Talk:Fascism/Archive 15

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.
----
The statement: "Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups."  This is a recent addition to this entry.  The language here is ad hominem to the current political climate.  It needs to be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ? (talk • contribs) about 30 Nov 2005.  if someone can work out exactly who wrote this, great, but it was amidst a flurry of activity, and I'm not digging it out of the log -- Jmabel | Talk
: I suspect that the above comment is based on a misunderstanding of the term ad hominem, but I honestly cannot work out how that word was interpreted and what this person meant to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is a bit of a mess. I assume, for example, that "libral" is intended to be "liberal", a group that have consistently opposed Communism. I have no idea what "radical antisocialists" is supposed to mean; perhaps you intended "radical socialists"? Or perhaps you were just being snide. Other than that, a more or less reasonable statement. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ummm. George Seldes wrote about the connection between fascism and "big business" in the 1930s. There is also a book by that name: Daniel Guérin, Fascism and Big Business, published in 1939. I think they both overstate the case, but it is a well-known concept that hardly originated recently. Also, please sign you entries.  It is common courtesy.--Cberlet 15:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You write this as if you think that most of us who edit this page are unaware of the fringe minority views of von Hayek, von Mises, and other right-wing scholars.  Alas, we are not.  Please do not lecture us on this matter, as it has been thoroughly discussed for many months. If you have a cited piece of text that you wish to add, please give it a try. Constructive editing is always welcome. --Cberlet 21:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You've clearly missed the point by a remarkably wide margin. No one here (nor is asserted anywhere in the article) asserts thst all of conservatism (even including libertarianism) is equal to fascism. As you point out, many conservatives (eg. Chruchill) and even reactionaries (e.g. monarhcists in Italy) strongly opposed fascism.  But the exceptions prove the rule. It is clear that fascism was infinitely more likely to appeal to conservative nationalists rather than to left-wing internationalists, to monarchist reactionaries (who were habitatued to one man rule and would support anything to keep a Marxist or even a democratic revolution from taking place) than to left-wing anti-conformists and social liberals. It was more likely to appeal to Catholic conservatives (again terrified of Marxism or any kind of social democracy which allowed women's rights to abortion, contraception, gay right, etc, etc) than to feminists and Marxists. The point here is that some people are trying to associate fascism with "socialism" of every stripe and that is quite logically absurb, apart form being anti-historical. The libertartian view of three or four radical scholars (economists and not historians or philosophers to boot) is of marginal relevance. These are just the facts.--Lacatosias 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Side issue: "The exception proves the rule" comes from an older meaning of "proves" and means "the exception tests the rule." - Jmabel | Talk 07:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: side-side issue: LOL!!! I must be careful to avoid using almost meaningless cliché's when writing on the Wikiepedia from now on. Very impressive. And I better than most people should have relaized that the phrase, as currently interpreted, is not only bizzare but directly contradicts the principle of falsificationism in science!! Anway, I found this interesting, alternative explanation for the roots of the phrase. --Lacatosias 09:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting This Word or That Word 

message: Please don't bury the main article's Table of Contents underneath several paragraphs of verbiage.  New readers coming to this article should not have to dig through several paragraphs to get to the latest series of definitions.  New readers coming to Wikipedia for the first time will be served better by seeing the Table of Contents come up at the top of the webpage the first time they get here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.12 (talk • contribs) .
:The lead (as with the entire article) is too long.  Jkelly 19:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep the Table of Contents Near the Top 

message: Ever since WW II fascism has been almost exclusively been labelled 'right-wing'. Despite a majority of socalled historians supporting this vision this does not necessarily make it so. Left wingers have a very good reason to distance themselves from fascism as left wing ideology has much in common with fascism. Communism, socialism and fascism all advocate a degree of control by the state (fascism and communism are quite similar in this regard).
Hitler did not oppose Stalin because Stalin was a communist. Hitler frequently praised the revolutionary zeal of communists and ordered any communist be admitted to the Nazi party immediately). Hitler opposed Stalin and communism because he saw behind communism the 'demonic' figure of the Jew. Hitler opposing Stalin does not mean that Hitler is right wing because Stalin is left wing (false dichotomy).
:Despite a majority of socalled historians supporting this vision this does not necessarily make it so. I have an absolutly brilliant idea, folks: let's just compltely disregard the the views of the  majority of historians and allow the radically extremist minority one to dominate the article. Better yet, let's just copy the above opinion word for word inot thre article and settle the matter once and for all. Magnificent logic, singore!!--Lacatosias 11:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mussolini and Hitler both enacted massive public works projects not unlike Roosevelts 'New Deal'. One can hardly call Roosevelt right wing. Silvio Berlusconi has continually claimed credit for enacting massive public works projects ("le grande opere publiche") and had promised to do even more if relected in April (the bridge acroos the Strait of Messina, the Moses project to reconstruct the foundations of Venice, the high-velocity trains (TAV) and extraordinary investment in nuclear development and installation. Is Berlu a left-winger?? 0:......--Lacatosias 11:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am repulsed by all of the people you have mentioned but I still consdier myself to be on the left. I don't care what some others who may  claim to speak for ALL people on the left have to say about it. This is obviously a straw man though.--Lacatosias 11:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:No original research.  Jkelly 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical revisionism: fascism as 'right-wing' 

message: The following was—probably appropriately, it seems off topic—removed from the article: 
:Other economists, such as Lucia Rodrigues, use the word corporatism to mean specifically those states that use professional groups "as an instrument in the pursuit and legitimation of its policies".
but the (somewhat incomplete) citation was left, messing up the numbering of notes. I've removed it. In case anyone wants to put it in a different, more appropriate article, I figured they should be together.
# 
Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone modified the previous comment by changing the referencing mechanism. The comment is partly about referencing. I have now restored the older mechanism. Please do not edit my comments. - Jmabel | Talk 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rodrigues 

message: ::::OK, Hogeye and RJII, you are now pushing a POV and recreating the page Economic fascism which was already deleted once, so is this constructive and collaborative editing?  I do not think so. Your POV is a minority POV that is already over-represented on this page. The general definition of fascism being offered by you folks has been objected to. You simply ignore this? The theory of economic fascism you are proposing is a tiny minority view. Italian fascism was economic fascism, German Nazism was racial fascism coupled to economic fascism. Being bullies may feel good, but it is not an appropriate part of Wiki culture.--Cberlet 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only point #4 has to do with economic fascism.  Why don't you stop name-calling and discuss it rationally? Hogeye 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hogeye did not have anything to do with creating the Economic fascism article. It was my own doing. I deserve all the credit. And, why are you calling me a bully? What have I done to you? Who have I bullied? RJII 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article you have created is inherently POV, RJII. Your definition of economic fascism is supported strictly by libertarian sources, and it is so broad that any kind of mixed economy - anything short of laissez-faire or full central planning - would fall under it. You are essentially saying that a mixed economy is a form of economic fascism, when the overwhelming majority of scholars holds that it is in fact the other way around: economic fascism is a particular kind of mixed economy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 04:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A mixed economy is not economic fascism. Economic fascism is just part of a mixed economy ..the centrally-planned part. The article defines it as an "economic system," anyway. There is nothing POV about the article. So what if the definition is from libertarian sources? That doesn't make the article POV. RJII 05:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is POV. Only (some) libertarians believe in this definition. Thus, it is part of the libertarian point of view on the world. And your suggestion that all mixed economies carry an element of fascism is absurd at worst and part of a fringe belief at best. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not POV. Whoever uses this term defines this term. If libertarians use it then that's where we find the definition. There is nothing POV about that. RJII 05:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then  the article, if it is to exist at all, should begin with the statement: "Economic fascism is a concept devised by some libertarians to refer to..." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, who cares? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you? RJII 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it can never grow beyond a personal essay or a description of the views held by some libertarians (not all agree) on fascism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. RJII 05:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No. In addition, I would like to note that I have nominated Economic fascism for deletion. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk about fascism. RJII 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So now fascism means disagreeing with RJII (or is this another example of your abovie cited sarcasm)? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm using the term loosely in the context of censorship. RJII 15:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called "irony" and it was meant semi tounge-in-cheek. And, it has nothing to do with you. Don't ever preach to me rubenstein. Now, if I want to talk about "fascism" seriously, you're the first person that comes to mind. You launched a bogus arbitration case against me awhile back to harrass me and prevent progress in the capitalism article. You wanted the article kept as it was because it was your way, regardless of what a fumbling incoherent mess you made it. But fortunately, your case against me fell on its face because it was based on lies from you. As a result, I was able to be an instrumental and crucial force in transforming that article to a drastically higher level of quality beyond all former recognition. It's no longer recognizeable from the disaster you were trying to protect. From my experiences and observations of you, I'm convinced that you do not have the capacity to be a responsible Wikipedia editor or scholar of any kind. So, blow it out your ***.
Your tone and language speaks for itself.  I filed an arbitration case because you were deleting every edit I made — don't accuse me of the same, because I was seeking compromises and certainly was not deleting every edit you made.  I don't think you really understand what the word "irony" means.  I repeat what I wrote above, but this time it is clear to me that I am not misunderstanding you: you believe "censorship" describes anyone who disagrees with you.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Talk to the hand. RJII 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation of [[Economic fascism]] 

message: This goal has eluded scholars of fascism for over 70 years.  I do not think that the uncited opinions of a handful of Wiki editors can solve this problem.  I have removed the text pending a more extensive discussion here.--Cberlet 20:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this problem in Wikipedia articles before. The editors can't seem to figure out what the term means, so they say something in the article like "there is no clear definition of X." Well, there is. It's just that some or all of the editors don't know what it is. In this kind of situation, the editors should consult the most broadly available popular reference works (dictionaries, encyclopedias) and come up with a definition (or two). Then, state the most popular definition(s) and label it as just that --the "common definition." RJII 20:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we have already iplemented User:RJII's suggestion in the "Defining" section, and that an entire article on this subject, Fascism and ideology also exists.  The point at hand is how to summarize this in the lead of the article, which is the specific thing that is inspiring endless revisions.  People who want more detail than we provide in the lead will find it in this article's subsection, or at Fascism and ideology.  If briefly quoting a single authority for the lead is too problematic, perhaps we can consult some high school political science textbook.  Jkelly 21:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's the OneLook list of definitions. Encarta and Merriam-Webster's (#1 and #3) look pretty good. Both defs look a lot like our current 4-point def.  The Compact definition (#2) is a little too compact. Hogeye 22:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, User:Hogeye, that should be very helpful! I'll take a closer look when I have a chance.  Jkelly 22:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  This dropped off my radar.  I will go look now.  Jkelly 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I generally agree, but spell out my position more fully in the preceeding section, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General Definition of Fascism

message: I dispute the claim that a core definition of "Fascism" can be described as "centralized control of private enterprise." This phrase--beloved by the libertarians--is a gross oversimpification of the idea of corporatism. Just visit the page and read the article. I know that someone will cite the Austrian School pundits, but in fascist studies, this phrase would be scoffed at.--Cberlet 13:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see if I understand your objection.  Are you denying that "centralized control of private enterprise" is one (of several) defining characteristics of fascism?  Or are you simply saying that "centralized control of private enterprise" is broader than "corporatism."  If the latter is your concern, we can simply append "by government controlled committees" to specify which method of centralized control, i.e. "centralized control of private enterprise by government controlled committees (aka corporatism)." Hogeye 20:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corporatism v. centralized control of private enterprise

message: It is common knowledge that fascism is opposed to individualism. Just look at the origin of the term. Look at the picture of the bundle of sticks in the article. The individual stick becomes irrelevant and invisible in the collective of sticks. The individual is no longer recognizable or seen as an end in himself, but merely as a means to comprise the collective bundle. In fascism, the interests of the individual take a back seat to the interests of the nation. Anyone who would delete from the article that fascism is in contrast to individualism has no clue what either fascism or individualim is. RJII 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I agree.  No matter.  If you can find a verifiable source, you can put the claim in without fear of deletion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that fascism is opposed to individualism, but to mention this in the intro along with a full Mussolini quote is giving it undue weight. Perhaps a better idea would be to give a short list of all the important things fascism opposes. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, there are other things that fascists oppose, but the contrast to individualism is central. As Mussolini points out, it's essentially how fascism is defined --as the opposition to individualism. The individual lives to serves the state rather than to serve himself. That can't be overemphasized. RJII 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mussolini never said that opposition to individualism was central in defining fascism. And there is a consensus here that we are not defining fascism as Mussolini wanted (look up - I tried to propose that we go by Mussolini's definition, but my proposal was strongly rejected). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Mussolini did in fact state his opposition to socialism, liberalism and democracy just a few lines above the excerpt you cited. I gave the full quote. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. Even the dictionary finds it important to note first that it's in opposition to individualism: " a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual..." (Merriam Webster). Fascism is, at it's core, the forced negation of individualism. By the way, Mussolini equates liberalism with individualism. RJII 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with RJII here. And, as some of you know, I rarely am. The opposition of fascism to individualism seems pretty central to me: it doesn't allow people the right of individual conscientious dissent. That puts it in contrast with most other ideologies of the last 100 years, and is central to the "totalitarianism" thesis, which I don't buy totally (so to speak) but think is worthy of serious consideration. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of the fact that fascism is in contrast to individualism

message: I encounter that phrase very often, and find it puzzling, Usually in contexts like this one. "Many historians claim that the March 23, 1919 meeting at the Piazza San Sepolcro was the historic 'birthplace' of the fascist movement. However, this would imply that the Italian Fascists 'came from nowhere' which is simply not true."
:Huh? Why does the specification of a birth date and place imply ex nihilo creationism? I was born on a certain date and at a certain place. From my mother's womb, not "from nowhere". In terms of historic movements, there's analogous sense to be made of speaking of a birth even, or especially, if we admit that there was a pre-natal existence, too. --Christofurio 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent point, Christofurio.  Of course, the proper way to edit it would be something like this: "Many historians claim that the March 23, 1919 meeting at the Piazza San Sepolcro marked the 'birth' of the fascist movement. Nevertheless, fascism has important antecedents from the nineteenth century ... The events, political, economic, and intellectual, that led up to the 1919 meeting were ..." or something like this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. However I think Fascism truly was something of a fixed, not gradual, creation, in that the movement did not  naturally develop in the same manner that Socialism, for example, did throughout Europe over a couple of centuries. I think we are entirely missing the point, too, and something that Christofurio referred to. The importance here is whether the date is regarded by the Fascist movement itself in Italy as it's own birthdate, and it is, so that is the most important element of consideration here in terms of enhancing the understanding of Fascism within the wikipedia by actually pronouncing the ideology's understanding of itself. Hauser 10:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable to me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Phrase "Came From Nowhere" 

message: By combining two ideas, there is now a very misleading sentence.
*Many argue that fascism is a warped outgrowth of socialism or left corporatism.
These ideas need to be split. The previous sentence in the text notes that fascism grew out of socialism, so that part is redundant. Almost nobody disuptes this. If folks want to fold the idea of "warped" into the previous sentence, it could go there. The claim that "many" see fascism as an outgrowth of "left corporatism" is simply false.  A tiny handful of libertarian and conservative authors have suggested this. A tiny handful of Wiki editors continue to try to inflate this idea into a major theme in the scholarship on fascism. This is false. This is POV. This--and an tendency to highlight other obscure minority views--detracts from this article reflecting the main views of fascism among scholars, contentious as they may be. the sentence should read: "A few scholars see fascism as an outgrowth of liberal corporatism." Perhaps someone could provide a cite to the phrase "left corporatism." Otherwise, it is an oxymoron.--Cberlet 14:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The term MANY has recently been changed, apppropiately in my opinion, to SOME. But I agree with your basic point that socialism and "left corporatism" (whatever exactly that might be) should be distinguished and, hopefully, someone more knowledgable than I in ECONOMICS can write up an entry containing a specific explanation, with clear examples and sources, of the meaning of "left corporatism" versus, say, "right corporatism". Lacatosias 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialism & "Left" Corporatism

message: I found the following sentences in the definition section: 
"Watkins considers Mussolini's Fascist regime to be one example of the corporatist states that emerged during the Great Depression, including such diverse political systems as that of Spain, Argentina and the United States. But this seems to be a rather idiosyncratic position and is not to be considered as representative of the interpretations of the majority of modern political philosophers and academicians."
Reading this gave me that same awkward, embarrassed feeling one gets at a dinner party where the host couple constantly bickers with each other. Clearly the last sentence quoted above was written by someone who stronger disagrees with the person who wrote the first sentence, making it disjointed and decidedly not encyclopedic. I deleted the last sentence and qualified Watkins as someone that "some accuse of being out of step with the academic mainstream." I think that should satisfy everyone involved. --Skinny fists 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  change in definition section 

message: Recently added: "The Functions of Fascism a radio lecture by Michael Parenti". I haven't had a chance to listen to this, but is it really on fascism, or is it on neo-fascism, which seems a more likely topic for Parenti? - Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parenti 

message: There really seems to me to be a subtle, systematic attempt here to discredit all of the almost infinitely many forms of socialism (e.g. Italian socialism ala Massimo D'Alema is not the same as German social democracy ala Gerhard Shroder is not the same as Scandinavian socialism ala Gunner Myrdal is not the same as pure theoretical Marxism/socialism is not the same as British Fabianism, etc., etc., etc..)) by insinuating that fascism is basically socialism which appeals to socialists, collectivists and the working-class lumpenproletariate. 
An encyclopedia entry is no place for such an ideology-based exercise. What the devil is wrong, e.g., with simply identifying Gabriele D'Annunzio in a list of intellectuals/poets who supported fascism without also adding that he was, previously, a socialist and/or 
anarcho-syndicalist?? Why does this need to be explicitly pointed out with fifty-thousand adjectives?? The only reason I can think of is that someone (or more than one) insists on inserting the words "socialism",  "anarcho-syndalism", "lumpenproles", etc., etc., at every single possible opportunity in order to make their ideological point. But this is silliness!!
--Lacatosias 17:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Cberlet 21:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism, Socialism, Collectivism,.Lumpenproles, etc.... 

message: I removed the following recent addition, because it was poorly written and sufficiently vague that I couldn't fix it; there may be something to this that, properly written and cited, belongs in the article; I have reproduced it verbatim: 
*Racism is a false definition used by the left to degrade the system, Musolini in 'Enclopedia Italiana' in his artical on what is Fascism writes "Racism distroys Nations".
Jmabel | Talk 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: :::A libertarian advocacy website does not trump dozens of academic scholars. The primacy of the Nation and the State are the primary hallmarks of fascism.  Collectivism is one of many other secondary aspects. The libertarian concept of fascism as ultra-collectivism is hardly given any credence in serious scholarship on fascism. The fascist idea of collectivism, as posted above, was that the State organically represented both the individual and the collective. The failure to provide any serious cites other than Hayek, von Mises, and Flynn should settle this question. This same debate is now taking place on three Wiki pages: Fascism and ideology, Fascism Right-wing politics.  Can we at least seek to have the discussion only on the Fascism and ideology page?--Cberlet 19:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarian theories about fascism

message: I cut the following
Fascism is the name given to 'ULTRA-NATIONALISM' by an Italian poet for jingoism and then Musulini (copied from Napolian Bonipart). It is wrongly defined by most english sorces which use mostly false left-wing colloqualisms. Omit racism, "racism distroys nations" wrote mussulini (Encleplapedia Italiana), but of course english translations edit this out. The Italian fascist party (lead by Finni) is presently the most anti racist party in Italy. Claimed to have 27 philosophical ideals found in Francos Manifesto of Forty principles. Its philosophy includes: massive millitry buildup, massive increase in police, autarchic (protectionist) ecconomics with merchantilism & issolationism, pyramid-elitism (eg. youth groups of which the smartest are promoted up leadership ranks eventially into a position with the public servic, the smartest are taken in government when one dies or retiers then to leader), being alert and prepared incase opportunities or dangers arise (vigilance),  vitalism (strenght, courage, determination, drive, regeneration through energy and strugle), strong united small goverment / minnimum number of polititions (oligarchy), blind patiotism, no immigration, pentions, incentives, a collective dictatorship which rejects most centre and socialist views, corporatism, indupendent nation with more production, organisation and efficiency, national intrest are more important than international considerartions, consolidation of power (combining and unifying goverment bodies), against pascifist groups, hired militia groups, appointed municiple officers, strenght in unity, authority of the state and oppression of nearly all oposition (some of these are also used by Marxists). NB. Before & during WWII the hardline dictatorial racist Baltic states (40% socialist ideals) as well as the extreme-right NAZI's were not regarded as fascist by other fascist nations because they had to many socialist ideals. Definition of Pr. K. M. Smogorzewski is of intrest. 
Poorly written ("Musulini"? "Napolian Bonipart"? "pyramid-elitism"??), POV ("It is wrongly defined by most english sorces", which might as well say "I don't care what you can cite, my opinions will carry the day"), incredibly non-mainstream ("The Italian fascist party (lead by Finni) is presently the most anti racist party in Italy" or associating fascism with "small goverment" [sic]), etc. And ending with "Definition of Pr. K. M. Smogorzewski is of intrest": perhaps it would be, but how is anyone supposed to find it? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me take a wild guess: I think you are obviously dealing here with an Italian with very bad English skills who is a devoted member of the more extreme right wing faction of Alleanza Nazionale (that which has not really recounced fascism at all).
Isn't that correct??? (;
Anyway, these views are WAYYYY out of the maintstream in Italy.
--Lacatosias 09:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, I doubt that there are many members of Alleanza Nazionale who don't know how to spell Mussolini. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... weird!! He even got Fini wrong. And Alleanza nazionale has, at least officially, dissociated itself from fascism. "Fascism is the absolute evil", according to Fini himself. Whereas our mysterious friend calls it a "fascist party which rejects racism." Just vandalism, I guess??
--Lacatosias 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from article 

message: I've restored that statement "Early fascism was a mixture of extreme socialist or syndicalist notions with a Hegelian or idealistic theory of the state; the latter was linked to an extreme nationalism", which Nikodemos cut. I suggest he read the article fascio, where this is discussed in more detail; it is also well-discussed in this article in Fascism:#Mussolini's Fascism. If he looks through past discussions on this talk page, he will see many people from libertarian or right-wing views who question whether fascism ever ceased to have a strong left-wing component. While that is clearly a small minority view among scholars of fascism, I cannot remember ever reading and scholarly work on the origin of fascism that did not acknowledge an initial contribution of ideas (and tactics) from the left: somewhat from socialism, but especially from syndicalism. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early fascism  

message: Is this section at all relevant? Plenty of people make crude political statements-feminists are actually labeled "feminazis", the fact that opponents of conservative Christians compare them to fascists is not unique in coarse political discourse... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jme9601 (talk • contribs) .
:I suspect that you may have misread the section.  I also suspect it belongs in Cult of masculinity as opposed to here.  Jkelly 22:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cult of Masculinity, however, was very much a fundamental, definingpart of Italian fascist doctrine, as any good historian of the period should be able to tell you. The Section should, perhaps, be renamed "Fasicism and the Cult of Masculinity" or "Fascism and Women". I would prefer the latter. It should include the fact that contraception was banned, abortion was stricly prohibited on pain of death (or something close to it) and that women were to be treated as servants of their husbands and as unemployed, housebound incubators for the good of the State. The parralels with the modern Christian Right of modern times are self-evident. Perhaps the term "Christian Right" can be removed, as it is implicit in all of the above charactersitics.--Lacatosias 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fascism and Women is an excellent link (in Italian) on the matter of fascism and women which confirms what I have stated above and much more. The whole site is very useful and well-documented. If you nedd help reading it, I will be glad to translate the relevent parts. --Lacatosias 09:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's hugely debatable, Sam Spade, about whether Fascism was ultimiately progressive and liberating for women (I am not just talking about the initial programme of the Italian Fascist party here). Indeed, I think it's very valid to point out that Fascism's form of oppression of women was largely formed due to existing conservative and religious inter-mixing with Fascism's practical ideology. Talking about 'Feminazis' (a term that is highly politicised and totally unfit for serious encyclopedia articles as something outside of a quote or an article about perspectives of modern chauvinists) is utterly ridiculous in this particular article, either way. Hauser 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright. I think the original point was simply that the direct comparison between "Fascism" and the "Christian Right" is not particualrly relevant to an Encyclopedia entry on Fascism. It might be better placed in Fascsim and ideology, now that I think of it. As I am the one who introcuded that particular phrasing, I will now remove it because I find it increasingly inappropiate (unless others insist on reverting it back in or something). However, I still think that a general section on "Fascism and Feminism" or "Fascism and Women" IS appropriate. I didn't think there were any problems with any of this. I do think we should take different views into account. --Lacatosias 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I acknowledge that fascism being liberating (for anybody other than the dictator ;) is hugely debatable. My point was more the fact that it was less than directly contrary to the womans movement, esp. regarding things like abortion, mother goddess worship, sexuality, and so forth. Including all signifigant and citable POV's is the way to go, and I ask that you give a glance @ the links I provided when writing up the new section. You may also want to consider keeping a summary here, and moving the bulk to Fascism and ideology if it ends up getting too long. Cheers, Sam Spade 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of similarity between Fascism and the Christian Right is pretty thin, even if it gets moved to the Fascism and ideology page, although moving the bulk of the remaining section on Feminism there and leaving a summary here makes a lot of sense as Sam points out.--Cberlet 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fascism and Feminism 

message: "Defining fascism is complicated and contentious. Many experts define the term quite differently and many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist. There is little agreement among historians, political scientists, and other scholars concerning the exact nature of fascism, although since the 1990's there has been a growing move toward consensus reflected in the work of Payne, Eatwell, Griffin, and Paxton. See Fascism and ideology."
This paragraph is totally defensible and has been amply cited on the linked page and thoroughly discussed. Those who promote the minority libertarian/conservative analysis of fascism have space on that page for these claims. Attempts to bias this page towards a particular minority view in the face of the overwhelming scholarly view is not appropriate, and has become tedious in the extreme.--Cberlet 13:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's preposterous to assert that there is "little agreement." There is a lot of agreement AND a lot of disagreement.  Nikodemos put in his edit summary for that that "there is in fact little agreement, as evidenced by the disputes on this page" That's not evidence of anything other than that the editors of this article can't agree (probably due to insufficient exposure to a large quantity of work from the "experts.") RJII 17:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What provides the evidence are the numerous books and journal articles about fascism and neo-fascism that start out by asserting that there is much contention and little agreement. I have cited the scholars who make such assertions. There is much disagreement but there is also the start of a "new consensus;" but even this is disputed. Outside of superficial dictionary definitions, there is still much disagreement, especially if you toss in the libertarians and the fans of Z. Sternhell. See this discussion:  and this essay by Eatwell: The Nature of Fascism: or Essentialism by Another Name?.  What scholars can you cite that claim there is much agreement?--Cberlet 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch!! That was a heavy blow indeed, C. I'll be waiting patiently for a response to that one some time this century.  (0:--Lacatosias 12:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholars and fascism and majority view

message: Is there a basis for the recent change of the date associated with the early fascist program from 1921 to 1919? -- Jmabel | Talk 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you consider the fasci di combattimentoled by Mussolini in 1919 to be a manifestation of early fascism (they were also known as "Black Shirts" and are listed as a "fascist organization" by several Italian web sites which deal with the subject), then their program would be properly identified as a fascist program. The intersting thing about this program, though, is that it is still steeped in rhetoric about the rivendication of the rights of the proletariate, demands for minimum wages and other syndalistic/socialist claims. There is not yet any explicit nationalism, corportism, organicism,  and other elements of what would evenetually become Italian fascism, except for the declaration that war and combat are ultimate goods. In this formal sense, the organiztion resembles something more along the lines of a violent Communist movement such as The Red Brigades in modern times. On a practical level, though, they had already begun engaging in mob-violence primarily against Communists, socialists and syndacalists.  So, as is usually the case with fascist movements, they were saying one thing and doing another. Also, the process of evolution (or devolution) toward the full-blown fascism of later on was still in its early stages. Theory and programs took some time to catch up with practice fundamnatally, IMHO. I think this is clear to every one. But, in any case,  here is the link to the program (in Italian) of the fasci di combattimento. The "doctrine" of Fascism,  it seems to me, was contantly changing over time in order serve the ends of Mussolini and his loal henchman. This is why it is so difficult to agree on definitions and essential concepts.--Lacatosias 13:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an important point. The meaning and use of the "doctrine" changed over time. For more translations in Englishe, see the list of links at Doctrine of Fascism.--Cberlet 15:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1919/1921 

message: We seem to have an over-representation of conservative/libertarian links and an under-representation of mainstream lnks.--Cberlet 03:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, more "mainstream" links need to be added. Go for it! Hogeye 03:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Conservative/libertarian IS mainstream. RJII 04:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is silly. Of course he's an anti-fascist. As am I. As, I presume, are RJII and Hogeye. And, frankly, the few "contributions" we've had on this page from avowed fascists or from fascist sympathizers have not been very useful: mostly, they have been efforts at a whitewash, not at elucidation on points that might have been missed by people not sharing their POV. As for High Times: I've never written for it, but two close friends, one of them an ex-housemate, have. High Times pays pretty well. If I were back to being a freelance writer and I had material appropriate for their format, I'd probably submit it to them. I don't go for their glorification and romanticization of drug culture, but somehow I doubt that is what Chip's article there would have been doing. As for "controversial person", who the hell isn't? The only way to be completely uncontroversial is to say nothing. I have my disagreements with him: we disagree about the ADL, with whom I had a falling out about 20 years ago (over matters quite unrelated to fascism), but he is certainly a respected scholar in his field and (quite unlike some people here) knows the difference between citing mainstream research and giving what is essentially one's own opinion after finding one vaguely citable source to support it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Discussions of the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism keep appearing on multiple pages. On what page does the section on Nazism and socialism belong?
Fascism and ideology---Nazism in relation to other concepts---Fascism and socialism---Nazism and socialism
Please discuss and vote on this dispute at  this talk page]. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazism and socialism - discuss and vote on which page text should appear

message: This page is *much* too long. I propose that a few sections be moved to their own article; for example Italian fascism (even though it is seen as "the true Fascism") and Fascism as an international phenomenon (maybe shorter title required). Both articles could be expanded and improved as separate articles. Piet 09:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Jkelly 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page length 

message: I just cut the following from the article, as completely unreferenced and not well-integrated into the article text.  
 Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian patriot and revolutionary was a fierce patriot and freedom fighter who, although started of as a communist (like Mussolini) later took to fascism. Although it is never openly and directly stated that he was a fascist, there is much evidence that he was one.
 He escaped from India where he was under house arrest and then travelled to Nazi Germany via Afghanistan. There after he met with the Fuehrer whom he asked for military support to drive the British out of India. He also asked Hitler for advice on how to get freedom for India as he considered Hitler to be 'an older, more experienced and a successful revolutionary'.
 He was an extremist patriot and nationalist, He believed in use of force and military means to do good for the Motherland. His call was 'give me blood and I will gice you freedom'. This statement shows that he indeed considered the Motherland to be superior to the individual.
 Hitler's ideology too was similar. The 'Fatherland' in this case was superior to the individual's interest and he too believed in the use of force(see Beer Hall Putsch).
 Hitler was known as the Fuehrer or leader by his fellow patriots and supporters. Mussolini was called Il Duce. Analogous to these titles was the Hindi word 'Netaji' which was what Bose was called by his supporters.
 In his writings, speeches and meetings Bose strongly hinted at having a military dictatorship in India, at least for a few years to patch up the damage that the Englsh had done. It was ovious who the dictator would be.
 Hitler pointed out that it would be at least a year before direct help could be given by Germany. In the meantime he would use the Indian prisoners of war from Africa (see Rommel) to fight the British forces in France. The Indian soldiers were absorbed into the SS and were of 'diabolical efficiency'.
 Bose was taken to the Cape of Good Hope by German U-boats and then received by the Japanese. He then Reached Japan and Singapore and took over all command of the Indian National Army. He declared India a free country and formed a Provisional Government of Free India with him at the Head. This was recognised as a Government in exile by the Axis and their satellites. This was the furthest any man would go towards independence on their own.
 The Indian National Army under him managed to put up an extremely intense fight in North Eastern India and achieved considerable success there. Finally, the British sent their special forces to fight the Indians in the Assam Hills. For some time, both the armies came to a standstill because of heavy rainfall. The INA later was disbanded after Japan's surrender.
 However, the constant was with Hitler had the British soldiers weary. Five years of constant fighting with the deadliest war machine ever built, the British were out of resources. All rebellion of the people was put down by the British using the British Indian Army but now, with Bose's and Hitler's efforts even this was not possible. Thus the British were forced to vacate India. 
 No one knows for sure if Bose or Hitler lived to see this day.
Anyone know what to make of this?  Jkelly 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facism in India