Talk:Fascism/Archive 7

message: Can someone summarise why anyone would believe that the SU should be thought of as fascist? Marnanel 04:56, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
: The Soviet Union, as does China, meets the criteria for the definition of Fascism given in the article
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism). 
The article goes into further depth pertaining to German and Italian Fascism, but does not define fascism exclusive as either of these, so it would be a logical conclusion that the Soviet Union could still qualify as a fascist state because the do meet the criteria listed in the definition. 
This should not put up to a vote. Historical fact should not be an area where a consensus decides what is and is not true. 
I have made a logical case, and if people dont want me playing in what they deem to be tier own exclusive sandbox, then so be it. 
I will go along with whatever the results of the vote are. TDC 05:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For more discussion of this see further up in the talk page, or perhaps in archives, I'm not sure.  (I outlined there, for instance, several aspects of this article's own definition of fascism - such as that it was anti-communist - which doesn't fit with, well, communism) BTW, this absolutely is not a question of "historical fact" but of judgment.  "Fascism" is not a word with a particularly clear meaning, so determining if the Soviet Union was fascist is not like the question of determining what day Stalin died, or who won the Battle of Hastings.  john 05:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll: Should the Soviet Union and other communist states be listed as fascist regimes in this article?

message: #TDC 05:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: #john 04:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: # Encyclopedic content cannot be determined by vote. Kim Bruning 13:04, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose or decline the vote

message: Um that, and please please check: Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. Thanks
Kim Bruning 13:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, didn't really follow the guidelines, did I?  At any rate, my purpose in doing this was to try to quickly resolve the edit conflict one war or another (Hopefully by showing TDC that a vast consensus of users disagrees with his version of how things are), so that we can unprotect the page and work on it. john 17:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um I'm kind of waiting to see when you'll at least make a pass at following those you can still follow. :-) Kim Bruning 11:44, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Polling Guidelines

message: Unrelated to the current argument, but doesn't the article give rather too much credit to Franco and Salazar as "fascists"?  It seems to suggest that there is a general consensus that these regimes are fascist.  This is extremely dubious with respect to Salazar, and, I think, questionable with respect to Franco.  Furthermore, to treat Franco's relationship to the Falange as equivalent to Mussolini's and Hitler's with their parties is very questionable.  I'd also note that this page focuses far too much on fascist regimes (of which there have been few genuine cases - only Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy can, I think, be called fascist without qualification, plus maybe some of the German puppet regimes in occupied Europe - although even here we should be careful about, say, calling Vichy fascist, given the very strong conservative traditionalist trends within the Vichy government, represented not least by PÃ©tain himself) as opposed to fascist movements, of which there were a large number (British Union of Fascists, the Falange, Doriot and DÃ©at's organizations in France in the 30s and under Vichy, Arrow Cross in Hungary, Iron Guard in Romania, and so forth...).
More broadly regarding this argument, I'd argue (as usual, perhaps) for a more historical perspective on fascism, discussing its origins with Mussolini, and then the spread of various fascist and quasi-fascist movements to other parts of Europe, and so forth.  Avoid the poli-sci/theoretical stuff as much as possible, especially given the extent to which fascism is, in fact, rather difficult to fit into any coherent theoretical framework.  And BTW, surely it only escalates the conflict to make what you know will be highly controversial edits and then put "NPOV" as the subject summary.  john 06:00, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wheeler, TDC, Sam Spade Opps - I should avoid sweeping generalizations! That combination changes. Moe, Larry, Curly from '34- '37. Then there's Moe, Larry, and Shemp. Less remembered are Moe, Larry, and Joe; and Moe, Larry, and Curly Joe are in '50s episodes. Even that answer depends on the context! Here are some pics: http://www.lunkhead.net/stoogepics/mls/stoogepics2.html 172 17:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Various thoughts on the article in general

message: Actually, WHEELER,  the "original research" (and much of the writing) is taken wholease  from another wikipedia article Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships (and no, I did not write it there either). But I was reading Hobsbawm's "The Age of Extremes" yesterday and it makes the same points. 
"Andy prove in the works of George Sorel, Peguy, Bergson, that they referenced at all Novum Reverum?" I doubt they do WHEELER but that's beside the point. You're assuming that Mussolini's influences are just the ones that he listed. The fact is that Rerum Novarum (that's the name, not Novum Reverum) had a tremendous influence on the Italian right and put out the ideas of corparatism and it is this idea that influenced Mussolini. It's irrelevent whether a) he's aware of the geneology or b) he mentions it. Others have observed it and its pretty common sensical to deduce, due to the church's influence in Italy, particularly on the Italian right that it's not purely coincidental that the ideas of Rerum Novarum happen to pop up in Mussolini's fascist doctrines. Why don' t you read Rerum Novarum and see for yourself it's here
As for the links between Reurm Novarum and fascism see these notes on the Origins of Fascism :
"III. Clerical Conservatism
1. Clerical conservatism was a direct heir of the aristocratic conservatism over which the bourgeoisie triumphed in 19th century. The Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII (1891) gave clerical conservatism its charter.
2. In 1920 the Church everywhere sought to resist socialism and offered the alternative of an ordered, hierarchical, undemocratic, corporative state. This notion of a state found realization in Spain, Portugal, Austria, and Hungary.
3. These countries established clerical conservative states largely because their social structure had not changed very much since the 1890s.
4. In the highly industrialized countries the middle class was not only the effective ruling class but had also absorbed large sections of the other classes. In these countries the landed classes were turned into tributaries of the middle class. The middle class in industrialized countries also drew to itself, largely out oft he working class, a large "lower middle class" (artisans, shopkeepers, petty civil servants, skilled workers)."
--
also see Religion and Fascism by Roger Eatwell]
AndyL 16:53, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, Andy, I wouldn't call this "original research" at all!  You are not working with primary sources in order to make your own claims about Fascism and the Church; you are researching other scholars who have made various claims.  I think this is what researching an encyclopedia is all about -- thanks!  Maybe WHEELER was referring to something else?  Otherwise, perhaps he just misunderstands the difference between the kind of research we are supposed to do for Wikipedia, and primary research.  So far, it seems to me that WHEELER has just paraphrased a few essays about fascism on the web (this is not "original research," although I do think it is a particularly bad idea to do research for a web article by looking at other web articles; the best scholarship is still in books and academic journals); restated the argument in much stroger or even radically different terms -- this is where I see him doing something more like writing a personal essay; and then providing a bunch of direct quotes, with no contextualization and analysis and just a very superficial interpretation.  TDC seems to operate the same way.  Perhaps we (or you and John an 172) ought to put together a new "article" on how to do research for a wikipedia article?  In any event, I and several others have very patiently tried to explain to WHEELER what was wrong with his method, and why context is important, and instead of learning from us he just got defensive and sarcastic.  That doesn't bode well!  In any event, thanks both for the work you have done and for explaining to all of us how one might go about doing constructive research. Slrubenstein
Look, Mussolini says it is Sorel, Peguy and the L-guy and Renan. Look up these individuals and there are references to Henre Bergson.  There is a knowledge trail. Where does Mussolini refer to Rerum Novum at all?  Please quote.  I followed the knowledge trail provided by Mussolini himself in the Doctrine of Fascism. Where is this Rerum Novum in the Doctrine of Fascism?  Please give me the knowledge trail of this information where Mussolini refers to it or the people he says influenced him.WHEELER 17:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Original Research" on Catholicism and fascism