Talk:Fascism

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22
Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26

Red fascism

Weird that Stalin isn't or Soviet Union until the death of Stalin isn't mentioned at all. Though this is often discussed and called either red fascism or similiar. So it would be a good thing to cover the other side of fascism as well, Googe books&scholar gets some nice references for the beginning [21] [22], though I am not able to do that now, so I started a section here at the talk page. --Pudeo⺮ 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why should we add Stalinism, though? Just because Trotskysts and other Marxists call it "red fascism?" Stalin's regime - apart from its oppressive, statist, and militarist nature - had nothing to do with fascism as we know it. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris holte (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to work on this page, and give it a crack. I have several books that take a historical approach and use the words of the original Fascists, and I'm going to see if I can't make this page make sense without either speaking for modern day Fascists and their apologists, or for those who want to use the Concepts of Fascism to advance present day political views. I'm going to start mercilously deleting some real garbage in this text. But first I'm going to add some real content. All this talk about left or right is anachronistic or even propagandistic garbage. Better to let these people speak for themselves. They told the world they were a "third way." They were, like the Communists, among the first to use modern advertizing techniques to brand themselves (and rebrand themselves when necessary) and they were defined more by who and what they opposed than any particular defining characteristic except Corporo-Syndicalism, authoritarian discipline (Fascii), and the influences of both romantic philosophy, and highly cynical notions from Vilfredo Pareto, Georges Sorel, and Machievelli.

Good luck -- we finally trimmed a lot of the material which was here only a couple of months or so back, and were trying to get the other material not directly related to the topic out. It is down in size about 20% from the peak. It could easily be cut another 20%. Collect (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

scope of article

At some point, the article will have to use a definition of "fascism" which is not just "I don't like it" in nature about any perceived "bad political group." The current melange makes no objective sense. Should it be used to cover all examples of "oppressive, dictatorial control" as one dictionary definition has it? Or should it be restricted to authoritarian governments using strict central economic authority" Or to all governments having a strong nationalistic aim? Or to any government or movement which may be racist in nature? Right now, the answer is unclear -- with a lot of groups labelled "fascist" which have no relationship to any single definition of the word. Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, many people try to put governments or individuals under the "fascist" label simply to discredit them. The problem in defining fascism is that it borrows a number of ideas from other ideologies. Political partisans from the left, right, and other political areas point out certain parts of fascism to make accusations against others such as to claim things like "ah, statist socialism is fascist because it involves major government control" or other claims like George W. Bush is fascist because of authoritarian aspects like wiretapping and detainment policies at Guantanamo Bay as well as his nationalistic manners in the lead up to the Iraq war. The problem in defining fascism is two fold: 1) People either want a a precise definition or 2) People want a broad definition. Both have consequences, too narrow of a definition is often accused of being politically correct, too broad of a definition is accused of having no focus. We must always keep in mind why various ideologies are referred to as "fascism", and that is because of their similarities to the original capital-"F" Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy which was a highly authoritarian nationalist-oriented government which sought the expansion of power of the Italian nation as well as the expansion of territory for the nation. The Italian Fascist regime was hostile to political ideologies and systems which it deemed as restraining the power of the nation, such as communism which opposes nationalism in its goal to establish an international proletariat society, Italian Fascism was hostile to democracy due to the history of political instability of democracy in Italy, Italian Fascism was hostile to liberalism due to its emphasis on individualism which fascism saw as detrimental to collectively unifying the Italians under their national identity. Many governments may utilize nationalism in affairs, but fascism is embodied in holistic nationalism which is the central policy plank of fascism. The Italian Fascist regime created a single-party state led by Mussolini as an effective dictator of Italy, the Fascist government of Italy demanded absolute obedience to Mussolini and the Fascist regime, any form of opposition to the government was seen as treason. These are key aspects to fascist regimes, some may see this as POV for me identifying the role of dictatorship and authoritarianism in fascism, but these are important aspects of fascist governments, but like I mentioned earlier not the only aspects.--R-41 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

The purpose, as I understand it, of a "reference" or "citation" is to provide a source for a claim made in an article. There is no need to add editorial matter to the reference, not to have googlebooks links for the references. There is no need to have more than a few references made for any single claim. Piling Ossa on Pelion is not how WP works. See WP:CITE This article has far too many references, has too many with edito=orial comments (the WP guideline is for a "short quote" only used if the cite is likely to be challenged) and has googlebooks links, which are not suggested nor recommended by any WP guideline. Thus, I made a small first step in bringing this article in conformity with WP practices. Right now, the entire article is bloated with absurd lists of references, absurd lists of "maybe fascist-like, or maybe not organizations" and the like. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How would you like the article to be changed in order to make it less bloated in general?--R-41 (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First off -- remove the excess baggage in the article. When a group does not fit a general definition of "fascist" saying "some people call it sort of fascist" is irrelevant. Second -- come up with a simple definition of "fascist" -- perhaps something like "an authoritarian mass movement centered on centralized state control of industry and the economy, frequently associated with nationalism. Originally the term was used by Mussoline and referred to the fasces, an ancient Roman symbol of authority, representing the strength of a unified bundle of sticks." Or thereabouts. The fasces relates to an ancient story about a man and his sons, pointing out that united they were stronger than any one of them as individuals. It was even used in the US as a national symbol. Together this should get the article down to a rational size and organization, I hope. Your suggestion? Collect (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be directly mentioned that Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology, nationalism is a constant and dominant focus of fascism that makes it unique compared to other ideologies. This is what I think the first part of the intro should say: "Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology which is focused on solving perceived problems of national decline or decadence. Fascism seeks to solve these perceived problems by establishing a single-party state whose government is led by a dictator to direct a nation to achieve a millenarian national rebirth whereby individual self-interests and rights are subordinated to the collective interest of a nation or race as defined by the state." I also think that some things should be removed, such as in the alleged fascist movements section which claims that the Ku Klux Klan is a fascist movement. The Klan existed long before the rise of fascism and even though it definately adopted Nazi and neo-Nazi sympathies years later, that identifies it with Nazism rather than fascism as a whole, as generic fascism does not necessarily entail white supremacism and anti-Semitism.--R-41 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about "Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology which is focused on solving perceived _national_ problems of national decline or decadence. Fascism seeks to solve these perceived problems by establish_es_ing a single-party state whose government is led by a dictator _or party_ to direct a nation to achieve a millenarian national rebirth whereby individual self-interests and rights are subordinated to the collective interest of a nation or race as defined by the state."  ? "Authoritarian" and "totalitarian" are so interrelated as to make the use of both fairly redundant. Also the "problems" are not restricted to decline or decadence -- in fact the problems are generally economic in nature. And "millenarian" is a nice word, but not really required in the definition, is it? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

While not all fascist states achieved becoming totalitarian, including capital "F" Fascism in Italy, Italian Fascism, Nazism and other fascist ideologies publicly supported the creation of totalitarian states whereby the government would have the ability to influence every aspect of society. However Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and other fascist states never exercised total control over the economy which retained private enterprise and did not exercise total control over religious institutions. Perhaps this would be a good definition "Fascism is a term used to describe both the Italian political movement of Fascismo and ideologies affiliated to or closely resembling it. Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems which are perceived to be causing national decline or decadence as well as preparing a nation for armed conflict with other nations to defend itself and often to territorially expand to allow the growth of a nation. Fascism established a single-party state where the government is led by a dictator who directs a nation towards unity by rejecting individual self interests, rights, and liberties to the collective interests of the nation as defined by the state." This may be a little long, but I've tried to avoid as much POV as possible in writing it. Later on, information on totalitarian objectives of fascism should be mentioned as well as what fascist movements commonly oppose such as opposition to communism, democracy, individualism, internationalism, liberalism, and pacifism. I can provide sources for these things that fascism opposes. Some may say that this list excludes conservatism, but I don't know whether fascism is universally anti-conservative as some may say. Mussolini once declared fascism to be "reactionary", while Hitler claimed he was opposed to reactionaries, But fascism would definately oppose democratic and non-nationalist forms of conservatism.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually taking shape

My imagination, or is the article finally showing some sensible order? Collect (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does appear to be getting into better shape, I have found a reference by the scholar Walter Laqueur, which explains the "fascist minimum" or minimum attributes required for generic fascism which is much like the attributes which are already generally agreed upon by many other scholars. But it also defines the anti-conservative element in a satisfactory manner saying that fascism opposed the aims of conservatism to restore previous establishments while fascism sought to form a new elite, this combined with other sources I believe can show that fascism showed opposition to conservatism alongside communism, liberalism, and other ideologies and political systems. Now that I have thought over the introduction though, I believe that totalitarian should be identified along with authoritarian, as fascists themselves identified forming a totalitarian state as one of their main objectives. Authoritarian should be identified as the primary prerequisite however because a number of fascist states failed to form totalitarian states. I think that this introduction will be acceptable for the time being: "Fascism is a term used to describe both the Italian political movement of Fascismo and ideologies affiliated to or closely resembling it. Fascism is an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems which are perceived to be causing national decline or decadence as well as preparing a nation for armed conflict with other nations to defend itself and often to territorially expand a state to allow the growth of a nation. Fascism established a single-party state where the government is led by a dictator who directs a nation towards a collective unity by rejecting individual self interests, rights, and liberties to the collective interests of the nation as defined by the state." I can provide the Laqueur reference for this as well as other references to support this definition. I think this definition described in this section is more precise than the one currently on the page as of me writing this.--R-41 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the "authoritarian" is sufficient for the lede paragraph -- we can have the "totalitarian" part (which is not an essential requirement of fascism) discussed in a later paragraph. "Economic, political and social" covers pretty mush the gamut of problems - they can be separately dealt with later. And the part about war is also not apparently a requirement - WWII was a long way from Mussolini's mind in the 20s. Amd the term "dictator" could be supplemented to include a small cabal or junta - I think most people understand that a single-party state is not very open to debates <g>. I agree that the collective nature of fascism is a key to its definition, for sure. I'd still like to see the article get down to around 100K in length, and there is a bit more left to prune. Collect (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Again, since totalitarianism is a sub-case of authoritarianism, there is no need to write “an authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology”. (If totalitarianism were somehow contrary to authoritarianism, then there would be a good case.)
• One hardly imagines that fascism would see itself as irrelevant if it were to end decline and decadence; it envisions itself, rather, as an order of persistent desirability. Hence “focused on solving economic, political, and social problems which are perceived to be causing national decline or decadence” is at best questionable in the definition. It would almost certainly be better to instead (in the lede) generally identify what fascists saw as social problems, and especially what means they would use to cure and to prevent such problems. (A liberal might quite agree with a fascist that it would be bad for a particular sort of person to have children, but strongly disagree about forcible sterilization.)

—SlamDiego_←T 16:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole issue of Eugenics and politics would make for a lengthy article indeed. As I understand it, "disunity" was what the fascists thought they were opposing, in the belief that a strongly unified national government could run things better than a government with many disparate voices. "Trains running on time" might seem trite, but a lot more accurate than some of what has now been removed <g>. Collect (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright the word "totalitarian" will be removed from the intro, but its role in fascism should remain discussed in the article.--R-41 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I just want to make sure the lede is a short summary of what the reader will find discussed, not a full list of everything in the article <g>. Collect (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My points here are not that the article should discuss nuts-and-bolts in the lede, but

1. that the lede shouldn't hand-wave in reference to social problems, but should give some indication of what fascism regards as a problem;
2. that often the distinction between a fascist and a liberal is not in what each regards as a problem (though, indeed, there are differences at that level), but in what each regards as an acceptable response to the problem.

—SlamDiego_←T 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A list of what fascism opposes is necessary, but it should be condensed

What fascism opposes is necessary to be identified in the article because a number of its negations are important parts of its ideology, especially its opposition to communism, democracy, individualism, and pacifism.--R-41 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The list comprises a rather full spectrum of just about everything else. One can describe a "tomato" in a grocery store without saying it is not a banana, an orange, an artichoke, an avocado etc. <g>. I would further state that since we already establish it is "one party" that people will figure out that it is not democratic. And since we say it prepares a nation for war, people can figure out that it is not pacifist. Collect (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I like having a clear full list of the negations at the front of the article so that there is no confusion by the reader of what generic fascism is commonly opposed to, as I have encountered many editors who do not have a full understanding of what fascism is opposed to. I am concerned that leaving out some from a list of negations because they are mentioned briefly earlier in the article, may be seen as not including key ideas in the negations. I agree that list should be condensed as much as possible to essential negations.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fascism opposes anything which is contrary to the perceived absolute unity of the nation, thus it opposes most "liberal," "conservative" or "democratic" movements, religious sectarianism, and totalitarian movements such as "communism." Somewhere near that? Collect (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolute national unity along with the growth of the population and power of the nation is the goal of fascism. Internationalist ideologies and concepts not designed to the nation's interests are opposed by fascists. It's nationalist nature is why there is no clearly universal fascist ideology, but generic fascism does exist in that general structure of government, economic policy, and foreign policy are quite similar. On the issue of the position of religious sectarianism, Italian Fascism became pro-religious only after long-standing disputes between the government of Italy and the Vatican were solved by the Lateran Pact, then the nationwide religion of Roman Catholicism in Italy was deemed helpful to unify the nation. In Germany, religion was more carefully appealed to, due to the Protestant and Roman Catholic divide in Germany, in which Hitler only appealed to either Christianity as a whole in Germany or promoted his anti-Semitic "Positive Christianity" which claimed that Jesus was the son of God, but was not a Jew, so that served Hitler's anti-Semitic and nationalist purposes in that he hoped Germans could rally to Positive Christianity because of its anti-Semitism.--R-41 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascism word is used as a general insult (good sense9 in many countries-Meaning is distorted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

It's important to specify that fascism is against "classical liberalism," rather than just "liberalism." It's classical liberalism that the fascists rallied against. That's what they were referring to when they spoke of "liberalism." If you look at the economic program of modern liberalism, with it's rejection of laissez-faire in support of regulation of the means of production and a welfare state it's very similar to fascism, so it's misleading to say that it's simply against "liberalism." Many Heads (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't.Spylab (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. "Liberalism" did not yet mean what it does today in America. In Europe, liberalism still has the classical meaning, as support for free markets. There is no doubt that the fascists were referring to classical liberalism when they spoke against liberalism. They certaily were not condemning the welfare state or mixed economy, which modern liberalism supports. Many Heads (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not it isn't. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are the relevant references (bolding mine):

1. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 90. "All fascisms were antiliberal and anti-Marxist, but they were also anticonservative, inasmuch as they did not want to submit to the old establishment, but to replace it with a new elite."
2. Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122. "[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti conservative nationalism."
3. Maier, Hans; Bruhn, Jodi. Totalitarianism and Political Religions. Routledge, 2004. Describes fascism as involving "anti-liberalism, anti-communism..." and "anti-internationalism".

Notice that none of those quotes specify that fascists only oppose classical liberalism, so please stop using spin to push your opinions.Spylab (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Liberalism" there is not referring to modern liberalism. It's referring to classical liberalism, which outside the US is simply called "liberalism." Since this is a worldwide encyclopedia with a large US readership, it needs to be made clear that we're not talking about modern liberalism, or what liberalism means today in the US, but classical or laissez-faire liberalism. Many Heads (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The three references say liberalism, period, not classical liberalism, modern liberalism or any other specific type of liberalism. Stop trying to spin the references to fit your political agenda.Spylab (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What's my political agenda? My agenda is just to get these terms straight. We can't be complete morons here; we have to use a little brain power and realize that when some sources refer to "liberalism" they're not referring to New Deal liberalism but traditional liberalism. There is no doubt that modern American liberalism is not supportive of free markets, but regulated markets. It's traditional liberalism that supports laissez-faire. I'm curious what you think my "agenda" is. Many Heads (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources just say liberalism, you can interpet that to mean classical liberalism all you want but it's just OR. All forms of liberalism endorse individual liberty and that's what fascism opposes most about liberalism. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we have to look at context. Usually when a source refers to liberalism, they're referring to traditional liberalism, not modern American liberalism unless otherwise specified. Wikipedia is for a worldwide audience, so we need to speak in universally recognized terms. Fascists were opposed to laissez-faire. It's classical liberalism that upholds that, not ALL liberalism obviously. In addition, I gave a source for "classical liberalism" explicitly. There are many more that I can bring in. Many Heads (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources could easily mean by "liberalism" meaning individual rights you don't know. I never said that all forms of liberalism favor laissez-faire but that they all favor individaul freedom and yes there is a difference. Individaul freedom is the most universal term for liberalism and that's what fascists oppose the most. The liberalism link leads to the article which says this

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal.[1]

So we don't need to specify Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's true they could be referring to individual rights, but that would be "political liberalism," and would be referred to as such. What fascists oppose is both political liberalism and economic liberalism, and that's what "liberalism" when it refers to classical liberalism entails. Many Heads (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The references say fascists oppose liberalism, period. End of argument. Stop trying to spin them to fit your blatant libertarian laissez-faire capitalist agenda.Spylab (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We mustn't be idiots. You have to look at context and be aware of how terms are being used. Many words have multiple meanings. Modern liberalism was obviously not around for them to be opposed to it. They were opposed to classical, or traditional, liberalism. Modern American liberals support something akin to social democracy. Just as this article points out, Fascism provided the model for social democracy. Obviously Fascists would support what modern liberals supports. Mussolini even expressed admiration for the New Deal, saying it resembled his economic system. So let's not be idiots. When sources are referring to liberalism, they're using the term in the classic sense. Given that, it's helpful to make it explicit to the reader that we're not referring to modern American liberalism. Many Heads (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop with the insults. First of all I agree that fascism was hostile to laissez-faire capitalism, fascists repeatedly declared their opposition to this. However it is inaccurate to say that fascism was only opposed to classical liberalism. Like Bobisbob2 said, all liberal ideologies promote democracy, individualism in the form of ensuring individual rights, as well as promoting checks and balances on government power. Fascists deem democracy and individualism both as decadent and flawed concepts. Fascism rejected the imposition of limits on government power and claimed that individual rights were too excessive. Mussolini may have said he admired the New Deal but that doesn't mean he supported social liberalism, Roosevelt's social liberalism still was democratic and supported many individual rights which fascists abhore. Also, John Maynard Keynes had developed interventionist economic policy ideas around World War I's end, prior to the existance of any fascist government, but he was only seriously taken into consideration by the time the Great Depression hit. Furthermore the claim that fascist corporatism was a model for social democratic and Keynesian economic systems is flawed because corporatism also predated fascism and the fascist verson of corporatism was condemned by the political left for being corrupt and for continously favouring business interests over labour interests. Lastly, fascism did not provide the model for social democracy. I don't just say this because I myself am a social democrat but that social democracy predates fascism and by its very name, its invocation of support for democracy makes it in fascists' view a decadent ideology. Here's a quotation by Japanese fascist Seigo Nakano, an avid supporter of both Hitler and Mussolini, defining Hitler's and his opposition to social democracy: "Hitler understands the absolute evil of social democracy, based as it is on a parliamentary system whereby everything is decided by the majority. The parliamentary mechanism is manipulated by a boss who does not need talented parliamentarians because it is more convenient for him to gather around him those who are weak, dependent, or untalented, and manipulate them through pressure, bribery, or by involving them in dishonourable machinations." (Fascism, editor: Roger Griffin, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 125.) By claiming "admiration" as evidence of support of something, one could make the argument that Hitler's expression of admiration in Mein Kampf for the symbolism, propaganda, and revolutionary nature of Marxism would make him pro-Marxist, when in reality the opposite was the case.--R-41 (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The economic system social democrats favor is very close to what fascists favored. Control of the means of production for the public good, including some nationalizations, a welfare state, mandatory social security, government controlled wages, etc. Aside from economics, calls for national service (a la the social democrat Obama). It's too be expected. They're both collectivist ideologies. Many Heads (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama is not a member of the Social Democracy party, he is a member of the Democrat Party. Anyway, you make several claims. I ask: According to whom? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be a member of the Social Democracy party to support social democracy. It's first and foremost a philosophy, not a party. As this article points out "Politics professor Stephen Haseler credits fascism with providing a model of economic planning for social democracy." By the way the Obama administration wants that nation service to be mandatory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtDSwyCPEsQ Tell me that's not collectivistic/ fascistic. Many Heads (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Liberalism which Fascism had to compete with most significantly was classic liberalism, not what yanks call Liberalism. Italian Liberal Party (historical) were the dominant force in Italy before Mussolini and the Fascists came to power and in todays context they are viewed as a conservative liberal party. Currently they are part of Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia to give some perspective. Lazzaratron (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism supports democracy, fascists denounce democracy as decadent and a failure. Social democrats do not ideologically support the expansionist, imperialist, and militarist nationalism. Social democrats were supressed by Hitler. Mussolini, Hitler and other fascists opposed modern liberal views on social issues, they forbid homosexuality, considered abortion by the people of their own nation or race as a crime, they do not believe in that all people are born equal but that people have to prove their worth by supporting the collective interests of the nation, they do not support equality of opportunity - if you were not a member of the fascist movement or if you showed any opposition to the movement you could be imprisoned, killed, or at the very least not be able to gain employment; multiple fascists defined women's primary role in society as a mother and reduced the number of women in education. So fascism is opposed to more than just classical liberalism, but liberal social views, liberalism's inherent support of democracy, and liberalism's support of individual rights. With the exception of support of government interventionism, fascism negates almost every aspect of liberalism. As I quoted earlier, Japanese fascist Seigo Nakano described social democracy as an "absolute evil". Fascism is extremely authoritarian, it does not tolerate democracy or any opposition to the fascist movement, no genuine liberal or social democrat can be fascist with their support of democracy. Government interventionism does not equal an association with fascism, government interventionism has existed for years prior. Mercantilism long prior to the existance of fascism utilized government-owned companies. In my country of Canada our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, a democratically elected conservative politician from the late 1800s used huge government interventionism in the economy to create railways across Canada, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt in the 1900s also enacted strong government interventionism in the economy such as by creating greater regulation of the economy. I am sure no one would be willing to say that government regulation utilized to end child labour and pushing to create a minimum wage as Theodore Roosevelt's government did is somehow "fascist" in nature. So government interventionism by no means equals fascism, it's the combination of aggressive militarist and collectivist nationalism; the single-party state led by a dictator; support of political violence and repression of political opposition; along with government interventionism which equals fascism. Fascists demand absolute support of their government and movement, no political opposition is permitted. No liberal or social democrat supports anything close to this highly authoritarian and violence-supporting ideology, the closest ideology in terms of authoritarianism, support of utilizing violence, and support of government interventionism is the totalitarian Marxist-Leninism of the Soviet Union, but with Marxist-Leninism's absence of aggressive nationalism and due to fascist rejection of communism these movements are divergent.--R-41 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the last section. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example for someone who utilized government interventionism while not being similar to fascism was a very poor choice. I did know that Roosevelt supported nationalism and imperialism to a degree but I have recently been reading the historical analysis book Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of Right by Anders Stephenson for a university course I am taking which shows that Theodore Roosevelt was very militaristic and a racialist. So I retract my earlier statement above about Theodore Roosevelt, he is a very BAD example. Still he still believed in democracy, and the book also mentions that advocates of militarism,, nationalism, imperialism, and racialism in the U.S. in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, were not only those associated with those advocating bigger government but also people who advocated laissez-faire capitalism as a means to promote ingenuitive and strong nations and races while destroying incompetent and weak nations and races. Fascism is in the realm of such militarist and expansionist nationalism being promoted through an authoritarian single-party state which makes it unique, as expansionist and militarist nationalism alone has been promoted by democracies at various points in history.--R-41 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has read Mussolini and Hitler should recognize that both versions of Fascism primarily opposed the classical liberalism of their day, which could not have anything to do with opposing a modern liberalism that wouldn't exist for at least another generation. I would hope that our WP entries have enough common sense to maintain historical perspective. This would also mean recognizing that Fascism's primary complaint with Communism was that it was a competing brand of collectivism in the turf war of the day over Europe. Again, historical context matters.--Arationalguy (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

To equate Nazism and Fascism with American liberalism requires the kind of willful, self-enforced ignorance that modern Reagan/Thatcher conservatives excel at.

Apparently, the support of modern liberals for the enfranchisement of minorities (particularly Jews) and its stark contrast with Hitler's "final solution," makes no never mind to Jonah Goldberg and his ilk.

Nor is modern liberalism's support for women's rights and feminism, somewhat unlike the Nazi view of women needing to stay at home and watch the babies, apparently worth mentioning.

Or modern liberals' support for international institutions like the League of Nations, UN and ICJ, belief in multilateralism and the value of diplomacy, which again would seem to clash with Nazi belief in unilateralism, expansionism and militarism.

Finally, it's worth noting that modern liberals believe in striking a balance between labor and management - and, given the inherently stronger position of businesses, combined with the disasters wreaked upon the country by sixty years of Gilded Age inequality, they tend to lean more towards labor.

That's not even close to economic policy under the Third Reich. Hitler abolished the right to strike, the right to collective bargaining, and unions; passed laws requiring the previous employer's consent before workers could apply for a new job; and under him, real wages in Germany decreased by 25% from 1933 to 1939. Hitler supported businesses unwaveringly against unions - which is somewhat like what FDR did I suppose, except FDR supported unions against businesses. And when Hitler had to choose between his working class supporters in the SA and his newer, middle-class and business supporters who were afraid of communism, leftists and social chaos, well, you got the night of the long knives.

(As for the alleged similarities with Communism, the economic difference is huge; fascists supported a cooperative relationship between government and business, with each supporting and propping up the other, in sharp contrast to the commies' "nationalize, nationalize, nationalize" policy).

If in spite of all the above you can still honestly say that modern liberalism is "very similar to fascism" economically or otherwise then congratulations - you live in a hermetically sealed universe of facts in which black is white, up is down and Richard Nixon is not a crook. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not a component of said universe. The opinions of Jonah Goldberg and others will be recorded, but not as fact. 147.9.230.37 (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't the place for long rants (very brief ones perhaps) about your take on the topic. We all know there are many sides to this issue. Please try to contribute to how we can represent the topic in a encyclopedic way. Goldberg is, in fact, notable, and his view would deserve proper treatment as well.--Arationalguy (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moral Decay post WWI - Pendulum movement...?

The ability of Nazism and Facism to develop were in part the result of the moral decay that ocurred in Europe especially Germany after WWI and the fall of the Monarchs and the class structure ?

In reference to Marlene Dietrich, documentaries have alluded to this, who was apart of the cultural decay scene of the times....

This is not currently part of this listing and should be included to improve the article.

Google books shows some information on the 'moral decay' post WWI

Seems this is not included.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Which collective?

I thought it was nation or race, as the article previously said. Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini was fascinated by the "Roman Empire" and sought to re-establish it in Africa, Trieste (Ljubljana) and the Aegean Islands. He called Victor Emmanuel "First Marshal of the Empire" etc. Postage stamps featured the Fasces (ancient Roman symbol of authority), Roman ruins, and a Romulus and Remus statue. Lots of other stuff if you need it <g>. Hitler was similarly fascinated by Frederick the Great, issuing stamps in his honor, using old German imagery wherever possible (and possibly making him enjoy Wagner more). "Reich" means "empire" and he used the imperial imagery in his speeches as well. [23] , [24] etc. [25] , [26] and so on.

Cites added to article. Collect (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not question that Mussolini wanted an empire. I am asking where specifically he says that in Fascism the "collective" that the individual must submit to is the "empire" (rather than "nation"). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of "empire" is not attributed to Mussolini there as a quote, thus no need to cite Mussolini saying that, the fact about Mussolini referring to "empire" is, moreover, in the corpus of the article. As is the reference to "reich" (empire) under the Nazis. The lede refers to fascismm, not just to Mussolini's words at all. As such, the lede fairly represents the material in the article, which is what is required of it. Collect (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question: Do the sources provided really say the "empire" is the "collective" in question? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources say the groups were centered on the "empire" in each case. They do not need to use the word "collective" which is in the lede for a wikied reference to collective, and the meaning is quite clear -- the Italians promoted the Italian Empire per cites for lede and in body of article and the Germans promoted the Reich (empire) and Aryan race per cites in lede and cites in body of article as well. Would another word than "collective" make more sense to you? I viewed it as an adjective-used-as-noun indicating a group of people with a common "collective" interest. E.g. "of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together: the collective wishes of the membership." Collect (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain one can find dozens of sources on fascism that say that for Italian fascism it was the nation that is the collective in question. Collect seems to be pushing bizarre idiosyncrasies into the introduction. john k (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, they do need to use the word "collective," or you are violating NOR. No one is disputing the Fascist's imperialist aims. But empire was only one facet of their project. Another was the construction of a collective identity. The point is not to use another word for "collective." The point is that you shouldn't change a sentence the subject of which is the "collective" and the object of which is which kind of collective. There are all sorts of ways different people imagine or construe collective identities - "collective" is not an aggregate, it is not just some group of individuals taken together; in this context it has a particular meaning. If you want to add a sentence about their imperialist aims, fine, but let's keep the sentence on the collective and the sentence on the empire separate. In Fascist thought the collective is not identified with "the empire" it is identified with the nation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence to the original and accurate form. Collect, I think the point you wish to make is already made in the second sentence. If you feel it needs elaboration, I certainly do not object but your point was related to the second, not third, sentence. That said, I think the second sentence is sufficient and think elaboration belongs in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal. The cites for the fascists being interested in "empire" are solid. Thanks for pointing this out! Collect (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring what I wrote, or do you really not understand? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that fascists are interested in empire. The point is that fascists were also interested in subordinating the individual to the collective, and that for Italian fascists that collective was the nation. Whatever the Italian fascists may have thought about empire, it does not pertain to this issue. john k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources are RS. The claim was precise and accurate. Removing it because it does not fit some definition you prefewr is contrary to writing a genuine article. The fact is that in both Italy and Germany, the concept of empire was strong and part of the "collective." The nation of Italy was --- the Italian Empire. The nation for Germany was ... the German Reich. Simople. Cited. Censored from an exact sentence in the lede despite the fact they are in the body of the article. Thanks -- looks like you have your own playground here. Collect (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. You already said that the sources you are talking about do not use the word "collective." They are talking about something else. You are either violating WP:NOR by making your own synthesis between two distinct issues, or you do not understand the issues. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

um -- the deleted sentence with cites did not use the word "collective" anywhere in it. Thus making any requirement that the cites refer to "collective" odd. The cites specifically supported the sentence literally with no OR at all. The Italian Fascists backed the Italian Empire (vide Mussolini section as well) and the Germans backed the Aryan race and German Reich. Both precisely backed by the cites given, and "collective" does not appear in the cites nor in the sentence which refers to the cites. I agreed with you that "collective" was an odd term, and so did not make any claim at all about "collective" in the deleted material. I actually would have figured this would not be astounding to anyone. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. The deleted sentence did not have the word "collective" in it because you deleted the word "collective as you said you would when you wrote, "Clearly then it is "collective" which needs the removal". Please see WP:OWN You do not own this article. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. You thin when you change someone else's work that is always an improvement, and when someone improves your work it is "censorship?" Please calm down, hysterics are not going to help. As I have made clear, no one doubts that the Fascists and nazis had imperialist aims, this is covered by the second sentence, The third sentence is about the relationship between the individual and collective. Your edit claimed that the "collective" in this point is empire, and as you admitted, your own sources do not say that. That violates WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I made an entirely new sentence and did NOT remove "collective" so I fear you are a tad errant here. And calling people "disingenuous" when you make an errant claim is ... welll ... you know. Collect (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As to the question if "collective" refers to state, nation, race or empire, it is usually understood by the most-recognized scholars that Italian fascism claimed submission to the state as its upmost priority (lots of Mussolini speeches goes this direction; as well as the coining itself of the word statolatry), while nazism rather claimed submission to the Aryan race. Both were of course "imperialists", and Italian fascism of course referred to Ancient Rome, whilst Hitler spoke of a "Thousands-Years Reich"; but this is secondary in respect to this questions. You will find references in any of the most acclaimed books about these movements. Lapaz (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Latter-day Fascism?

The term I came up with describes militarist regimes and far-right governments established after WWII, the likes of Juan Peron in Argentina ruled from 1943 to 1955 was described borderline "fascist" by the U.S. department of state at the beginning. Peron was an admirer to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and he dreamt of creating and ruling over a militarist nationalist regime when he takes power as he did in a 1943 army junta. But Peron was known to have socialist outlooks on the socioeconomic welfare of the Argentinan people and was a promoter of a new ideology "Justicialism" he called it as a moderate position between Socialism and Capitalism. Should we get an entry to the article about modern-day governments based on anti-Communism, Ethnic nationalism, military juntas and right-wing extremes thought to resemble Fascism of the Mussolini kind or Francoist influence? + —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.36.5 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that once we open that door, every group which is "not nice" gets inserted. If we add a group, we should be quite sure is is genuinely "Fascist" in origins and philosophy. Collect (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that equating fascism with not nice is a slippery (and sloppy) slope, but I think that the important point here is that fascism was one form of corporatist regime, and there are other forms of corporatism (like the New Deal and Peronism) that are not fascist but that share corporatist features. Many states (including the USSR) experimented with corporatism in the 1930s and 1940s as a response to the Great Depression. This may be a point worth developing in the article, as it puts Fascism in a larger historical context - fascism as one possible response among many to certain challenges, especially the Great Depression, facing many other regimes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Intersting thought. Not long ago this article had, indeed, been a catchall for all "not nice" organizations and movements. I would not like to see it degenerate back to that level. I would, moreover, say that Huey Long proffered a closer "fascist organization" than FDR's New Deal was initially set out. Perhaps a series of articles -- one on "Fascism and economics," dealing with the deliberate creation of cartels within fascist economies; one on "Fascism and religion" dealing with "religious cartels" (i.e. Putin's Russian alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church in seeking to marginalize other churches) etc., one of "Fascism and empire" dealing with establishment of "greater Slobbovia" (apologies to Al Capp), and so on? Collect (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right about Huey Long - but my point wasn't really to say that FDR or Peron were close to Fascism, but rather to make a point out different forms of corporatism, Fascism being only one (and that does not mean that all corporatist regimes are "close" to Fascism) and how different forms of corporatism (including Fascism, but including other corporatist regimes that were decidedly not Fascist) were appealing in many different countries in the 1930s and 1940s. All of this of course should be developed in the corporatism article, not here - but I think more could be said here about the historical context for Fascism involved challenges that confronted many other countries at the time, and that many countries - and leaders - generally considered to be ideologically (and by many morally) antagonistic - e.g. FDR's USA, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's USSR - all experimented with different forms of corporatism for solutions. As to the series of articles you propose, my suggestion would be to forward them as sections of this article and as the article grows longer open a discussion on spinning off ceertain sections as independent articles, this has ben done elsewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If we place them here, there is a real risk of having people add everything they do not like as "fascist." By having relatively controllable other articles, such ought to be preventable. As for "corporatism" there is a legitimate claim that the current "bail outs" with concommittent strictures on those getting the money is actually "corporatism." Wanna have this get to be like the campaign articles? <g>. Even if the new articles are only 10K long each, that should work well. Collect (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, ultimately, it really does not matter what I do or don't want - anything that is a significant view relating to Fascism, that comes from a verifiable source, should go into the article (this would include views about Fascism and corporatism, but certainly couldn't include views about corporatism and the Brown or Obama governments. By the way, I do not quite get the point about "putting everything they do not like as 'fascist'" like you I am opposed to that, but the issue is what verifiable sources for significant views have to say about Fascism, including Fascism in the historical context of the 1930s, and Fascism compared to corporatism. Corporatism is not a dirty word, some people may like, it, some may not, but it has a definition generally agreed upon by political scientists and the question is, what regimes to mainstream political scientists consider corporatism, not whether anyone likes corporatism or not. There are always some people who wish to put their personal views into articles, and it doesn't matter what the article is on. The bottom line is not what any editor thinks is good or bad, but what are the significant views from verifiable sources, in this case, political scientists and historians who are experts on Fascism.) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the proposed "Fascism and empire" article is marginally covered already here -- so I think that would be an interesting sandbox project for me. Would you like a "Fascism and Corporatism" (or "Fascism and Economics"?) article dealing with similarities and differences between the two? Neither would really fit as a section in the curent article as structured, I think. Then we could do a one paragraph summary for this article, with link to the more inclusive material? Or would you prefer "fascism and religion" which I suspect will be a bear to get into shape? If you still feel the sandbox articles could fit entirely into the main article, then we could discuss that further when they have some shape, no? I do want to make sure that the material is pretty well formed before we get people gluing everything else into them <g>. Collect (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not discouraging you, but I would like to see what other editors active on this article think - some people who have commented here know far more about 20th century European history than I do, some have PhDs in history, or Politics, i would like to see what they think. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Per egalitarianism as a WP tenet, I am unsure that it requires special expertise to find reliable sources for such limited articles, and that, in fact, using "expertise" is discouraged per WP:RS <g>. I would also like to use some of the books on my shelf and trace some of this back to 19th century concerns -- which is where anything about Italian concerns has to start. Irredentism is clearly part of the total issue of Mussolini and Fascism. Collect (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

'nous sommes toutes egals" was wrong -- it is 'nous sommes tous égaux" -- Sorry. Collect (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Article needs to be condensed, unsourced material needs to be sourced or should be removed

The article is much better than it has been, but it still is dragging out too long. For instance, the section explaining examples of fascist movements is taking up large amounts of space, I think that the section has to be condensed down to describe only essential matter such as why the particular political movement is deemed fascist and which scholars agree or disagree, the main articles on those political movements are where viewers should access in-depth information. Secondly the "fascist minimum" section is becoming too long and there are too many subsections. It should be split up into three parts: 1) social policy which includes only confirmed generic fascist elements such as nationalism, fascists' social interventionism, and mixed economy; common social views; 2) economic policy such as class collaboration, economic nationalism, and economic planning; 3)foreign policy such as nationalism (in the form of irredentism and expansionism), militarism and common foreign policy agendas such as anti-communism and anti-internationalism (i.e. opposing the legitimacy of the League of Nations). The section on religion is the worst section of the article, it contains various patches of information from a variety of sources about multiple individual fascist movements while not definatively explaining what or if there is any coherent generic fascist stances on religion. The section on religion talks about the Iranian Revolution twice, one reference to compare the current Iranian theocracy to a fascist movement that existed in Romania forty years earlier and other reference on the Iranian Revolution to claim that fascism moved to endorse religion. Whatever one's personal views are on the autocratic nature of the theocratic government of Iran it does not identify with the common trends of fascism - i.e. it is not a single-party state, the leader of the Iranian Revolution from 1979-80, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, from what I have read did not endorse nationalism as fascism does and said that nationalism was causing the Muslim world to be divided.--R-41 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the evidence that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism?

There is a claim that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas directly from fascism. Please provide sources. An author that something is related to fascism is very controversial, so the author's intentions and views on social democracy will have to be taken into perspective, i.e. an author with a personal distaste towards social democracy is very likely to be an unreliable source.--R-41 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't need evidence. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about what's sourceable. It is sourced in the article. It doesn't state it as if it's true but that it's true that that author holds that opinion. It gives his name. Many Heads (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the stranger precepts of WP. It does not mean, however, that we need to treat it as a common opinion. Collect (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Don't need evidence. Wikipedia is not about truth, but what's sourceable." That's not a valid argument, there are such things as BAD sources with no credibility, i.e. books claiming Holocaust denial when a gigantic volume of data shows otherwise, political propaganda, and just plain inaccurate material which can be easily disproved by other sources. One source for a claim is not good enough, a critique of the claim - if available - should be acknowledged. On this article we have had political partisans claiming "fascism is capitalism" and then an opposing group saying that "fascism is socialism", they cobble together weak arguments and fiercely deny anything to the contrary. The reason these partisans do this is because they refuse to accept that an ideology with a bad reputation can have anything to do with their own political views which they naively believe could never be associated with an ideology with such a bad reputation. As I am a social democrat, I admit that I will naturally be critical to claims that social democracy is linked to fascism, but I refuse to blindly put my political views into my arguments - that's why do not accept a common leftist argument fascism is a "far-right" ideology, evidence shows it had a number of leftist ideas. Fascists advocated social welfare, so as a social democrat, I acknowledge that that is a similarity, but that does not mean as a whole that the two ideologies are one and the same. Furthermore I accept that it is possible that social democracy borrowed its economic ideas from fascist governments, such as the corporatist economic model of Sweden under social democratic governments, but evidence is needed to prove whether it is related to fascist corporatism or non-fascist corporatism. I'm not asking for some kind of "absolute truth", all I am asking for is a wide range of sources for controversial claims.--R-41 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

one possible way to reorganize this all

1. "What is Fascism? (and not trying to use definitions -- they do not sere to make this very comprehensible at all?

 a. etymology (history of fasces here) 'in unity there is strength" "dictator" as ancient concept
 b. Mussolini's view of fascism (he was the one who coined the term after all)  stress on unity of the community (in Italy's case, the empire and nation)  the recreation of a nation's greatness through such unity
 c. how people have extended the meaning (including use as epithet for anyone one does not like)

2. "Fascism" during WWII - the Axis powers (possibly including how each matched Mussolini's view)

 a. Italy, Empire and Italian Social Republic (il Duce's last stand)
 b. Germany and Hitler (racism in Germany not found in Mussolini's views), German Reich
    1. Austrian National Front
 c. Japan and its "Imperial Rule" with stress on empire and unity of purpose 

3. Fascism and Corporatism

 a. definition of corporatism
 b. Ireland
 c. Spain
 d. Portugal
    1. Brazil
 e. other "corporatism" movements

4. Fascism as it relates to other issues

 a. Religious unity (hence include anti-semitism in some cases)
 b. Governmant control of the economy (central planning)

eliminating all sorts of side issues, I hope ... such as "political spectrum" which basically has no conclusions, "core tenets" which is currently a catchall (gosh -- "eugenics" is specifically related to fascism as an issue? "gender roles"? Most of these issues appear, frankly, to be totally unrelated to whether a nation is "fascist" or not -- this is just a convenient place to stick them in?)

5. List of fascists (trimmed -- folks have been on this list because of "I don't like him"-itis.

first draft -- think it would work? Collect (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should do anything too drastic just yet like totally re-writing the article. We've already made major changes which have made the article, in my view much better. I think the introduction section is the best it has ever been in a long time, it is concise, to the point, identifies what fascism's orientation is, what its goal is, how it governs, what it negates, and from the edit history of this page, there is not too much outrage over the list of negations so I think we have found the essentials. The Fascist minimum section should be reorganized using the information there already, unless it is not backed up by reliable references.--R-41 (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why Brazil is under Portugal ::.... I do not know why Brazil is under coporatist ... I do not know why corportist does not include the new Deal and Stalinism. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Portugal's capital was Rio <g>. The two nations are bound by not only language but history. I am unsure that "corporatism" needs extended mention in this article however. Collect (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. you are being imprecise and misleading. First, Brazil established independence from Portugal in 1822 - pretty early in the 19th century - and they are quite separate after that. You might as well put the US under the UK, because they were bound by language and history .... 200 years ago. Second, we are not talking about language, we are talking about politics, and corporatism is an entirely 20th century phenomenon. The Stado Novo may be considered corporatist, I am not completely sure. Perhaps Vargas's regime was also corporatist, I would also want to see sources for this. But certainly Vargas was not a puppet of Portugal and Brazilian politics during tis period were not dictated by or subordinate to Portuguese politics. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading? Last I checked, 1822 was in the 19th century. The story of Pedro I (Pedro IV of Portugal) and the intertwining of the nations well after 1822 is fascinating reading, to be sure. How many countries have their king become king of the parent country after independence? His son was of course well known for his interest in the telephone on his visit to the US Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, while his sister was queen in Portugal. HArd to get much closer <g>. They also share a language, and political speeches were in that common tongue. Enough to link the two to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How many countries keep the same monarch after independence? Well, let's start with the sixteen of the Commonwealth realms. ;-) Really, it's not all that remarkable. —SlamDiego_←T 13:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, the British Commonwealth is considered to be a group of related nations. As are Brazil and Portugal, which was, if I recall correctly, the point at issue? Collect (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people are easily amazed; I suppose that it's a function of naivete. Before we proceed, let's note that the British Commonwealth and the Commonwealth realms are not the same thing. In any case, no one has denied that Brazil and Portugal are related; and no one has even denied that The United Kingdom and America (without a shared monarch) are related. The question is of just what is the nature of these relations. I don't plan to stake-out a position as to the answer, but I did and do note that your treatment of shared monarchy as peculiarly indicative just doesn't work. There's been a lot of it and there still is a fair amount of it. Let it go, and make a better case. —SlamDiego_←T 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to try and fix the core tenets section by organizing it like this: Economic policy (Class collaboration, third position, mixed economy), Foreign policy (Militarism), and social policy (authoritarianism, indoctrination, nationalism, positions on men's and women's rights and role in society, and their opposition to homosexuality)--R-41 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Social policy appears quite orthogonal to fascism -- I am quite uncertain that gender and abortion issues have any more than an extremely incidental correlation to fascism, if any. "Nationalism" should be under the "militarism" (or vice versa) and "authoritarianism" is not so much a "belief" as "how it operates." Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascists openly promoted themselves as authoritarian, so it is an important point to reference, in fact I recently found a quotation by Nazi Joseph Goebbels who was essentially describing the Nazis as being associated with fascist states, but the Nazis did not like to use the word fascist because that would ascribe them as being followers of an ideology of a foreign country, so Goebbels described the Nazis as being supportive of "authoritarian-nationalist State concepts" [27] and condemned Bolshevism and democracies for "their joint hatred of of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts of State and State systems." [28] So Goebbels here illustrates that fascism recognizes itself as authoritarian and nationalist in nature. The quote demonstrates the important role of authoritarianism in fascism. I am also quite surprised that our definition of fascism on Wikipedia so perfectly correlated with what the Nazis described fascism as, as I had not seen this quote prior.--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarian nationalist" and rebuilding glory = Putin and a lot of other "left wing fascists" to be sure/ Collect (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise Political Spectrum section?

I think the Political Spectrum section would benefit from a bit of a reorgansiation along the following lines:

1. Rename as "Political classification" as political spectrum has a more specific meaning.
2. First explain that the long standing consensus among historians is that Fascism is an ideology of the far right but that this is disputed by Fascists themselves and by some others.
3. Then explain its self-identified position as a "third way" between Capitalism and Communism.
4. Finally explain the classification within two dimension political models (e.g. political compass, Political Spectrum, etc) which puts Fascism in the economic centre with its extremism manifesting itself on the authoritarianism axis instead.

I don't see any reason to include the specific claims that Fascism is an ideology of the left or far left. I am not aware of any reliable source that takes these claims seriously. I see them as little more than speculative suggestions recently being punted by far right groups and individuals in an attempt to distance themselves from association with historic fascist movements. Of course, if any reliable source does take this seriously then it should be mentioned.

I think this can be done mostly by juggling the existing paragraphs and simplifying a bit. Normally I would just dive in, but I know that this article is a minefield, so I thought I should check here first.

--DanielRigal (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been no howls of outrage at the suggestion and recent edits have been in a similar direction so I am going to make a few changes along these lines. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh it has only been a day! I am very suspicious of any use of "poltical spectrum" as it means different things in different countries at different times. If we have verifiable sources tht identify Fascism within the Italian political spectrum in the 1920s I am all for using that. In general, to avoid violating WP:NOR we should follow the sources: when they speak of a spectrum, use it, but make clear it is a particular and definable view. I know that scholars of comparative politics more often use classifications than spectrums and their views definitely must be included. This is not a matter of style, it is a matter of representing significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk about premature! There is NO fully accepted position of "fascism" on the left-right spectrum, and I would suggest the current wording was quite correct. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that there is "no fully accepted position" is neither here nor there. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is certainly not that a position be "fully accepted." Our standard for inclusion is all signficiant views from notable sources. If you have a historian or political scientist who is a notable expert on Italian Fascism and who wrote in a peer-reviewed journal article or book published by an academic press that Fascism is "far left," we include this view. If we have another expert saying that it is "far right," we add that too. We do not need for their positions to be "fully accepted;" NPOV encourages multiple points of view. Of course, we do have to distinguish between mainstream, majority, and minority views or make clear when there is a conflict among scholars. It is not premature to raise the issue if you have verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW, the first sentence should state the gamut, leaving specific claims to later sentences in the section. And with a good reliable source stating that the gamut exists (as is the case), using that as the first sentence makes sense. Trying to fit each and every claim, and saying "usually" in order to give one position greater weight is less sensible indeed. Collect (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned by the use of "left, right and centre" (although it wasn't me who changed it) because it gives equivalent billing to "left", which seems to me to be a fringe view, to that of "right", which is the most common classification to the point of orthodoxy in common usage, and "centre", which is more in keeping with the view of the fascists themselves. I don't have access to the reference. Does it really support such a wording giving all three views equivalence? The use of "usually" as a way to acknowledge that one view is more widely held but that other views exist seems to be perfectly clear, valid and honest use of the word. I know it is a word that has a lot of weasel potential but it isn't always evil.

I have reviewed the political spectrum article a bit more carefully and I now understand that it is a better term than the one I used in the opening paragraph as it encompasses all techniques for modelling political positions. I had previously misunderstood it as something more specific. I would still argue however that the section title should be either "Political classification" or maybe "Position within the political spectrum". It just seems to make more sense when you look at the TOC than "Political spectrum" on its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter one bit what any of us think of "left" "right" or "center." All that matters is what significant views in notable sources say. If a notable political scientist uses the word "left," it goes into the article. If a notable historian says "right," it goes into the article. I say this with respect, but your concerns about the spectrum are not appropriate or relevant. The only concern is this (1) does the body of the article adequatey represent all significant views found in notable sources and (2) does the introduction to the article adequately introduce the body. If these are your real concerns, great, that is constructive. otherwise, they are not constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that it was not me who replaced "left, right and centre" in the first place. I am not trying to make contentious edits without discussion. I think that wp:undue should guide us here. We do not want to over represent (or under-represent) any views. I am also a little concerned by the use of "centre" as it seems that the fascist concept of the "third way" is not always meant to imply "centre". I am happy to admit to being a little out of my depth here. That is why I asked if the references on that paragraph supported the phrase "left, right and centre" being used with apparent equivalence. If the answer is "yes" then I am more than happy with that. Anyway, can we at least agree on something minor to improve the article? Are we happy with the section being renamed "Political classification" (without changing its content)? --DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good points. it is always fair to ask for more information about, and context from, the sources, and the other editor has the burden to reply in an informative manner. if your concerns are just triggers to get more sources or more info about the sources we have, that is a good thing! I felt your comments were a bit vague though; do you feel there are no sources provided, inadequate or inappropriate sources, or sources provided without enough context? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked up the sources and found the following:

The statement "it has been described as left, right and center" is given two sources:

1) Social Science and Political Theory states: "One of the most interesting analyses of this is an essay by Professor Lipset entitled 'Fascism -- Left, Right and Center'" (p.150).

2)The Fascist Reader reference is from a chapter by Lipset called "Fascism as 'extremism' of the middle class". (p.112). It appears that this article is the same as the one referred to in Social Science.

Finally the Wikipedia article states (later in the section) "Seymour Martin Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center" which is sourced to Russian Fascism That book merely says "Lipset sees fascism as extremism of the center". (p.14).

You can read Lipset's "Fascism -- Left, Right, and Center" which is chapter V of his book Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics on Questia. Lipset did not put fascism on the right because fascists did not intend to restore monarchial and aristocratic privilege. Its middle class origins put it in the center (along with social liberalism and libertarianism).

So the sources do not in fact support the statement "it has been described as left, right and center", just that Lipset thought it was part of the center. The Austrian view of fascism as socialism does not put it on the left either. Hayek called it a "union of the anti-capitalist forces of the right and the left in The Road to Serfdom(p.173). And conservatives have also been called socialists, e.g., Bismarck's "State Socialism" or Disraeli's "Tory Socialism".

I have not read any academic or even popular writing that puts it on the left.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is NO agreement by scholars on where generic fascism stands on the political spectrum. Radical or far right, third position, and extreme centre are the most common claims. One of the biggest problems is that when most people speak of "far-right", they are speaking a common misnomer as they are meaning "reactionary" - that is a movement which is expressly anti-liberal, anti-socialist, often anti-libertarian, often anti-modernist, often anti-secular, often in favour of government's with strong authoity and is associated with traditional conservative values. Far-right is a bad use of terms because economically the fascists did not advocate far-right economics, which is described by most as laissez-faire and on the issue of reactionaries, not all of them are laissez-faire proponents either.--R-41 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On the term "reactionary" to describe fascism, Mussolini indeed once described the fascist movement as reactionary, but while Mussolini and the Fascists declared that they were reactionary towards existing traditional politics of that time in that they rejected them, BUT Mussolini declared that Italian Fascism was also revolutionary in that it was not solely interested in looking backward to restore pre-Enlightenment values as reactionaries promote, but that Fascism was interested in combining what elements it appreciated of society (including a number of ideas which reactionaries would agree with) combined a new forward-looking agenda of making one's nation or race powerful through the direction of the state, forging a new culture based upon a national and racial unity and sense of family, and lastly promoting social darwinist values of strength and militarist values of courage. Many of these latter revolutionary ideals cannot be accredited to reactionaries as Lenin's Bolshevik movement held similar views of progress for workers through state direction, forging a new society based on worker-based societies, and also promoting that working people be strong and courageous. Italian Fascism in my mind and in the minds of a number of scholars including I believe Stanley Payne, claim that Fascism was always a combination of reactionary and revolutionary ideas. I see this balancing act as part of fascism's inherent desire to create national unity by tackling the issue of finding a means to avoid class conflict and various sectarian conflict that may arise - this means that under a fascist state, the nation's working classes must be satisfied to avoid agitating workers while at the same time the nation's business people must be satisfied so that the nation's economic capacity is not hindered, fascists appealed to a number of traditional social values to avoid splitting society, such as by trying to bind national and religious values together. Some of these values were very favourable towards reactionaries but one must bear in mind that policies combining nationalism, social darwinism, class collaboration, traditional social values, and significant state intervention were considered "progressive" in for many years in the 19th century and early 20th century. Fascism by today's standards looks very regressive and reactionary due to the advent of the spread of egalitarianism in progressive politics during the 20th century to present. If one looks at fascism from an egalitarian progressive perspective, it's social darwinist views are very regressive and reactionary. But in the 1920s, Italian Fascists and Nazis in promoting social darwinism were crossing the line of alienating social conservatives - particularly religious communities, enough to the point that Italian Fascism turned to focus on spiritual evolution of nations and races rather than biological evolution to avoid sparring with the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of Creationism. Meanwhile the Nazis were less conciliatory towards religious conservatives as they constantly promoted biological racialism which caused them to be scorned by the Roman Catholic Church. To sum up above what I believe Fascism can be identified as having the following components in reviewing the political spectrum:

• (1) Reactionary to liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, class conflict, communism. Reactionary in promotion of preserving traditional social values deemed beneficial for the nation or race and opposing certain modern values deemed to threaten those traditional social values deemed detrimental to the nation or race.
• (2) Progressive (for early to mid 20th century standards) or anti-reactionary in terms of social welfare, collectivism, social darwinism (i.e. Darwinism's inherent challenge to religious notions of Creationism, challenging reactionary's promotion of the value of nobility through social darwinism's views of evolution, competition, and conflict as a means to promote meritocracy - especially utilized by fascists to promote military service) and
• (3) Centrist in regards to class politics by promoting class collaboration, either centrist or centre-right in regards to property rights (i.e. protecting the right of property and promoting private enterprise as the most efficient form of business enterprise, while allowing the government the right to intervene and take over private property at its own discretion)

--R-41 (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Before arguing where fascism fits on the political spectrum it is important to understand how scholars, including Lipset and Hayek understood it. Right-centre-left meant aristocratic-middle class-working class. Fascists are generally understood as right-wing because they emphasized tradition and collaborated with European elites. Hayek however would agree with you that they combined left-working class (progressive) and right-aristocratic (reactionary). Finally Lipset states that they were middle class and therefore centrist. But Hayek and Lipset are in the minority. The statement "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as left, right and center" is misleading because it gives undue weight to Lipset's opinion and there is no evidence that anyone describes it as left. Hayek's opinion should not be given undue weight either because it is taken from a polemical work. A more accurate statement would be "While fascism is generally considered to be on the right of the political spectrum, there are alternative views."

Another political spectrum that might be used is the modern American left (liberal) vs right (conservative), but I do not know of any studies that try to place fascism in the modern American spectrum.

Lipset's article explains the political spectrum and Hayek provided a good description in "Why I am not a Conservative." http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In short, you amply demonstrate that there is, in fact, disagreement about the very applicability of a "left-right" spectrum. "But Hayek and Lipset are in the minority" is OR at best. [29] refers to "left wing fascism." [30] speaks of "left wing Fascists." [31] refers to "left-wing fascism." [32] says "the popular definition of fascism as right wing is misleading." [33] and a slew of others -- not just Hayek and Lipset, to be sure. Thus using the broadest statement at the start, and then having other opinions following, is the proper course in WP. Collect (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that any of the texts are helpful. [9]Horowitz borrowed his use of the term "left-wing" from Lenin and it does not mean he thinks of fascism as "left-wing". He uses Left-wing fascism to apply to groups like the Larouche movement, which are not usually considered to be fascist, and he is not referring to the fascism of Mussolini, Hitler, or Franco. His point is they use left-wing rhetoric to express fascist ideas. [10]Wilkinson's book refers to left-wing people who had supported fascism but later opposed it because it was right-wing. [11] Pound referred to a left-wing of the fascist party which is similar to Hayek's view. [12]Farrell acknowledges that the "popular definition of fascism is right-wing", that Mussolini called it right-wing and that its "manifestations became" "right wing". He merely states that many fascists leaders had been left-wing and that it had left-wing influences. [13]Eysenck states that fascism is "not consistently right-wing" (p.85). I think that "left-wing Fascism on page 86 is a reference to Stalin, who is normally not considered to be a fascist.

All this proves that "fascism is generally considered to be on the right of the political spectrum", it contains elements from both left and right, Lipset thinks it's centrist and no one places it on the left.

By the way, I do not know what you mean by "there is, in fact, disagreement about the very applicability of a "left-right" spectrum"

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what user Collect is speaking of the claims of some fascists like the British Union of Fascists of saying that they were "neither left or right". Furthermore some scholars have claimed that fascists variated on the political spectrum. Fascist's focal axis point (no pun with Axis powers intended) was based on nationalism versus internationalism or anti-nationalism rather than left-wing versus right-wing. Fascists distained the ideology of communism for its anti-nationalist and class revolutionary views which fascists saw as destructive to the unity of a nation. Fascists distained liberalism for its focus on individualism rather than a national collective. What boggles the mind of some historians who want to pin-point where fascism is on the political spectrum is that they do not recognize that fascism was a coalition of nationalist political forces from across the spectrum - in Italian Fascism, some like Mussolini were ex-socialists, others were ex-anarchists, some were reactionary anti-liberals and anti-socialists. What combined them together was a militant form of nationalism. Goebbels in 1938, claimed that authoritarian nationalism was the ultimate replacement for liberalism and Marxism.--R-41 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A person reading the "Political spectrum" section sees "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as left, right and center." There is also disagreement over whether man evolved from apes, smoking causes cancer, blacks are equal to whites, HIV causes AIDS and lots of other subjects. We can all believe what we want. But it is totally misleading to give equal credence to the theory that fascism is on the right (accepted by most scholars), fascism is in the centre (accepted by one scholar), fascism is on the left (accepted by no scholars) or fascism is outside the spectrum (claimed by fascists). The fact that most scholars may be wrong is irrelevant - the article should tell the readers what the generally accepted opinion is. And use references properly - the reference given for this sentence is the lone writer who puts fascism in the centre!

By all means differing opinions should be given. But don't claim that they have equal acceptance without any evidence. These articles are supposed to inform people of generally accepted views not our personal opinions no matter how valid.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Alas you are asserting that a vast number of authors are wrong because they apply "fascist" to groups you think are not "fascist" hence they are wrong about asserting that using a "political spectrum" does not work. I would point out that the sentence of "left right and center" does not represent my personal view, but is is my view, and that of a great many experts, that there is "disagreement" which is the claim made. Unless you can state that there is NO disagreement, it is clear that the sentence is precisely accurate and a valid lead to the rest of the paragraph which has the differing opinions stated succinctly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WRT "straw man" you assert "NO scholars" say fascism can be on the left. Alas -- that is a false claim on your part. And using the parallels you claim which are discussable as "scientif fact" the fact is that "political spectrum: is not a "scientific fact" nor is ever likely to be "scientific fact." Collect (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not say that no scholars say fascism can be on the left, but that no scholars say that fascism is on the left. It is not even clear that scholars who use the term "left-wing fascism" are implying that it is on the left, merely that it uses left-wing rhetoric. In any case there is nothing in this article about left-wing fascism. I am not saying that these writers are wrong, merely that their views are not generally accepted. One of your quotes above says, "the popular definition of fascism as right wing is misleading." Why do you not want the article to inform people what the popular view is? I suggest that you read the articles you are citing and understand their contents, before using them. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am about to say something long and complicated for which I am often criticized for, but I believe it will help you, The Four Deuces in recognizing that claims of fascism being staunchly right-wing are inaccurate. Bear in mind that I am a social democrat, so I have nothing to gain or promote by showing that fascism has strong leftist tendencies, but I do so out of an honest review of multiple sources and arguments. Mussolini, prominant Italian Fascist Roberto Farinacci, British Fascist Oswald Mosley, Nazi Ernst Rohm, and Joseph Goebbels, all had at one point socialist or leftist roots, connections, or beliefs. Some changed drastically, but all came to fervently believe in nationalism as an ideology to solve national problems. Italian Fascism was originally strongly left-wing and progressive as described in the Fascist manifesto (i.e. anti-monarchist and republican, anti-clerical, anti-business and pro-labour combined with nationalism, anti-communism, anti-internationalism, and anti-socialism) but it wasn't drawing in the anti-communist and anti-socialist support that Mussolini wanted, so he opportunistically started to try and draw in reactionary and indeed right-wing support by toning down his rhetoric, sacrificing anti-business rhetoric for a compromise class collaboration between business people and labourers through negotiating in a political system called corporatism, sacrificing anti-monarchist rhetoric for toleration of the monarchy, sacrificing anti-clericalism and becoming pro-religious, and lastly sacrificing calls for national egalitarianism for all Italian men and women for a compromise social darwinist and traditionalist patriarchial ideal that men and women had to prove their worth in society and that men and women had defined roles in society (i.e. woman as a mother and caretaker of a family and a man as a warrior, provider, and protector of the nation and families). These concessions were necessary for the Fascists to gain a wider populist support and it succeeded. In 1922, Mussolini rose to power not yet as a dictator of a single-party state but as the head of a fractious coalition of fascists, liberals, and nationalists to oppose the socialists and communists, as a pragmatic opportunist, Mussolini's first three years as Prime Minister were indeed economically right-leaning because he had to gain the support of classical liberals in parliament in order for them to support his government, so he appointed a non-fascist liberal, Alberto De Stefani as finance minister of Italy in 1922 who promoted laissez-faire economics and free trade. But after working to undermine political oppositon with the Acerbo law and the Matteoti crisis, Mussolini in 1925 declared Italy a single party state with him as dictator of the government on behalf of the King and promptly banned all opposition, kicked De Stefani out of his cabinet, and from that point on began to promote large state-planned economic initiatives and protectionism like the Battle for Grain to make Italy self-sufficient in grain and not dependent on foreign sources of grain from Canada and the United States, the Italian Fascists nationalized multiple private petroleum companies which were not being profitable in the private sector into a single government-run petroleum company called Azienda Generale Italiana Petroli, AGIP (General Company of Italian Petroleum), which still exists today. Italian Fascism promoted economic assistance to failing companies during the Great Depression through the Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale, economic "bailout" policies were sharply criticized then and are sharply criticized now by the economic right-wing laissez-faire proponents as being too far to the left in their view (but unlike neoconservative critics claim "ah, modern liberals look like they have fascist economics", I in addition note that social conservatives like George W. Bush have utilized massive state-interventionism in the economy and classical conservatives such as John A. MacDonald in my country of Canada utilized large state interventionism long before the advent of fascism and before communism was a serious political force in the world. Italian Fascists even tried to combine conservative and leftist views to claim that they promote traditional national and patriotic values while at the same time claiming that they are modernist i.e. promoting a "New Roman Empire", promoting traditional Roman-like and Christian art while also promoting modern art which promoted the movement as futurist while having symbols of ancient Roman idenity like the fasces, the Aquila (the Roman eagle), Capitoline Wolf, etc. The merging of nationalism with a combined leftist and reactionary critiques of liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism was pursued from the mid 1920s onward, blamed liberalism's protection of multiparty democracy as causing political instability, corruption, and lack of political progress; and blamed liberalism and laissez-faire capitalism for being uncaring to nations which the Italian Fascists claimed caused the rise of communism and class conflict which in their view were destroying nations. In the light of economic troubles, corruption, and perceived social stagnation or decline under classical liberal governments which had dominated Italy since the 1870s and the advent of the international economic crisis following the Stock Market Crash of 1929, so by 1929 Fascism's anti-liberal critiques from social, political, and economic standpoints were enormously popular and as hyped through propaganda were very convincing to Italians and gained attention elsewhere in the world. It should be noted that fascists, classical and religious conservatives, and leftists share a common rebuke of what they see as a problem of a literal liberalism of laissez-faire's promotion of unrestrained individual economic accumulation. They all see unrestrained self-indulgence as reckless or who were a strong political force in the 19th to mid-20th centuries and perhaps returning in the recent international economic crisis, believe that unrestrained self-indulgence and having unearned luxuries is selfish, uncaring to others, and morally wrong. All these groups claim that self-restraint, that people should not have excessive and unearned personal luxuries, and that people should have a sense of care for a community rather than self-interest. Some claim that fascism's appeal to class collaboration and its large base of middle-class supporters indicates absolutely that it is reactionary - this is a fallous argument, a significant number of working-class people did join the Italian Fascists and in the case of Germany, the Nazis, but they were not a clear majority due to fascism's class collaborationist appeals. I have found articles mentioning police reports of the Nazis which show that the Nazis were posing a serious threat to depleting democratic socialist and communist parties' base of working-class supporters. This demonstrates that the combination of appeal through nationalism to classical, religious, reactionary, and social conservatives along with leftism is politically possible and that neither totally exclude each other. And please don't just take my word for it, look through books about classical conservatism, religious conservatism, and now to mention it, national conservatism you will find these common grounds between conservatism and leftism which fascism appealed to.--R-41 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that fascism is staunchly right wing, just that it is normally placed on the right. The most obvious reason for putting them on the right is that they aligned themselves with unequivocally right-wing groups opposed to Communists and Socialists, and once in power advanced the interests of the elites. The Socialist background of leading fascists is important as is their incorporation of socialist ideas and tactics. But most fascist leaders did not begin as leftists and as you point out non-leftists from Macdonald to Bush have tried socialist solutions. Similarly, successful conservatives from Disraeli to Thatcher have been able to appeal to the working class. And fascism has been most successful in countries with a strong authoritarian right-wing tradition.

No scholars place fascism on the left. If you have a source for any claim that fascism is left-wing then it should be added to the article.

One scholar however placed fascism in the center. I don't know how much weight this deserves, has anyone re-examined this theory since 1960?

But does any of what you are I have written support the statement: "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as left, right and center"? which implies that learned opinion is equally divided.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No scholars? What is Horiwitz? Chopped liver? Bale? I have provided cites which directly contradict your absolute assertions, thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Horowitz and Bale quotes

I removed the following until someone can provide context and explain what he really means.

Irving Louis Horowitz writes of "the new left-wing Fascism" with anti-Semitism as the "essential motor." <ref>Winners and Losers: Social and Political Polarities in America - By Irving Louis Horowitz ,Duke University Press, 1984, ISBN 0822306026 ,328 pages, page 214</ref>

My hunch is that he is using the term fascism to describe left-wing critics of Israel, with the implication that they are motivated by a hatred of Jews, not concerns about human rights. Feel free to provide the relevant text if he is discussing actual fascism, and not merely using the term as a smear.Spylab (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. And deletion of a RS by a person who actually has his own WP article is odd. Your "hunch" is wrong, which means that the cite gets returned. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And per discussion above -- "left, right and center" is directly supported by the cite given for it. Please try to get a consensus before making such wholesale changes. Especially since you appear to refuse to accept the disagreement as to the po,litical spectrum, deleting a solid cite for use of "left wong." Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• So what's the context of the Horowitz quote? What does he actually say about this so-called "left-wing fascism". As it stands, the sentence doesn't explain anything.Spylab (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I quoted the source. I quoted a sufficiency to prove the accuracy of the claim made for the source. I gave the page number. And you insist on a "hunch" that he did not mean what he wrote? He has an entire chapter on "Left-Wing Fascism" for gosh sakes <g>. 11 pages on the topic. Enough already. Collect (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what you added to the article:

Irving Louis Horowitz writes of "the new left-wing Fascism" with anti-Semitism as the "essential motor."

Please add some context and explain what it actually means. What is this "new left-wing Fascism", and who are its supporters? The sentence on its own lacks substance and is wide open for misinterpretation. It's not very useful to say someone "writes of" something without clarifying what he writes about it.Spylab (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to the other sentence you added:

Jeffrey Bale writes on "'National Groupuscules' and the Resurgence of 'Left-Wing' Fascism" in "Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science."

Please provide context and meaning.Spylab (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

MULTIPLE PAGE ARTICLES and you seem to think an entire chapter can be "out of context"?? I will gladly provide more examples of scholars refgerring to "left wing fascism" -- and when they devote LARGE amounts of paper to the term, one would suspect they used the term quite deliberately <g>. Unless, of course, you would like 3,000 word "quotes" here? Collect (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• So what do they actually say? Please summarize their arguments, instead of listing even more quotes without context or meaning. It shouldn't be difficult to explain in a sentence or two, assuming you actually read and understood the articles. Lots of people "speak of" or "write of" things, but without knowing what they actually say, it doesn't do much good to mention it, expecially in an encyclopedic article that is supposed to teach people about a complex political topic.Spylab (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect: In reply to your comment in the previous section, neither Horowitz nor Bale said that fascism is left-wing. Their use of that adjective does not mean they think fascism is left-wing or even that "left-wing fascists" are on the left, any more than the name "South Dakota" identifies it as a southern state. On the contrary, Bale calls the "left-wing fascist" Nouvelle Resistance (NR), which is the subject of his article, a "rightist political organization" (p.282). The Four Deuces (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Each specifically devoted extensive commentary to "left wing fascism." Not just a single quote. Collect (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And your point is? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the two used terminology which is quite specific. The attempt at SYMN made is not only a misuse of the cites, it violates WP policies. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see. So what you're saying, Collect, is that you don't understand the context or meaning of the term left-wing fascism as used by those two authors. You just know that they both used the term, a lot. So what?Spylab (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the full chapters Spy before asserting what is not borne out by these cites. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The new left-wing fascists are modern fascists who use left-wing rhetoric to hide right-wing beliefs. An example is claiming to be anti-zionist when they are actually anti-semitic. The rightist Nouvelle Resistance is one such group. Would that be a fair assessment of what Horowiz and Bale are saying? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you admit, Collect, that you have no clue about what Horowitz and Bale actually mean when they use the term left-wing fascism. Why do you insist that concepts you can't explain be included in this Wikipedia article?Spylab (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Collect, you added a few examples of so-called "left-wing fascists", but still no definition of so-called "left-wing fascism", and no real context. Let's take a look at the examples:

1. Massimiliano Fanchin - no Wikipedia article, arrested in connection with an unspecified bombing in Bologna. Who is he, and what did he stand for?
2. Franco Fredo - no Wikipedia article. Who is he and what did he stand for?
3. Frankfurt School, a Marxist school of thought. What is its supposed connection to fascism, other than analyzing, explaining and criticizing it?
4. Theodor W. Adorno, a Marxist from the Frankfurt School. What is his supposed connection to fascism, other than analyzing, explaining and criticizing it?
5. Christian Bouchet - a member of the Third Position neo-fascist movement. However, it's quite the leap in logic to use that fact to claim that fascism is somehow on the left of the political spectrum. If that's not what you're arguing, then why mention it in the section about fascism's place in the political spectrum?Spylab (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You improperly added WP:OR and WP:SYN to the statements for which precise cites were given. You also made a claim that a cite referred to Fanchin when it does not do so. I am not claiming that all fascism is on the left, I AM saying that there is disagreement about where it is, and disagreement about whether all forms of fascism are at the smae point on the spectrum. I use WP:V which is the guideline for cites, and it does not say to add material to sentences which is NOT in the cite given. And the cites given for Bale and Horowitz fully meet WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Left, right and center

Collect: the footnotes don't seem to support this statement: "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as left, right and center.[33] [34]" If you follow them they refer to an article by Lipset, called 'Fascism -- Left, Right and Center', where he argues that fascism is centrist. Is there any reason why you are citing this source? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article uses the precise term "left, right and center" as is claimed for the cite. Collect (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the title of Lipset's article uses the term "Left, Right and Center", his article does not say, "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as..." What are your sources for that part of the sentence? Why not instead write "Lipset wrote an article called "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center""? Would that have the same meaning? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote of "left, right and center" accurately denotes the fact that there is disagreement on any single term for fascism on the political spectrum. Also re" Horowitz in "winners and Losers" page 210 "Like all movements, left-wing fascism has a somewhat chaotic ancestry. Foremost is what might be called the later Frankfurt school, which emphasized in an uneasy mix the early Marx and the late Hegel ..." et seq. [34] "(The Persopnist movement) was a populism, if not a fasicsm, of left, right and center all at the same time." Currently Putin in Russia is not a "communist" but is decidely an "authoritarian nationalist" who wishes to restore the past glory of Russia -- what would you call him? Collect (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two things we need to be careful about here that will help resolve conflicts. First, we need to distinguish between self-identified fascists and people who are called fascists by others but who do not call themselves fascists. I make no other claims, just that these are different and the article must not mix them up. Second, we need to distinguish between "fascism" as a rhetorical device that can be applied to a range of phenomena, and specific historically (and often geographically) located fascisms. For example Horowitz clearly is not talking about Moussolini's Fascist party or regime. Moreover, Horowitz and Mussolini would agree Mussolini was a Fascist; this is uncontroversial. But Horkheimer and Adorno would vociferously insist they were opposed to Fascism, so the claim that they were Fascists in this case is controversial. These distinctions are essential if we are to distinguish between mainstream and fringe views. I am certain that the videw that Mussolini was a Fascist is a mainstream view. I am sure that the view that Adorno was a Fascist is not a mainstream view. Now I just want to know: is it a minority view or a fringe view? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that Horowitz sees Horkheimer and Odorno as influences on left-wing fascism not as actual fascists. At the beginning of the article he identifies Larouche's groups as left-wing fascists. While Horowitz's article is mostly about influences, Bale's article gives details of a specific case, the NR. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IOW, "left wing fascism" is a real phenomenon acording to both Bale and Horowitz, right? Collect (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish that people had of paid attention to what I had said earlier. But I will repeat: fascists were composed of both reactionary and leftist nationalists, who mutually united in support of irredentist and expansionist nationalism. Please look up "Intransigent fascist" and you will find information about the left-wing faction of the Italian Fascist movement which was the original base of the Fascist movement which called for the overthrow of the Italian monarchy and the establishment of a republic, called for strengthening workers' rights, called for weakening the power of the Roman Catholic Church and power of aristocrats. The Intransigents opposed the reactionary faction of the fascists which promoted cooperation with the monarchy, the Church, and aristocrats. Mussolini played a balancing act between the two factions, he appeased reactionaries by respecting the monarchy, the Church, and aristocrats while he appeased the Intransigents by weakening the power of the monarchy by transferring the power to appoint cabinet ministers from the King to the Prime Minister (Mussolini) and creating the military position of "First Marshal of the Empire" given to both the King and Prime Minister which meant that the King lost his previous exclusive authority to authorize military action and now had to discuss such actions with Mussolini. After Mussolini was overthrown in 1943, Mussolini appealed to Intransigent fascists who remained loyal to him when he formed the Italian Social Republic and adopted Intransigent fascist left-wing policies, including large-scale nationalization of property, as well as persecution of northern landowners who Mussolini felt had betrayed him during his overthrow in 1943. A great source for information on Italian Fascism and especially the internal rivalry between the reactionary and the leftist Intransigent factions of the Italian Fascist movement is the Historical Dictionary of Fascist Italy, ISBN 0-313-21317-8 by Philip V. Cannistraro, 1982. This source discusses indepth on the fact that Italian Fascism was always divided between these two factions who competed with each other to influence Mussolini, who himself tried to balance the interests of both sides.--R-41 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

R-41: I am paying attention. Perhaps you could assist with the wording of the introductory sentence to the "Political spectrum" section which states:

There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum; it has been described as left, right and center.

Do you think this is an accurate statement? Do you think that the footnotes support this statement? How would you phrase it? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ideally the first sentence in a section should give a summary of what is in the section, much as the lede does for an article. Cites are given for each word used, and, in a serendipitous use, one cite is given for the actual phrase used. One remaining problem is that "fascuism" is not a single cohesive political philosophy as defined by any article, and we allow the term to get further muddied by adding sections on sex and the like which are clearly handled differently by different nations. Collect (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect. Thanks for adding the Linehan reference. He does not actually say that fascism "has been described as left, right and center", but that the "dispute amongst historians...overlaps with another contentious area of scholarship, the question of whether fascism was an ideology of the right, left or centre". This may seem similar, but he does not claim that any scholars consider fascism a left-wing ideology and provides no examples that they do. The statement fascism "has been described as left, right and center" is entirely inconsistent with what is found in the literature, which is probably why it took so long to find even this reference (from a book about British Fascism). The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again -- I sm not asserting that "fascism" is in any one position on the political spectrum, and that is the point. Various "fascisms" have occupoied quite different positions on the political spectrum, thus saying "fascism" isin oneposition is quite problematic. IMHO the concept of "authoritarian nationalism" exists apart from the "political spectrum" issue -- Putin is, again IMHO, an "authoritarian nationalist." Collect (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "has been described as left, right and center" implies that it can only occupy "one position on the political spectrum". Why are you bringing Putin into this - he is not even mentioned in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I interpret it to mean that any given example may be left, right, or center. Note that it does not say "left, right AND center for all fascisms" in any case. And examples follow in the paragraph after that sentence. As fr Putin, I consider him to precisely fit the definitions given in the article. Can you tell me where his actions and positions are contrary to the definitions given? Collect (talk)

In that case why does the sentence say "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum?" And why are you talking about Peron, Putin and Francin (as opposed to Hitler, Mussolini and Franco) in the Political spectrum section when they are mentioned nowhere else in the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "disagreement" because there is disagreement. And since it does not say all fascism is at any one point on the spectrum (or if a spectrum is even relevant) then I do not see the problem. And the fact is that the talk page is for improving the article, and giving examples here makes it possible to improve the article. Clear? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the disagreement? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some learned historians place differing groups of fascists on the left, on the right, and in the center. There is not an agreement tht all fascists are in one spot, hence there is a "DISagreement" on that issue. "Disagreement" means that they do not all "agree." Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way you can expand the sentence to reflect that view? Not everyone may read the existing sentence to have the meaning that you have described. Maybe it should read: "There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum. Not all historians place all fascists in one spot. Some historians place differing groups of fascists on the left, on the right and in the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed left, right and center, or not in the spectrum at all. " Which keeps the phrase from the cite, clearly states not all are in one place, and adds the fact that some seem to place some examples entirely outside any spectrum. (keeping same cites) Collect (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing fascism article

Gee, look at Wikipedia's article on left-wing fascism. It doesn't say anything about fascism being a left-wing ideology, and it also contradicts Collect's supposed argument that that the Frankfurt School promotes left-wing fascism and that Horowitz claims that fascism is left-wing. I won't bother pasting sections here; just click on the link and read it there.Spylab (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, WP articles are NOT RS for WP zarticles. And GUESS WHO has just edited there? WOW! Sorry, pointing to an article you just edited as proof of anything fails miserably. As does insertion of claims that the "left wing fascists" named by Horowitz and Bale were "right wing" as an example of WP:SYN and WP:OR -- and even WP:UNTRUTH when the cite does not even have "fanchin" mentioned in it at all! [35] cited as a source on Fanchin does not even has his name in it once. Now can we just let it be that some people call something "leftwing fascism" without trying to falsify that fact? Thanks! (Example of edit just made there: The term has also been adopted by conservative American political commentators to describe extreme or intolerant forms of leftist ideology. The term is also in increasing use in contemporary thought to explore unusual hybrid alliances characterizing late 20th and early 21st century political movements. Collect (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't claim that the Wikipedia left-wing fascism article on its own was a reference. However that article has its own references to back up its content. Also, if you actually look at the edits I made to the article, you will see I did not alter the meaning at all, just did general copy edits. I'll have to get back to you about the Fanchin reference. The link probably went to the wrong page than the one I meant.Spylab (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

READ WP:OR and WP:SYN before you try interpolating your own opinions into precsely written sentences. And calling a left wing fascist (so called by Bale or Horowitz) a "right wing fascist" does not help any editor or reader here. As I have said, I am fully willing to add cites. And using YOUR OWN EDITS to back your own edits <g> that is not going to work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't insert my own opinions. I used the description far right because that is the term used in those people's own Wikipedia articles. If you dispute that term, then perhaps you should remove it from their articles. As for the Fanchin reference, I'm not sure what happened there; I can't find what I thought I found before.Spylab (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP articles are not valid cites for WP -- mainly because ANY editor can change them around. And if that SAME editor is using his own edits as a cite, how valid can it be? And citing something which ain't there is a teensy bit iffy. Collect (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Some readers might find it confusing that the political spectrum section now has a large discussion about the new left-wing fascism, but there is no reference to it anywhere else in the article. Nor is there any mention of neo-fascism. Even more confusing that most of the discussion of the new left-wing fascism is about their influences not their members. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the AfD on "Left wing fascism" -- that was where a decision to merge would have been possible. Collect (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a merger. However, one cannot fail to notice that the article describes various fascist groups, e.g., Nazis, Italian fascists, phalangists, all of which have their own articles, but totally omits any discussion of the new left-wing fascism, except under the "Political spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, the other way is to remove the sections dealing with movements which may-or-may-not-be fascist. Each basically has their own current article (many in need of strong editing, by the way). And removing stuff here which is true of some groups and not of others -- making inclusion of a lot of it not necessarily accurate for all fascists. Collect (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with merging content from the left-wing fascism article here is that — as the referenced content in that article shows — there is disagreement/contradictions about what the term actually means. Some use the term to describe socialists who have characteristics similar to fascists (such as authoritarianism, violent methods and/or anti-semitism (or at least alleged anti-semitism) and/or team up with neo-fascists for certain goals; others use the term to describe far right nationalists who team up with pro-Palestinian, pro-Islamist and/or pro-Arab groups against Israel and Zionists (which doesn't necessarily mean they have leftist sympathies, just that they work with so-called non-white people to fight their perceived common enemy); and others use the term to describe Third Position-type neo-fascists because they have some leftist views. There don't seem to be any reliable references showing that left-wing fascism is an actual movement or ideology, or that anyone calls themselves a left-wing fascist.Spylab (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did I note the word "disagreement" above? As I have iterated, there is indeed disagreement about what is, and is not, fascism, and where, if anywhere, fascism is, or whether (as many note) different fascisms are all over the place. And one problem is the current tendency by some to use "fascist" as a pejorative epithet rather than as a descriptor of "authoritarian nationalism." Collect (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least there's agreement that fascism is an actual ideology and movement, and that there are some widely recognized basic characteristics. The same cannot be said about the term "left-wing fascism", which seems to be not much more than a sloppy, poorly defined label and pejorative epithet.Spylab (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The sources do not use "left wing fascism" as a "pejorative epithet." It is used to state that authoritarian nationalist movements are found in the left wing, and is used by experts int he field. Unless of course you wish to assert your c.v. is better than that of those using the term in the RSs used? Collect (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Added that fascism was a "radical" authoritarian nationalist movement

I get the feeling that many people feel that the intro is missing something, I've noticed that some editors claim that fascism is "extreme right" while other editors claim its "extreme left". Yet they both failed to recognize that their divided views on the subject overlooked their common agreement of it being in their view "extreme". I believe that the word "extreme" is a subjective word, but the word "radical" is accurate to depict the fascists' nationalist views. "authoritarian nationalism" alone seemed a little too narrow, but when described as "radical authoritarian nationalism", this clarifies that that a government which adopts a single nationalist measure that may be authoritarian may be similar to fascism but does not equate to fascism, as the very strong devotion that fascists carry to such authoritarian nationalism.--R-41 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure about that -- many sources state that a "political spectrum" is very poorly suited for discussin fascism. Indeed, some put it in the center --- and many sources not look at multi-dimensional forms of dtermining political position. I think perhaps it is best to use the attributes of fascism in a dispassionate manner rather than spending excessive time counting the angels on the head of that pin <g>. Are we fairly well settled on what the attributes in common with each example are? Collect (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished high school, Collect, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Political spectrum" posits a one-dimmensional (straight line) view of political positions. Many sources now posit 2 or more dimensions -- [36], [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] and a slew of others. What we have, I thought, determined was that fascism is "authoritarian nationalist" as the common core values. This appears to be a general agreement? "Radical" refers going to the "root" of something -- and I am unsure that all fascists would consider themselves "radical" at all. Indeed, some appear to think they are returning to the glories of the past of a nation, and we might as well add "irredentist" to the list of adjectives at that point. Collect (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To the User:The Four Deuces, please do not be impolite toward User:Collect, you did not have to say "I finished high school,...but I have no idea what you are talking about." Please be more polite, and just say something like "I do not understand what you said, could you please explain." To User:Collect, I should point out that radical is seen as an element in fascism. The very definition of radicalism as going to the "root" of something is exactly what one fascist, Plinio Salgado of Brazil said, "Strong governments cannot result either from conspiracies of from military coups, just as they cannot come out of the machinations of parties or the Machiavellian game of political lobbying. They can only be born from the actual roots of the Nation." This quote is in the text of this article under the subsection "Nationalism". Historian Stanley Payne who has written a number of important works on fascism described the origin of the term "fascist" as being derived from the "radical nationalist movement of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento".[42]--R-41 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

sections which need trimming or removal

At this point, Francoism which is described in the article as being not fascist likely does not belong in the article. Also sections from "Social Darwinism" down to "economic policies" are odd as they all pretty much state that fascists do not agree on them <g> making them orthogonal as issues. Ditto the Racism and Religion sections -- if the topic is not generally associated with Fascism as a topic, it does not really belong here. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference, which is from a book called "Fascism in Spain", says that Franco was not a '"core" fascist', but that he was "pro-fascist", lead a fascist party and ran a fascist government. In any case the section is is called "Early Falangism (Spain)" which was a fascist movement. As for the other sections, it is not important that all fascists agree. So I would keep. By the way I hope I was not impolite toward you. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two sections -- I am referring to the one labeled "Francoism" not "Falangism." And having an article which says "Some are in this camp. Others are in that camp" rather makes it clear that those sections represent beliefs NOT held in common, which makes the inclusion here worthless. Collect (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I have combined falangism and francoism. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And the francoism is deleted as "not fascism." When something is "not" something, it hardly belongs in the article, no? Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Other than the reference in the article to francoism, is there any reason why you do not consider it to be fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Um -- what do you mean by "it"? If the sources say it is not "fascist" (and a lot of sources point out how pragmatic Franco was, not adopting the official fascist tenets, etc.) the mention of Franco as last of the Falange leaders before merging with monarchists seems adequate. Collect (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you mentioned what tenets he did not adopt that meant he was no longer considered fascist. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article makes it clear -- the old Falangists felt quite abandoned when he linked with all the other parties, including monarchists. Spain engaged in no "nationalist" activities. Franco specifically dissolved the Falangist Party in 1949. Spain did not engage in any wars, nor establish an outsized military etc. And established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism). Therefore he was the last of the Falangists, and destroyer of Falangism. An interesting sort of person who did not align hismelf with Germany or Italy in WWII. Collect (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He did not destroy the Phalange. He replaced the Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista with the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista. He was nationalistic, maintained a strong army, suppressed other parts of Spain and fought to maintain a colonial empire. He supported the Axis powers in the war, while remaining officially neutral. He did all this in order to protect Spain against the "Judeo-masonic-Marxist international conspiracy" (his words). And he only chose Juan Carlos as his heir in order to destroy the legitimacy of the King of Spain.

I think it would be helpful if you added to the article the reasons why some scholars considered him not to be fascist and note how widespread this view is.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I stopped at the idea that Franco worked on building a Spanish colonial empire. He was not allied with the Axis powers for a start. And Juan Carlos was also 31 when he was named heir to the throne. The king had died in 1941 and had been deposed in 1931, so I do not see how his legitimacy was harmed. His father, Juan of Bourbon, Count of Barcelona, was "pretender to the throne" but renounced his claims after Juan Carlos was crowned. And this is relevant to the article on Fascism in what manner? Collect (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between building and "maintaining" an empire, which is the actual word I used. Franco gave support to the Axis powers without actually declaring war or as people said then "neutral on the side of Germany". After the war Spain was refused membership in NATO because it was a fascist dictatorship. Juan Carlos was only named Franco's heir after he swore allegiance to fascism, and the legitimate pretender to the throne was by-passed.

Anyway the section on Falangists makes no mention of the Spanish Falange after 1937, although it continued to govern for another 38 years. It would be helpful if the section explained, with proper sources, what happened during that time, whether fascism ended in Spain or if not how fascism developed in Spain during those years.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You asserted he "supported the Axis powers." Spain was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides, as it was less tied to any side than was Switzerland. (History of WWII is a lot of fun -- a lot of what people know ain't so (see Josh Billings) Spain was not refused NATO membership because of "fascism" unless you just want to use it as a handy pejorative. Spain was a dictatorship, but not all dictators are "fascists" except as a pejorative epithet. Juan Carlos never "swore allegiance to fascism" and that bit is totally unsupportable. In fact he dismantled the dictatorship -- which someone who :swore allegiance" would not be apt to do. The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne. And the Falange ceased to exist in 1949 -- which means you think that somehow we are being lenient on Franco even though we clearly state his position in the article? There is more than enough to explain the Falangists, which is what that section is intended to do. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that Spain 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. Do not confuse Spain with Portugal, another dictatorship that was allowed membership because it had been trully neutral during WWII and was not considered fascist. Juan Carlos was only able to become king after swearing allegiance to the Movimiento Nacional, and was expected to uphold his oath. (Like Mussolini, Franco had been unable to abolish the monarchy.) The Falange did not cease to exist in 1949, but continued until 1975, although after 1949 it formed part of the Movimiento Nacional. But is the assertion now that fascism ceased to exist in Spain in 1949? The term Pretender does have a precise meaning, but it should not be confused with the more common use as some who makes false assertions, e.g., someone pretends to be someone he is not.

The article does not properly explain when Spain ceased to be a fascist state. I am not asserting any opinion on the matter, merely pointing out that this is an omission from the section, and it would be helpful to have a properly sourced explanation.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Spain was legally neutral, and the British, French and US liked it that way. Salazar, moreover, was almost identical in his dictatorship or more so than Franco. The Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain, so making a pejorative editorial statement otherwise will not advance the article. Franco is mention Falange, and also the break with the old line Falangists. And note that I used "pretender" in a precise and correct manner. As for a date ... I would posit when the Falange party officially got swallowed up is as good a date as any. Collect (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Spain was legally neutral..." Yes, but the statement it 'was actually a "nation of convenience" for both sides' is unsupported by the academic literature. "Falange was not the official "party" under post-war Spain" is incorrect. It was the official party, and no other parties were allowed. There was no "break with the old line Falangists". If the word "pretender" is used properly, then the sentence "The term "pretender" has a precise meaning, and Juan was the "pretender" to the Spanish throne" is a non-sequiter. What year did the official party get "swallowed up"? (It still exists.)

I would be interested to know where all this misinformation comes from. Could you tell me in what source this all appears? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We have been through this. Juan was the pretender to the Spanish throne. Absolutely correct. And the current article specifies the break with the old line Falangiss -- so I am unsure precisely what this is proving. Calling the current article misinformation is interesting -- if you have solid reliable sources to add material specifically on "fascism" then present them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling the section on Spanish Falangism misleading, merely pointing out that it does not state when (i.e., the year) Spain ceased to be fascist and what specific changes meant that it was no longer fascist. The statement that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" is misleading. If he did not want "continued authoritarianism" he would have allowed the rightful pretender (i.e., the rightful king) to become king rather than chosing someone of whom he required an oath of allegience to the Movimiento Nacional. I don't know why you are asking for "reliable sources" because I am not editing the section, merely pointing out that it is incomplete. If you have any sources, it would be helpful. Thanks!The Four Deuces (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia , By William Bridgwater, Contributor William Bridgwater, Published by Viking Press, 1953, 1092 pages" states Franco dissolved Falange in 1942. [43] apparantly causing the "authentic Falange" to oppose him. [44] has Franco negotiating with monarchists in 1942. [45] has Franco declare Spain a constitutional monarchy in 1947. The US signed a treaty with Franco in 1953 (making NATO membership actually moot). And so on. If you wish to use the "all dictators are fascists" usage, this is not the article to do it in. In terms of a recognizable ideological fascism, the end was somewhere between 1942 when the "authentic" Falange appeared and the arly 1950s when the Vatican took control of schools etc. Collect (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh -- and "rightful king" is quite debatable when his dad was ousted. There is, for example, by that standard a "rightful king" of Romania. It only counts when you can get the throne. I am sure somewhere there is a "rightful czar of Russia" and a few hundred rightful kings of England ... Collect (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be a lot of discrepancies in your recent posts in the discussion and what appears in preceding discussion points. You say, "If you wish to use the 'all dictators are fascists' usage". I clearly said " Portugal, another dictatorship ... was not considered fascist". In fact I am not arguing about whether Spain was fascist, merely stating that the article refers to Spanish fascism but does not state when it ended. For all the article says, Spain could still be a fascist state.

My reference to Juan as the "rightful king" was in response to your statements that Franco "established Juan Carlos as his heir (unlikely sort of act for a person who seeks continued authoritarianism)" and that the term "'pretender' has a precise meaning, and Juan was the 'pretender' to the Spanish throne." Obviously you were confused about the term "pretender" and thought that it meant his claim was illegitimate, and are now backtracking by bringing up pretenders to defunct thrones. By the way, there is no "rightful" king of England, let alone hundreds. The English crown was merged with the Scottish crown and the rightful monarch is Elizabeth R.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Obviously" in this case was wrong. And there are a number of lines which assert claims to the English throne. BTW, the "Scottish Crown" is not the same as the "English Crown" and was worn by QE II at least once. And you can ask Sean Connery about whther he considers her to be Queen of Scotland. Collect (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing The Crown with the physical Crown (headgear). I'm sure lots of people claim to be the king of England. Lots of people claim to be Napoleon. You may be one of them. It proves nothing. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is seriously off topic for the talk page. [46] is one salient view of the Queen as "Queen of Scots" as far as the SNP is already concerned. Napoleon loonies are not the same as people who have may legitimate genealogical evidence that they are a superior line to QE II's. Collect (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

Is not RS as it traces back to "freepedia" which traces back to ... WP. (see WP:RS) Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Concept of Fascism is wrong

Fascism is a part of Third Position. Fascism is a multi-racial ideology. Your idea of what Fascism is is totally wrong. Fascism is an actual Ideology, and not simply a tyrannical state! Mussolini allowed for more freedom than you americans have today with your so-called "liberal democracy"!! Especially since your president is trying to ban guns, ban free speech, and tax the poor and middle class...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Talk page here is for discussing how to improve the article, not for debates as to what Fascism is -- we have already pretty muched reached a consensus on that. Collect (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You list Fascism as promoting wars against races as an ideology point... Fascism is a multi-racial movement seeking to unite ALL under its banner! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If this this User:Josh Dean Roy continues his uncivil, impolite attitude which is assuming bad faith by other users, a request should be sent for him to be immediately banned. He appears to have no idea what he is talking about. Mussolini was an opportunist who talked out of both sides of his mouth and changed his views to fit the situation. Just look at these two vastly different quotes by Mussolini, one is racialist in 1928 and the other is anti-racialist in 1934:

"[When the] city dies, the nation—deprived of the young life—blood of new generations—is now made up of people who are old and degenerate and cannot defend itself against a younger people which launches an attack on the now unguarded frontiers[...] This will happen, and not just to cities and nations, but on an infinitely greater scale: the whole White race, the Western race can be submerged by other coloured races which are multiplying at a rate unknown in our race." Benito Mussolini, 1928.

"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. [...] National pride has no need of the delirium of race. Benito Mussolini, 1933."

So it depends on which quote one wishes to use, the racialist one which stresses the importance of race in 1928 or the anti-racialist one that denies that race is real in 1934. The two quotes speak for themselves - Mussolini was an opportunist who was neither a committed racialist or anti-racialist. But if you look at quotes from the 1920s to 1940s, the Italian Fascists spoke of race existing more than not. The difference between Italian Fascism and Nazism was that the Italian Fascists were not as obsessed with "racial hygeine" and purity as the Nazis were.--R-41 (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim by User:Josh Dean Roy that fascists somehow promote the unity of races and not, just look at this quote by Italian Fascist Alfredo Rocco:

"Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict." Alfredo Rocco

Italian Fascism had strong currents of anti-Slavism, anti-Asianism and anti-black views within it. Anti-slavism was directed particularly towards Yugoslavs, various reports made by Mussolini's personal emissaries in the 1920s accused Serbs of being "atavistic", accused the alliance of France and Yugoslavia as being under the influence of "Grand Orient masonry and its funds" and even one anti-Semitic insult against the Serbs for being part of a "social-democratic, masonic, Jewish internationalist plot" [47]. There was anti-Slav Italian Fascist propaganda as well, see here: [48] and [49]. Mussolini himself is known to have hated black people [50] These may not make the Italian Fascists devote "racialists" like the Nazis were but they certainly do not interested in uniting all races and were very xenophobic.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Abviously, the american who wrote the above needs to actual talk to us Europeans before writing an article entry that is full of it! Fascism is supported by Whites and nonwhites! Mexico and Hardy Lloyd are two good examples for the americans to look at. Stop your two-way thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Also, the Third Position Movement, which Fascism is apart of, is made up of Whites and nonwhites. I know you americans like to bash any ideology which doesn't fit into your two-way thinking, but there is a world outside of the ""United" "State""! You people are using emotion, which goes against WIKI's rules!! Try reading Evola or Hardy Lloyd or Mussolini's books or websites based in Europa or the NFP of Mexico...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • And, race and racial-seperation are both promoted and have no conflict with multi-racial thinking...! Hardy Lloyd, for an example, has been networking with nonwhites mostly even though he is a White Power Skinhead! About 80% of Mr. Lloyd's associates are Mestizos!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Fascism and Creativity

Creativity is close to Third Position, but I would say that the religious teachings of Creativity don't fall into Third Position. Creativity does have an anglo feel to it, plus it does not allow for debate, unlike Fascism. The 13 Holy Books cannot be argued against nor re-written! Whereas Fascism encourages debate. Also, Third Position has a multi-racial following, whereas Creativity is only for Whites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Dean Roy (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"The New Left-wing Fascism"

For some reason the term the "new left wing fascism" is used in the section defining fascism yet appears no where else in the article. Although alternative and non-mainstream theories should be presented they should always be described as such. Moreover, whoever wrote this section appears to have absolutely no understanding of fascism or political theory for that matter. The summary of the sources shows a total and fundamental misunderstanding of the original sources and therefore it has been removed.

By the way, a search for the "new left-wing fascism" only returns this site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22new+left+wing+fascism%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Although Wikipedia should present non-mainstream views, it should not be their origin. People who have non-mainstream views should develop some support for them (e.g., peer-reviewed papers) before including them in WP articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not quizzed on c.v. to see if they are knowledgeable -- the aim is ti properly represent all the secondary sources available. There was a lot of discussion about that section, and your bold changes are improper. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

People actually read read these articles for information and it is a disservice to them to provide misinformation.

By the way Mosely should not be mentioned using his honorific title. In the New York Times, which you mention, people are initially referred to by their full names, and their titles are used in subsequent references. E.g., "Oswald Mosley", then "Sir Oswald" for future references. Notice that they would apply this rule consistently, e.g., "John Smith", then "Mr. Smith". I notice that the NYT times recently does not use British titles. Look up Paul McCartney, Anthony Hopkins, Conrad Black. Also http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DB143CF931A2575BC0A9679C8B63 In fact although you are referring to the NYT MOS, you are misapplying it and it is irrelevant anyway because the article does not follow the NYT MOS. However, errors in style are just irritating, and are trivial compared with providing fundamentally flawed, misleading and incoherent misinformation.

Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting claim about NYT MoS ... [51] "the Times uses courtesy titles in news stories." [52] "Sir Oswald Mosely." [53] "Sir Pswald Mosely." [54] "Sir Oswald Mosely." Paul McCartney specifically does not like being addressed as "Sir" so thta is not a vlaid comparison. [55] and a bunch of other NYT articles do call him "Sir." As do [56] and a raft of others. And in today's NYT [57]. I fear you overstate what the NUT style guide has in it. Collect (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. But notice that they also use Mr., Ms., etc. and this WP article does not. Why are you even bringing up the NYT MOS? It's not even recommended for academic writing. Why not use the MLS style book? And why look at examples of what NYT does instead of referring at their style book? But you should be consistent. Roger Griffin is not called "Mr. Roger Griffin" in the section although he is also from the UK and is probably entitled to that title. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I showed that you misstated NYT practice. When you make a claim so easily disproven, it is clear you did not fo your reasearch. Collect (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you are totally ignoring what was said, which was that (1) you have found a couple of exceptions where they didn't follow their own style book. (2) However do not try to figure out what is in their stylebook by reading the paper, look at the stylebook itself. (3) Also, the article Fascism does not follow the NYT style book so it does not matter what the style book says anyway. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

pov tag on spectrum section?

We worked long and hard to make sure the spectrum section was as well documented as possible. One person placed a POV tag onthe section, and I would hope he reads the long and detailed discussions leading to the very NPOV current section. Placing the tag without discussing his concerns here first is worrisome. Collect (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Having reliable sources does not make something neutral, and I do not see that any consensus has been reached. I have placed a request for help on the Fascsim projedt page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fascism The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We put in each source available -- might I ask specifically what in the section you find to be POV? Collect (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You are aware from previous discussion what is wrong but I will enter it for editors who read your comments so that they will not have to go back. The sentence: "Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed 'left, right and center,' or not even in the spectrum at all" is misleading because most historians place fascism on the right, one scholar (Lipset) places it in the center, and no one places it on the left. The extensive discussion of the "new left wing fascism" is misleading because it is based on one article in one book and is not representative of academic opinion of fascism. Also, it is misleading because the article does not claim that the "new left wing fascism" is "left-wing" only in that it uses left-wing jargon in order to attract left-wing support, and the section does not mention that the writer considers it to be part of the right. The writing on the "new left-wing fascism" is also incoherent, and does not explain the theories contained in the footnotes.

This is the section that should be removed:

Irving Louis Horowitz writes of "the new left-wing Fascism" with anti-Semitism as the "essential motor." Horowitz says that in the United States, left-wing fascism consists of a denial or rejection of American democracy, and a devotion to socialism that is merely an idealized abstraction, combined with an unwillingness to confront the actual history of communism. He presents as an example Massimiliano Fanchin (sic), who was arrested in connection with a bombing in Bologna: "He first drew attention as part of a Palestine Solidarity committee, which he helped organize with another fascist, Franco Freda." Horowitz describes Theodor W. Adorno as "central to the thinking of avant garde left-wing fascism." Jeffrey Bale writes on "'National Groupuscules' and the Resurgence of 'Left-Wing' Fascism", giving as an example Christian Bouchet who "joined a left-fascist national revolutionary group known as the Organisation Lutte du Peuple (OLP)."

Clear as mud. Note too that "Fanchin" (sic) was acquitted of the Bologna Massacre after Horowitz's article, and is still living. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are clearly given for historians placing types on fascism in all locations on the spectrum, and two sources for "left, right and center." This was hashed out pretty thoroughly before. ""There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum. Not all historians place all fascists in one spot. Some historians place differing groups of fascists on the left, on the right and in the center." was your own suggestion -- seems odd that you now dispute essentially the same language you assented to. And the cites are releibale sources, which means your desidre to remove them is quite contrary to WP guidelines in the first place. Thanks -- and I expect your POV tag to go, as we already use what YOU proposed! Collect (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the statement is not factual, it's that it does not explain what the mainstream view is, and leaves the reader with the view that the dispute is greater than it is. The same statement could apply to both the American Democratic and Republican parties, yet would be considered misleading. The statement ignores the fact that there is general agreement about fascism as right-wing with some left-wing and possibly even centrist elements. You would not find a statement like this in a textbook. I think it would be better if other people looked at it. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We already use your suggestion for the initial sentence -- so arguing now that it is POV is not logical. Cites for people calling different groups of fascists left tright and center are provided -- which is what the section is about. And since the sentence is from, essentially, a textbook, I do not see exactly what you find POV in the section? Collect (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV cannot be maintained on every sentence, especially in an article about poltiics. What is important is an overall NPOV, with an aim to balance without undue weight. If you don't like the weighting, fix it, but don't expect someone with a different approach, however slight, to write what you want them to write. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important that the opening sentence of a section is NPOV. I had written "While fascism is popularly considered to be right-wing, some scholars have questioned its place on the political spectrum," which I think is generous to minority academic opinion. However, I think the discussion of "left-wing fascism" in the section is a fatal flaw. Horowitz and Bales (and they are the only two writers who use the term) are referring to neo-fascists who use left-wing terminology but they still consider "right-wing" because both these authors consider fascism to be right-wing. The section however misinterprets their position in order to argue that the opinion that fascism is leftist has equal acceptance to the opinion that it is rightist. The discussion is further jarring because there is no mention of neo-fascism or "left-wing fascism" anywhere else in the article. I have by the way tried to edit the article, but there is no consensus on change. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - doesn't belong in the opening section. A section further down is appropriate. Mdw0 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

abortion eugenics and euthanasia

I removed the section and it has now been reinserted without any Talk here --- as there is no commonality specific to fascism in the topic, I wonder just what relevance it has. Actually the only commonality seems to be that governments regulate all of this -- but that is true of non-fascist governments as well, making it a pretty useless section. Can someone tell me why it is an important section to maintain? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Major changes should not be made without discussion - that's what this page is for. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I mentioned it a while ago (28 Feb) and no one said anything against the edit, I would say that I did, indeed, set it out on the talk page with lots of notice. Collect (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what you said:

At this point, Francoism which is described in the article as being not fascist likely does not belong in the article. Also sections from "Social Darwinism" down to "economic policies" are odd as they all pretty much state that fascists do not agree on them <g> making them orthogonal as issues. Ditto the Racism and Religion sections -- if the topic is not generally associated with Fascism as a topic, it does not really belong here. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some people might have missed that you were referring to the "Abortion, eugenics and euthenasia" section as it was not specifically mentioned. You also gave no warning that you intended to delete anything. By the way, what does "<g>" mean? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As the section was labeled "sections which need trimming or removal" and you responded at length here, I thought you had read my post. Saying I said nothing is incorrect, and I regarded it as very clear that I was, indeed, mentions "sections which need trimming or removal." Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I'm really not following your enthusiasm for everything that doesn't match the hopes and dreams of all the major fascist groups being deleted. They weren't all completely homogenous, and this section is describing more general attitudes, both of them and towards them. If there's a note in a particular section that says this group favoured XYZ more and this group less, you seem to want to focus on that difference alone and cut it out. Are you seriously suggesting that Racism and Eugenics are NOT fascist traits? Mdw0 (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is on "Fascism." Adding material which is not really related directly to Fascism seems to be quite misleading. Ought we have "National Cooking" here? I would hope not - and where a section says "some fascists do one thing and others do the opposite" and the fact is that nations which are non-fascist also do the same things, one might reasonably deduce the section has nothing at all to do with fascism. The article is not about "all attributes of each society ever called 'fascist' even though a lot has nothing to do with Fascism." We ought to focus on what is in common, and this side stuff really does not belong. Does this make sense? And the "g" bit goes back a long time when one wished to show a "grin" lest people take your 300 baud tyoing too seriously. As for "racism" being in any way peculair to fascism -- not only were many fascist not racist, many totally non-fascist nations are or were racist (I would suggest parts of the US were "racist" at exactly the same time as Germany was, and there is evidence that racism may well persist in China, and definitely does in large parts of Africa. The more clearly we can define "Fascism", the better this article can become. Collect (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly - definiton is important, but indicating that there are differing opinions as to what counts as fascism - that there are different definitions is vital to indicate the reason for the arguments. It is also important to deal with elements that are commonly associated with fascism, and rightly or wrongly racism is strongly associated with fascism. Also, most modern fascist movements are racist, but there is very little regarding modern fascist groups in the article. The fact that many fascist groups were not racist despite the common assumption is an important idea to express, but this discrepancy isnt enough to treat racism and the methods used to enforce racial policy as sidelines or irrelevant. Mdw0 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Our function is not to add stereotypes which are inaccurate to any group at all. Collect (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So thats why when dealing with issues like racism its important to say; while these fscist groups have racist platforms these don't. That's not a reason to delete the information out because not all fascist groups are the same. You don't overcome stereotypes by deleting information, you do so by differentiating and providing information, something with is ironically the antithesis of fascists, who usually want to entrench stereotypes. Mdw0 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Left-wing fascism" again

I have removed the incoherent comments on the new left wing fascism as there is no commonality specific to fascism in the topic, I wonder just what relevance it has. Adding material which is not really related directly to Fascism seems to be quite misleading and one might reasonably deduce the section has nothing at all to do with fascism. We ought to focus on what is in common, and this side stuff really does not belong. Does this make sense? As for "left-wing" being in any way peculiar to fascism -- not only were many fascists not left-wing, many totally non-fascist nations are or were left-wing (I would suggest parts of the US were "left-wing" at exactly the same time as Groupuscles were, and there is evidence that leftism may well persist in China, and definitely does in large parts of Africa. The more clearly we can define "Fascism", the better this article can become. Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You are the only one pushing your own ideas in that section. The material went through a consensus buidlking first -- and you seem to think you are consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You missed an opportunity there, Collect. Deuce was trying to show how clever and funny he is by using sarcasm and mimicry. All you had to do was say, OK, we'll leave in the abortion eugenics stuff and so we can also leave in the 'new left-wing fascism' bit as well! (What's so NEW about it?) I reorganised this bit highlighting the Nazis use of abortion etc but also saying in the second paragraph that it wasn't a universal tenet. Definitions again - core tenets aren't universal in every single case tenets. Those policies were certainly core to the Nazis. Mdw0 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was no consensus about adding the incoherant context-less gibberish about so-called left-wing fascism to the political spectrum section. You, Collect, are the only one pushing those ideas into that section, and you still can't explain what the term actually means. The only reason it has stayed there is because you keep re-adding it.Spylab (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The material is fully sourced using accepted RS standards. Calling stuff you do not like "incoherent gibberish" is not any way to edit. And since the term is used by learned people in the field, it is not up to us to say it does not exist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• You have not proven that the term has any direct link to actual fascism. You can't even explain what the term means, and why it is relevant. You keep re-adding it without any consensus.Spylab (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are the sources used "reliable sources" per WP:RS and WP:V? Do the sources use the term "left wing fascism"? Are the authors recognized in their fireld? That is what WP:V requires. If you feel they are not RS, then simply go to RS/N and see what others say. But to call what experts have written "incoherent gibberish" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Collect (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• The section is about the place of fascism in the political spectrum. You have failed to demonstrate how the term "left-wing fascism" has relevance to that specific topic. You have failed to demonstrate that you understand what the authors mean when they use the term.Spylab (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The section states that historians have placed types of fascism on the left, right and center -- which is exactly what is shown. Clearly some historians have placed at least one type of fascism on the left, which is what the job of editors on WP is -- to present material which is VERIFIABLE. See WP:V. Collect (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The historians place left wing fascism on the right of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It look's like we have found consensus on removing the new left-wing fascism from the political discussion section. I for one will revert any attempt to re-insert it and hope other editors do as well. For anyone interested in the subject, it has its own article which needs attention, and they should work on it. Personally, I found Horowitz's article hard to follow (although Bales was clearer) and look forward to someone putting it into plain language. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. REMOVING fully citred material from an article is contrary to WP guidelines. That you do not understand simple declarative sentences in reliable sources does not mean you can delete them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I reversed a recent edit to the abortion eugenics etc. section. There should be consensus on major changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Race from Core Tenets

I'm thinking the sections on social Darwinism and eugenics, abortion etc. ought to be more closely attached to the Race and racialism section which is now separate from the 'Core Tenets' section. With the examples shown from Brazil etc, its difficult to use race policy as a sweeping tenet for all fascist groups. Also that new section thrown in at the beginning about the origins of Italian Fascism simply doubles up on the section below it. Its out of place and overly long. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, is that too many side issues were tacked on without regard to their actual relationship with any core prnciples associated with fascism in general. Collect (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what it says in Italian Fascism is correct: "there is no agreement about which aspects of structure, tactics, culture, and ideology represent the 'fascist minimum' core". It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph for "Core Tenets" which notes the problem and identifies usual tenets of fascism, properly sourced. Different writers may disagree, so it might help to have several sources. I've always thought of fascism as relating to parties that claimed to follow fascism, and all these parties have either died out or (in a few cases) transformed. And fascist ideology is not on the same intellectual level as conservative, liberal or left-wing ideology, so you wouldn't expect the same level of coherence or consistency in fascist tenets. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst, for some odd reason, I consider a "tenet" to be a core holding of a group. Thats what comes from using dictionaries <g>. Collect (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that if something is not remotely a tenet, it should not be in the article as being one. Consistency is what a tenet is. When folks have completely different tenets, it is unlikely that any of those "tenets" are related to this article about them. Collect (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The individual parties had tenets. Many WP articles are about groups where individual members do not necessarilty share all attributes but those attributes are discussed nonetheless. I refer to the Cat article as an example. Some cats are domestic, some are feral, but the article does not omit this because neither attribute is common to all cats. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Each party (Nazi etc.) has its own section for that sort of stuff. The issue is whether a common section on Racism makes any sense when there is zero correlation betwween racism and fascism per se. By the way, "feral cats" are "domestic cats." "Felis catus" has been domesticated for a long time -- "feral" only means they are living on their own and not in a household. Cat deals almost exclusively with "shared characteristic" and does not have the "this subject is actually unrelated to cats"-type section which Racism is to Fascism. Thanks for pointing out the difference so clearly. Collect (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic, your definition of "tenet" is inaccurate, it need not be either "core" or "of a group". And domestic means being in a household. Their ancestors were domesticated, which is why they are called feral and not wild.

Some of the sections are about attributes that are not common to all cats, e.g., "Fondness for heights: Most breeds of cat have a noted fondness for settling in high places, or perching". Apparently it is not true for all cats, but is there nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that fascists are totally split -- if the Cat article said "cats love heights but half of cats are afraid of heights" then you would have a parallel. Or "Cats have short hair except for the ones with long hair" which is where Racism is here. As for pedantry -- "tenet" means "a holding (of a belief)" If fascists all have different tenets about racism, I doubt you could call racism a core tenet using any definition of the word! Collect (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it is not a core tenet of fascism, but it is a core tenet of some fascist groups. Do you think that the heading "Core tenets" should be changed or how do you think racism should be classified in this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be dealt with appropriately under each fascist group if applicable, and not be placed as though it represented a general attribute of fascism. Collect (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

All fascist groups claimed to follow Italian fascism although they all modified the ideology. So I think we would want a section that shows to what extent they did this, which is what the "Core Tenets" section does or tries to do. If they had nothing in common (like an article about the political parties of Italy) lets say then I would agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cite for "all fascist groups" with reference to racism and Italian fascism? Unless of course we remove the Nazi's as not following Italian fascism entirely from the article. And the Falangists. And the Romanians. etc. Erm -- how many fascist nations claim to adhere to the Italain Fascist tenets? I would love to see a RS on that. Collect (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Race policy is strongly associated with fascism in general, so it should be dealt with on that basis, but it should be separateed out from the core tenets simply because there are a number of groups who believe it is irrelevant. Isn't that a fair compromise?

I dont think the Nazis ever claimed to be following the Italians. Just because we use the Italian name to describe this particular political type doesn't mean they follow the Italian model. Mdw0 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with dealing with each version of fascism in its own section as already exists rather than having a totally confusing version which then has much of its content simply repeated later in the article? Note that much of it is repeated now. Collect (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, because overt race policy is a trait of fascism, although not necessarily a core tenet, it should be dealt with on that basis. Racism isnt a side issue when it comes to fascism, and it needs to be dealt with as a trait of fascism, but not a core tenet. Fact is that section is already there, I just think the information on social Darwinism and racisl policy should be underneath it, rather than in the core tenets section. I would've thought you'd be happy enough with racial policy being removed from core tenets, but even that change doesn't satisfy you. I may be wrong, but it seems you're looking to hide any reference to racism amongst fascist groups. It should be dealt with in an overall sense, both its nature in fascist groups both now and in the past, and the fact that it can be something of a stereotype because not all are or were racist. Its all very well to deal with each group's individual traits, but the article has to be predominantly about what fascism is overall, and if racism is an issue, and it is, then it should be dealt with clearly. I would've thought having that section would be an opportunity to make your point about non-racist groups in the clearest manner. What exactly is confusing about having Racism and Racial policy as a section underneath Core tenets? Any repetition can then be removed from the individual groups. To me that would be LESS confusing.

With regards to the cat analogy, if cats are known for loving heights and having short hair and catching mice, then those facts should be mentioned. It should also be mentioned that a sizable proportion of individuals don't exhibit those particular traits. The Nazi version of fascism is probably the famous, and most emulated. Modern day fascists are generally known as Neo-nazis, not Neo-fascists. Mdw0 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A distinction was drawn between "core tenets" of fascism and "common traits". I think the problem is the title - it assumes that there are common tenets when in fact there are only common traits. I suggested (above) that the section explains this. So change the title or qualify the subject and then everything is clear. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me any form of government where racism has never been a "trait"? Communism? Capaitalism? Socialism? Feudalism? Anarchism? Monarchy? I suggest still that racism in any given country should be dealt with in that country's section.

Using the first example, Communist writings (e.g., the Communist Manifesto) did not advance racialist theories and Communist governments did not have racist laws, did not teach racialism in their schools and had no racial requirements for government positions. In fact Communists in America were early advocates of civil rights for African Americans. On the other hand, most fascist theorists (e.g., in My Struggle) advanced racialist theories, fascist states passed racial laws and openly practiced discrimination.

By the way, I have never heard of any anarchist governments. Can you provide any examples?

The Four Deuces (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism and tribalism are not unheard of in Communist governments - see DPRK, USSR (which formalised racism to a fine art), and others. In fact any nation which requires your internal documents to list your legal ethnicity seem a tad racist, no? Vietnam definrtely has racism regarding the mountain tribes, etc. And I did not hear of CPUSA standing up for the interned Japanese in the US in WWII -- eh? Japan still has racism against the Ainu -- you missed that one. In fact I can not find a single place where "racism" has been entirely absent in world history. Current anarchy? Try Somalia inter alia. Collect (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism was never part of Communist theory and never "formalised". Racism practised in individual Communist states was indigenous and was not the result of the countries becoming communist, and the countries did not co-ordinate racial policies. So there was no connection between racism in the USSR and in the DPRK, while there was a connection between racism in various fascist countries. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was formalised -- ask people from there. As to see their ID cards. "Communist theory" was slim -- "Communist practice" was clear. I am glad you accept the DPRK example. Note also in China that a person is "registered" into a race on their documents, and I would submit the acts in Tibet do qualify as "racism" as do acts in Mongolia and other areas of China. Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The only Anarchist governments I know of were in Spain in the 1930s, although there was debate as to whether anarchists in government are still anarchist. The Anarchist units in the Spanish civil war also had problems with disciplne and organisation, despite their reputation for being good fighters. The collectives created were a marked improvment in indistrial and agricultural output as is evidenced in many countries who use socialism and communism to fast track their development. However there were problems with more naturally advantaged areas having surpluses and poorer regions getting poorer, also problems with local despots and committees entrenching their power.

And Somalia? Most of Africa pre 1880? No racism? Wow! Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism isnt a trait of those other systems, Collect, merely the reflection of racist individuals who do pop up everywhere. Its not an overriding stimulus for policy, certainly much less nationalism or authoritarianism. In any case, whether or not other systems exhibit occasional nationalist or racist tendencies is irrelevant - its whether fascists do so. Facists are known for being racist and many exhibited and exhibit racist policies, so the racism issue must be dealt with. Can you possibly deny that, Collect?? Mdw0 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And so it was in fascist countries -- pretty much unrelated to the core tenets of fascism. Note the examples given of fascists multi-racial countries -- surely their existence disproves "core tenet" ab initio! Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Manifesto of Race and the Nuremburg Laws show that racism was central to fascist thought. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The mainfesto of race article says "Until the actual publication of the official Manifesto of Fascist Racism, biological racism, as it was understood by National Socialist theorists, had literally no place in Fascist doctrine. Thereafter, the Fascist position on this subject became increasingly confused. Fascists, and most Actualists, were opposed to any racism that shared significant properties with the racism of Hitler's Germany. In that context, persons who had long been dismissed as lacking any significance, made their reappearance among Fascist intellectuals." and the Nuremberg laws were strictly Hitler's fantasy. Nothing about a "core tenet" of anything at all. Collect (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on racism isn't in the section on core tenets - your case there I think is made. Its in its own section. Actually that information on the Manifestos should be in the article. Mdw0 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Manifesto was alluded to but I edited the article to include it with a hyperlink. I notice that Ian Adams devotes a whole chapter of "Political Ideology to "Racism and Fascism" so having a section on racism in a fascism article isn't totally off the wall. http://books.google.ca/books?id=ony7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220&dq=Racism+and+Fascism+ian+adams&lr= The Four Deuces (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

political spectrum heading

This heading was stable for aeons -- now it is "position in the political spectrum" where the actual text makes it clear that it has no singular position in the political spectrum ... if we are to alter "political spectrum" it ought not be in a misleading direction for sure. Thuse "Uncertain position in the political spectrum" would be an improvement, I suppose. Or, best of all, just keep "Political spectrum" where it had been. Collect (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Political spectrum" on its own isn't really clear about what the section is about. "Position in the political spectrum" is absolutely clear, because that is exactly what the section is about; the alleged position of fascism in the political spectrum. It is a subsection of "Portrayals", so it is obvious that the section is about how various people portray fascism. If you want to add words like "uncertain" or "relevance" to that section, you might as well add them to every single section on Wikipedia that expresses any bit of disagreement. I doubt that many others would agree to go down that road.Spylab (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And, as is amply pointed out, "Fascism" does not have a "single position in the political spectrum." The title of a section is not intended to be the lede, so "political spectrum" was quite sufficient. See "Change a heading only after careful consideration, because this will break section links to it within the same article and from other articles. If changing a heading, try to locate and fix broken links. " Collect (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that many articles have hyperlinks to this section. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubt or not, the guideline still aplies. Collect (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Disorganised banner at top still required?

The whole article's looking a lot better, people. Its not perfect and the debate will go on, as it should, but the article's been been reorganised and improved, its clearer and reads better and seems more neutral and balanced, but that just could be my biased opinion. Anyone disagree to removal of the top banner? Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Still a lot of marginally relevant and irrelevant material to go -- like the Racism section which is totally unrelated to any tenet, and is admittedly not related to fascism in general, but which remains in the article. And some other stuff. I feel the article on Fascism should actually be on Fascism and not on every attribute which can be slid in <g regardless of its actual relation to Fascism. Collect (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the banner refers to structure. If you look at the contents, it could probably be better organized. Do you have any ideas on that? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the structure's fine. What the word means should lead, then the core tenets, then other facets and aspects, then examples. Mdw0 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but there seem to be a lot of sections and subsections (e.g., "Origins" following Italian fascism). But I am not opposed to removing the banner. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the banner out if there's no further support for it on Friday. Subsections are details in the overall structure. I diplomatically put that Origins dump of information there rather than remove it totally. Originally it was first in line. It requires some severe editing back though. Mdw0 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Added fascism's opposition to non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements

I just added this point about fascism opposing non-nationalist and class-conflict oriented labour movements to show that fascists were not only opposed to communists but other labour-minded movements and ideologies that they deemed a threat to national unity, as fascists persecuted social democrats and other non-Marxist labour organizations based on these points.--R-41 (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing, Right-wing Political spectrum issue: Addressing inconsistencies and assumptions

One of the worst forms of interpretations of fascism is the left-wing versus right-wing political spectrum analysis. First of all, as a left-wing social democrat I will admit that the political left all too easily lumps fascism on the political right, just as the political right all too easily lumps fascism on the political left. The problem is that the position where people stand on the political spectrum will affect their views, i.e. fascism is accepted as being to the right of communism but to the left of laissez-faire capitalism. But what does left-wing and right-wing really mean? My assumption is that the judgement of left-wing versus right-wing that results in fascism being branded right-wing is if left-wing equals egalitarianism and cooperation (both social and economic) and right-wing equals competition (not just economic competition, but social competition) and a socially hierarchical based society. If left-wing stands for egalitarianism, and right-wing stands for competition as well as economic and/or social hierarchy, then fascism is right-wing. However this view of putting social and economic views together may overemphasize the social side, as economically right-wing people who are in favour of competition and social hierarchy usually want minimal government intervention, while economically left-wing people who favour economic egalitarianism and economic cooperation want significant government regulation, in this case generic fascism on economical issues is anti-egalitarian, supports the preservation of social hierarchy (i.e. class hierarchy) but wants economic cooperation and class collaboration for the sake of national unity as part of nationalism and uses large government intervention when the government deems that a private enterprise is failing to fulfill society's needs, this could place fascism as economically centrist, centre-left or centre-right. So if my assertions about social and economic left-wing and right-wing views are correct, it appears that the economic Third Position or Third Way centrism is what fascism is economically, but socially, it is much more right-wing, in the definition of social right-wing that I described above. If fascism is socially right-wing, that would explain its ability to gain support from socially right-wing groups and individuals which is what many authors focus on pointing out when the say fascism is right-wing. I say this to urge people to look into indepth reviews of fascism, especially by scholars who focus on the subject of fascism like Roger Griffen and Stanley Payne, rather than poor sources like the average dictionary or a book which mentions fascism briefly, which is written by someone who wants a concise definition and does not have significant knowledge on the subject.--R-41 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Contrariwise, the problem is that what we settle on "radical authoritarian nationalism" is not really a spectrum issue, as RS cites here point out. Many "right wingers" are opposed to governmant interventionism in the economy, and may "left wing" egalitatians favor government interventionism, for example. And most "social right wingers" in the US are highly opposed to any sort of rigid government authority - hence the percentage of gun toters, and number of religious sects. Fascists want everything neat and orderly, which means no guns wandering around, and government controls over religion (found in Germany, Italy and ther fascist areas). Socially, I submit Putin is quite "fascist" even though his background is "communist." And, of course, many of Mussolini's first supporters were socialists. I rather suggest, moreover, that fascism appeals primarily on a pragmatic v. idealist axis and not a right-left axis, and not really just on an anarchist-dictatorship axis. In WW II "fascist supporters" were basically congruent with Germans and Italians in the US as far as any documentation is concerned, and most of them had a social democrat sort of background. The postwar pejorative usage is not really part of what we should consider "fascism." But heck, there are still hundreds of words not actually related to "fascism" at all in the article still <g>. And societies which have everyone agreeing will stagnate (hence the reason why Egypt developed precisely to that point, then stopped, China went to that stage a few times, then was overrun, Rome got to that state, and the Vandals arrived, etc.) Collect (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem may be what spectrum you use. The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. [In this spectrum, both major American parties are liberal, although they call themselves conservatives and liberals (roughly similar to conservative liberals and social liberals)].

Economic and social policies do not determine where a group fits on the spectrum, rather they are developed to advance class interests, and change over time.

Traditionally the fascists were seen as protecting the upper class and hence on the right. But fascists put themselves outside the political spectrum, and Griffin and Payne agree. They meant that they did not represent a class. Lipset interprets that as a middle class position which places them in the centre.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! The problem is the spectrum you say "academics" use is not used by all academics at all. In fact, I can not find any current academic article making the claim you made as to what the spectrum is. Perhaos you can give a cite for your claim precisely? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably much more up to date with modern scholarly journals than I am. But Lipset explained it in his article "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center" a version of which can be found here, published as "Fascism as 'Extremism of the Middle Class'": http://books.google.ca/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=fascism+left+right+center+lipset&source=bl&ots=lpGbtoOW6x&sig=tA17CmwRAY8Dj1wRND3nycgJNFg&hl=en&ei=hX7KSf6uDsbrnQf897WNAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

By the way, please do not use terms like "Aha!", "(sigh)" and "your claim", put academic in quotes, overuse italics and bold type, end your comments with "Thanks" and generally take a confrontational and condescending attitude. It's immature and impolite and does nothing to encourage discussion.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your editorial guidance -- I have only been online for 27 years now which means I probably have made more posts than you. (I have read read over 4 billion words online which I suspect is more than you have read ever and had to virus check about a terabyte of files). Show me your precise cite for "The one used by academics is right/center/left = upper/middle/working class (aristocrat/capitalist/labor) = conservative/liberal/social democrat. " Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, and it does not support your claim as quoted. Gosh -- ya think it might not be supported by that article as you cited it? Collect (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think it says then? (BTW, looking at the article, it is an abridged version of the original, 46 pages reduced to 8, but still shows how the spectrum is used. You can find the full article in Political Man, which is on Questia. I noticed this because I wondered how Collect could read the whole article so fast.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset states that the origins of "left-right" went back to the late 18th century, and were expanded in the nineteenth century. The left were egalitarisn, the right was aristocratic. Further that class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour (he cites religion and regions as example for this). He specifically does not claim that a "left right" spectrum is particularly valid (indeed he says it is not); he does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum (in fact he says the opposite). So you are using a cite which claims, in fact, the opposite of your assertion. And this is in common with his other works, so you can not claim you just chose the wrong one. Collect (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I note you later added a comment about "8 pages" -- when this first came up months ago I read well over fifty pages on the topic, so the eight pages was nothing. I already knew what the rest said. Collect (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"class lines are not the only marker of political behaviour, ... does not assert that class differences are the sole marker on the spectrum...the right was aristocratic". So in what way does he say that class is a marker in the political spectrum? The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lipset quotes Robert M. MacIver, The Web of Government (1947), pp. 216, 315 on p. 222 of Political Man: "The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the center that of the middle classes". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Lipset cite you gave where he makes it clear that class is NOT the only determinant on the political spectrum? I do not see how he could have made it any more clear than he did. Collect (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the word "not" in the article and could not find it. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Lipset named other factors, it would seem that it is an odd cavil indeed to say that he must use the word "not" when he gives the specific counter examples. Did the counter-examples (such as religion and region) escape your notice in the article you cited? Collect (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to find your quote. I could not find where Lipset "named other factors", or "when he gives the specific counter examples". And yes, "the counter-examples (such as religion and region)" escaped my notice. Could you please provide the quote and page number. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, your cite page 113 "other dimensions, like religious differences or regional conflicts, account for political behavior which does not follow class lines." Page 117 "Data from a number of countries demonstrate that classic fascism is a movement of the propertied middle classes, who for the most part normally support liberalism, and that it is opposed by the conservative strata ..." Lipset goes into much more detail in his books, however. Collect (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You just proved my point. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the viscious arguing. Let's think this through rationally and discuss not argue, as this is a discussion not an arguing page. On the social side, fascism is commonly seen as right-wing - i.e. it is anti-egalitarian, it favours social hierarchy and social competition over social equality. Economically it is commonly seen as centrist, centre-right, or centre-left (i.e. supports the preservation of classes, supports private property, supports private enterprise but is willing to use social welfare and government intervention to solve economic problems). From a social perspective, the argument that fascism is "far-right" or "radical-right" may be very accurate, but economically, they are not located on the extreme right as that would mean total economic competition, total economic hierarchy, and total rejection of government intervention into the economy based on the concept of total economic competition. Fascists allow a significant degree of economic competition and economic hierarchy but not that would come at the expense of national unity. Fascists would intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed or was insufficient, or to promote national unity. The Dopolavoro system in Fascist Italy and KdF in Nazi Germany were two examples of major social welfare and government assistance programs that provided goverment subsidized recreation and entertainment facilities, government construction projects for the unemployed, and government-subsidized vacations for workers that were very economically left-wing in nature.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I may be totally wrong here, but isnt the political spectrum political, not economic? Of course certain political bents generally enforce certain economic standpoints on the behaviour of government, but that's only one small aspect of economics. Surely if there is an economic spectrum it exists on multiple planes both macro and microeconomic, and doesnt closely correspond with any political one. There are plenty of left-wing groups who are anti-government, especially the Anarchists, and plenty of conservatives who support government intervention such as protectionism. The link between a political and economic spectrum, if either of those things coherently exist, is tenuous to say the least. I think the assumption of certain economic preferences to left or right wingers is heavily influenced by today's mid-range social democrats, liberals and conservatives, who may be large, influential groups today, but in the range of political viewpoints only occupy limited space in the centre of the political landscape, and whose policies are very similar, but whose minor differences are highlighted in the media. Mdw0 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Just thought I'd add something uncontroversial about the cosy Catholic relationship with Franco and the Nazis but it was promptly removed. I wonder why? PS I also removed some rubbish that was there about "3 million Polish Catholics and 3 million Polish Jews were sent to concentration camps" (the reference given was a Catholic website!) Zombie president (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) PPS It was my first ever contributtion so it would be great to get an answer. CheersZombie president (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First requirement is a "reliable source" which backs up anything you write in an article. Note all those footnotes? Each one (hopefully) has material in it to precisely back up what it is a footnote for. Ones found not to be actually right tend to get removed as soon as they get spotted. Second requirement is "NPOV" -- this does not mean nothing controversial gets into an article, just that where two sides exist of an argument, each side must be represented in the article. I suggest you read WP:RS to see how cites get used, and why not all websites are considered "reliable" for WP usage. Thanks! Post on my Talk page if you have any other questions -- too often newcomers get sent thoudsands of words when if we knew what they wanted to know, a short answer would do fine <g>. Collect (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. Thanks Zombie president (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mobutism

I don't see why Mobutism is included in the article. There were numerous similar post-colonial regimes. Peronism and the Lebanese Phalange have more obvious connections with fascism, but they are not included. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon is clearly included. "Falangism was significant in Lebanon through the Kataeb Party and its founder Pierre Gemayel.[255] The Lebanese Falange fought for national independence which was won in 1943; they became significant during the complex and multifaceted Lebanese Civil War which was largely fought between Christians and Muslims.[256]" Peronism certainly could be listed parallel to Mobutism, I would suppose. Collect (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed that. (It's under the section for Spain.) I think the inclusion of Peronism was debated at length. What I was wondering though was why Mobutu is included but not e.g., Idi Amin, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Duvalier, Somoza, Suharto, Chiang Kai-shek, to name a few. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a thing called Mobutism. personally I thought he was a self-serving thug. Anyway, is there any' scholarly literature that links him with Fascism? The new Deal seems closer to Fascism than Mobuto. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Many you name differ in key respects from being "fascist" and if we are not careful we will have vandals trying to add Bush and Blair to the list. Can we keep to fairly clear-cut cases? I found just enough possible sources for Mobutu not to instantly rule him out here, but we likrly should discuss it. The others suggested are pejorative fascists only for sure. FDR's "Blue Eagle" was, indeed, on the ragged edge, but FDR pulled back on it. Collect (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well please give us your sources and explain how he differs from other third world strongmen. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong game. Show me how the other dictators of the world all happen to be "fascists." Note the definition of fascism we arrived at to avoid having the pejorative use take over the article. Collect (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mobutism was very similar to fascism, Mobutu's Popular Movement of the Revolution (MPR) became entrenched in a single-party state in Zaire and pursued a radical and authoritarian nationalist agenda of purging western culture from Zaire while promoting local Zairian culture. I added this for no pejorative intentions whatsoever. The MPR's political agenda was entrenched into the constitution of Zaire and Zaire's flag was the same as that of the movement. I added a source which directly says that Mobutu's agenda was highly similar to fascism, but notes that it was difficulties in implementing their agenda which prevented the state from being able to gain complete control of the country. This is the source The Congo from Leopold to Kabila: A People's History written by Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja in 2003. Pp. 165 of this book specifically states that Mobutu and the MPR pursued an agenda which was highly similar to fascism. Mobutu and the MPR called Zaire a "parti-etat" (a "party-state") and exactly like multiple fascists, rejected both capitalism and communism while promoting a "national revolution" in which he led the country as a dictator and was seen as the "father of the nation" and a warrior leader (very militaristic). Youth were indoctrinated into the MPR like fascists did and with the same principles that fascists had. Lastly, because Mobutu stayed in power for about thirty years under this single-party totalitarian system in Zaire, this combined with the ideology's close similarities to fascism means that this ideology is VERY important to be examined. I list Mobutism not because Mobutu was a dictator (as there are many in history) but because of the authoritarian, nationalist, single-party state combined with anti-communism and anti-capitalism which was officially promoted by Mobutu and his party.--R-41 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the article that lists dozens of countries that have been single party states. All of the countries on this list claimed to be anti-capitalist and the non-Communist countries were anti-Communist as well. The description of Mobutism could also apply to most of the examples I listed above.

But even if Mobutism is very similar to fascism, it is WP:OR to draw your own conclusions and enter them into this article. The only reference to fascism in your source says "The drift toward fascism...that [Frantz] Fanon had feared did not materialize". However Franz Fanon wrote that "fascism has triumphed for half a century in Latin America", The Wretched of the Earth (1961), so his definition of fascism is wide.

BTW, ever notice how the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada looks like the Canadian flag?

P.S. Collect: Nope!. Same game. What applies to Mobutu applies to ALL AFRICAN DICTATORS is not a rare cavil, so please avoid orthogonal points. Thanks! <g>

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not engage in hostile behaviour again, User:The Four Deuces or I will immediately report you to an administrator for uncivil behaviour the next time. You and Collect have engaged in vicious arguing on this talk page for too long anyway, it is about time for an outside intervention to break up the edit warring on the talk page between you two. Furthermore Mobutu is not like all African dictators as you claim Four Deuces, that statement is extremely biased and dismissive. The reason is because you refused to take the author seriously, his judgements about certain governments in Latin America may not be as irrational as you think, there were unusual regimes in South America which had strong similarities to fascism. In addition, when one thinks of it, Mussolini could himself be considered "just another dictator" amongst the great mass of dictators in history who just used different phrases, perhaps that is indeed what Mussolini himself is. But look at the obvious and striking similarities between them: the single party state of the MPR that supported "national revolution", "authentic nationalism", anti-communism, anti-capitalism, a middle position between capitalism and communism, and lastly that preached literally preached that Mobutu was Zaire's "Messiah" and that the MPR was Zaire's "Church" all are in a combined manner, extremely fascistic. Mobutu was a corrupt man whose agenda failed, but this does not mean that his political ideology should be discounted, Mussolini's regime was in many respects, an abysmal failure that failed to live up to its agenda: i.e. Mussolini failed to create a strong military, he failed to mobilize Italy's industries for war, and Mussolini never created a fully totalitarian state, the monarchy remained, the aristocracy remained, the Church remained, and private enterprise remained. Mussolini's Fascist regime Italy in terms of strategic importance is practically seen as a joke, if Mussolini's regime is a joking insignificant and a failure in terms of achieving its objectives one to some, don't assume that Mobutu's regime is somehow incapable of being fascist, like Mussolini it had official intentions and these intentions were very close to fascism as noted in a book, but like I indicated in the article, not exactly the same. Please do not go on a tangent about multiple ideologies that may be similar to fascism as well, I get what you are trying to say. I would suggest that instead of trying to prove if I am wrong, try to find out if what has been posted is accurate or what constructive suggestions you may have to address the problems you see with the info on Mobutism in the article, that is far more positive, more thoughtful, and more respectful than merely criticizing my efforts. But I do have an important question (albeit rhetorical sounding, but one which I would like a rational answer to): if a radical, authoritarian nationalist single party state led by a dictator for almost thirty years who purges non-domestic culture, restricts political opposition and attempts to indoctrinate people to a political party and leader as in Zaire may not be considered fascist despite its close similarities, then please tell me why it is not an important example of para-fascism as I have listed it as and as an author has noted?--R-41 (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

After considering what has been said, I think I will remove the Mobutism section for now, in spite of its close similarities to fascism. I suppose we shouldn't fill up the para-fascism section with all the "maybe" fascisms in the world, but only the ones that are so close (i.e. Austrian Fatherland Front leader Dollfuss and Francisco Franco literally meeting Mussolini.)--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not dismissing your opinion, you may be absolutely right. However, The Congo from Leopold to Kabila does not state that Mobutism was fascism. "African party states were authoritarian rather than totalitarian" (p. 165). But this is not the place to determine what fascism is. The article is supposed to present the reader with academic opinion about fascism, indicating what theories are most accepted. I refer to Wikipedia's policy:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

The best source for Mobutism = fascism would be a book about fascism. Using Nzongola-Ntalaja's book as source would be selective. If Mobutism is fascism, then it is likely it is not the only example of post war fascism. The book says the regime "acquired all the characteristics of personal rule then found elsewhere in Africa: a one party dictatorship under the authoritarian control of a single individual" (p. 141).

I will answer your question, although I giving my own opinion (which may be wrong) and hope it does not generate endless debate. Fascism is a middle class reaction against their perceived loss of status, which demonizes ruling elites, the poor, minorities and foreigners. It is a mass movement that organizes as a political party in order to compete in parliamentary elections. The party however continues after power is attained and operates as a parallel government, because existing institutions like the army, the courts and the church remain as rivals. Mobutu was a military dictator imposed on The Congo by Belgian and American intelligence without local backing. The party was organized later in order to assist the regime. Fascists attempted to advance the nationalistic interests of the countries that they ruled, while Mobutu ruled to advance foreign interests.

BTW my comment to Collect was phrased in the same manner as numerous comments he has made to me and you have never commented on them or suggested you would report him to the authorities.

The Four Deuces (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some people think that criticism or presentation of an opposing argument is hostile, vicious, uncivil and biased. I always wonder what these people would do if they evercame across any seriously offensive argument. If you can't handle a bit of superior argument saliently presented to you, (as I have had happen to me a couple of times here, hence my continuing interest) then you may as well join those you're discussing. Mdw0 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Amibiguity

I'm not sure how to phrase this other than to ask is there any way to nail down Fascism a bit? Almost every single one of their 'core tenents' seems to contradict itself hopelessly. The justification for inclusion is invariably one of the Italian school. Considering how much the ideology and practices have changed, perhaps there should be some kind of distinction? Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that nailing down "fascism" is a bit like nailing Jell-O. As far as I can tell, we have to rely on the "reliable sources" which, themselves, do not particularly agree with one another. The task is not to do research, but simply to relay to readers what learned people have written. And with the acknowledged pejorative misuse of the term, this is no easy task. Collect (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question is if it's a "core tenent" how come it's inclusion is disputed? Soxwon (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The "core tenets" are the dogmas behind the movement. Where different groups are called "fascist" but totally disagree on an issue, it is hardly likely to meet that standard. I happen to disagree with the inclusion of some of the sections here, as you will note by looking at my prior comments. Collect (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe all the tenets should be listed as "Fascist Characteristics" ? Mdw0 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Each fascist movement usually has its own unique traits as it is a nationalist movement and each nation has its own unique history. Mussolini intentionally made fascism ambiguous so that it could attract a large array of support to its nationalist principles, Mussolini said that fascists can be "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists". Fascism is an ideology which is obsessed with absolute national unity, which means that it attempts to find ways to gain popular support of most people rather than strategically selecting people. If one examines fascism from its nationalist standpoint, ideas that seem contradictory make sense: i.e. promoting social welfare while opposing class conflict (that is for national unity in helping the lower classes while not aggravating the upper classes), opposing individualism and individualist ideologies (i.e. liberalism) while promoting collectivism of nations and opposing class identity (to absolutely unify a nation in a collective, individualism must be crushed or dissent will rise), and opposing egalitarianism (because egalitarianism means acceptance of other peoples whom radical nationalists may have grudges against, such as Yugoslavs to Italian Fascists and Jews to the Nazis, plus fascists wanted their nations to be strong to compete and perhaps wage war with rival nations, so demanding that members of the nation be strong and not reliant on the aide of others was deemed beneficial for the strength of the nation). Italian Fascism's perfect targets for national disunity were liberals and communists as Italy had a long tumultuous history of small-"l" liberal governments that were unstable and in many cases corrupt while communists and other class conflict prone militants in Italy were extremely violent and to nationalists, the communists and other class conflict militants had jeoprodized Italy's military campaign in World War I in violent actions against the government, which was seen as unpatriotic and treasonous by nationalists. By the end of World War I, many Italians were angry with what they saw as failed and weak liberal governments and also angry and worried about the Italian nation been torn apart by class conflict and the potential rise of Bolshevism in Italy after the events in Russia in 1917. This is the political and historical context of fascism, which is confusing when one only looks at the loose array of policies, but is much more rational when one knows the basis for the fascist agenda which is nationalism and when one knows the aggravating factors that led to it becoming a popular.

Well then, instead of trying to nail down something that is so flexible and ambiguous, why not adapt the article for that reason. Take what things are absolute (anti-intellectual, fanaticism) and keep them as "core beliefs." For the rest, take Italy (and perhaps Nazi) fascism and display it's views, then show how the meaning has changed from place to place. It would look something like this:

I Core Beliefs

A) Belief 1

B) Belief 2

II Itailain (possibly Nazi) Fascism

A) Belief 1

B) Belief 2

III Other forms

A) Belief 1

And so on, we could also trim and combine sections 3, 4, and 5 this way. Soxwon (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that anti-intellectualism and fanaticism are not beliefs, but they help explain why fascists did not develop a coherent rational ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok,tenents and practice then Soxwon (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in the article explaining where fascist support came from. Does anyone think there should be a separate section? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned: "aristocrats or democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifists".[39] Mussolini claimed that fascism could be both revolutionary and conservative.[40]" Mussolini ran a fairly all-inclusive operation, and his movement drew from just about all political types. Collect (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini was actually writing about fascist ideology rather than who were his supporters. In any case the article should use secondary sources where available. I meant something more detailed. See: United_States_Democratic_Party#Voter base or Republican Party (United States)#Voter base as examples. Financial support is also important. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We have sources for his supporters having included socialists, anarchists etc. I doubt we will find Gallup polls dating back to the 1920s for sure. Collect (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are of course other methods of determining who the supporters were. But if you have have sources then it would be helpful to add them to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[58] Jewish supporters. [59] "veterans ... futurist painters, pro-war socialists and university and school; students" (as being in the "Fascist squads.") [60] "Robert Michels ... develops from syndicalism and international socialism ... and as an early supporter of Mussoline defends Italy's entry into the war against Austria and subsequently Germany. (WW I)" [61] Odon Por was a socialist supporter of Fascism. and so on. Collect (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So can we say that "Fascism drew its support from Jews, veterans, futurist painters, pro-war socialists and university and school students"? The Four Deuces (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots more (I did not list every available cite for sure) -- but is clear that Fascism drew support from a very wide range of people. I trust this answers your question. Collect (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we state that fascists drew wide support and that demographics (religion, ethnicity, class, gender, previous political alliance, etc.) played no part in determing fascists' support? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to this. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Often played no part. Obviously the inclusive / exclusive nature of fascist groups varied. Mdw0 (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that there is no unifying essence of fascism which required it to seek out any particular group. Clearly Mobutu was a tribalist which affected his support. That does not mean, however, that it was important as any sort of general rule for fascist groups. As this is an article on fascism in general (short sections for individual groups and movements) the wording is quite proper. Collect (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that while fascism claims that it is open to people of diverse political beliefs, this does not mean it has totally ambiguous views. Mussolini may have claimed that he appealed to pacifists, but his record was anti-pacifist, just as his claims to appeal to democracy advocates were hollow as he shut down representative democracy and examples of supposed direct democracy by the fascist regimes such as plebiscites (i.e. on the Lateran Treaty and the reunification of Saar into Germany) were done with the government telling the population what result it preferred and thus people feared violence by the fascists if the result was not in the government's interest. Fascists declared that they were nationalists, i.e. Mussolini once had a very brief quote of what Italian Fascism was, saying approximately that "Fascism is nationalism plus futurism". Also the systems which the fascists ran their states are not ambiguous, they were nationalist single-party states with social and economic interventionist programs to regiment society for military and economic purposes which had common anti-class conflict, anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-internationalist and other prominant views.--R-41 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside -- the Saar reunification was, AFAICT, fairly open. The dislike of the French far outweighed any other factors. See also the 1955 vote where I doubt the fascists had any sway. Collect (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that the middle class nature of fascism was one of its core aspects, distinguishing it from conservatism and socialism, as well as helping to explain its tenets and appeal as a type of "right-wing" populism. Lipset's article "Fascism as 'extremism of the middle class'"[62], an abridged version of "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center", discusses this issue and it continues to be important in fascist studies. However, as no one seems to find it significant, I will not press the matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity - cont.

I seem to have sidetracked everyone from Soxwon's re-organization proposal. I don't think the academic consensus is that they had core beliefs beyond the idea of a leader, but that some beliefs are typical of fascists and what unites them is their self-consciousness of a connection. It's like one of those tests where someone is determined to have a condition if they have a high score, e.g., the Hare Psychopathy Checklist. I don't have any position on re-organization, but started this new section to get back to the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that saying that there is no perfect academic consensus means somehow that there is no consensus whatsoever is a flawed and defeatist view. I say defeatist because it claims that it is impossible to find a consensus. There is NO perfect consensus on anything, especially on many political issues, but general consensus on political views is possible. For instance every knowledgeable scholar will say that core tenets of fascism include nationalism, authoritarianism, advocacy of the creation of a single-party state, support of the government being run by a dictator, support of government intervention into social and economic areas, among other things. It is because it is nationalist that no two fascist movements can be completely alike, because each nation has its own history and its own culture to affect its views. User:The Four Deuces mentioned about psychology tests which brings me to another point: different personalities of the fascist leaders affected how the movement was presented, for instance Mussolini presented Italian Fascism in idealist and very philosophical and intellectual terms while Hitler presented German National Socialism in very realist and simple terms. But when one reviews the content about what they say is very similar. One should remember that the most effective nationalist, or indeed anyother form of collective populist policy is to appeal to a wide array of people in the targetted group by being as vague and open as possible. Just look at this quote by Mussolini: "I do not respect—I even hate—those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others". This quote is a little divisive-sounding, as initially it may seem very anti-socialist and pro-capitalist to business people who believe in free markets, but to others it may sound very pro-worker/socialist and anti-capitalist in that it appears to say that no one has the right to steal money away from those who laboured to earn it. Mussolini was very clever in saying things that could have two meanings at the same time. I mentioned a quote earlier that Mussolini claimed that fascism, among other things, could have pacifist and anti-pacifist supporters within its ideology at the same time. It sounds like hypocracy, but Mussolini's foreign policy in the 1920s involved pressuring other countries to cede to Italy's demands without going to war, such as making Albania a protectorate and allow Italian settlers to move in and forcing Yugoslavia to sign the Treaty of Nettuno which also allowed settlers to move into the Italian-claimed territory of Dalmatia. Mussolini did this so that Italians could eventually colonize these regions, so that under the League of Nations principle of self-determination of all nations , the Italian nation in Dalmatia and Albania would eventually be able to legally (under international law) have these territories join Italy. Italian Fascism was anti-pacifist in the sense that it did not believe in perpetual and constant peace, if the fascist movements' goals could not be fulfilled through peaceful means, they were fully willing to threaten or use war to achieve them. The Treaty of Nettuno was officially a peaceful agreement agreed to candidly by Italy and Yugoslavia but in reality was more like a shotgun wedding, international observers expected that there would be a war between Italy and Yugoslavia if Yugoslavia did not concede to sign the treaty.. The scenario in the Suddetenland in 1938 was very similar to that involving the Treaty of Nettuno, with Hitler claiming that he only wanted Czechoslovakia to respect the self-determination of the German nation in the Sudetenland and claimed that he wanted a "peaceful" solution, but Nazi Germany was ready and willing to wage war to gain that territory. Hitler did the same thing when he gained Memel from Latvia, and tried to get Danzig and the Polish Corridor through treaties, but Poland would not give in to the Nazis' expansionism, then war erupted because Hitler could not achieve his nationalist goals through peace. It is of great irony that the Nazis declared the year 1939 to be a "year of peace", but it shows that they had no inhibition in presenting themselves militarists and pacifists at the same time. As can be seen Hitler and Mussolini both attempted to present themselves as people who were willing to use war to achieve nationalist goals, but who were willing to preserve peace if nationalist goals could be achieved through other means. Certainly both Hitler and Mussolini preferred war as being deemed heroic, but forcing an enemy country to cede through peaceful means made them look like reasonable people. This is fascism being "pacifist" and "anti-pacifist" at the same time as in the case of the Treaty of Nettuno and the Sudeten crisis, peace between countries would be maintained if rival country give in to fascist country's demands, war would begin if rival countries refused to give in. The point of me saying all of this is to say that fascists had common ideas and common agendas, what may seem ambiguous and hypocritical about various forms of fascism is often because of fascism's very nature of being a nationalist ideology which means that it has to apply and adapt to different national histories and that its agenda must be broad enough to encompass a genuinely collective spirit over all members of a nation.--R-41 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all members, only enough members to maintain their hold on power. Or enough of the powerful elite. Exclusion of certain types is most certainly a core tenet of fascism. Divide and conquer. As regards the "pacifist" stance of the facist countries in the 30s, I dont think you can equate "pacifism" with "not going to war with the most powerful enemies just yet." The tension between the Euopean powers was pervasive at that time - they were all treading on eggshells trying very hard not to piss each other off too much and risk war, or in the fascists' case risk war before they were ready. Mdw0 (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that fascists were indeed anti-pacifist and that peace was never a true goal in itself in fascism as fascism is based on competition and conflict between nations, I am simply explaining what they meant by their claims of support of "peace". "Peace" like you said was seen by fascists as a time to re-arm, to prepare for war, but peaceful negotiations to gain what the fascist states' wanted was done to humiliate weaker countries' by forcing them to agree to their demands or risk having war. By saying that they were for "peace" but always ready for war, fascist-run countries attempted to look reasonable and make their opponents look like unreasonable war-mongers - i.e. the Nazis claimed that Poland invaded Germany, this is not true, but it shows that they did not want to appear as the aggressors in spite of their very aggressive stances on expansionism, as the Nazis very disgenuinely claimed that they had wanted 1939 to be a "year of peace". Peace was seen in a utilitarian manner by fascists, the name of peace could be used to force humiliating concessions from other countries under threats of war to allow fascist states to acquire territory without losing a single person in combat and thus officially looking like they were reasonable in solving a problem without force. War is always on the table for fascists, but utilitarian uses of peaceful means are never discarded, as the Treaty of Nettuno and the Sudeten Crisis reveal that peace can be preserved while a country can be forced to make humiliating concessions to an aggressor fascist-run country.--R-41 (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss the article not fascism. It says above: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Fascism. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." A good article reflects accepted understanding of a subject and must be referenced to authorities. We cannot say that authorities do not agree on the definitions of fascism, so we will agree on a definition. Looking through the discussion archives, numerous editors have made this same comment.

Instead of concentrating on core issues, a lot of editors have tenaciously pressed non-mainstream views, e.g., fascism = socialism, "left-wing fascism" is left-wing and fascist, Mobutism is fascism.

Rather than argue with the new list of core tenets, which includes et cetera, I only ask that it be verifiable.

It would be helpful it editors kept their comments short and to the point. Also, editors should make their comments here rather than on one another's talk pages because it makes it difficult to follow the discussion.

The Four Deuces (talk)

I agree with most of this. This discussion section has become unwieldy. However, also I think that minority views with verifiable and substantial published references should be included. Fascism is so misunderstood and disagreed upon in general that I seriously doubt we're going to be able to come up with a truly meaningful and fair definition. Each significant viewpoint may just need it's own subheading forever.--Arationalguy (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, I was trying to explain the ambiguity within fascism regarding the ambiguous claim by Mussolini that fascists could be both "pacifists and anti-pacifists". Discussing the ambiguity of what fascism is in this article which is what this discussion section is about. This discussion section was created because people are saying that this article has no point, that it is unfair. The definition we have right now for fascism is one of the most accurate that I have ever seen in this article or in most books for that matter, the problem is that people either want a "perfect" answer and can never be satisfied or succumb to defeatism because of minor problems in the definition. Definitions of topics and what they mean are written about by multiple writers with different views. What Wikipedia does is filter the views of multiple sources to find common strands of information which are not under dispute, with the exception of the political spectrum section of this article and the section involving fascism's view on religion, most of the article is highly coherent and justified by multiple sources. To User:Arationalguy, I say this, look at what some uninformed dictionaries have a definition of fascism as, I have seen one dictionary give a lame definition of fascism being "oppressive dictatorial control", so you don't have to be so defeatist, be thankful that this article is much better than that of a published book. This article with the help of many users has got the essential characteristics of fascism correct, the only controversy is the political spectrum section where some left-wing partisan users scream that it is right-wing and some right-wing partisan users scream that it is left-wing. You can't satisfy political partisans, they always want to fight, so don't worry about being "fair" to them, their definition of fairness is complete submission to their ideological view. Be fair to people who want real knowledge, not just satisfaction. On the point about ambiguity within fascism, I have pointed out before, but will repeat, is that nationalist and other collectivist populist movements try to appeal to large numbers of people who may have different views and have to be ambiguous in order to gain the support of large groups of people. Italian Fascism for instance was united in nationalism but had internal divisions on other issues in which Mussolini had to appease multiple factions, hence that is why there is ambiguity in fascist beliefs. We can complain about minor problems in this article until we are blue in the face, as Wikipedia involves endless revision but I am very thankful to all those users who have put in time to help find a very concise definition of fascism which is currently in the article. And please don't make negative and defeatist statements like "I seriously doubt we're going to be able to come up with a truly meaningful and fair definition", make positive and constructive suggestions so that we can make improvements to this already much-improved article.--R-41 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

R-41 said: "What Wikipedia does is filter the views of multiple sources to find common strands of information which are not under dispute". That is absolutely wrong. WP Policy states "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources". (See Wikipedia:Npov#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Syn#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position.) I have therefore tagged this article. Please do not remove these tags until the dispute is resolved.

Again, the "Political spectrum" section first sentence has been changed to 'Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all'. As we discussed above, this statement is false and not supported by the references or even in the section itself. This followed by Mussolini's views on fascism. Mussolini is not a reliable source. Therefore I have removed this paragraph.

Editors should familiarize themselves with guidelines for writing articles before making changes, which will go a long way to reduce disputes. Please note too that these articles are supposed to be informative and not to to present personal views.

The Four Deuces (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement is not false, and was suggested by you, if you recall. {;ease dp not make such changes when they were, in fact, suggested by you. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect: The onus is on you to provide sources for your statement and you have not done so. Anyone can read on this page and the archives the numerous unsuccessful attempts that I and other editors have made to uncover your sources. It is also evident that neither I nor anyone else agreed to this phrasing and in any case prior agreement would not justify keeping it. Even if the statement was true and sourced (it is neither), it would be misleading because it would give wp:undue weight to minority and fringe opinions. Furthermore it is unclear prose. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, I stand corrected over a mistake in Wikipedia policy, since you now told me, so thank you. But I am disappointed with your unconciliatory, impolite, and unwelcoming behaviour which is what Wikipedia users are supposed to have. You could have easily pointed out my mistake without being so personal, aggressive, and distrusting towards me, as well as by being alarmist by adding a synthesis tag to the top of the article which discredits the work of multiple users just because of a mistake on my part, as that is not acceptable or fair to other users. I have collected material from multiple sources of quotes and well-known scholars on the subject who essentially say the same things but only in different words. The same is the case between you and the User:Collect. I will amend mistakes I have made, just tell me what they specifically are, instead of tagging the entire article that discredits the work of multiple users merely for a mistake on my part. I will warn you User:The Four Deuces that I have urged you to behave cooperatively with me and other users like User:Collect, by refraining from engaging in vicious arguments so I am warning you this (and for this matter, User:Collect as well in his arguments with you): if you continue to have uncooperative and distrusting attitudes towards other users instead of being cooperative, constructive, and welcoming as Wikipedia calls for, I will seriously consider sending a request for you to be banned from Wikipedia. We do not need angry arguments on Wikipedia, we need constructive discussion and constructive solutions, so please refrain from being so distrustful of users like me or Collect. I have no bad intent for this article and I am not pushing my own views, for instance I do not believe that fascism is exclusively right-wing, but for the sake of those that argue that it is, I have added material to demonstrate their points. I have changed my perception about what fascism is based on the discussion of sources that describe what fascism is, I originally thought it was just a far-right ideology, but through discussions I learned that it is not exclusively seen as right-wing, and that it is a nationalist ideology above all else. The quotation of Goebbels in this article in which Goebbels praises authoritarian nationalism as a new revolution to replace the legacy of the French Revolution is a perfect example of a reference which states the definition of what fascism is which is completely unsynthesized. I am aware that Mussolini is not entirely a reliable source, as interpretation of what he said is usually necessary, but be advised that if we completely mistrust and disbelieve everything that fascist leaders actually said, then we will be unable to trust any source about fascism, because many sources utilize and describe the meaning of fascists' statements or documents. When you quote someone like Mussolini, you obviously have to take what he says with a grain of salt (i.e. not trust everything he says) because he is a proponent of fascism. However, Mussolini's statements are very useful in determining what fascism promoted itself as being. If you have a problem with an aspect of my edits, please inform me of what precise problems you have, so that I can amend the problem. As you suggested, I will look over the Wikipedia guidelines again to make sure that I am not violating them, I hope you will do what I suggest as it will improve your relations with other users and allow this discussion to be more constructive. So please tell me what specific problems you have with my edits so that we can make changes and remove that synthesis tag at the top of the page.--R-41 (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Kindly note that every claim made in the first sentence is fully sourced. Further that the first sentence is to be, if possible, a summary of the section. Also that the precise phrase is cited, which makes it kind of hart to claim that any OR is present. And finally that I refrained from re-adding the valid cites for historians referring to "left wing fascism" after you repeatedly deleted the RSs cited. Now, absent you being able to find a consensus to remove the phrasing you yourself insisted on, I would ask you recognize the consensus for the current wording. Finally Mussolini is, indeed, a reliable source as to what Mussolini said -- so removing that makes no sense at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No reasonable reading of the sources given for the lede sentence support its contents. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing material that is a synthesis of multiple sources

Alright, I have changed the lead sentence by removing the synthesis and instead have added multiple references which speak of fascism's radicalism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. I have also removed other material that was a synthesis of multiple sources. Are these changes acceptable so far?--R-41 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the tags off, but I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning disputes over the definition in the intro is that there are many disputes over definitions in politics. The disputes about fascism are many in regards to where it stands on the political spectrum. The article already addresses those disputes later on. The issue of the definition itself is not much different than the definition of other political topics, as they often have varying interpretations. But the article is organized in a good way now where it states what the clearly known facts are, such as: 1) it is nationalist 2) it is authoritarian 3) it is radical 4) it advocates a single-party state 5) it is social darwinist...etc. I believe that specific definitions by a number of well known and established scholars on the subject should be included in the section of the article called "Definitions". The section already has quotes by Stanley Payne and another author, adding a few more detailed definitions by other prominent scholars on fascism would be useful for this article.--R-41 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading up on the topic, I am rather unsure that "Social Darwinist" is a salient core part of fascism. It is generally regarded, in fact, as a pejorative term in itself. At this point, I would suggest we not make it one of the main points of Fascism, lest we end up with the forty-five things which fascism is against <g>. The more careful we are, the better this article can become. Collect (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am not sure whether social darwinism is core. But what do you mean, it is pejorative? I fail to see how it is more pejorative than, say "conservative." Many people oppose social darwinism; many oppose conservatism. That does not make these words pejorative - obviously those who are proponents of social darwinism or conservatism think they are good things, even very good things! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is pejoritive because no person or group identified themselves with social darwinism. It was a term popularized 50 years after the death of Herbert Spencer by Richard Hofstadter in a statist polemic, and applied retroactively to people he disagreed with. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks for explaining. How did followers of Spencer identify themselves? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectivist?

An editor insists on this in the lede. The cite he gives is [63] which says on page 266 that "collectivism" is the key element in Communist and Fascist ideology. He asserts that the fasces in and of itself represents collectivism (interesting since it was on the US dime all through WW II). I guess the US was officially collectivist as a result <g>. I asked him to come here and make his case for this edit which he has insisted on through multiple reverts. Should he not do so, I would ask for the opinions of others whether "collectivist" should be added to radical, authoritarian and nationalist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fasces are on the US dime. But why would you think that maks the US fascist as a result? Images on currency are not the same thing as US government policy. What are you thinking? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The other editor made a big deal that the fasces as a symbol are inherently collectivist <g>. It is not my opinion for sure. "(No such thing as a non-collectivist fascist. The collectivism is even symbolized in the fascist symbol pictured. It's essential to fascism.)" Alas his cite says it is also Communist, which sorta takes some of the wind from his sails. Collect (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fascism is collectivist, but this is redundant since we already have "nationalist." Nationalism is a form of collectivism, where the collective is the nation. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But Nazi fascism wasn't nationalist but racist. These are both forms of collectivism. In the Italian version the individual sacrifices for the nation, in the Nazi version the individual sacrifices for the Aryan race. Collectivism covers them both. Introman (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Nazi fascism was clearly nationalist. A part of it was reclaiming German-speaking areas such as Sudetenland, and other German areas taken by the Treaty of Versailles. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It was nationalistic, but not at it's foundation is what I'm saying. In Nazi fascism the nation is secondary to the race, whereas the nation itself has a higher cause of serving the race. The highest collective exalted is the race. Not so for Italian fascism, where the most exalted collective is the state. Introman (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly fascism made some inroads into the U.S. The symbol on the dime is one of these influences. The U.S. isn't overall fascist but it is influenced by fascism and as a result has some fascist characteristics. Introman (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's in plenty of sources as being essential to fascism, so there's no reason to remove it. Introman (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for specifying the dime is due to fascist inroads in the US. The "Mercury Dime" dates to 1916. Mussolini musta took fascism from TWW. <g>. Collect (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this is a question for Collect which is why I am placing it after Collect's comments. I am not interested in what other's think, I am asking Collect: Yes, the fasces are on the US dime. But why would you think that maks the US fascist as a result? Images on currency are not the same thing as US government policy. What are you thinking?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear you misread my post. I specifically do not think the design of the dime has anything at all to do with collectivism or fascism, or anything much more than a traditional symbol dating back millenia. Introman is the one who is claiming that, not I. I fnd the copncept of claiming the design of the dime makes the US "fascist" to be quite far away from any rational position. Clear, I trust? Collect (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Clear. thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

But fascist IDEAS predate that is what I'm trying to say. Fascist ideas in the U.S. were first introduced by Alexander Hamilton, a collectivist. This is before it was called fascism. Introman (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the U.S. is fascist. I'm saying it's partly fascist. It has a pretty clear collectivist/fascist influence, among these being the belief that the individual ought to sacrifice for the collective. You see this conspiciously in Obama's rheotoric, for example, speaking of "collective responsibility." Of course this fascist ideology is always in conflict with more traditional American ideology of individualism, where the individual ought to be left to pursue his untrammeled self interest. Introman (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After FDR proposed the New Deal, Mussolini wrote an open letter congratulating Roosevelt for coming over to the fascist ideology. The War Boards of WWI and the New Deal industrial boards were virtually identical to Mussolini's corporatism. (Interestingly, the War Boards were labeled "war socialism" instead of the more accurate "war fascism.") Mussolini (and Hiter) were quite popular in the US in the 1930s, and generally got good press. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The New Deal and Fascism were both corporativist. That does not make the new Deal Fascist. There were different froms of coporativism popular at the time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian and Nazi corporatism were different forms too. That doesn't make them both not fascist. Introman (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the fact tht they are both European does not make the US European. Corporatism, which all three have in common, is not enough to make all three Fascist. If two are fascist, it is because they have other things in common (and not shared by the US) Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Different writers have different definitions of fascism and differ on what they see as its essential characteristics, and also will include different groups in their lists of fascists. Therefore it is no surprise that we cannot agree on a definition. If we do we are giving undue weight to one opinion, synthesising secondary sources or using original thought, none of which provides for a good, balanced article. Perhaps we could say something like:

Fascism refers to the ideology and government of the Italian Fascist Party, to ideologies and governments modeled on them, and to similar ideologies and governments. There is no agreement over fascism's core aspects or which ideologies or governments are fascist.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) It took a lot of work to get consensus on the current wording. Feel free to do a request for comment on any other version use [64] to make an RFC which wil be auto-posted to WP:RFC/A, but absent any new consensus forming, I suggest we stick with this as relatively clear and succinct. Else we will end up with the fifteen cite concatenation of the past. Collect (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot see where consensus was formed, which explains why people are still posting to this discussion page. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

22 Archives here-- did you think this was all there was? See here though for "scope of article", "references", "actually taking shape", "classic liberalism" etc. where this took shape without argument over the course of mid-December to 11 February where you made no comments on the lede. On 26 Feb you commented about the lede "I finished high school, Collect, but I have no idea what you are talking about. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) (from above) " The only real comment I found by you about the lede was that you wanted it to include a specific statement on April 6. Care to show me why a stable version for several months does not appear to have consensus? Collect (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What I said April 6 was "I think it would be helpful if the lead mentioned the dispute in the definition of fascism and its essential characteristics." It would have been helpful if you told me at that time that discussion was closed and no further changes could be made. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like we are discussing it -- but absent a consensus to muddy up the lede, I would suggest we discuss on the Talk page and not make the same edits over and over which are not in line with any consensus at all. Reasonable? Alas the prime mover for "collectivist" seems not to enter the discussion at this stage. Collect (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing this on the talk page and not making any edits at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mussolini himself described fascism as collectivist and anti-individualist. That we're having this dispute is bizarre. Introman (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And? That makes it a requirement that all fascists hold that position? Can we add "anti-inferior races", "anti-entrepeneurial", "anti-non-established church", "anti-disabled people", "anti-gold-standard"? A few hundred more which have been associated with "fascism" in at least one book -- and pile them all equally into the lede? I trust you see the problems on that path. This article was there once. Collect (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A philosophy which holds that an individual ought to put his own interest aside and serve the state is by definition collectivist! That's what political collectivism is. The collectivism of fascism is fundamental to it. Introman (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By definition? Interesting that you use that claim. "collectivist adjective 1. subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively " which does not correspond at all to your claim as to its definition. Collect (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the state is? It's a collective. "Both the extreme right (fascism) and extreme left (communism) of the political spectrum are extremely collectivist (the individual must subordinate self to the state)." --- Triandis, Harry Charalambos. Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Press, 1995p. 168 Introman (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered writing your own dictionary? Most people I know actually use the major ones, but I would be interested to see some of your definitions! Are dictionaries a bad source of definitions now? Collect (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

""collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. How many sources do I have to present for you to learn that fascism is collectivist?Introman (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) and perhaps you will note that the EB quote you give does not back your claims. (EB is tertiary source by the way) Collect (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. You know "tertiary source" means. What's your point? Introman (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to establish what "collectivist" means in fascist philosophy. There are two sorts of collectivism: political or social collectivism, and economic collectivism. Fascism is definintely collectivist in social nature; however, economically, it strongly supports private property and the free market. It's the economy that's up to debate, in my opinion. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With such a mjor dichotomy, ought we insert such a misleading term into the lede? Ought we return, as Introman seeks, to the old version with the entire bushel basket in the lede? Collect (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No fascism does not support private property and a free market. It supports government control over business, where ownership is shared by government and private sector and a highly regulated market. This is collectivist too, as it these business are required to serve the interests of the state. Introman (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Corporatism

Since corporatism is the primary economic manifestation of fascism and common to all fascist systems, I don't understand why some people here want to delete it. Please explain. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure you can stick anything as common to ALL forms of fascism. Even the Economics of Fascism article mentions there is no identity. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Soxwon (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't. Corporatism occurred chiefly in Mussolini's (not Hitler's) rhetoric; it had no substantial presence in Spain or Rumania (granted, Rumanian Fascism existed only in a wartime economy). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Rhetoric is less important than action - actual policies. Both Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany had corporatist policies. Here's DiLorenzo:

So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. - Economic Fascism

As for Spain: "As a political and social system, corporatism reached the height of its influence earlier in the century in certain European countries: in Spain, it shaped the structure of labour relations during Primo de Rivera's dictatorship and Franco's regime."[65] Corporatism was just as much a part of fascism as authoritarianism. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. We deal with corporatism in a section now. 2. Some of the fascist groups so identified definitely were not corporatist. 3. If we add every concept which people associate with fascism we will have a totally unwieldy lede. 4. The purpose of a lede is not to be all-encompassing of everything in an article but rather to give a short easy-to-understand summary of the main points. WP:LEDE "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) Accordingly, editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, especially if they are not central to the article as a whole." "The first paragraph of the introductory text needs to unambiguously define the topic for the reader. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, give the location and time context. Also, establish the boundaries of the content of the article (for example List of environmental issues is only about the effects of human activity)." Note: "Covering every single topic in the article in the opening" is not part of the guideline. Collect (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Corporatism is mentioned in passing, with very dubious claims. I don't believe the claim that "German Nazism officially rejected it." There's a reference to a book with no quote. I have a quote saying "corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s" contradicing that. 2. Name a fascist state without corporatism. I think corporatism is a necessary condition of fascism. In economic texts, fascism means corporatism. 3. Right, but we should add the important defining aspects of fascism, and corporatism is every bit as important as nationalism. 4. Corporatism is a main point of fascism. You don't understand fascism unless you understand its economic arrangement. PhilLiberty (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile "fascists" who decidedly do not use "corporatism"? Seems that the exceptions rather make it hard to claim it is a necessary part of fascism. And, by the way, when I studied economics, the texts made no such claim. Collect (talk) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no fascists who do not use corporatism. You have yet to name one. The econ section of the article is bullshit, and totally contradicts standard texts on fascism. E.g.

Noel O'Sullivan's five major themes of fascism: corporatism, revolution, the leader principle, messianic faith, and autarky.

The Fascism Reader by Aristotle A. Kallis:

"1. Corporatism. The most important claim made by fascism was that it alone could offer the creative prospect of a 'third way' between capitalism and socialism. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, spoke enthusiastically about the 'National Socialist corporative idea' as one which would eventually 'take the place of ruinous class warfare'; whilst Mussolini, in typically extravagant fashion, declared that 'the Corporative System is destined to become the civilization of the twentieth century.'"

It looks to me like someone is either making a false citation (making a claim and citing a book which doesn't support the claim, with no quote), or is citing a small minority opinion. Every citation I can find says corporatism is a necessary part of fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found that user Collect doesn't care whether sources are presented to him. He deletes material even if it's sourced. Introman (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As evident in the Neoconservative article you both need to learn to read on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Noel+O'Sullivan+fascism&source=bl&ots=lpGcBoM-as&sig=YBJ64Ruip0c7vPlVh4ndB9PSb8M&hl=en&ei=DPDlSeeyBsSrtgeBk-yXAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA158,M1 Hitler's economic policies took a backseat to racial profiling. Those who insisted on economic corporatism were murdered. The Italians used corporatism, in the sense that any of the three conflicting views of economics presented by Mussolini were labeled corporatism. In essence, both talked about corporatism, but instead did many things that conflicted under the label of corporatism, which is what the text states. Soxwon (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because Hitler's corporatism didn't have top priority does not imply that the Nazi regime was not corporatist. And just because a State is inconsistent in its policies (like all governments) does not imply that it has no policy. This would be like saying that, since the USSR had local markets and a black market, that it wasn't communist. Clearly the Nazi regime's economic policy was corporatism. That their racial policy took priority does not negate that fact. The citation given supports the fact that Italy and Germany were corporatist. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you read? The article made it clear they were only corporatist in name not in practice, and if those advocating actual economic corporatism were put to death, that doesn't seem to leave room for the practice. Heck the Nazi paragraph starts off saying that the Nazi version and the Italian were different. It states clearly that it was coporatism in a "romantic sense rather than the economic sense." Soxwon (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and it does not say or remotely imply that "they were only corporatist in name not in practice." It does discuss different interpretations of corporatism, and how its practice did not fully correspond to the theory. Please find a quote from it that says they were only corporatist in name only. You can't because it doesn't say that. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Corporatism in this sense was obviously just a formula for warmongering," plz explain how this fits? Soxwon (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism, racism, and the leader principle can also be used for warmongering. That in no way implies they were not fascist policies. You need to read earlier in the paragraph you quote - the part about how "the corporate system" was one "in which individuals and groups could use the State as a non-coercive[sic] device for maintaining voluntary[sic] self-discipline." Clearly corporatism. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think National Socialism is? The Nazis obviously wanted to tie the Volk together, which is partially the definition of corporatism - that is, the theoretical side of the system which suggests "gathering the nation together in one corporate body." Of course, Nazi economics differ from the original, Italian corporatism; but the general idea of holding all people together and avoiding class war is entirely Third Positionist and corporatist. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned with the other definition of corporatism, the cartelization of the economy into industrial/corporate/regulatory boards. Of course, fascists are corporatist in the broader sense, too, but this seems to be covered by "nationalism." PhilLiberty (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that corporatism is a defining feature of all fascist regimes, especially economically, when you have the Nazis killing those who advocated the economic portion of corporatism (George Strasser was one such victim) and Mussolini changing its meaning to fit the situation. It meant first a new social order, merging the classes, then a new political order to keep discipline (and in this interpretation, he stated it was tied to no one political system and thus doesn't seem to be a part of fascism), then finally a new form of democracy (which conveniently allowed him to take over Parlaiment). All this shows it was really just a convenient term to further his agenda. If Italy can't keep it's role straight, and Germany de-emphasized its role in the economic sphere, how can you claim it's a tenent of ALL fascist economies? Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that Italian Fascism didn't influence other European fascist movements entirely. It served as a core from which the general Fascist ideology spread. Other fascist movements still had their own local agendas and policies. Therefore, the fact that Mussolini was highly opportunistic and rarely stuck to his word doesn't mean other European fascists didn't, either. Spain's corporatism, as far as I know, was pretty successful. Every historical fascist movement supported the Third Position - it's a necessary element if you want to distance yourself from communism and capitalism. I'm not entirely sure about Japanese fascism; I'm not thoroughly documented. But it's only rational that various fascists practiced corporatism to varying degrees. Just like contemporary countries practice democracy to varying degrees - some practice capital punishment, some don't. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But to say it was the primary economic manifestation is ludicrous given the complexity and diversity demonstrated. While it was a facet to some degree, I don't think it was as prominent a feature as authortarianism and nationalism. Soxwon (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at it from a purely economic standpoint, that is, the behaviour of the economic units, then collectivist behaviour would be an accurate description of the way the fascist governments expected their idealistic economies to behave. Nationalism and authoritarianism are political behaviours, not econonomic ones. However, the economic policies were secondary and subservient to the political ones - war, domination, strength of the nation. That may be the unifying theme here, that the economics was, and is, so overpowered by the political agenda that the fascist economies could only be subservient to the inevitable political adventures in war and nationalism that follows fascists gaining power. Mdw0 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since all fascist regimes engage in corporatism more or less successfully, there is nothing "ludicrous" about saying so. Sure, there is diversity in how corporatism is implemented, beginning with which firms/unions to favor. But that's only to be expected - it's the nature of corporatism. PhilLiberty (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened? Someone found a single source sympathetic to corporatism, wherein the author made an ad hoc addition to the definition of corporatism in his book to exclude fascist regimes. This is ridiculous. One might note that there exist people who deny that fascism is corporatist, but simply excluding a consensus defining characteristic is not right. PhilLiberty (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxwon, you haven't answered why your one guy, who simply makes an ad hoc stipulation that corporatism can't be totalitarian overrides the historians who consider corporatism to be an integral part of fascism. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, just wandered in here and was puzzled by the NPOV tag. Is this the discussion in relation that?--Happysomeone (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute I believe was made by an editor who I believe is alone, Introman and I had reached an agreement. R-7 moved what was in the intro to the economics section and I'll await what discussion ensues to comment further. Personally I like Introman's FINAL (not the one PhilLiberty tried to put in) version best. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite leading experts on fascism saying that corporatism is a defining feature, such as Noel O'Sullivan and Aristotle A. Kallis quoted above, two editors want to leave corporatism out of the lede. That is what this particular discussion is about. This just in: Russia Today Interviews Gerald Celente. Celente says:

America is going from what used to be the major capitalistic country in the world of free market – a crusader – into what Mussolini would have called fascism: the merger of state and corporate powers. So it is not socialism as people believe, it is socialism’s egalitarianism. It’s not communism where the state controls monopolies – it’s fascism, plain and simple. The merger of corporate and government powers. State-controlled capitalism is called fascism, and fascism has come to America in broad daylight. But they’re feeding them it in little bits and pieces. First AIG was too big to fail. Mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were too big to fail. Banks too big to fail and auto companies. And now we give money to the people that make the auto parts. And now there’s talk about the technology companies, wanting their piece of the action. The merger of state and government is called fascism. Take it from Mussolini; he knew a thing or two about it.

The two editors seem to want to censor out this aspect of fascism, for who knows what reason. PhilLiberty (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "source" does not help your cause. Gerald Celeste is not a WP:RS. Soxwon (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article (first footnote) are Noel O'Sullivan[66] and Aristotle A. Kallis[67]. Reliable enough for you? PhilLiberty (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, is the guy who wrote the book on corporatism good enough for you? Soxwon (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here is a link about Howard J. Wiarda[68]. He's a good source, but he doesn't override the two who disagree with him. And as noted above, Wiarda gives no rationale for his ad hoc claim that corporatism can't be fascist. The other experts think it can. Nor does Wiarda support his claim that fascism is always totalitarian. Fascism is authoritarian, but not necessarily totalitarian. By taking "corporatist" out of the initial definition, you seem to be claiming that Wiarda's opinion trumps all the other experts. My version of the lede acknowledges that some (like Wiarda, the only one we know of) disagree that corporatism is part of fascism. So I'm putting it back in. PhilLiberty (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

lede

Is anyone at all in favor of the bloated lead we now have? It is, IMHO, nearly the worst one we have had, but the proponent is pursuing a claim that I am specifically editwarring against him -- so if others do not apprecuiate this sort of edit, please make it clear. Collect (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the edit has to be VERY concise and its points that are not widely disputed, and that are based on reliable sources that show the intentions of fascism as an ideology. As there are many half-rate scholars like Jonah Goldberg who publish material about fascism that is completely biased (i.e. I say Goldberg is half-rate because his arguments in his book "Liberal Fascism" were totally torn apart by an amateur interviewer who took the time to read actual quotations of Benito Mussolini that totally discredited Goldberg's argument). And now this VERY IMPORTANT POINT : It is true that Hitler and the Nazis initially endorsed corporatism as being in line with National Socialism, but it is also true that the Nazis later abandoned their support of corporatism because they claimed that it institutionalized class division and class identity which was not in the interests of the Nazis' pursuit of a unified biological community of the German nation. (Bear in mind that I am a moderate socialist social democrat, so I am not using socialist in a pejorative manner). Read page 49 of Mark Neocleous' 1997 book that is simply titled Fascism, it is where I found out about Nazism's stance on corporatism. However it is accurate that Nazism like Italian Fascism was seeking a third way from communism and modern capitalism (i.e. supercapitalism as Italian Fascism described it). Nazism's early support of corporatism was not a violation of socialist principles because Mussolini himself said that corporatism could be defined as state capitalism or state socialism, as he claimed that both were the same thing: they both involved government bureaucratization of the economy. (Bear in mind that I am a moderate socialist social democrat, so I am not using socialist in a pejorative and accusing manner). Another important point: Some say that fascism cannot be generic because of differences between fascist movements, this is a flawed argument. Mark Neocleous in his book which I mentioned earlier, addresses this flaw. Neocleous says differences between fascist movements occured because they were all nationalists who based their agenda on their nation's history. For example, Neocleous says that Italian Fascism spoke of the supremacy of the state, because it saw states as the founders of nations because of Italy's history of the Roman Republic being responsible for unifying the people of Rome, thus people are indebted to the state. Neocleous says that Nazism did not speak of the state as the founder of nations and instead spoke of the supremacy of the Volk (meaning either: people, nation, or community) because of the German nation's history of not having a single state that created its culture, thus the state is indebted to the Volk. Anti-semitism of the Nazis was rooted in German history, while anti-semitism was not rooted in Italian history, so it was not an objective of the Italian Fascists. Plus one final point: If a generic agreement is impossible about fascism, why would Mussolini give groups like the Nazis and the Ustase training grounds in Italy prior to them taking power? Why would Hitler and the idolize Mussolini, copy Italian Fascism's view of national conflict and war as "revolution", propose a "March on Berlin", copy the Roman Salute, propose to copy corporatism, continuously attempt to seek alliance with Mussolini despite tensions over Austria if he did not agree with core principles of fascism itself? Why would Nazis themselves say that Hitler was "Germany's Mussolini" if they did not admire Mussolini and his fascist regime? Why would Mussolini in 1933 say "Hitler's victory is our victory" if he did not see close similarities between his and Hitler's agenda? If the answer to these is that they are all just multiple coincidences combined with multiple close similarities that cannot possibly be attributed to a generic fascism, then I would say that any scholar who says this has not done her or his research well, because the Nazis self-described their attachment to Italian Fascism's views and held extremely similar points of view with only minor differences. Generic fascism is the formula of fascism, individual differences on one or two minor issues with Italian Fascism while agreeing with everything else does not mean a negation of it being fascist, it just means that it has minor differences that it is adjusting for, for the sake of the nation (i.e. Italian Fascism connected itself with Roman Catholicism to spur national unity, but British Fascism never connected itself with Roman Catholicism because such was not useful for national unity).--UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the edit has to be thoroughly thought out. On R41's note: that's more or less my thinking, too. Fascism has to be different in order to satisfy a nation's needs; this is local fascism. Unlike Marxist socialism, which has a pre-determined international agenda. Oh and, R41, I removed that reference tag you inserted halfway into your text. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. Hope it's okay. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps searching for a "generic" or consensual, or all-purpose definition of fascism is counter-productive to the authors here and to readers. I don't at all regard Collect's drafts or the other authors as attempting something so simplistic, yet as with the "political spectrum" thread, the discussion keeps coming around to examples and counterexamples to try to illuminate the "core principles". I am reminded that in Michel Foucault's "Society Must Be Defended" (1977), he writes: "the nonanalysis of fascism is one of the most important political facts of the last thirty years". The above talk and the WP article itself takes me a long way in trying to understand fascism historically. Perhaps the analysis flounders on competing economic/political/ideological/historical frameworks that simply aren't up to the task. If I am to use the term "fascism" or "fascist" historically and analytically, then it helps to know that it is a series of historically contingent movements, alliances, and appropriations which were locally very useful.68.42.27.11 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not counterproductive to find a generic definition of fascism, it is a worthwhile endeavor. I have said this repeatedly but I will say it again, the only people who can never be satisfied with the definition of fascism are capitalists and Marxists, because capitalists want to say that it is a form of far-left socialism while Marxists and the far-left try to say that it was far-right capitalism. I am a social democrat but I recognize that the Marxists are exaggerating just as the capitalists are. Fascism rejected the extremes of BOTH modern capitalism AND communism. They opposed both of them because they both were internationalist ideologies which fascists claimed caused class conflict and thus the division of nations. Mussolini left it up in the air himself about Italian Fascism's position on capitalism vs. socialism, saying that fascism's economic system of corporatism could either be seen as state capitalism or state socialism which he claimed were the same thing but he opposed modern capitalism and communism. All Fascists were radical nationalists who saw an authoritarian single-party state as necessary to repel both modern capitalism and communism. For the history of why it arose in Italy here is the summary: 1914 = World War I, Italy divided between nationalists wanting to join the war to regain Italian populated territory from Austria-Hungary and anti-war activists including communists who opposed the war as a "bourgeois war". In 1914, Mussolini - a communist at the time who felt attachment to the cause of liberating Italians from Austro-Hungarian rule suggested that Italy remain at peace, but favour France, Russia, and Britain - the communists in the Italian Socialist Party were outraged at Mussolini, they kicked him out of the party. Mussolini was now alienated and felt that the communists had betrayed Italy, he turned pro-war and joined the nationalist camp where he was more respected. 1917 = Russian Revolution + violent strikes in Milan. The Russian Revolution brings in the totalitarian Bolshevik government of Vladimir Lenin who calls for revolutions across Europe and the world to end the "bourgeois war". Milan has such a revolt, communists and anarchists engage in mass violence, many people are killed, the Italian army has to be sent in to put down the revolt. Mussolini and the nationalist camp grow absolutely outraged at the communists and socialists and others who are creating such class conflict which they see as tearing the Italian nation apart during a war to unifying Italians in Austria into Italy. 1918 = war ends. 1919 = Peace agreement, the peace agreement does not fulfill the aspirations of Italian nationalists who claimed Dalmatia as historically a part of Italy. The communists support the predominantly Slav residents in Dalmatia and support the Wilsonian concept of self-determination of all nations. Now the nationalists and communists are absolutely opposed to each other. Later in 1919, Italian nationalist Gabriele d'Annunzio captures the Croatian town of Fiume, the Italian government opposes d'Annunzio's aggressive move. Mussolini copies d'Annunzio's blackshirted militia and title of Duce and forms a nationalist movement dedicated to honouring soldiers of World War I, the Italian Fascist movement in late 1919. One of its goals then was to overthrow the Italian liberal government for its failure to press for Italy to gain Dalmatia and the other goal was to destroy those communists, pacifists and anti-nationalist socialists who the Fascists and other nationalists saw as to blame for problems in Italy's war effort. After 1919, Mussolini made accomodations to socially right-wing nationalists by lessening Fascism's initial far-left economics that proposed mass nationalization, and eventually to a centre-left economic system of corporatism to appease both the moderate political left while advocating socially right-wing policies of supporting the concept of a social hierarchy of nations and races, union of church and state, promoting traditional family values, and defining women's role as a mother and a caretaker while men were defined as a worker and a warrior.--R-41 (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By appealing to nationalists, workers, left-wingers, right-wingers, and elites through means to accomodate them in a state dedicated to absolute national unity and national progress, Mussolini mustered a coalition of support to keep out communists and liberals by rejecting communism's internationalist egalitarian and class conflict approach while rejecting liberalism (in the classical liberal sense of the time) for supporting representative democracy in Italy which then as is now has been extremely fractioned among multiple factions, making effective government extremely difficult. Fascism also blamed classical liberalism for its support of individualism and international capitalism at the expense of national unity and a collective national conscience. Fascism rejects all movements advocating anti-nationalism, class conflict, representative democracy, egalitarianism, internationalism, individualism, and pacifism. While communism sees the world in conflict between classes, fascism sees the world in conflict between nations or races. Fascism in a sense is Bolshevik communism's nationalist rival, they both advocate a single-party state and totalitarian rule, but their objectives are different because they view the world differently. Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier, a major influence for Italian Fascism was the Italian Nationalist Association (ANI). The ANI aroused revolutionary nationalism during World War I, claiming that war was a form of revolution and that the ANI was willing to tear down the government and the monarchy if Italy did not join the war to regain Italian territory. A number of ANI members, including its corporatist economist Alfredo Rocco became a highly influential Fascist as did another ANI member, Luigi Federzoni. The ANI's major spokesperson and de facto leader, Enrico Corradini,preached left-wing nationalism that spoke of Italy as a "proletarian nation" and called for "national socialism" was influential on Mussolini, because he too initially thought of creating a "national socialist" movement during WWI prior to founding Fascism, and afterwards he too spoke of Italy as a proletariat nation fighting against bourgeois nations and Bolshevik nations. Also, Mussolini like the ANI spoke of war as a form of revolution. I hope this is helpful--R-41 (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I reread the discussion under the "lede", I am again struck by the confoundedness of defining fascism. Counfounded because the evidence offered in favor of a "generic" definition is always grounded in historically specific examples. I do not propose that we abandon a worthy endeavor to try to understand it, nor should we fail to muster reliable scholarship for this purpose. As an introduction to the article, however, I was trying to suggest, historically, fascism has been extraordinarily resilient and pliable (or like jelly). The discussions under numerous headings throughout the talk (e.g., religion, gender, nationalism, statism) suggest that fascism must be understood in its various historical and geo-political incarnations. I brought up Foucault before because this discussion has required people to revisit a whole host of central concepts (liberalism, war, power) before the discussion can progress. That is important to acknowledge, and when the nuances of the discussion are lost, then subsequent analyses suffer.68.42.27.11 (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Lisa (I apologize for failing to sign my previous comment except as assigned as "User talk:68.42.27.11".

Since even historians and political scientists disagree on the definition, I put in a sentence to that effect. I also added two lists of defining characteristics. To wit:

Historians and political scientists disagree on a precise definition, however; some would omit one or more of the preceding themes, while others would add many more.

I hope this is satisfactory to everyone. PhilLiberty (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Old version did that too, but I'm happy with either, though the second smacks a bit of weasel wording (not your fault not sure how else you'd say it). Soxwon (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fascism is defined by the first four sources as a combined phrase of radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology not a radical AND authoritarian AND nationalist ideology

Someone keeps changing the intro phrase to one that is disconnected. Fascism is essentially a "radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology" as said by four sources. The SUBJECT and PURPOSE of fascism = nationalism, the MEANS to achieve its subject and purpose = radicalism + authoritarianism. But it is not a radical AND authoritarian AND nationalist ideology, because that divides the purpose in three, it is radical and authoritarian in pursuing its nationalist goals. Now I urge the person to please consult the discussion page before reverting this again because a minor change of words can alter the entire meaning of a sentence.--R-41 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lucy: "Perhaps searching for a 'generic' or consensual, or all-purpose definition of fascism is counter-productive to the authors here and to readers." That is the cause of lengthy discussion and numerous edits.

The problem with finding a definition is that we must first identify the population (who is a fascist). But in order to determine who is a fascist you need a definition (what is a fascist). The definition radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology applies to groups that are not universally considered fascist, like third world dictatorships. On the other hand, if we reject some of those groups, then the definition cannot be comprehensive.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you can define it all? Mussolini made a speech saying that system was adaptable to the environment as noted above and indeed, the system is designed to work under any circumstances and be tweaked to fit need. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that there are varying definitions of fascism, some broader which may include groups not generally considered fascist, and narrower ones that exclude some groups that are considered members of the club. There is no clear definition - it is this conceot that must be made clear. Mdw0 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here one more time. I have reread pertinent chunks of the article and the discussion, and I realize that this discussion has occurred many times, frustrating all concerned, and I apologize for that. Taking my cue from The Four Deuces, Soxwon, and Mdw0 who have picked up the concern, at the end of long discussions of corporatism, collectivism, and the unwieldy introduction that Collect identifies as one of the article's weaknesses, I hope my comment will help. In two key places in the article, the editors have made very clear that what fascism was and is have been hotly contested by scholars. These important qualifiers occur in the Definition and in the section on Variations and Subforms. When I reread the article's introduction, however, fascism appears as a timeless "is" before it slips into an historically specific example in the sixth sentence. As I have tried to argue, perhaps unsuccessfully, there was, indeed, a factual, historical, and verifiable emergence of fascism. What it was and how it influenced and was influenced by contemporaneous events and forces is supremely important. It was a "radical and authoritarian nationalist ideology", so I adhere to R-41's phrasing and reasoning. I only object to the "is"--as the present tense implies that fascism is an essential and therefore timeless form of polis.

Readers should be able read the article and come away being able to separate the perjorative sense of fascism and its overuse, from the historical and analytic sense that allows comparison to similar though not identical movements elsewhere. Now, if my quibbling over "is" is taken as a claim that fascism cannot be historically defined nor analyzed from then to the present, then I have done a disservice. On the other hand, if we can agree to situate it historically and then use the many many scholars to recognize that its roots are far deeper than the 20th century, and also to agree that subsequent movements share many if not most of those "radical and authoritarian nationalist" tenets, then the section on Variations and Subforms can incorporate and subsume the article's subheadings of: non-universal characteristics, demographics of race, gender, social darwinism, religion, and parafascisms today (not necessarily in that order). I place no further personal stake on this article other than to distinguish past and present forms. Thank you all for a most stimulating discussion. (Lisa/Lucy) 68.42.27.11 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why

Someone has removed my question about Fascism's point of view towards disabled people (why?).

(86.148.145.120 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Fascism has no specific attitude towards disabled people. Collect (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Political spectrum

I removed the following because it is ambiguous, unsupported by the citations and in fact contradicts most reliable sources: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. However another editor has re-inserted it. The sentence should not be re-inserted until it has been properly written and properly sourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The same editor has reversed my deletion with the notation "three cites is enough for spectrum". The Four Deuces (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

First -- you were the one who suggested the wording which you now delete. Second - the sources fully support the sentence. I shall add more, or course, now that three is insufficient. Collect (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No matter how many sources one cites saying that 2+2=4 it still does not support the statement that 2+2=5. Having said that may I request that you read the citations for this sentence. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With seven sources now for the wording in the sentence, and since you were the one who suggested the sentence, and per WP:V == the sources are verifiable which is what WP requires, and considering I am willing to give another seven sources, might you decide to accept the fact that the sentence is sourced enough? Collect (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, the references do not back up the sentence's assertion. The first one added (Woolf), for example. says that British Fascism "made some historians uncertain where to place fascism in the political spectrum" (my italics). but the word some is omitted from the lead sentence. It is incorrect to give undue weight to minority views. But the lede sentence does not even say that individual historians have uncertainty, so the reference is irrelevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)If SOME historians disagree, then it is clear that historians disagree. It is the opposite of saying that all historians agree. And with seven cites now, of which several specifically refer to left, right and center, it is clearly fully cited. And agaoin, I am willing to add another seven here. Collect (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence does not say that historians disagree, rather that they do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum. Conceivably they are in agreement over which fascists are leftists, rightists, centrists, or outside the political spectrum. The sentence is ambiguous. As for historians disagreeing, historians disagree on many things, but articles should describe significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence (See: WP:Fringe theories. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Since it says no such thing, I wonder what you are worried about. And I submit that Schlesinger is a prominent historian ... see [69] "the moderate right and the moderate left are side by side against fascism and Communism " from The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom

By Arthur Meier Schlesinger, "Arthur M. , Jr." Schlesinger Published by Westview Press, 1988 ISBN 0306803232, 9780306803239 274 pages Collect (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to when you say since it says no such thing? I did not say that it said anything. I said it was ambiguous. Also, you have provided a link to a source that presents the mainstream view of fascism as right-wing, and shows this in a diagram. May I suggest that you read the references you provide and re-write the lead sentence to reflect what the sources actually say. Let me summarize. The lead sentence you are defending is ambiguous and the citations do not support any possible interpretation of it. Therefore I will delete it because it is confusing and misleading to readers. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How many cites do you want?

Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all.

Appears quite fully cited at this point. If you disagree, please post an RfC. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Before we discuss this extensive list, I would be appreciative if you could clear up the ambiguity in the statement: Historians do not place all fascists in the same position on the political spectrum - groups have been placed "left, right and center," or not even in the spectrum at all. Could you please explain what this means. I read it to mean: All historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right and other groups outside the spectrum. But that theory fell apart in earlier discussions. Perhaps you could elucidate. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was your wording -- recall. There is no specific opinion about facists groups and their position in the olitical spectrum. Some historiams have placed some in the left, soe place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" which historians en bloc plaace fascists in. And some (in fact many) feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. You were upset at "do not agree" and so we went with your choice of words. Currently it should have enough cites to show that not all hstorians agree, that, in fact, the issue of "left right or center" is not only not regarded with anywhere unanimity, that many feel it is not an aswerable question at all. It defi itely does not ' mean "historians are agreed in placing various fascists or fascist groups across the political spectrum from left to right" or anythiong remotely close to that claim. If historians feel the "spectrum" bit is impossible to use for fascists as a single group, then that is pretty clear. And while you opined at length, the sources (and WP is about csources, and not about individual opinions) support the sentence quite well. I have another 20 or more ready to add, but if you wish to continue, please use an RfC on the topic. At this point, you are the only one here who disputes the validity of the statement. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your statement: There is no specific opinion about facist groups and their position in the political spectrum. Some historians have placed some in the left, some place some in the right, some place some in the center, and there is no single "one size fits all" in which historians en bloc place fascists. And some many feel the entire left-right dichotomy does not work for fascism in the first place. (edited for typos)

This statement at least is unambiguous even though it is unsupported by the references. You should replace the ambiguous sentence with this passage so that at least we can agree on what it is we are disagreeing upon. Even if there is an RfC, at least it will be clear what is in dispute. Please do not take these comments to mean that I agree with you. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I am willing to go the la nguage which you gave the current wording as your improved version. Collect (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

The sentence now reads:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.

However, please refer to WP:Undue: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Most of the basis for the sentence comes from Lipset's 1960 essay in Political Man. Lipset was the only author to state that fascists could belong to either the left, right or center. Salazar in Portugal was an example of a right-wing fascist, while Peron in Argentina was an example of a left-wing fascist. But the editors of the article do not accept Salazar and Peron as fascists, and this theory is is not defended today. So the claim Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum is false.

Lipset's article is also the main source of fascism as centrism, which is where he placed Italian and German fascism. But again this is a minority view. so the dispute "whether fascism is left, right or center" is providing equal weight to mainstream and fringe views.

Incidentally of the 11 references that Collect provided, 3 refer to pages directly quoting Lipset. The majority of the other sources are quoted out of context or do not support the sentence. For example Collect quotes Illusions of Grandeur as stating "Fascism can be described as a sort of authoritarian centrism". But several lines later it says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement of the right...."

So please re-write the sentence to reflect neutrality. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And EIGHT do not. I shall gladly add more -- now that you refuted your own wording, refuted the compromise wording -- where to next? I am willing to put this up for RfC if you like. Collect (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the current first sentence:

Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum, whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all.

Is the sentence worded in any non-neutral manner? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? Is it adequately sourced? Collect (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why has this been placed on a biography RfC? Would not politics be a better place? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RFCbot was specified for politics -- will try a fix. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, you list twenty footnotes, when there are only twelve references. The first eight do not relate to the sentence and should be omitted. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I used reflist -- it does not have the option to so finely tune as you might wish. The list is automatically generated by the template. OK? Collect (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement gives undue weight to the assertion that Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum. The only basis for the assertion that different fascists can occupy different places in the political spectrum is a 1960 article by Lipset[70], which is indirectly cited four times in the footnotes. Whatever the validity of Lipset's theories, they should not be given undue weight.

Also, the sources do not support the assertion Historians do not agree...whether fascism is left, right or center, or even whether the political spectrum is properly applied to various fascist groups at all which gives equal weight to the four possible positions.

Below are comments on each of the twelve footnotes.

1. Social Science and Political Theory - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

2. The Fascism Reader - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

3. British Fascism - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V, provides no other example of fascism as of the center or left

4. Fascism in Europe - the quote in the footnote "historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum" leaves out the beginning of the phrase. It reads "have sometimes made historians uncertain about where to locate fascism in the political spectrum". It does not state that they placed fascism in different parts of the spectrum and uses the term right-wing throughout to describe fascism.

5. Fascism: Post-war fascisms - this reference goes to an article in the book by Bill White (neo-Nazi) about neofascism. I don't want to read his article but it is a primary source.

6. Illusions of grandeur - says "It is more usual for fascism to be defined as a movement ot the right...." (same page)

7. Sociology Responds to Fascism - says nothing about where historians place fascism

8. Latin fascist elites - refers to S. M. Lipset, Political Man ( 1960), ch. V

9. Terrorism today - does not question fascism's position in the political spectrum and says: "The terrorists on the two political extremes of left and right are in truth apposites, more than opposites."

10. The birth of fascist ideology - the writer Zeev Sternhell has a minority opinion that Italian fascism began as a left-wing movement but by 1920 had begun to shift to the right (same page) and became right-wing when the Italian Fascist Party was finally formed in 1921.

11. The Vital Center - this book unequivocably considers fascism to be right-wing and the page that the link goes to actually has a chart where Fascism is listed under "Right".

12. The Social science encyclopedia - on the page preceding it states: "there has developed since the 1930s a broad tendency to refer to any form of right-wing authoritarian system that is not specifically socialist as fascist." Clearly this article groups fascism on the right, even if they struggle with other rightists.

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of an RfC is to get new input -- not extended old input. Collect (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for The Four Deuces, doesn't the fact that Lipset's article was cited several times give it some weight? Academics don't usually cite crap four times.

Lipset's scholarship alone makes it worthwhile to quote him. Also, his unique interpretation makes it interesting. But it does not make his point of view the mainstream view. Central to his thesis was the fact that support for liberals collapsed as the Nazis increased in strength and concluded that the middle class had switched from liberalism to fascism. But more recent research shows that liberals did not switch to fascism. Another problem with his theory is that he gives Salazar as an example of a right-wing fascist and Peron as a left-wing fascist, but more recent scholarship excludes them as fascists (something that Collect among others has argued in the discussion pages). So his opinions should be reflected as minority. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Collect, it seems Four Deuces does have a point, most refer to fascism as right-wing, are there any other sources? Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And many say it is not properly shoved into a left-right dichotomy, and many "fascist" groups are, indeed, labelled as other than right wing by the historians writing about them. With as many cites as are given from RS, it appears that the sentence as worded is quite proper. The sentence specificaly says that there is disagreement -- what more can we do? By the way, the current concept is that "left-right" is a poor way to label groups. Collect (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern text [71] "In recent years the political 'spectrum' has been largely replaced as a conceptual tool by a political 'horseshoe' ... It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa." Collect (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholarly writing places fascism squarely on the right. This is a no-brainer; dissenting views shouldn't have anywhere near their current prominence in the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read, from what I remember, and from the books I have on the topic, fascism is typically described as rightist, as a counter-Enlightenment reactionary political movement, etc. I would not be surprised at all, however, to find out that some historians might disagree with that interpretation. I think the best solution here is to just mention that the sources disagree without giving undue weight to those in the minority. How about the following....

Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]UberCryxic (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentence that The Four Deuces wants to delete has been a long standing consensus version. Among others, the most prominent scholars of fascism Stanley Payne, Roger Griffin, Zeev Sternhell and A. James Gregor don't agree with the placement of fascism on the right side of the political spectrum. -- Vision Thing -- 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I had thought a dozen footnotes would have been sufficient (the precis offered of some of them is inaccurate in many places). Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best. Collect (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to determine what weight to give different points of view is how they are presented in textbooks. If we draw up a list of the top scholars and compare what they say it is original research/synthesis. The four scholars are not the most prominent scholars of fascism, there are many others. Sternhell's theories have been widely criticized and Gregor has little credibility. I don't think that Payne and Griffin deny that fascism is part of the right. Griffin's point was that they differed from the traditional authoritarian and conservative right. Certainly non-mainstream views should be presented but they should not be given equal weight to the mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting specialist knowledge here? Collect (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am basing my conclusions on my reading of the materials presented in this section, including following the links. BTW when you write Current texts make the use of a "spectrum" seem quite antiquated at best, I think that these writers are referring to the use of the spectrum to describe contemporary politics not European politics c. 1918-1945. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should give the dictionary definition first:

"fascism /fashiz’m/ noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. " [72] Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Which historian wrote that? Collect (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the overall article, I'm surprised that "righ-wing" isnt mentioned until "Fascist as epithet" section. So I retract my suggestion.'OED defines fascism as "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government"' should be added into the overall lead. Prolly after the first sentence. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I sugess such would be demonstrably against consensus. Collect (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix is absolutely correct and I note that the Oxford English Dictionary is highly regarded and here is a list of their consultants who are considered experts in their field.[73]. While consensus is a good thing, it is also important to change our views as new and better evidence is presented to us. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, its been more than a day and noone but Collect objected. So I dont see the consensus he was talking about. Btw the quote I had was from Compact OED, I'm gonna add the description from full OED:

“ The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism.

1921 19th Cent. July 148 The Fascismo was born in the provinces, where the extremistic menace was stronger. 1922 Q. Rev. Jan. 148 A section of the Press..now veered completely round to the cause of Fascism. The Fascist terror increased in intensity. 1923 Contemp. Rev. Jan. 44 We do not want Fascismo in this country. Ibid. Nov. 557 Fascism in Germany will never be more than one of several factors. 1925 Weekly Westm. Gaz. 10 Jan. 320/2 The outrages which have been associated with Fascism have gradually alienated much of the support which it won two years ago. 1934 tr. K. Heiden's National Socialism xvii. 354 The electoral victories all over Europe with which the Labour Parties have replied to German Fascism. 1936 Discovery Dec. 378/1, I have strongly criticised modern education and the methods of handling youth generally as inculcating excessive respect for authority and thereby conducing to the growth of Fascism. 1939 A. COBBAN Dictatorship v. 124 In March 1919..Fascism was still..a revolutionary and socialist movement, hostile to the monarchy, to finance, and to parliamentary government, demanding social reform and workers' control, but separated from the other branches of the socialist movement by its intense nationalism. 1965 L. VENNEWITZ tr. Nolte's Three Faces Fascism II. ii. 87 Maurras was the first man in Europe who as a thinker and a politician drove conservatism beyond the limits dividing it from incipient fascism. 1971 Tablet 26 June 616/2 (title) The ghost of Fascism.

DRAFT ADDITIONS MARCH 2006

Fascism, n.

depreciative (chiefly Brit.). In extended use (usu. with preceding modifying word): the advocacy of a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian. Cf. body fascism n. at BODY n. Additions, health fascism n. at HEALTH n. Additions. [1939 D. THOMAS Let. July (1987) 389, I think that to fight, for instance, the fascism of bad ideas by uniforming & regimenting good ones will be found, eventually, to be bad tactics.] 1973 Times 13 Oct. 14 There is a fundamental fascism of the left which is the real problem in the universities: they are theologically right, as they believe, and you are so wrong that you should even be denied the freedom to speak. 1974 B. HODDESON Porn People vii. 121/1 You get a sort of monosexual fascism that takes place, that says, ‘this is how you'll ball.’ 1994 Daily Tel. 20 Dec. 17/3 The new health 'n' safety fascism..has demanded measures on track and trains which could not have been envisaged at the time when the cost was first projected. 2003 Independent 4 Mar. 19/2 This hysterical response to the interbreeding of the ruddy duck with the protected white-headed duck reflects a rather puerile, ‘anoracky’ fascism, and is misguided on several counts.

”

Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED

WP:RS is fairly explicit -- dictionaries are not "reliable sources" for articles. "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Collect (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

LEAD is not the place for detailed discussions. So using tertiary sources there make sense. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And WP:RS seems to indicate that your wholesale removal of twenty secondary sources which disagree with you is wrong. Collect (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest Phoenix of9 not wikistalk? Soxwon (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect, which sources did I remove? Do not make false accusations.

Soxwon, I responded to a RFC. I am interested in political articles connected to Germany such as Germany (duh), West Germany, etc. The sad truth is that Fascism has such a connection. AGF and comment on content. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me -- I regarded your statement above about the "left right and center" sentence to indicate that you did not support using those sources. Do you support placing the sentence back in the article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You said here and in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that I removed many sources. As I said, please retract false accusations. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough, Phoenix of9, surely you could find other German articles to edit w/o going to one where there's an editor with whom you've had repeated problems in the past to the point you filed an RfC? This seems like flamebaiting if it's not wikihounding. Soxwon (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You dont make sense so dont expect a response from me to you, in future. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors opinion

• Based on WP:RS, the use of the OED in this case is inappropriate. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The OED is a fine source, some would say the finest, if you're using it to define a word or learn about its history. It's better to use multiple dictionaries though. It seems like that bit and its reference should go in the etymology section, and not the lead. Neither the whole article, nor any substantial portion would be based on the one source, so it would be compatible with WP:RS.Synchronism (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Omission of "right wing" in the LEAD seems highly non-neutral tho. Maybe we can say OED defines fascism like this and XYZ disagrees? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. If there are reliable secondary sources, then we should use them instead. Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion."

LEAD is where you give "overviews or summaries" so use of tertiary sources in the LEAD is FINE. Also since I havent deleted any sources, I'm NOT using any tertiary sources IN PLACE OF secondary sources. Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well I'm not totally up to speed on what is going on here, so without addressing neutrality directly: the purpose of the lead is to summarize an article's content; new information shouldn't be presented there. If the article makes numerous mentions of the political right in the body, then an adequate summary would represent that.Synchronism (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Read above, there was this suggestion: "Historians generally regard fascism as a right-wing political movement,[citations here] although many disagree about whether the traditional political spectrum applies to fascism, or about where to place fascism in that spectrum.[other citations here]". Maybe we can add that in "Fascism in the political spectrum" section, add dictionary definitions (including OED) in etymology section and mention something like "it is sometimes considered a form of right-wing authoritarianism" or something like that in the LEAD? Phoenix of9 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy does not classify dictionaries as tertiary sources. They are not in fact compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing source. They are secondary sources because they are the results of scholars who research primary sources in order to determine the meanings of words. In fact the Oxford English Dictionary is the most reliable secondary source for the meanings of words in the English language. It is common sense that if one wants to know the meaning of a word that one consults a dictionary. Ironically, the twelve sources presented in the footnotes do not support the interpretation that User:Collect has provided.

Also could we all please assume good faith. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries are compendia and summarizing souurces, but they are also (especially OED) the result of the scholarly research of primary sources.Synchronism (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to parse individual sentences of our policies and guidelines... look at intent behind the policies and guidelines instead. You are all dancing around the core issue... the OED is the single most reliable source for the meanings of English words. It does not matter whether we classify it as a Primary, a Secondary or a Tertiary source. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you aware of criticisms by Oxford linguist Roy Harris? 2) Our own guideline on reliable sources says that Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles. In my opinion that means that signed academic and peer-reviewed publications take preference over unsigned entries in dictionaries. 3) How can OED be the single most reliable source for defining something as ambiguous fascism when the most prominent scholars of fascism can not come up with definition that is shorter than one very long paragraph? -- Vision Thing -- 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the issue is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at Village pump [74] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

OED is a reliable source for the common meaning of a word, which is what this kind of article should be opening with. Next question. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, except putting a basic definition on Fascism is next to impossible considering the ambiguity as to what constitutes basic characteristics. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats why we need multiple definitions in the article. However OED definition is appropriate for the LEAD. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)But if there is that much arguing then I'm not sure how you can justify boiling it down to one particular POV. If there is so many varied views, then the lead should reflect that. Soxwon (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Phoenix. And Harris's criticisms of OED relate to its reliance on printed academic sources, while sometimes ignoring spoken language and non-academic sources. That does not apply here. And if scholars cannot agree on a definition, is not the OED the best source? Otherwise we would have to decide which one academic to use as a source. The OED has done that for us and they are better qualified than any one of us to do this. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, isn't that ignoring other POVs rather presenting the competing and rather disjointed views presented by scholars? Mussolini himself stated the system was made vague on purpose to be adapted to each unique situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

We need to start the article somewhere. OED provides accepted common usage, we should start with that. Specific scholars' understandings (which may contradict that) should be presented after that. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with including multiple definitions including OED. So I agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We should present the subject as it is commonly understood and present alternative views according to their weight. We should also remember that the views of Mussolini, Bill White (neo-nazi) and other fascists should be considered primary sources and therefore only have weight to the extent that they have been commented upon in secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Books citing Mussolini are clearly secondary sources, and should well outrank unsigned tertiary sources in any article. As for Bill White -- he has exceedingly little to do with this article, and I do not know why it is important to mention him so often. Might you tell me where he is cited in this article? Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned Bill White (neo-nazi) because you took his article, which originally was published in Pravda as a reliable secondary source which you argue should be given more credibility than the OED. It is the most egregious example of what I find wrong with your comment: "Currently, the first sentence has only 11 refs. Is the sentence properly cited? Is the sentence not neutral? —Collect (via posting script) 21:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Here is where you cited him:

^ [3] Fascism: Post-war fascisms, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004 ISBN 0415290201, 9780415290203 528 pages page 385|quote=...a new synthesis of doctrine -- 'beyond left and right' -- that is, coalescing around a number of tendencies[75]

And no, the fact that Mussolini's comments are quoted somewhere does not mean that they somehow become a secondary source, and we should now treat him as another expert on the subject.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I never used the WP Bill White article ANYWHERE as a "reliable source." WP articles, in fact, are specifically disallowed in WP as sources. The "Bill White" section cited was in a book vetted by actual historians, which is what is required per WP:RS. Just like books which contain the words of Mao are usable -- it is the book which is being cited, not the background of the person being quoted. I strongly suspect, in fact, that Mussolini was a Fascist, but that does not make his words irrelevant when discussing fascism, does it? Books by noted historians are secondary sources, and quotes in them are properly used as coming from a secondary source. Else no quotes could ever be used in any article. Collect (talk) 18:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The book cited is a collection of articles on fascism by different writers, some of which are re-printed from peer-reviewed journals and books. But the article by Bill White (neo-nazi) is published in its entirety without comment, and was originally published in Pravda, which is not a peer-reviewed journal. The quote you gave was a direct quote from Bill White which you used as a reliable secondary source, in preference to the OED in order to support non-mainstream opinions. It appears that rather than reading the literature and summarizing what it says, you have formed an opinion then searched for sources that appear to support it. That is why four of your 12 sources are actually references to the same 1960 article from Political Man. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source. Ask at RSN if you like. I found, by the way, that virtually every source on Apollo XIII refers to the same material -- I suppose therefore that it is not RS to use any quotes about Apollo XIII because they all had the same source? If you delete 3 sources because they quote the same person, that leaves only 9 sources.<g> Collect (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[76]. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(out) Apparent consensus there is that OED is fine for stating historical common usage of a word in English, but not for a definition of a word as far as being acceptable to specialists in the field, or for detailed discussion in an article on WP, and not for handling any meanings outside English of a word. Collect (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not my understanding of the discussion. One writer disagreed with the definition of archeology in Collins concise dictionary but the OED is authoritative. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Not just "one writer." The OED shows how the word was used, but does not claim to provide any specialized defiitions of the words. In the case at hand, we have cites that no single definition is used. Collect (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case (?)

I'm not sure whether I'm missing the point here (please tell me if you think that I am), but if the question is "what do academics think about whether fascism is right wing?", then wouldn't articles by academics (eg Lipsat) where they set out an opionion be primary sources with regard to the question at hand? The probem then being that no single primary source can answer the general question "what do acadmics think..?"., only the more specific question "what does this academic think..?". This is one of the reasons that primary sources should be treated with caution on WP. The problem could be resolved by using secondary sources, such as literature reviews, standard textbooks etc. Thanks. --78.148.14.222 (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP practice is that published material by academics is automatically considered a "secondary source" and not a "primary source." In the case at hand, the question is what the opinions of historians as a group are, and thus any individual opinion can be used to indiacte that different historians have different opinions. See ]]WP:RS]] etc. Collect (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 78.148.14.222 that it is original research to review different scholars opinions and formulate a view about how prevalent various opinions are. Lipset's article was a primary source for what he thought but is also a secondary source because he discusses what other scholars thought. Of course it is better to use a more current writer. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: are you able to explain what makes you think that it is WP practice for the words of academics to be automatically given the status of being "secondary sources"? Because I'm really not sure about that. WP:RS doesn't seem to address the issue and, although I appreciate it won't settle the matter, the WP article on Primary sources says: "In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals". Furthermore, if academic work in this case is always a secondary source, then that must mean that nothing is a primary source, which surely can't be right.

Different historians do have different opinions. Obviously true with regard to a range of topics. But it seems to me that the issue is how the difference of opinion should be portrayed in the case in hand. Lipsat's essay appears to be a note of dissent which pretty much proves the existence of a consensus against him. It may be worth a quick mention. But instead, it seems to have been used to give the impression that this is a question on which the academic community is totally divided.

Whilst I don't think dictionaries and encylopaedias are useful as sources on this question, it does seem to me that they have a use to benchmark our work here. There's a simple test, I think, that if the contents of a WP article are significantly at odds with what all the world's reference works say, then there is a good chance that something has gone wrong.

BTW, I'm the same anon as posted just above. --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not saying anything about ratios of opinions, only that they differ. If you wish to rewrite WP:RS go there and propose your change, but all we can do here is follow the policies and guidelines already set. And WP:RS sets forth that a scholarly opinion published by a third party (the publisher) is a "Secondary source" whether one likes it or not. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are "tertiary sources" again per WP:RS. Collect (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does appear to say something about the ratio of opinion, just not directly. It reads as if there is considerable debate on the issue. It creates a lack of clarity and errs by the omission of giving making no reference to any consensus (which very clearly does exist). I'm not proposing to rewrite anything. But I can't see where WP:RS says what you claim it does. Give me the quote and I'll concede the point. It is clear from WP:NOR that at least some scholarly opinion counts as "primary source" (eg "original philosophical works", which is close to what we are dealing with here). --78.150.144.169 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles." Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#History has "Historical research involves the collection of original or “primary” documents (the job of libraries and archives), the close reading of the documents, and their interpretation in terms of larger historical issues." Thus stating that the work of a scholar published in the field is not "primary". Then we also have Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources which specifies "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source. " Thus also including published work in a field as a "secondary source." In point of fact, several sources explicitly state that there is disagreement about where Fascism is on the "political spectrum" and whether the "spectrum" is valid at all. Thus no OR or SYN issues. As requested. Collect (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

On the first point, I am not questioning the credibility of any of the sources. On the second, I'm not making any particular case for using dictionaries or encyclopadias as sources.

On the third point, I think you are just mistaken. You have produced a non sequitur. What is suggested by the policy is that "hitorical research" constitutes a secondary source. But the question is not primarily one about historical research. Defining a concept such as "fascism" is a question of political science or philosophy, and there are no documents from which direct information about the question can be drawn other than the writings of academics and intellectuals. These are out primary sources.

The writings of academics on a particular matter of opinion (as opposed to fact) and not "at least one step removed" when the issue to be addressed is of the form "what are the atttitudes of academics to the matter of opinion x", so they do not fall under the definition of "secondary sources".

The section is effectively a literature review undetaken by wikipedians, and I think it is OR, because, in simple terms, a user or users have effectively sought to answer a question implied by the section heading by researching the question themselves, rather than by relying on research conducted by others. The preferable way to approach the section would be to base it on secondary sources (published literature reviews, academic textbooks) and then introduce primary sources in a way that doesn't change the basic tenor of the section. As far as I can see, this would serve the purpose and reduce the possibility of bias. I can't think of a downside, so why would there be any objection? --89.242.191.100 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The current texts are fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely. Collect (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Surely you can't be suggesting that currently published politics textbooks are "fairly uniform in denying the applicability of "political spectrum" entirely"??? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Current texts which deal with Fascism are now fairly uniform that "political spectrum" (left-right) is not applicable to that topic. Indeed, the use of "political spectrum" is now seen as dated, with many sites online shoing an economic axis and an authoritarian-libertarian axis as distinct. Fascism is authoritarian, but that is orthogonal to the economic policy axis, and there are other axes as well. Collect (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, the first point you make is, I think, very clearly untrue. I would agree that some writers on the subject will make the (quite sensible) point that the l-r spectrum is not unproblematic, but that's a slightly different matter. Plus, i'm guessing that you're still proposing to prefer primary sources. Acamdeic opinion that boils down to the statment "fascism is a right wing ideology" being viewed as either false or not properly meaningful, whilst probably not unsustainable, is very much a fringe view. Do you think you'd be able to provide evidence of it being something other than a fringe view (eg something like a textbook, as discussed above)? --78.144.216.191 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP definitions of "primary" wrt sourcing are clear. Writings by authorities which get published are considered "secondary" by those definitions. If you wish to change it, then go to those policy and guideline pages. And with a dozen sources being cited, it would appear to be beyond a "fringe view" that a "political spectrum" is not a valid measure here. Thanks -- but if you wish to debate "primary" this is not the place to do it. Collect (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is WP:OR and WP:SYN to determine the prevalence of experts' views by reading how experts regard their own views. Instead, we must follow WP:RS and get an expert's view of what the prevalence of experts' views are. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying that historians disagree when sources specifically make that very statement is precisely what we should do. As sources say "historians disagree" it is neither OR nor SYN to quote those sources. Collect (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Any statement which synthesizes multiple points of view must be attributed to a published source. In other words, before a Wikipedia article can say "historians disagree on where to place Fascism in the political spectrum", we need a published source which says exactly that – not a Wikipedia editor who has conducted his own analysis of several sources and who has concluded that the sources indicate that historians disagree. It really doesn't matter whether the analysis is correct; if it's made by a Wikipedia editor rather than a reliable source, it can't be used. WP:Verifiability and the subsection WP:SYN are very clear on this. It's even stated outright in the very first sentence of WP:Syn: "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."

End of story. Any synthesizing statement must be attributed to an actual source in which that specific, explicit synthesis has already been published. And once you have such a source, you only need one. A dozen references, none of which actually make the direct claim they are being cited to support, are not acceptable. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

use of "Sir"

Sir Oswald Mosely is customarily referred to with the "Sir" vide the WP article on him. The NYT used the "Sir" as a rule, and WP generally follows its lead. That specific title is rarely elided, and has been in this article for a very long time. You may well not like him, but he had the title. Collect (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, people of different ranks are accorded different titles (I am using the term "title" in a broad sense), and it is entirely proper that we use these titles when referring to them. However it must be consistent. "Mr." is also a title, customarily but not correctly applied to all men with no higher title, but it is not used at all in this article. The NYT procedure is to refer to a person by their full name (omitting title) when first mentioned then by their title and last name for further references (in the case of royalty, baronets and knights it would be their first names). However it appears that in this article people are referred to by their surnames alone, with titles omitted. I see no reason why we should single out baronets for special distinction in this article. Curiously the NYT refers to Conrad Black in a recent article as Mr. Black[77], rather than "Lord Black", showing that they are ignoring UK titles altogether. In any case they would never call him "Conrad, Lord Black". Persons' full names and titles are normally only used in highly formal circumstances. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Usual WP practice is to use titles where they are generally used in sources. As "Mr." is virtually never used, it is not generally used in WP. Where a person has a specific title by which they are commonly known, that title is used in WP articles. His title was hereditary, not honourary, as he was a Baronet. "Lord" for Black was a life peerage = honourary. And I would note that people in this article are not generally referred to by surnames alone. Collect (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For WP usage see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes which makes the distinction between honourary titles and ones of a heridarty knight or baronet, etc. "This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. ... Correspondingly honorific titles should not be deleted from inline usage for a particular person unless there is consensus it is being used excessively inline as an honorific rather than a title. " Which seems fairly clear indeed. Collect (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see any distinction between hereditary and life peerages or knighthoods in that section. My reading is that in some cases, e.g., Father Couglin and Mother Theresa where their titles are commonly applied to their names that it should be used but that does not apply here. Of course it is appropriate to use these titles in lead sections of articles about titled people. Also, I do not think that adding the title provides any useful information to the article, particularly when it is not clear that the title was hereditary. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not clear? Um -- it is not OR to figure out that the SIXTH Baronet is a hereditary title. Did you not look at the Moseley article? Per WP MiS, it is clear that hereditary titles are not just honourary ones, and should be mentioned at the first occurence of a name. Collect (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant that it is not clear in the Fascism article that Mosley was called Sir because he held an hereditary title. The policy to which you refer states "should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person", which is clearly referring to articles about the person. Also, as I already mentioned, I do not see that the policy makes any distinction for hereditary titles. And Black's title while not hereditary is not honorary either. He is entitled to sit in the House of Lords. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It is not needed that the article say it is hereditary -- any more than "Queen Elizabeth II" needs a parenthetical statement "the title Queen is hereditary." And the MoS specifically makes the distinction -- ought I copy it all here in bold face? I would be glad to, but I would hope it would not be necessary. At least you grant that his title was clearly hereditary, I trust. (appending) I trust you are aware that Black can not to sit in the House of Lords? [78] he is currently imprisoned, and Labour wishes to "de-Lord" him. Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that in the National Post article you reference, which was actually founded by Black, he is referred to as "Conrad Black" when first mentioned and subsequently as "Lord Black", which follows the NYT style. I cannot find any use of the word "hereditary" in the WP MOS and the term "honorary title" refers to titles awarded to foreign citizens which are not recognized in their native lands, e.g., Bob Geldoff, Colin Powell have "honorary knighthoods". And the fact that Black is currently unable to sit in the Lords and the fact that a future law may lead to his expulsion in no way affects his current membership. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles discussed in the Honorific Titles section below. Note: honorary knights and dames are not entitled to "Sir" or "Dame", only the post-nominal letters. " "This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria." "Therefore, as with regular titles, the honorific title should be included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the person, but is strictly optional upon subsequent references since mandatory usage inline implies its application as an honorific rather than a title." A;;; seems pretty clear -- and the National Post article conforms neither to WP MoS not NYTMoS. Collect (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The section you are quoting is guidance for articles created about people, not for articles that mention them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And where does it say "Follow this guideline, but only on articles about a specific person, but not anywhere else"? Collect (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not say but not anywhere else because it is providing guidelines for articles about individuals, not guidelines for other articles, which is why it is included under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). (Please note it says biographies.) The Four Deuces (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting parsing -- the term "biography" in WP includes all articles which have biographical material in them, as I trust you knew. The MoS is divided into sections for purposes of making it easy to find material, not for the distinction you appear to propose. Would you claim that BLP doies not apply, for example, to material in this article related to living people? Collect (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course BLP applies, but the guidelines for writing biographical articles are specific to them. Otherwise whenever someone was mentioned for the first time in any article, we would list full name, post-nominal intials, academic degrees and dates of birth and death. If people want this information they can follow the piped links. But it is really bad style to refer to people by their title and full name except on a formal list of guests or patrons etc. Even then it is normal to use all persons' titles, including Mr. if appropriate. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Common practice at WP is per MoS -- use of title as specified above. That you wish to have a different standard here is interesting, but not too relevant. Collect (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect I disagree that the WP MOS dictates the use of some British prenominal titles when titled persons are mentioned in various articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)