Talk:Fascism/Archive 12

message: :As far as I can tell, no one is rejecting examining "socialist aspects of fascism." What they (we) are objecting to is larding the article every point of coincidence between the two ideologies, for the same reasons that I (at least) would object to larding the article with every point of coincidence between fascism and U.S. government policies. -- Jmabel 22:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidence has nothing to do w anything that should be in the article. We are talking about BIG, obvious stuff, like this . Sam Spade 23:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Did you even bother to read the info on that link? Your insults are uncalled for, and I will stop responding to you entirely if you persist with them. This portion is particularly telling, BTW.  Sam Spade 23:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: You are right that I think "state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic". So do these   references. As I have been telling you all along, until we settle on one definition, its useless to discuss anything w words you have redefined to fit your ideosyncratic idealism. Sam Spade 18:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Do you know what a Volkswagon is? How about War economy or John Maynard Keynes? Sam Spade 19:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate over terms

message: I don't think that there's anything particularly problematic in claiming that the revolutionary nationalism and the ideological ferment of the late 19th century are at the roots of socialism and fascism.  The thing is, that same context is at the roots of radical libertarianism, anarchism, Christian fundamentalism, and encompasses the intellectual ancestors of neoliberalism.  The problem is investigating it in a way that doesn't require a full PhD thesis to explain properly.  If we are to link the roots of fascism and socialism, we need to point out that the same kinds of links tie capitalism to fascism and socialism.
As for the "socialist aspects of fascism", I object to any effort to highlight them above the "capitalist aspects of socialism" - e.g., its links to German industry, to Taylorism, to financiers and industrialists like Ford and the Junkers clan, to the market nationalism of the old Prussians.  Gregor used to claim that fascism was a synthesis of all the poltical doctrines of the 19th century.  He considered that a good thing and I don't, but as far as it goes it might have some truth to it.  But if that is the direction this article is going to take, it needs to show how fascism drew on many - by all appearances more - right wing doctrines than left wing ones.
Diderot 12:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Diderot. There are plenty of aspects of the roots of fascism which could well be examined. The goal is not to prove Fascism left or right, socialist or non, but rather to provide the reader w an informative article. Examining these various aspects would serve the reader well, I should say. Sam Spade 20:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: WHEELER, you're simply restating your original claim and ignoring everything everyone has said. Please read the comments people have made and address them. AndyL 19:54, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Perspectives

message: I'm sorry, but I must agree with Jmabel.  I think it's a fairly common historical fact that the "national socialist" agenda really has little to do with actual socialism; what's more, the website you linked can hardly be considered either a credible or a professional, nonbiased source.  It is blatantly propagandistic in nature, and whoever wrote it has an obvious agenda outside the truth.
Do socialism and Hitlerian, Mussolinian fascism have some common threads?  Sure.  If anything, it's because socialism sounds really good.  No matter what you think of the doctrines therein, to most people, it just does.  Before the word became demonized in American press, and people had attention spans such that they'd read deeply into the subject, it's a very appealing idea, especially to a desperately poor, unenfranchised people.  It promises the stars; free this, free that, we can help you.  Whether fascism erupts out of that, obviously, depends upon the leader.  It seems clear to me that what Hitler and Mussolini did was, essentially, piggyback socialism into office and then proceed with their higher agenda, by which time people were so enamored with them that they didn't see a need, nor possess a desire, to object to their action.  Hence why Hitler KILLED all the Leftists (first part banned was the Social Democrats, you know).
In any case, the idea that they're inextricably linked at their very core is foolhardy and an injustice to the productive, harmonious, free and safe socialist societies out there (Sweden was mentioned, Norway also, Denmark, Britain, France, Spain and Italy in major ways...). There are ties, but not ones that are particularly significant today or, for that matter, then - only a matter of political expediency to those with an agenda, like blaring about despising taxes in an election year.  Everyone despises taxes - until they're the ones spending the money. Wally 03:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps s/socialist/social democratic/ . Due to the fact that there are americans editing wikipedia, both socialism and fascism articles are as confusing as can possibly be. Hmm, I'd speculate  that this might be because folks from the US have little practical experience with either, but still make up the majority of editors. see also : Talk:Socialism#Interlanguage
Actually, Hitler did not kill all the leftists, and the Communists were the first party banned.  I have no idea what this comment directly above mine means. john 09:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address to Sam's Last in "Spinoffs" 

message: The following paragraph has been removed. 
:The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes and the middle classes. Also with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capitalists. A key feature of fascism is that it uses it's mass movement to attack the organisations of the working class - parties of the left and trades unions.
May I ask if it's considered factually false, or if it's just the wording that motivates its removal?
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
* as the edit comment stated, it is phrased as marxist propaganda. i am unfamiliar with the relavent composition stats. Badanedwa 04:31, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
* I can't speak to it, but it seems factually accurate to me from where I am; I'm not intimately familiar with the movements themselves, however, rather more with fascists in government and post-revolution. Wally 06:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  social composition of Fascist movements 

message: Hi, I've just noticed the request posted by Kim Bruning on :it:Discussioni:Fascismo, for a coordination of the articles in en: it: and de:.
Itlaian wikipedia is still relatively small, and this is a subject on which we are starting to discuss. As you can imagine this is a hot topic in Italy, as we have some problem to discuss it in an NPOV fashion. I still haven't read the english article, but I would like to tell that, afaik, the term fascism in english has a broader meaning than in italian. In Italy, Fascismo is bound to italian fascism, the extension to other similar forms of regime (especially nazism), is always debated by the right, while the left tends to make no distinction of the two.
Aniway seems we are starting to discuss on it, if the thing evolves, we will let you know what we will come up with.
Regards, Snowdog 07:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  On preventing duplication of effort (it)