Talk:Fascism and ideology

Archive

• /Archive 1

Next stage of discussion

The consensus is that the section on the relationship between Fascism and socialism and Nazism and socialism should remain here on this page.

Nikodemos posted: "(yes, I agree there is no discussion, but that it because old discussion has died down, not because npov has been achieved)" and flagged the page as totally disputed. So, Nikodemos, who the heck are you talking to? What discussion would you like to have? :-) --Cberlet 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not about where the section belongs, but rather about what the section contains. As of now, it has two major problems: (1) It gives enormous undue weight to the Austrian School, and (2) it is biased towards the "Nazis were socialists" side. The rest of the article has bias issues as well, such as the section about allegations of fascism in the USA not containing relevant material currently present in neofascism. -- Nikodemos 09:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would work on it myself, I really would, if only I had the time. I intend to find the time as soon as possible, in fact, but, meanwhile, I believe the page needs at least a NPOV and cleanup tag. The current Austrian School section seems to be an unnecessarily long-winded way of explaining that Austrian School economists consider any form of state intervention in the economy to be socialistic, and therefore the fascists and Nazis (along with Roosevelt, all of Europe and most of the world) fall under the socialist category. -- Nikodemos 09:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Who decided that Nazism is a form of fascism? That is no more an accepted fact than that Nazism is socialism. NPOV =/= majoritarianism, poll results, or any other form of popularity contest. You can discuss if nazism is fascism, and if fascism is socialism on this page, but the debate as to if nazism is socialism needs to be had elsewhere, for the sake of neutrality. NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

Sam Spade 10:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I don't care where the discussion gets placed, as long as it stays there. -- Nikodemos 10:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars who have worked out a definition of "fascism" as a phenomenon broader than just Italian Fascism have "decided that Nazism is a form of fascism," in the same way that the scholars who defined "totalitarianism" decided that Nazism was a form of totalitarianism. While either of these concepts - "fascism" and "totalitarianism," may be invalid, it doesn't make any sense to talk about them without talking about Nazism. The former concept was derived at essentially out of efforts to compare Nazism to Italian Fascism, while the latter derived from comparisons of Nazism to the Soviet Union. Nazism is a fundamental part of any scholarly definition of either fascism or totalitarianism. It is not a fundamental part of any definition I have ever seen of socialism, although various writers have tried to make a connection between the two. Categorizing Nazism as socialist is a fundamentally different activity than categorizing it as fascist or totalitarian. The latter is an essential part of any discussion of "fascism" or "totalitarianism" in general, while the former is a controversial theory which is not widely accepted, and is certainly not essential to any discussion of "socialism." john k 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you havn't noticed there has been a rolling battle to cover such a discussion up, I assume because of the stigma it has for leftists who want to distance themselves from appearing nazi-like. The funny thing is, censoring is what totalitarians do. Sam Spade 10:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking. This article currently goes out of its way to find links between fascists and the left. By the way, I will vehemently oppose any attempt to make arguments based on reductio ad Hitlerum or give extensive coverage to such arguments made by others. You seem to be looking at inclusion the wrong way around. Regardless of whether Nazis were right or left, it is beyond absurd to affirm that half the political spectrum (either half) is "nazi-like". -- Nikodemos 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! You couldn't have understood me less. First of all the wikipedia is no example of any part of the political spectrum. Instead it is a tiny fish tank, where the views of a handful of people are over-represented, and the views of the majority (and significant minorities) are often ignored. Lastly I only used the word "leftist" for lack of a better word, the left right dichotomy is a false one. In short, this information has been moved all over heck and back because it embarasses socialists. It started at Socialism, moved to nazism and socialism, then went to Nazism in relation to other concepts, and is now here. That was not done in the interests of the readers, but rather because of the agenda's of the editors. Sam Spade 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the way this issue has been tossed around. One of my pet ideas is creating some sort of permanent NPOV tag to be placed on controversial articles that are more likely than not to be POV at any given time. I am of the opinion that certain articles and sections are hopelessly POV and will always remain that way (though the actual POV may change depending on which side gains the upper hand). -- Nikodemos 11:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Template:Calm talk? It is supposed to be like that. Sam Spade 11:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's a Talk page template... -- Nikodemos 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

To Sam Spade. The vote was to keep the material on this page. At least give it a rest for a few months. The claim that Nazism is not a form of fascism is a marginal view not share by the majority of serious scholars of fascism. We have been over this and over this.

To Nikodemos. Putting a dispute tag up and then saying you don't have the time or inclination to edit is just rude and disruptive. While marginal, the Austrian School arguments are well-known and deserve to be discussed in some detail.

This page attempts a compromise that has reduced edit warring on several pages. This in itself is worth supporting, and sometimes that means that editors have to live with some material with which they disagree. Think about it. There is much material on this page that I find annoying, and even dubious. Let's add more cited text rather than contining an endless round of circular debate.--Cberlet 13:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how a dispute tag can be disruptive; a tag is merely a warning to our readers regarding the contents of a certain article, and the quality and neutrality of those contents does not change depending on whether there is discussion on the Talk page or not. I will, however, re-arrange my priorities and get to editing this article ASAP.

As for the Austrian School's arguments, the way to deal with marginal or fringe views is to discuss them in detail on the page dealing with the persons who expressed those views. In other words, a detailed discussion of the Austrian School belongs on the Austrian School page. What we should have here is a summary. At the very least, I am sure you realize how inappropriate it is to give roughly equal space to the Austrians on the one hand and everyone else on the other. -- Nikodemos 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the idea of discussing Nazism in a separate article is not necessarily derived from an assumption that Nazism is not fascism. There are several cases on wikipedia where a prominent branch of a wider ideology gets treated with the same standards (similar articles etc.) as its parent ideology. Liberalism and libertarianism have corresponding articles, for example, and so do socialism and communism. -- Nikodemos 17:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism is not a parent ideology for nazism. They happened to form a coalition, and were hierarchical socialist axis powers the similarities don't go much further. Sam Spade 23:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We are all aware of your views, Sam Spade, and most of us are aware that you repeatedly ignore the consensus to push your POV. It would be refreshing if you would seek consensus rather than misrepresenting the majority scholarship on this question.--Cberlet 03:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be awesome if you read consensus and NPOV sometime. Sam Spade 15:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus in my reading does not extend to include one person ignoring a vote to keep certain text here[1], and recreating a page with the same text that now has been moved to other pages,[2], and removing the redirect [3].--Cberlet 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one claiming consensus, or believing in the power of votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Nazism =/= fascism. Sam Spade 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But NPOV is not a synonym for "what Sam believes to be true". As far as I can tell, "Nazism in relation…" is effectively a POV fork. When the POV is yours, that does not magically make it neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 19:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be a good page to discuss whether or not Fascism =/= Naziism?

Militarism

This was added anonymously by someone whose remark explicitly claims it to be NPOV; I quite disagree.

"Militarism is perhaps the most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism. Of course, there are many liberals in America who support the military and even call for increased military spending. Even so, American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives. Left-wing activists and intellectuals often claim that Neoconservatives, like Hitler, see the military as a paradigm for problem solving (even in situations that may render militarism impractical or unethical)"

1. While I agree that militarism is more extensive on the right than on the left in America, calling it "most striking similarity between Fascism and contemporary American conservatism" is going awfully far. Fascism absolutely glorified the military as a model to aspire to, not really a particularly popular view on the American right.
2. "American liberals are traditionally more skeptical of the military than American conservatives"? Depends on what you mean by "traditionally". And whom you call a liberal. Eisenhower, a centrist, coined the phrase "military-industrial complex". The vast majority of U.S. military casualties in the last century of so have occurred under liberal Democratic presidents, and most of the ones under a Republican president are under Eisenhower, who inherited the Korean War from Truman. Certainly the U.S. decision to retain a large standing military after World War II had as much support from liberals as from conservatives (though not from the farther left). Yes, far more opposition to war in the U.S. this last 50 years has come from the left than from the right, but support from liberals (or "liberals") is not hard to find. Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign. Or Hillary Clinton's incipient 2008 campaign.
3. Neoconservatives, on the whole, are pro-military. But the reductio ad Hitlerum here just seems to me like a random cheap shot. (And why is it always Hitler, not, say, Mussolini or Dollfuss or Horthy?) None of the neoconservatives people follow the fascist style of adopting military garb, or applying military organization to their own party.

-- Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you removed that POV garbage...this is what I don't like about anon editing...I wish login was more rigorous, and required. Anon changes should ned approval or something...Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you are saying about this.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Obscure views belong on this page

As much as I am inclined to agree with the ridiculousness of comparing American neo-conservative militarism to ideological fascism, equally as ridiculous is the INCESSANT COMPARING of Roosevelt's New Deal to IDEOLOGICAL fascism. Does anyone else here think it's given far too much time in discussions where it could simply be put as a minor footnote? After all, it's a view that is held by a tiny proportion of academics (I'd argue the same size as those who compare neo-conservativism and fascism) and is in reality absolutely nothing to do with Fascist ideology. I am thus editing it to make it more reasonable. Cheers, Hauser 12:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Relax. This is exactly the page to detail these claims in an NPOV manner. This entire page is a "footnote" to the various other pages on fascism and nazism. Please do not cut material simply becasue you disagree with it. And we probably should add a section on those who "compare neo-conservativism and fascism." I have restored the cut text. The rewrite was otherwise very good. Please be aware that this page was created preceisely to air these claims. Check the discussion history.--Cberlet 14:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on your toes there (I'm a non-American fan of the PRA, if you don't mind me saying!), and I probably was not clear enough about why I chopped out the text (particularly the quotes of Flynn and Stromberg).I did not cut out the material simply because I disagreed with it, but rather that my edit of the section effectively synthesised the meaningful elements of right wing criticism of the New Deal. The problem with that which was posted there now is that it no longer coherently flows in that there is a clear paragraph about the criticisms of FDR's policies by those on the neo-liberal right, then there is that seperate section entirely again seeming to claim it is exactly what is already dealt with in the above section. I deleted the quotes of Stromberg's because, primarily, they are unnecessary, and hardly represent a 'historic view' by the Right on FDR's policies (considering how recently they were written). Following Wikipedia policy, I think it's absolutely imperative to get rid of quotes that can only really be presented in a manner that deceives the reader into thinking they're part of widespread POV, when in fact they are not . With regard to Flynn, it just seems totalyl extraneous having that large list, something that a) takes up far too much room b) is a relatively unusual perspective and c) looks rather ugly with regard to the flow of the page. It just seems silly to me that so much of the page is dominated by a discussion of Fascism in the United State, when in fact the discussion of ideological fascism inside the United States is nowhere near as important academically as ideological fascism in Europe. As part of the Wikiproject Fascism, it really does get tiring looking from page to page seeing huge chunks of text devoted to totally unacademic comparisons of FDR and Fascism! Cheers,Hauser 14:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the name of the page to Debates about Fascism and Ideology, but what you are not giving enough weight to is that this page was a compromise arrived at after lengthy and often acrimonious discussion. I am in favor of moving all the detailed discussions about FDR and Fascism to this page, and removing the tiresome attempts by a tiny handful of POV editors to spray their ideological territory in wider Wiki acreage. We can take a spade and weed the garden, but simply digging it up and composting it is not a useful option. Yes, much of this discussion is based on the views of tiny minority arguments, but by having it here and can be tended to in a neat space. I agree with everything you say above, excpet for how easy it is to remove the text. Just wait. :-) --Cberlet 16:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neo-fascism

"Contemporary neo-fascism and allegations of neofascism are covered in a number of other articles rather than on this page"

It is not fair to simply trim a list when the pages linked are relevant. Not everyone agrees, but since the list is prefaced with "allegations of neofascism" it is appropriate to list the KKK, and de Benoist, etc.--Cberlet 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the linked articles would have anything to do with Neo-fascism, I would expect the start of the those articles to make such a qualification. Any thoughts? Intangible 19:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the linked pages do, in fact, mention neofascism. Your approach seems overly didactic to me. Especially if there are "allegations" of neofascism that are disputed. An encyclopedia is supposed to help readers explore ideas.--Cberlet 19:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind if I add George W. Bush to the list? Intangible 19:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to have a serious discussion, fine. If you want to waste my time with silly games, I do not want to play.--Cberlet 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So when should someone who is alleged to be a (neo)-fascist be included in the list? If there is no clear wikipedia consensus in the first lines of an article to qualify the subject as neo-fascist I think you cannot include them in the list. Intangible 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is pure sophistry. The issue has nothing to do with consensus on this page or on how the target page is written. It has to do with sending readers to pages where there is a meaningful discussion involving neo-fascism, which is itself not the main aspect of this page. The consensus is represented on the linked page, which mentions neo-fascism. The KKK is an example where the link is questionable. If you want to ask for comments from other editors, please do so. Otherwise this is a total waste of time. If you want to go to each target page and argue that the mention of neofascism is improper, please do so.Otherwise this is a total waste of time.--Cberlet 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

1. KKK - No mention at all it is an (alleged) neo-fascist organization.
2. Nouvelle Droite - Except for a unsourced statement alleging it's a neo-neo-fascist organization, nothing else. So who is alleging the Nouvelle Droite to be a neo-fascist political movement?
3. Alain de Benoist - Only a reference to a 20+ year old article by Sheehan. Who is alleging de Boist to be a neo-fascist - only Sheehan 20 years back? Benoist has written tons of articles, so you would expect more allegations then.
4. producerism - From the the article: "Variations of producerist narratives can be found in political movements and parties across the political spectrum." So linking to this form the here is spurious at best, since it is not a defining characteristic of neo-fascist movements.

Intangible 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

<-----I note that Intangible is sytematically going through Wikipedia sanitizing articles about neo-fascist movements. I understand there is room on Wikipedia for apologists for neofascism, but I do want to make it clear that arbitrary confrontations in support of a POV favorable to conoversial groups and movements identified by some scholars as neofascist is not appropriate. It is POV pushing. --Cberlet 15:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Sanitizing? See also, Wikipedia:NOR. Intangible 15:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than simplying deleting, challenging existing text, and adding fact flags, how about adding cites to back up what is well-known research into neofascism? This is not about original research, it is about dismissing 20 years of scholarly research into neofascism.--Cberlet 16:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not just list the books instead, and leave the rest of the article empty? That will do the job then. Intangible 16:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Note though that your listing in the further reading sections is POV pushing. Did GRECE and Alain de Benoist never write anything? Intangible 16:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing the major scholarly works is hardly POV pushing. If you want to add quotes from Benoist or material from GRECE, please do so. It would improve both articles.--Cberlet 17:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some specific text snippets for GRECE and Alain de Benoist in their respective articles? Furthermore, I have not yet seen a rational for the inclusion of the KKK and producerism. Intangible 20:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)