point. :-( --Cberlet 15:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, in all fairness to you, the point was not made very explicitly the first time around, Slrubenstein | Talk  16:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What the heck is "historical validity"? There is no article for it, and the article for validity doesn't mention anything about it. --M4-10 19:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left vs. Right is at least one dimension too few for this discussion 

message: I am thinking about creating a new page on neofascism that would supplement the pages on Neo-nazism and Neofascism and religion. This would be a controversial topic, and I would need help. It could explore the issue whether or not the U.S. is diplaying some signs of neofascism (I see both sides of that question, but do not think the U.S. or the Republican Party is neofacist as has been suggested here), but would like to see a disucssion of these charges based on RELIABLE and SCHOLARLY or ACTUALLY PUBLISHED sources. Anyone want to talk about this? I REALLY would like a discussion here for a few days before this page gets set up and a giant edit war breaks out. I will wait out the discussion and jump back in in a few days.--Cberlet 13:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, there is no reason to get so excited. Most of the editors here agree this page is for the history of fascism up through the end of WWII. If you want to create the page on neofascism, I would be delighted, and it should look at neofascism in Europe, North America, and other places., not just the U.S. Relax! --Cberlet 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New page on neofascism?

message: The discussion on socialism belongs under the section on the political spectrum. Some of the other material posted by Sam Spade is repeated in other sections. The material on Arendt has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a false and misleading interpretation of her work. --Cberlet 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Spectrum

message: What, pray tell, is this about? Attempting to sweep anarcho-socialist ugliness under the rug, are we? Sam Spade 21:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this is tiresome whining. Get over it. I moved some stuff around. Deleted stuff that was repetitive or not at all relevant. You are simply wrong about Arendt. Discussed previously. Deleted. Stop being a crybaby and claiming you are being censored whan all you did was paste a giant wad of contested material back into the text without bothering to see if it was repetitive to material on the page. --Cberlet 22:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a good point. Want to take a crack at fixing it?--Cberlet 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Ooops, somebody already fixed it.--Cberlet 22:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - that was me. -O^O
Thanks--Cberlet 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ministry of Truth" strikes again!

message: Prior to changing, the 1st sentence said that Fascism was a movement led by Mussolini, and the 2nd sentence said that Fascism swept Europe. Leaving the reader to think that the movement led by Mussolini swept Europe? Better to say "similar movements", or try to make the F/f distinction. -O^O
:That's a good point. Want to take a crack at fixing it?--Cberlet 22:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, somebody already fixed it.--Cberlet 22:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes - that was me. -O^O
Thanks--Cberlet 20:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fascism spread across Europe" 

message: Some minor comments on the ends of the Fascism internationally section. Nothing was actually changed except for the Hungarian article since articles on Gombos and Horthy state that Hungary began to move into a fascist mindset in the 30s, though not as radical as the 44-45 regime (which is why it is sometimes overlooked). Apart from that, please mention here any errors I've made. Thanks!
* Now that George W Bush has declared all liberal to be terrorist sympathizers is it time for us to declare him a neo-fascist?
::No, because it is not an accurate use of the term, and even if it was, it would go on the Neo-Fascism page. --Cberlet 1 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
Could you guys lay off the Bush cracks? He has nothing to do with Fascism.
:??? Bush's collusion with Bechtel, Halliberton, various oil companies, and munitions corporations is classic corporatism.  Face it - he's a fucking fascist.  But to be fair, both factions of the War Party are fascist. Hogeye 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
:::Corporatism is not corporations.  Get a library card. The term Fascism has real meaning.  --Cberlet 2 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
::::Right.  Corporatism is the unholy collusion of State and crony firms.  Like the USEmpire and Bectel, Halliberton, certain oil and munitions firms. Bush is definitely a fascist; the USEmpire is a fascist State. Hogeye 4 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
::::: Various Wikipedia policies prevent me from giving this last statement the reply I feel it deserves, so I will stick to saying that, while I despise Bush, I disagree with your definition of corporatism, which I will charitably presume is an honest misunderstanding of how the fascists used this term. As Cberlet said, get a library card. And use it. -- Jmabel | Talk July 4, 2005 18:41 (UTC)
:::::: While empire certainly is what the US is and has been for well over a century whether Bush is fascist or not we do not know.  What with all the secrecy of the national security state.  We know for one thing, they are not democratic.  Government secrecy is antithetical to democracy. Only time/history will tell for sure. -Zz (3 Sept 2005)
Corporatism has the meaning of a guild or a syndicate in the Fascist sense. It does not mean corporation as in Enron. I know that many people have been using that idiotic line that Mussolini spilled about how Fascism should really be called corporatism. B
ut what Mussolini meant was the Catholic style corporate system that was similar to guild socialism. The Fascist movement was spawned from syndicalism. (anon 4 July 2005)
Indeed. Salazar's Estado Novo in Portugal was based on the premise that each job category or industry got organized and managed its sector in joint manner - like the medieval guilds. Incidentally, several of these guilds still survive Portugal (like the doctors/physicians association, the lawyers association,...). Luis rib 4 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
The association of corporations or guilds that were established under Mussolini were bascially structured around the pre-industrial, pre-enlightment idea of guilds and corporates. Fascism and many aspects of National Syndicalism, sought to bring this back. In order to combat the twin dangers of leftist socialism(Marxism) and Liberalism(capitalism), the Fascists were hoping to bring back something close to neo-feudalism, where the Fascist party would use the nation state as its subject to bring about a corporate state. It eliminated the need for finance and for entrepreneurship. The trade unions that were established under the guilds would oversee that the means of prodcutions were distributed rightly to the people(by force if needed). 
But it eliminated choice, the workers or bosses right to leave thier guild, and forced to endure the collective thinking of the nation state. It was right wing socialism. Left wing nationalism.
The corporatism page now has a section on modern corporatism that confuses the term with corporations.  I think this is a mistkae, but it means we have to be clear that we are refering ony to the earlier Italian deifinition.--Cberlet 02:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: How can fascism be described as 'anti-socialist' and also equate nazism to fascism?  After all, The de facto Nazi party was officially known as National Socialist German Workers Party.
I move to completely redesign the 'de facto' chart of the global political spectrum.  A straight line from left to right is overly simplistic.  An XY chart would be much more precise.
Anti-left wouldn't necessarily be right and anti-right wouldn't necessarily be left.
From what I read it seemed ok, and it pertains to issue of where is fascism in the political spectrum.
Wijiwang 08:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is ironic.. 

message: As Jmabel has observed, doesn't this material really belong on the Nazism page?--Cberlet 19:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  * Will do -- thanks for the pointer, Jmabel. I will wait a little longer for any additional comments before doing the cuts. --Varenius 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler, Nazis, & Protestants

message: :Highly insulting and biased the part on Brazil's alleged fascist regime. It was a right-wing govt alright, but calling it fascist is way beyond the line, and insulting to those who see in Getulio a man devoted to improve the lifes of the poor and the working class.
Biased because, how come Brazil is pointed at as fascist and the USA of McCarthy is not??LtDoc 03:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about McCarthy?? 

message: In the following paragraph, the last sentence is confusing:
:When Mussolini ordered the closure of Catholic Action in May 1931, Pius XI issued an encyclical, Non abbiamo bisogno. This document stated the Catholic Church's opposition to the dissolution, and argued that the order "unmasked the 'pagan' intentions of the Fascist state". Under international pressure, Mussolini decided to compromise, and Catholic Action was saved. Still for many Catholics the encyclical's disapproval of any system that puts the nation above God or humanity remained and was in fact never rescinded. 
Why "still" at the beginning of the last sentence? Nothing here says the Church backed down. Similarly, why "in fact"? It seems like it "doth protest too much". Why, for that matter, just "for many Catholics" if it remains doctrine? Why not just something like "The encyclical was not rescinded, and remains Church doctrine, disapproving of any system that puts the nation above God or humanity"? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Simple poor writing, I wasn't even a member then. It did seem to me like much of the article on Fascism, as it was written when I wrote that, was based on the premise that Pope Leo XIII's "Rerum Novarum" virtually created Fascism. This was something I'd never heard of before and I'd taken classes on Fascism at a secular University. I did know of connections, but main one I'd always heard cited was that many of the early Fascists were Catholics and that the strong anti-Socialist/anti-Liberal viewpoint of many nineteenth century Catholics encouraged thinkers toward Fascism. If any encyclical by Leo XIII were to be linked to Fascism I think it'd be Immortale Dei or Libertas which were critical of liberalism and to a degree democracy. "Rerum Novarum" was one of his more liberal encyclical.--T. Anthony 08:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing transitional phrases 

message: I think the passage beginning "There is a widespread allegation (supported by research by political scientists such as Dr. Britt)…" arguing that the United States is now fascist is an embarrassment. I have no love for the Bush administration, and I think there are probably a few people in the administration who could be reasonably (if not solidly) accused of fascistic leanings, but that's a matter of polemic. The United States is certainly not a fascist country.
I am not going to wade into the edit war over this right now. I would greatly appreciate having several other long-time contributors to Wikipedia weigh in here on the talk page and establish consensus first. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
:The Britt material is already summarized on the Neo-Fascism page, where it belongs.  This is not a page about neofascism. It is not appropriate to put most of the Britt article into any article on Wikipedia. The neofascism page summarizes much material on neofascism and links to the longer articles and essays by several writers.  Furthermore, Britt is not an academic, nor does he have a PhD -- and for the record he has never claimed either -- it is an internet creation. Google is not a way to conduct serious research. Finally, few actual scholars of history or political science take seriously the claim that the US is or was fascist, and none of the leading scholars of fascism has made that claim. --Cberlet 22:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States 

message: If we're going to use the clerical fascism thing. We might as well go into the varying similarities between Fascism and Islamism. Has anyone ever read the book Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman? It is an amazing book that goes into the influence of Fascism, Anarchism and utopian-Stalinism on Radical Islam. The whole premise is that Western politics were the major kick to revive the desire for the old Muslim caliphate and demand unity among the believer of Islam. The rhetoric is so close to that of the Fascists and anarcho-syndicalists at the time of pre-WWII.
:This is discussed on the neofascism and religion page.--Cberlet 20:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamo-Fascism 

message: Fascism has nothing to do with Catholicism, nor conservatism, nor liberalism. I know Wikipedia is anti-republican, but to allow this garbage to be presented as fact in an "encyclopedia" is absurd.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs) 27 Sept 2005.
::I agree the article is slanted to make Catholicism far more significant to Fascism then is warranted. Fascism, as the article indicates, began with very anti-clerical positions. It's idea of the state as the center of life is specifically un-Catholic as the Catholic Church traditionally believes itself to be a multi-national belief system to be held above any nation. Mussolini wrote a novel called "The Cardinal's Mistress" or some such and was agnostic. The Action Francaise was condemned by the Pope. I worked on that some, tempering some clearly ill-informed judgments concerning Rerum Novarum, but to a degree you have to accept the systemic biases that exist here for now. Most Wikipedians who describe themselves as Catholic are adamantly ex-Catholic. The attitude of adamant ex-Catholics to the Church is commonly like that of ex-smokers to the tobacco industry. I'm hoping in time more members join and a greater balance is achieved in articles concerning my religion. (By balance I mean more including of good with bad, I'm not saying I want Inquisition-apologists or the reactionary lunatic fringe) 
::As for the rest it might justly be deemed a troll. I think the treatment of conservatism and even the Republicans, I think this person was meaning upper-case R republican, is generally fair. There is a knee-jerk group who would equate both those with Fascism, but I don't recall that being in this article or being allowed to stay unchallenged in many articles. In fact conservatism is clearly the antithesis of Fascism as Fascism is generally based on pretty radical change. There is no section in this article that has "Republicans" or "Conservatives" in the title AFAIK.--T. Anthony 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you ignoring the existence of clerical fascism?  I mean, I would agree that many forms of Fascism were either anti-clerical or, at best, came to an understanding with a church which was very much outside the movement (as Mussolini did).  But what about the Ustasha?  What about Father Tiso's regime in Slovakia?  What about Dollfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria?  The Action, as well as being denounced by the Pope, was also fiercely Catholic.  The various Spanish Nationalist groups made much of their Catholicism.  I don't think it can be indicated that Fascism is either a pro-Catholic (or Catholic) phenomenon or an anti-Catholic one - it had a complicated relationship with Catholicism. john k 15:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No I'm not. I'm not denying many Fascists were strongly Catholic, I'm just saying the article tends to indicate Catholicism is a major component in their even being an idea called Fascism. Which is rather odd as in general the original idea of Fascism came from ultra-nationalists and former socialists who had little to do with the Catholic Church. Later you get Fascist regimes that treated Catholicism as an important component of their beliefs, the clerical fascists, but there's already an article for clerical fascism. There's also an article for Integralism which is a Fascistic ideology I would agree was inspired by various historical Papal statements. That said I didn't remove the idea that Catholicism helped create Fascism as I admit it's out there and deemed historically valid. It is actually more irksome that there are large amounts of Wiki articles that discuss Nazism relationship to Catholicism, but almost totally ignore the Protestant or other religions which openly advocated Nazism. I've tried to correct that some.--T. Anthony 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At the risk of responding to a troll: "anti-republican"? That is the single weirdest accusation against Wikipedia that I have seen. What, are we defenders of the divine right of kings? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism has nothing to do with 

message: After reading through the Fascist Manifesto, a thought occurred to me. I posted it in the discussion for that article, but I feel it has a significant relevence to this article. Here is what I wrote: 
It seems similar to the situation of communism. After the russian civil war, the Russian Communist Party became less and less communist and yet their terrible crimes against humanity have become synonomous with what they claimed to believe. Many communists today would argue that the USSR was not a good example of Communism. I wonder if it could equally be argued that Fascism was not represented properly by Italy of Germany? It seems that Fascism was originally intended to be some sort of corporatism, with standard democratic rights, could it be argued that instead of the meaning of Fascism changing when Italy changed that Italy lost through corruption its more acceptable elements of fascism and degenerated into a form of totalitarianism? It seems that if this were true that our present day nations are alot closer to being fascist than Italy or Germany ever were, as so conveniantly argued by several writers, but not in the way they mean. It also means that fascism should not be demonized in the way it is, it should not be thought of a synonomous with totalitarianism. I personally dont support the original fascism as shown in documents like the Fascist Manifesto, but I condemn the fact that its original meaning has been so changed. Perhaps if beyond all chance that my reasoning is correct then this should be mentioned somewhere on the article on Fascism itself
Any thoughts? Real World 05:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be that the foundational Hegelian notion that nations and races were entities with rights is itself intrinsically morally corrupting, because like all forms of collectivism, it justifies the sacrifice of individual to the collective under some kind of central judgement of what is best for the collective.  It should be no wonder that nonconforming individuals are abused and murdered.  Such fascist thinking is very powerful, all sides in WWII for instance, thought the good of the collective could justify conscription.  In more recent times (1970s) Senator Ted Kennedy proposed mandatory national service, and in the recent presidential election candidate John Kerry reaffirmed the "duty" culture, and proposed mandatory public service for high school graduation.--Silverback 05:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems highly dubious to me.  Fascism was never really about an ideological program in the same way that Communism was, so the fact that fascism "betrayed" its original "principles" is not terribly significant - there were never any real principles to begin with, besides worship of power.  As to communism, it seems to me that Lenin and Stalin did a fair job of carrying out the vision of Marxism-Leninism, even if this was a rather different beast from the Marxism of Marx. BTW, is Silverback really saying that mandatory national service is fascism?  Every European country has mandatory national service.  Are they all fascist?  God, I hate this libertarian nonsense. john k 06:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think every nation is fascist to the extent that it thinks it has a sovereign right to exist that supercedes the rights of individuals.  I also think this notion of fascism is intrinsic to the original scholarly apologias for fascism.  Fascism was just a more virulent and self-justifying form of nationalism.  I say this as someone who has pledged allegiance to a multi-colored piece of cloth.--Silverback 07:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The evolution of fascism