Talk:Fascism/Archive 11

message: Andy and others do not fool me for one minute.  The Word "Fascism" is a tool of propaganda to beat their oppenents into submission by saying it is of the right.  
I read the books, Elements of Socialism by Spargo of l925 and I have read the book, One World by John Kiang l993?.  Do you wonder why Hitler said, "We are the executors of Marxism stripped of its Jewish Talmudic influences".    What does he mean by "stripped of its Jewish Talmudic influences".  What did Sorel, Proudhon, and others dislike about Marxism.  It's internationalism, and pacifism.  These leftists want to use Fascism in order to herd people into their globalization.  Spargo talks of the Socialists as building a "World unity that is older than Christianty".  John Kiang, who is also leftist, says that internationalism comes from Karl Marx.  It is the Jewish influence in all this that makes it international.  
Fascism, for them, can not be defined.  They don't want it to be because it is a tool of propaganda in order to march all into a World Unity.  
Don't pull the wool over my eyes.  I know what is going on.  You can not fool me.  If you want to be internationalists that's fine by me.  But what is not fine, is you're trying to manipulate Fascism so that you can use it as a tool of propaganda.
What Andy and others want *"is to re-interpret"* Fascism according to *"modern"* sensibilities  and *"mould"* Fascism in their *"likeness"*.  This is called Revisionism.  Revisionism according to Marxist ideology in order to beat their opponents and scare everyone away from nationalism.  They don't want to Fascism as the Fascist see themselves, They want to *"redefine"* it.  Andy says this all the time.
They will never admit that Fascism is leftist.  It has many parts to it.  It is REVOLUTIONARY.   They can't admit that because that is "leftist" character.  It is a ANTI-MATERIALIST REVISION of Marxism.  Can't allow that either.  They only thing they point to is the NATIONALIST character of Fascism.  But who says nationalism is rightist if it has always occured in human history everywhere?  Only Marxists define nationalism as rightist.  Like they define anyone who opposes them as "reactionary".  Final point, They will not say "Fascism" is "FUTURIST" because that is leftist character too. 
Proudhon and Sorel are rightists, right?  The only rightist influence in Fascism is Mauras and Action Francaise.  But he wasn't an orthodox Christian and he was confused thinker like the rest of these jokers, Proudhon and Soret, et al. are WHEELER 14:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What this is all about

message: The following text is repeated twice on the page:
Mussolini wrote in his 1932 treatise, The Doctrine of Fascism: "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State."
It seemed to fit in both locations, so I wasn't sure which should be removed.  Any ideas?
jaredwf 07:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated quote

message: I may be fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think someone should be calling down God seventeen times in one passage during a discussion about an unbiased treatment of fascism.  Besides the fact that I don't think God would be terribly thrilled with the idea of fascism, WHEELER (especially the God of which I read in the Gospels), it has no relevance at all.  Marxism is explicitly atheistic, indeed, but besides that I don't know how you're arguing it is offensive to some sort of divine plan and therefore fascism arose to protect us from evil godless commies. Wally 01:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You answer your own question, by pointing out the atheism of Communism. Thats the only thing that seperates it from facism, IMO. Anyways, this is an argument that is not going to be solved here, because the words Left, Right, and Socialist mean different things to the different people involved. They are poorly defined words in the best of situations, and we'd prob. be MUCH better off w/o them, both here and in general. In anycase the wiki  is ment to provide opposing POV's, not take a particular POV as its own. NPOV is to be found in the diversity of thought, not the singularity. Oh, and BTW, this entire discussion can be solved with one word: Totalitarianism. Sam Spade 02:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Of course we must, but I would suggest as little, and as fairly, as possible. Sam Spade 03:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Gah, Wally, be careful with the word "liberal".  Any place other than the US, it would make no sense to say that socialism or communism is "ultra-liberal" economically. john 07:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the word "left" any better? I find it pathetic how much time we waste debating w/o bothering to clarify terms. Semantics is the root of most arguments, not difference of opinion. Sam Spade 07:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fresh thoughts

message: It looks like there has been a lot of discussion here over the past few days. I'm not sure I can address everything that has been said, but I'm going to do my best to address as much as I can.
#The claim that "...fascism and socialism are the same thing..." seems to me disingenuous. There is, indeed, a perfectly good (albeit controversial) word -- totalitarianism -- that refers (correctly in my view) to certain fascist states and to certain states that claim to be socialist. Yes, the Soviet Union and its satellites (especially in the Stalinist era) had much in common with Hitler's Germany and the puppet regimes it established elsewhere. However, this is a large part of why so many socialists today (and many even at the time) reject (or highly qualify, as when the Trotskyists referred to the Soviet union as a "deformed worker's state") the description of these states as "socialist." (The other large part being the creation of a privileged coordinator class.) Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler's Germany "wasn't really fascist?"*  Similarly, does anyone seriously claim that Sweden even in its most socialistic era was totalitarian? I suppose a few might claim the latter, but they tend to be the same people who called Eisenhower a communist, so I have a hard time taking them seriously. The resemblances seem to me to belong in the article on totalitarianism. I would expect a certain amount of discussion of totalitarianism in an article on fascism or on state communism, and about a one-sentence mention in an article on socialism. I would expect that the issue of totalitarianism being a point of resemblance between fascism and state communism would deserve a section in the article on fascism and the article on state communism, but I would not expect it to permeate either article.
#: * I suppose the case could be made that the term "fascism" should only be applied to a narrow band of ideology closer to that of Mussolini, but there is no question at all that in common usage in every language of Western Europe, "fascism" includes "Nazism." I think the article as it stands does a good job of treating with both meanings.
#On the other hand, the degree to which early fascism, especially in Italy, had some roots in the left is probably worth explorationin this article, with solid facts and documentation. Much as we have a section "Nazism and socialism" in the article on "Nazism" (which, by the way, could certainly use expansion in its discussion of Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser, and Ernst Röhm), this article deserves a solid section on the involvement of former socialists (including Mussolini himself) and anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists in the formation of fascism. In particular, there is clearly a direct link from the anarchist doctrine of Direct Action into the tactics of the Italian fascists. The Futurists certainly fit into this context as well. However, again, I think it is important to see that these people were (maybe not instantly, but over time) leaving socialism behind as they became fascists and as the doctrines of fascism solidified. Saying that they remained socialists is like saying that Irving Kristol remained a Trotskyist. It's worth quoting some third party to that effect, and it's worth looking at the influence of a person's early ideological orientation on his or her later thinking, but it is -- I find myself using the same word again -- disingenuous to pretend that there was no political conversion involved.
#It is reasonable to quote a particular scholar to the effect that the origins of fascism can be traced to the French Revolution, just as it would be reasonable to quote another scholar who traces them back to Plato. However, it would be absolutely inappropriate to state this controversial thesis as non-controversial fact, stated in the narrative voice of the article. 
#Is anyone actually objecting to the substance of the paragraph in the article that currently begins, "The Doctrine of Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile..."? I would consider that rock-solid and well-researched. I would hope we could all agree than any further discussion of the origin of fascism would be supplemental to that, rather than replacing it.
#I find myself pretty much in agreement with Diderot's various remarks. He seems to have more detailed knowledge on some points than I would, but on everything I know about, his remarks seem to conform to what I know. Nothing more to add on that front.
#I'm having trouble understanding some of what Wheeler is trying to say. Wheeler, are you claiming that Proudhon and the anarcho-syndicalists should be considered fascists, rather than merely people some of whose ideas and tactics influenced fascism? Or if that's not what you are trying to say, could you give me a paraphrase in a few sentences of what you see the relation being? Present-day anarchists also consider Proudhon an important (if problematic) intellectual ancestor. Surely you are not saying that all anarchists are secretly fascists. Or maybe you are. I really can't tell. (And, by the way, while there are many topics where I think Marx's opinions are to be taken seriously, his assessment of his anarchist rivals is certainly not one of them.)
#As I read through this page, I find it harder and harder to take Wheeler seriously. Fascism as "leftist"? The Tower of Babel? 
#BTW, I don't think more than a passing reference to "left" and "right" is needed in this article. I'd let the facts speak for themselves.
#By the way, despite my ethnic background, if there is a vast international Jewish conspiracy, they've never asked me to join. 
Jmabel 04:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that overall. I esp. like the acceptance of differing views, the embrace of the term "Totalitarianism", and the shunning of the Left/Right dicotomy. Sam Spade 04:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I am in general concurrence as well.  I still wonder about the idea of not having socialism or communism vs. fascism sections in the relevant articles - perhaps that could be its own page?  Or maybe it doesn't need to be treated at all - just link them, and let people draw what other conclusions they will. Wally 04:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jmabel's two cents