Talk:Neo-fascism

{{RFMF}}

The previous redirect to neo-nazism talk page was in error.

Chomsky and Zinn

I was kind of surprized to see both Chomsky and Zinn refered to as marginal in opposition to "more established scholars". These are both among the most well known, quoted, and taught scholars today in Universities. Chomsky himself is one of the most politically active scholars out there, and that fact only adds to his "established position" more than detract from it, as all scholars are have political affinities, but not all are as candid about their affiliations. As such, doesn't that make them "well established", if not among the "most well established" scholars? I'll be taking out the sentence that reads: "Few established scholars take these claims seriously." --Pascale000 5:52 6 March 2006

They are both self-proclaimed anarchists. By that fact alone they are outside of the political mainstream generally, and I would hope within Acadamia. Since the fact that they are them selve on the "Radical Left" then their judgements whether people in what most of us would consider the political center have to be view in light.

Remember Patrick Buchananon - who has about as much credibility as Chomsky or Zinn, calls Bill Clinton a Quasi-Communist. Does that mean there is a legitimate argument that BC was a Communist? Of course not, because the person making that statement did it from a perspective far outside the mainstream--Dudeman5685 10:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is as well-established an authority as any.

Saying that, for simply being anarchists (anarchosyndicalist, in Chomsky's case) Chomsky and Zinn should not be taken seriously is a blatant show of bias. First of all, there is no question as to anarchism's relevance in history and modern thought. Anarchists played vital roles in the 1848 revolutions all around Europe, the organization and defense of the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution (they were later unfortunately killed off by the "ARCP(b)" totalitarians) the Spanish Revolution (the early 20th century was all about anarchism, of course, everywhere save in the U.S., and, acknowledging the influence of anarchists on the Republican side, who dares to call Lorca, Orwell, and Hemingway [who always struck me as more of a fascist, Ezra Pound style] as "outside of academia" simply because of their political views?), and the Mexican Revolution (which everyone recognizes of having heavy socialist-anarchist overtones, as shown by the constitution that resulted from it).

Also, the most superficial overview of Chomsky's carreer shows how inconceivable it is to even pretend like he's not part of the "mainstream" or "well-established." He's been interviewed by La Jornada, Mexico's second-largest newspapers, by Libération, one of France's top four newspapers, and by El País, Spain's most-widely read newspaper, all of which were apparently more than willing to ask his radically out-of-touch-with-the-mainstream opinion of September 11th. He's also published articles in the Los Angeles Times and (here's a hardcore anarchist publication that no one reads) the New York Times. Not taking into consideration that he's a professor at MIT, a fellow at the National Academy of Science and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, that he's the "leading living public intellectual" and, "according to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall." (from the Wikipedia article on him.)

Atomsprengja 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, then. If Chomsky and Zinn can be cited as legitamite authorities on that basis, why can't Pat Buchaanon? He has been interviewed by some leading foreign newpapers, not as an oddity, but as a legitimate political philosopher, many publications have taken him seriously and given him awards etc. Yet Buchanon is a punch line, nobody, even in the Right takes him seriously. If we are to take Chomskys theories seriously. why not Buchanon and Ann Coulter?

I am not a supporter of Buchannon or Coulter, and I don't like it when conservative or mainstream media give them legitamacy. The fact that so many publication give legitamacy to self proclaimed anarachists ( or communist like Rage against the machine, or Nazis like David Duke) should tell you more about their editorial biases and decrease their legitamcy rather than increase that of the extremist--Dudeman5685 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Buchanan should be considered as valid a source as Chomsky. Both give their opinions however, and neither should be considered more reputable than a scholar of fascism but both are noted political thinkers that we have source material from. If their material is relevent to the article and it adds something useful to it it should probably be included in it. - DNewhall

As for the earlier part of your response -- simply because an ideology has played a major role in history doesn't give it legitamacy. The 1848 revs didn't go anywhere, and neither did the Paris Commune. The "success" of the Mexican Revolution is obvious to any who are familier with the country;

The Catholic reactionary views promoted by Buchannan and the knee jerk vitriol associated with Coulter have long histories, just as inglorious as anarchism.

What I am trying to say is -- if you use another extremist ideology (anarchism) to couter Neo-fascism, you are, in effect, legitamizing fascism itself as an acceptable political ideology--Dudeman5685 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what gives an ideology legitimacy? Many thinkers made the case that democracy is absolutely absurd and should be abolished completely. So, is democract a legitimate ideology then? - DNewhall

The whole concept of "extremism" is being challenged by sociologists such as Jerome Himmelstein at Amherst. It is a label that defines the center as ideal, and demonizes dissidents on the political left and political right. Chomsky and Buchanan represent well-established and well-published viewpoints. The mainstream is featured in an encyclopedia, but the margins should not be deleted. I agree with DNewhall.--Cberlet 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, maybe Buchanan shouldn't be taken seriously because he's so unknown that people can't even spell his name right. What do you mean by "legitimate"? Obviously, Mussolini thought it was legitimate, and so did the Japanese military in the 40's. Forza Italia may not seem legitimate to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't. If "a major role in history" doesn't make something worthy of being mentioned, then what does? Official government approval? To take a random example, does the fact that the right-wing coup in the Soviet Union didn't manage to depose the Communist Party mean that the entire anti-communist movement in Russia, or its leaders, should be ignored? Maybe Wikipedia should erase all references to the Prague Spring because hey, the tanks managed to end that too.

I've never seen any poll calling Buchanan the most important living politician, or saying that Coulter, with her "raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences" gems is the eight most-cited source. It'd be pretty difficult, considering how most intellectuals are still radical enough to believe in evolution.

Atomsprengja 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascism & U.S.

Note to JJ4sad6: Please try to balance this page in terms of the amount of material you are adding. Most of it should be sumarized and linked to offsite articles. Please try to draw a distinction between repression and fascism, militarism and fascism, government regulation and fascism, and corporate power and fascism. Most of what you are adding could be said of numerous non-fascist goverments and countries. Also, I do not believe that Zinn has ever argued the U.S. was fascist in the sense you are attributing to him. Please provide a quote. Also please cite exactly who has called Clinton a fascist other than the militias and some left-wing conspiracy theorists. There may be a few reputable libertarians you can cite, but otherwise the claim floats without sourcing. Please do not let your enthusiasm create a situation where others will just start to revert all your text due to the volume and POV stridency. The current material is presented in a much better form and with cites, but it still needs much work.--Cberlet 13:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• • "Please try to draw a distinction between repression and fascism, militarism and fascism, government regulation and fascism, and corporate power and fascism." However, in just about every source on Fascism, it states that such aspects are part of fascism. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive. For example, mammals have hair, mammary glands, and are warm blooded. Fascism is made up of repression, militarism, government regulation, and corporate power. Discussion of fascism requires discussion of its component parts, especially when it remains debated and disputed.15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the underlying Chomsky and Zinn quotes, and they were taken totally out of context. I preserved that one Chomsky quote that was even vaguely related. --Cberlet 14:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of Fascism in the United States has also been brewing on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism pages. The Republican Party has been added and removed from the list numerous times. It seems that there is a great deal of disagreement on what exactly constitutes fascism, and when to draw the line. This article is probably the most well written example of the evidence that the US is becoming a fascist state. What other evidence could be presented to convince editors not to remove the United States GOP from the list of fascist parties? It seems some people are never satisfied. --Dschor 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

At least part of the confusion over what constitutes fascism and where to draw the line stems from a tendency for Americans to think of fascism only in terms of Nazism. If we are seeing the rise of something more akin to the Italian fascismo that Mussolini called 'corporatism', but our only template for fascism is German Nazism, our template fails us and we are confused. There is more than one flavor of fascism. - Mark Dixon 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Britt

Why does there seem to be such a problem with this Britt guy? Can someone explain to me why he seems to be not very well liked? He is a political scientist who has studied fascist governments, I would think his work would fit very appropriately on this page. If we had a page about Cats, you would want to include information from cat researchers. Why the hostility towards Britt? JJ4sad6 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Britt is not a political scientist, nor an academic, nor a Ph.D. He has never claimed to be. It is an Internet hoax. He has said so himself. He wrote one interesting and controversial article. He deserves to be mentioned, and he was already mentioned. --Cberlet 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Berlet, but I want a link showing that he actually said it was a hoax. I have tried to find this on Google and have found others calling it a hoax, but have not found it straight from his mouth. There was an article by Umberto Eco along the same lines (possibly plagerized by Britt), would that be worth including on this page? JJ4sad6 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Not all information is on the Internet. Britt says he did not plagiarize the Umberto Eco article because he had not read it before he wrote his article. I take him at his word. He also has never claimed to be an academic or have a PhD, and has corrected that assumption. He is a retired businessman and writer. While I disagree with his analysis, I believe he has acted in an appropriate and principled way in this matter. As for Eco, there was a link here I think, but it has vanished. At one point I posted a summary of the Eco essay, but it, too, has vanished. Sigh. Anyway, I have added the link to the only sanctioned page for the Eco essay, and moved in several more from the Fascism page.--Cberlet 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited and moved Britt because his piece does not accuse the Bush administration itself. Also, it only implies that the US exhibits fascistic characteristics, not that it is in fact fascist. I felt that this piece was better off in the general fascism section. However, we could always move it back to the bottom in its own section once again. I'm personally fine either way. But the point of my moving/editing it was that he does not accuse the Bush administration, nor does he flat out state that the US is fascist. OH, I also added a second link because it appears that the first link is archived on a regular basis, making it a broken link quite often. JJ4sad6 02:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I am very concerned that recent edits have simply tossed out conservative and libertarian views. I am a lefty, but this is an encyclopedia. How about some fairness. Let's discuss matters. I plan to restore most of the recent deletions unless there are substantial reasons offered here for why that is a bad idea.--Cberlet 19:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted User:Revolución's edits. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Neo Fascism in Italy

I think that the inclusion of Lega Nord and Alleanza Nazionale among the Neo Fascist Movements. Lega Nord is a right-wing independentist party but not neo fascist. Neo Fascist parties in Italy often blamed Lega Nord for its indipendentists issues. Alleanza Nazionale is a post fascist party now turned into a conservative party. I apologize for English.--Brandoale

Fascism (United States)

I think that any new content in this article should be merged with this article. The editors here would be a better balance to discuss the subject, and ATM the article seems mostly to be original research. PPGMD 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first article created to address the issue of American fascism. Fascism in the United States is a large enough topic to warrant a distinct article. Merging the article into Neo-fascism makes the information more difficult to access. Furthermore, there is more to fascism in the united states than can be addressed in the Neo-fascism article. --Dschor 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FDR Sources and Information

I was disappointed to see that someone had removed the information I first placed here about FDR. I certainly hope it was an accident. --JJ4sad6 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush and Clinton

I came here because this was linked from Fascism. The sections on the Clinton and Bush administrations strike me as near-hogwash. As far as I can tell this really demonstrates is that people like to call their enemies fascist, and that any government in modern times has some things in common with any other government in modern times, so you can always find "facsist" elements, "socialist" elements, "free market" elements, etc. By this logic you could probably prove that Yasser Arafat was a Zionist. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arafat had two legs--just like zionists! --Silverback 08:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur on this. I'm no fan of Bush, but this is mere conspiratorial crypto-propaganda to say he's "neo-facist" in the context used to speak of neo-naziism etc. To claim it of Clinton is abject absurdity. Duckmonster 08:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this misuse of fascism and nazism by the left is defense through a strong offense. The are embarassed by the the state oriented solutions they propose to nearly every social problem and know it leaves them vulnerable to comparison with the true fascists and national socialists, so they attack first with these name calling attacks, to shift the focus to other elements of the prototype regimes and away from those elements that they share with those regimes and they also defang any of the more important (from a marxist perspective) economic comparisons with those regimes by pre-emptively rendering the terms meaningless through overuse and misuse.--Silverback 08:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism (United States) AfD

Fascism (United States) has been nominated for deletion here. keith 10:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote has concluded, and the result was no consensus. The page remains. --Dschor 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up of United States Section

I think that the US section needs a bit of a clean up, there has to be a way to bring the two sub-sections together, perhaps a section on how each side views fascism, and do a chronological section of fascist moves by each administration? PPGMD 16:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, I set it up the way I did to preserve balance, as C Berlet and I sparred at the beginning over first making a separate entry for the United States, and then keeping it on this page, but at the time I had only recent examples of neo-fascistic behavior of the government. I did more research and found more information on FDR and Clinton and included that information as well for balance.
  • As far as how each side views fascism, well, I'm independent so I feel no qualms about pointing out the fascistic tendancies of both political parties here in the US. However, my view of fascism closely mirrors the definitions given by Eco, Britt, and Flynn, which is why we have included them on this page already. But if we included definitions by side, this page would likely become POV at that point. As it stands now, it is simply "Here's the definition, and here's what people on the left/right view as fascistic."
  • I do like your chronology idea though, and I may work on something like that. Of course, I would like input on how to set that up. Maybe by decade, I assume? JJ4sad6 01:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines of first a section of how each side views the other as Fascist, any differences in what they believe is Fascist and such. That followed by a section by decade of not only Fascist administrations, but other fascists such as the business plot and others. I think that would make it a bit more orginized. PPGMD 02:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • My question then becomes, is there some definition of Fascism we can all agree to? Perhaps several different aspects? Then what I can do is go through the last century or so and point out all the activities taken by our government that match that definition, regardless of political party or ideology. My personal view is that the Flynn definition or the Eco definition is usable. However, others may have a different view point on what determines "Fascism". So once we get a definition most of us can agree to, I can then go through the history and point out various activities matching that definition. JJ4sad6 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • However, as far as how one side views the other as fascist, I don't think we can really accomplish that here on Wikipedia. Because it would involve EVERYONE on the left agreeing to a single viewpoint, and EVERYONE on the right agreeing to a single counter-viewpoint, and I don't think that will ever be possible. But I do think we can at least find a workable definition that we can all agree to. JJ4sad6 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Fascism

I am going to try to get some sort of consensus on a workable definition of Fascism. I know we'll never agree to a definition 100%, but I want to see if we can at least get most of the particulars agreed to. So I would like to submit Flynn's definition of Fascism for discussion. If there is any item on his list you disagree with, please say so and provide a reason why you disagree. Perhaps provide an alternative item.

• • Flynn's Fascism:
    • 1) unrestrained government;
    • 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party;
    • 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production;
    • 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law";
    • 5) state control of the financial sector;
    • 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending;
    • 7) militarism;
    • 8) imperialism

Now, add your take on this list, provide your opposition to any of these items, or provide additional items for discussion. Again, my goal is to find a workable definition of Fascism most of us can agree to. JJ4sad6 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

An admirable goal, but original research is not appropriate on Wiki. The Flynn definition was written as a conservative/libertarian/isolationist polemic against the "welfare state" and foreign wars, and thus Flynn is not considered a serious scholar of fascism. This definition is similar to the work of Hayek, and von Mises who are conservative/libertarian economists and also not scholars of fascism. See the discussion at Fascism and Ideology and join the debate there if you want to discuss the issue of alternative definitions of fascism. Meanwhile, the Fascism page offers a good start.--Cberlet 14:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, are there any serious scholars of Fascism? It seems to me that for every scholar someone presents, another will denounce them as a real scholar. So have there been any scholars who are taken seriously who have studied fascism and come up with a definition? JJ4sad6 15:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you a serious scholar, Mr. Berlet? Here is what you've written before:

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

• Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
• Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
• Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
• Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
• Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
• Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
• Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
• Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
• The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
• Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
• Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

I appears to me that you can find several common threads in all the definitions from which we can start. For example, between you and Flynn, there is agreement on:

• 1. Militarism
• 2. An absolute ruler

Unfortunately, neither yourself, nor none of your associates at PRA discuss the economic aspects of Fascism and only addresses the social aspects. You associate Mr. Lyons does mention imperialism can be another aspect. However, the platform on the American Fascist Party does elaborate on the economic:

Fascism recgonizes the nation as an organism with a purpose, a life and means of action transcending those of the individuals of which it is composed. To limit such an organism to a purpose within itself, to the mere service of its constituent parts, would be a denial of the whole philosophic concept of the corporate state. People of worth will sacrifice their immediate welfare to the needs of their careers. Similarly, the Corporate state must not be considered solely as a means of good government. It is also the means of self-expression of the nation as a corporate whole in the attainment of its national destiny.

I find it interesting that scholars of the left (as far as I've seen) do not address the economic factors of Fascism, with the exception of Choamsky, who apparently is not "scholarly" enough to include as a source. Perhaps this oversight is the reason why right says that Fascism is a left ideology and vice versa? JJ4sad6 16:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I took the information from the Fascism page and condensed it to include on this page as a definition of Fascism, with the caveat that there may be different characteristics for Neo-Fascism. Otherwise, wouldn't it just be Fascism too?JJ4sad6 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot comprehend how you think your summary in any way reflects the text on the current Fascism page. I have moved in two paragraphs that cover the basic definition. We do not have to reinvent the wheel on this page.--Cberlet 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested in the debate on the political economy of fascism that you seem unable to locate, see: Fascism and ideology.--Cberlet 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, here is what I added:

• 1. Nationalistic
• 2. Militaristic
• 3. Powerful Single Ruler (with often a Centralized Government or Single-Party)
• 4. Collectivism & Conformity (ie. Anti-Individualism)
• 5. Suppression of Opposition
• 6. Business combined with State power, Corporatism
• 7. Anti-Liberalism

And here is what the fascism page says under definition (my condensations are in bold):

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"[1].

ergo, Nationalism, Centralized Government, Single Leader, and Suppression of Opposition

The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."[2].

ergo, Business combined with state power and Nationalism

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the collective century, and therefore the century of the State." [3]

ergo, anti-liberalism, anti-individualism, and collectivism

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

ergo, nationalism, corporatism, dictatorial leader

Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [4]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[5]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a "re-birth" of a conflated nation and ethnic people[6].

ergo, centralized government, business and state power combined, anti-liberalism

The only thing on my list not accounted for is the militarism, but most scholars, including yourself, count that among the traits of fascism.

But if you are fine with my recent revision, I will let it stand, I just wanted something that wasn't a big block of text and rather a list of characteristics.JJ4sad6 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I think the page Fascism (United States) should be merged onto this page, the issues and text sorted out, and then non-duplicative text segments dealing with the post-WWII era moved to a page on Neo-fascism and the United States. All the Bush material that survives would go there.

We also need to keep an eye on the page Nazism in relation to other concepts, especially the section Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism[1]. At some point we should then move all of the debate over fascism, socialism, and the welfare state relationship to corporatism to the page Fascism and ideology. The FDR material would go there, along with the theories of Flynn, Hayek, and von Mises.

Otherwise we just keep having the same discussions on multiple pages, which is a gigantic waste of time and energy that could be better put to use by adding and improving articles.--Cberlet 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, ATM that article contains only two sections that aren't in Neo-Fascism, the first is a two sentence section, the other is the introduction. A number of the voters on the AfD agreed also, any pre-WWII content could stay, but it's barely a stub. PPGMD 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving open the possibility that someone can make a case to grow several sections of this page until they deserve their own pages, but I think the discussion here will demand more cites and more careful crafting of language--all of which is a good thing and a proper process for Wiki.--Cberlet 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think everything in Fascism (United States) after World War II should be merged in here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If this proves to be a better place to get some real work done, I am all for it, but I feel that this level of detail is simply not appropriate in the Neo-Fascism article. Fascism in the United States is a distinct topic, and it would be wise to treat it that way, IMHO. Splitting it into multiple articles makes following the history that much more difficult. --Dschor 09:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no historian, so I speak subject to correction. I think the fascism of the twenties and thirties, whether European or American, was a distinctly different thing from the neo-fascism since the war. Neo-fascist movements in Germany and America seem to have more in common with each other than either does with the fascism 1935. It makes sense to me to have seperate pages for them, with each page prominently mentioning and linking to the other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put up a page of POV and OR like you did with the article in question, then there will be no better place then a user page sandbox. Here you will be forced to cite everything you put up, and that they must conform to all the standards of wikipedia, we let you play around with that page for long enough. By merging the content it will be on a much more high traffic page on the subject where more editors can NPOV it and check your references. If the United States section does become too long then a split with a link would be possible, Neo-Fascism in the United States would probably be the title. PPGMD 14:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There really is a credibility issue here, as well as the historic issues. The merge is a better way to sort those out. So I agree with User:Tom harrison and User:PPGMD.--Cberlet 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Crews Link

Is Bill Crews notable? Unless he is quoted in the text I just don't think he is, I never even heard of him until I read the page. I did a little google research. Search Bill Crews gave a crap load of page, but most were not about this particular Bill Crews so I put in quotes and added Iowa, I got 295 google hits. I also went to Google news, there just "Bill Crews" got 4 hits, of which only one was about this particular Bill Crews. It is my opinion that he is not notable and the link should be removed unless he is quoted. PPGMD 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bill Crews has a wikipedia page. I think the link should be returned as he was an elected official of the state of Iowa. JJ4sad6 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems that the Bill Crews (properly identified) has something interesting to say on the subject and a political background that makes his views on topic. Let's be a little bit flexible on this material until it gets sorted out more thoroughly. --Cberlet 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I can't even find a source for the quote that is used on his Wikipedia page, and put next to the link to that page. Though I agree with him in some areas, the only reason he is linked is because he called the Republican fascist, and I can't find anywhere where he attempts to back up those claims. He seems to be only using the fascist remark as the usual epitaph. PPGMD 15:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The criteria cannot be that you, or me, or anyone disagrees with the use of the term. The criteria must be that it has been made by a reputable person and published someplace. Otherwise I would just cut out all the right-wing claims that I disagree with. (that would be a whole chunk of this page). I agree that much of the material on Bush refers only to political repression and authoritatiranism, and as such is not an example of neo-fascism. Perhaps we could start by summarizing some of this uncited material and putting it in an NPOV context rather than challenging a cited quote.--Cberlet 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I challenge this because he doesn't seem notable, and that I can't find a citation for the only reason that he is linked is because he said:

"I was a Republican from before the fascists took over. I believe in limited government, but I'm on one side of the Democratic party. I'm pro-choice; I've always been."

I can't even find a source for that quote, to see if he attempted to back it up with evidence of why he feels that the current Republican party is fascist. Anyone can spout off about something, it's evidence to back it up that makes it a credible source for Wikipedia. PPGMD 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, Mr. Crews is referring to the fact that he is for limited government and the main stream Republican party is not (at this time). And pervasive (authoritarian) government is one of the hallmarks of Fascism. However, I too have searched exhaustively for this quote, and I cannot find an original source. But we do know, at least, that he is a notable figure, just that this quote cannot be backed up at the present time. If someone can find an original source, I think it should be included. JJ4sad6 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merged in section on the United States

OK, let's start editing, and be nice! Can we first find notable published material that rejects the notion that the Bush II Administration is fascistic before we enage in wholesale cutting? After we have that material, NPOV balancing, summarizing, and trimming will be much easier to do. Patience please--and assume good faith. :-) --Cberlet 23:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the need for material that rejects the notion that Bush II is fascistic? It might be hard to find given the recent actions of the administration. --Dschor 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are undermining your own case with this POV rhetoric.--Cberlet 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we have to say something nice about everybody. --Dschor 12:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dschor. NPOV means that if there are alternative views, we should in good faith include them, but fact is, how many academics and reputable scholars have written analysis in defense of the Administration, specifically that it is not fascistic? Might be able to find some articles from the Heritage folks or maybe AEI. Interesting thing is, search Google for "Bush is a fascist" and you get 11,000 hits. Search Google for "Bush is not a fascist" and you get about 584. I'd suggest you folks start there for NPOV balance. But keep in mind, if someone like Choamsky or Zinn is not a reputable or "mainstream" scholar, then Joe Blogg likely isn't either. JJ4sad6 18:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV mean that we make a good faith effort to locate balancing material. Also, the majority opinion of scholars of fascism is that the charges against Bush are largely overblown rhetoric; so why write a defense when you think the charge is outlandish POV? Also, many of the claims on this page about Bush relate to political repression, spying, authoritarianism, election fraud, etc. None of this necessarily adds up to fascism. That is the main weakness of the Britt essay (in which he coyly never claims the Bush Administration is fascist). At least the Neiwert article explains the connections and relationship to fascist ideology.--Cberlet 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see your evidence that "the majority opinion of scholars of fascism is that the charges against Bush are largely overblown rhetoric". Short of Bush declaring "I am a fascist", the only evidence that is available is his record - as you note, this includes political repression, spying, authoritarianism, election fraud, and more. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I have to assume that it is a duck. JJ4sad6 provides a telling Google stat, that indicates that your claim about the opinion of scholars may not fall on the side you claim. I, for one, would love to see some evidence that this administration is not fascist, but at present it seems unlikely to surface. --Dschor 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A Google search establishes the opinion of scholars? What planet are you logged in from? Prove a negative? That gets an "F" in logic class. If it walks like a duck? That's the argument style of fascism, not proof of fascism. Logic 101: If milk is white and chalk is white then chalk is milk. That's called a logical fallacy. Stop complaining and do some real research to back up your OR and POV claims. Real books. Real journal articles. Real newspaper articles. Less whining and more editing. PLEASE!--Cberlet 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, A Google search does not establish the opinion of scholars, and your POV is even less helpful. I just don't see the need for your baseless assertion that the majority of scholars of fascism would consider the charge that GWB is fascist to be outlandish POV. If you don't want to be called out for making baseless assertions, then don't make them. --Dschor 21:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet, most scholars knowledgeable about this subject wouldn't say that Bush is a fascist, they would say that this administration has tendencies like many recent administrations, but few would call the administration fascist.PPGMD 22:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just finished a research project on this question for a chapter in a scholarly book. In the course of that research I really did contact a number of scholars of fascism. I also asked a number of scholars at a recent conference at Boston University. The overall sentiment was that you could see bits and pieces of elements of fascism in some apocalyptic and repressive aspects of the Bush Administration and the Christian Right, (and even the secular apocalyptic militant foreign policy of the Neocons), but that none really met the criteria for actual fascism. The failure of scholars to write on a subject is not evidence of anything. Compare the Paxton book criteria for fascism (a really good summary) with the Britt essay, and you can see the difference. One explains the key elements of fascism (and the Bush administration has echoes of a few); while the other merely sets up a false analogy by comparing what is alike in Nazi Germany and Bush USA. That's is an inherently flawed analytical methodology--one which Dschor embraces. That's the problem. Dschor is asserting that fallacies of logic are evidence. --Cberlet 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just quote from any published work of any one of the scholars that you met with. Don't accuse me of embracing a flawed methodology, when I have done no such thing. I have tried to add material that is relevant and topical, and as you are aware, the Bush Administration is fascist under any definitions that can be offered - including the (unusual) definition offered by Paxton. --Dschor 22:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well lets rephrase that, your a scientist doing experiments on gravity (something that is well known), if your experiments simply backup what is a known fact, what is the chance that it will be published, or that it will be distributed broadly? PPGMD 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<----Everyone! Here is the thing though. We KNOW what happens to academics who publicly question the status quo. Look at Ward Churchill at CU for an example. The thing is, if there is an academic who speaks out against this administration and calls it Fascist, one of two things will happen. 1. He/she will be dismissed as a quack and not considered mainstream (although, who defines "mainstream"?) or 2. He/she will be vilified and brutally attacked (either their reputation and/or their employment). So I think there is a good reason why many so-called "mainstream" scholars and academics have refused to go out on a limb, take into account the actions taken by this Administration, and write a position that this administration has become fascist. This doesn't even require that we take into account the other two branches. The Administration is ONE of the three branches, and can be in and of itself, fascist. It has a certain amount of support in the other two branches, but certainly, enough to carry out most of its desires. Yes, we do not have stormtroopers marching in the streets and we don't have "re-education" camps for dissidents, but do we really have to go that far before people will sit down and say "Ya know what? I think we have become fascist here in America"?

CBertlet, I respect your work, especially when you have written to expose the theocratic right. Theocracy requires a certain amount of fascistic control over the population, I'm sure you will agree. Certainly the old Catholic Church wasn't 100% Fascist, but it had many of the hallmarks. Likewise, America is not 100% Democratic, yet we call it a Democracy. Does something really have to be 100% to be called a term? Consider the fact that if we wait until we ARE 100% fascist, there will be no opportunity then to call it so.

But I want to get back to a more important question. Who defines "mainstream"? Does an academic have to have a PhD from Stanford, or Harvard, or Yale, or Columbia to be "mainstream"? Do they have to be accepted by ALL within the academic circle to be "mainstream"? Do they have to have hundreds of published articles and books to be "mainstream"? Or do they have to be so tame that they refuse to rock the boat one way or the other, or risk going out on a limb with their position to be "mainstream"? Who determines if Mr. or Ms. Soandso is "mainstream" or a quack? Seems rather arbitrarily based on whether you agree with their views or not. JJ4sad6 16:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am reading Wiki policies in an odd way, and I am happy for others to offer their views, but I think there are essentially five levels.

1. The majority view of the recognized experts in a field, and reputable authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

1. Minority views of published scholars in a field, and authors in "mainstream" edited publications.

1. Minority views of published scholars and authors in marginal but edited publications.

1. Minority views of authors in marginal publications and websites that nonetheless provide valuable insights or which have received public attention.

1. Idiosyncratic views that are essentialy self-published, overly conspiracist, or lunatic.

In regular encyclopedias, the focus is on detailing the first category, with some small mentions of the second category, and sometimes a brief discussion of publicized controversies in any of the categories. Here on Wikipedia, there is more latitude, and more room for detailing the lesser categories.

But I do not believe that minor theories should displace majority scholarship on main pages. And since there are plenty of websites, I do not think that every minority view needs to be detialed here. That's what search engines provide. The goal of a universal online encyclopedia such as Wiki is to help readers find the most reliable majority views on a subject, important minority views, with pointers to lesser views.

The claim that dissident scholars and authors are "censored" in the United States is hyperbolic. Attacked, vilified, sometimes not rehired or even fired, yes; but not censored. Take an example of the political left, with publishers such as Routledge, The New Press, South End Press, Common Courage Press, etc, and magazines such as the Nation, In These Times, Z Magazine, Mother Jones, etc. there are plenty of edited published sources for dissident minority views. This is also true on the political right, with numerous book and periodical publishers.

The problem is with Wiki editors who insist that every one of their pet theories, and the blobs of original POV research they have stumbled across while surfing the Web, deserves extended text entries on Wikipedia. This is a false--and frankly irritating and disruptive--notion that demonstrates that there is an endless supply of people whose egocentrism and sense of self importance vastly exceeds their competance and intellect.----Cberlet 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Fascist Timeline

Taking into account PPGMD's suggestion of a Neo-Fascist Timeline, I'd like to start working on that with the help of you folks. How far back should we go? Should we include FDR or start at Truman? Should it be done by administration or decade? We will go by the definition currently available as to whether it is a fascist action or not. I would also like at least one (preferrably two) verifiable sources to include for each item on the timeline. We need not limit ourselves to the US mainland, as I know there were quite a few actions taken in Central America, Korea, and other locations under our advice and instruction that would fit the "fascist" definition we have worked out.

Again, that definition includes:

*Totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic.

*The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production.

*Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it.

*Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness;

*Demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics:

1. A very high degree of nationalism,

2. Economic corporatism,

3. A powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

I know some editors on Wikipedia will want any items to meet ALL parts of the definition. However, as this timeline is to show the development of fascistic tendancies in the US (and as we are not 100% fascist now) it is logically impossible to have an item in this timeline that covers all aspects of Fascism. This will rather be an combination of various facts of history that meet one or more of the items above. Be they acts of Congress, Executive Orders, military actions, foreign policy, domestic policy, government blunders and triumphs, etc.

Again, my main concern is that the item meets one or more of the aspects above and has one or more verifiable (reputable) source, such as the encyclopedia, major newspapers, major journals, etc. Basically, as Mr. Berlet pointed out, it should meet one of the first two items on his list. I know this may be difficult, but we can rely on foreign news sources as well. I recommend the Economist, for example.

And in closing, once this timeline is complete for the most part, we would finally have enough information to make a separate stand-alone page for "Fascism in the US" (or Neo-Fascism). I'd prefer the term Fascism as "Neo-Fascism" has yet to be properly classified and agreed to by anyone. It is for that reason I think we should go all the way back to FDR to start our Timeline. JJ4sad6 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire project would fail as being original research, and also would be problematic because it is built around the logical fallacy that if one finds elements of fascism in tendencies in the U.S. government or some political movement, then it belongs on a timeline of fascism in the U.S. There are numerous separate threads here for allegations of fascism: the liberal corporate welfare state, political repression, Christian theocracy, and neo-corporate trans-national corporations. This is a really bad idea.--Cberlet 00:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I respect your objections. I'll leave the decision open however, and I'd like to hear what PPGMD has to say, along with the other folks who frequent this page. First off, it would not be original research as original research would be me writing an article based solely on my views and experiences. This, as I stated, would be based on a collaborative effort and backed by well established fact. We could get information from encyclopedias, newspapers, etc.

Wikipedia itself says of OR, "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

So again, this would be facts collected from already published reputable sources. Therefore it does not fall under Original Research. Worst case scenario, it will allow us to expand the US section following the pattern of the Clinton and Bush sections for other periods of recent US history. We can add things like Joe McCarthy, events in Korea before the Korean War. Events in the Phillipines. Events in Central America, etc. We can also include Executive Orders and Congressional Acts that grant some expanded power to the President/Congress and the critisism and support of the action from detractors and supporters of that era.

Secondly, you call it a logial fallacy. That is true, assuming that we find NO evidence that the US has acted in a fascistic manner and is not becoming fascistic. Perhaps we will find no evidence, however, considering the amount of information on this page at this point, I think we have proven that false. All that this attempts to accomplish is document the actions that are considered fascistic. And if you are referring to a logical fallacy in making it a separate page eventually (I fail to see the fallicious line of thinking in that, but all right), then perhaps eventually all those other pages you listed can be linked to this potential page. In fact, you gave us a great place to start with working on this timeline.

Now, of course, to avoid any NPOV issues, this Timeline will have to include the caveat at the beginning that the included items may be indicative of Fascism (following the accepted definition at the beginning of the page). Of course, anyone who works on such a timeline should include opposing views (if available). For example, if we include an item stating that the PATRIOT Act is fascistic (and why), we should also include the counter-argument that it is not and why. Basically, so long as we are mindful of the requirements that have been laid out for Fascism, we will be fine in this Timeline. JJ4sad6 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What you just wrote makes no sense to me at all. Sorry.--Cberlet 02:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I respect your input, but I still want to hear from other posters what they think of the idea. I especially want to hear from PPGMD since it was PPGMD's idea originally. JJ4sad6 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I am cognizant of your energy and zeal, but a first step might be to defend the material moved to this page by providing more citations and substance, rather than assume most editors think the current material deserves to remain unedited. --Cberlet 03:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, fron what you and I have seen over the last several months, most of the people who DO remove information from this page do so out of political bias and not because of citation issues. In any event, this Timeline would not be added to the mainpage (of Neo-Fascism) until it is fully completed, cited, and well founded.

I am weary of adding more "substance" to this page, as any new information is quickly revised or removed (due to political bias most often). I am more comfortable adding more items and backing them up with sources as I come across them. Often, other writers on here tend to editorialize, which is why their substance is removed. I try to be cautious by always including "some people" or "allegedly" or "lends credence" or "may indicate". I hate to be vague, but unfortunately on this page it is required, or else my addition will be quickly deleted.

On another matter, why "Neo-Fascism"? The more I investigate it, the more it appears to be simply "Fascism after WWII". That, I suppose, is one of my main sticking points in trying to ascertain whether Neo-Fascism has a different definition than "Fascism". I know a few researchers have also called it "proto-Fascism".JJ4sad6 05:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

<----It would really help, JJ4sad6, if you actually went to a library and read some of the major books on fascism and neo-fascism, before deciding to launch major research projects on a topic. Failing that, re-read the entries here on Fascism, Fascism and ideology, Nazism, and Corporatism. They are really quite informative. Most scholars use the term "Fascism" to refer to matters up to the end of WWII, while calling everything after that "neo-fascism." They offer a variety of reasons for doing this, and it has become the standard. "Proto" simply means "in the process of becomming." So as a term in this discussion "proto" is used to describe a claimed movement of the U.S. toward fascism. Vagueness is not acceptable. Cites are required, and maybe some actual quotes, but otherwise your claims will be regarded as Original Research, and, franky, many of us here are "weary" of removing personal opinions and vague claims from this and other pages related to fascism, neo-fascism, and the United States. What is especially frustrating, is that with a little effort, and maybe a visit to a library, you could find published authors who agree with some of what you are claiming. That's called research. Surfing the web for essays that support your particular POV is not research.--Cberlet 15:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it appears you're missing my point. Of course this would be well researched, so have no fear of that. My point about being vague comes straight from the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. It suggests to write a statement as "Some people believe X" rather than simply "It is believed that X", or worse (according to them) "X". Of course, they want to know who those "some people" are, and that is why I would prefer to back up this timeline with sources from item 1 or 2 on your list.

What I am asking other posters for is hints at what directions to look into. They can throw out any idea they like, any vague pet theory they may have. But I will take the time to research it and try to find sources to back up the assertion (using items 1 and 2 from your list) before including it on this timeline. Again, this timeline won't even go up until it is 100% complete and well founded.

Regarding "proto" I realized after that I used the wrong term, I meant "pseudo". The thing about this particular issue is that there will always be those who oppose this assertion that the US is becoming fascist. As I said before, obviously we are not 100% fascist. It is logically impossible to require that we be 100% fascist before documenting how we are becoming fascist, as at that point there would no longer be such an open forum as Wikipedia (but perhaps editors in other nations would continue the work).

In researching this issue more and more, I understand the point of view that calling the US fascist is hyperbolic... however, in my opinion, it is worthwhile to remain vigilant and cautious, as there are many documented indications that the US is not as democratic and free as our government alleges. In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being fascist and 10 being democratic), the US (in my view) probably falls somewhere around 5. We still maintain many personal freedoms, however, we have also lost many in the recent decades, or if not completely lost, they are severely weakened. JJ4sad6 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a much deeper and more complicated analysis of the situation. Thanks for taking the time to dig into the subject matter and explain your views more cogently here.--Cberlet 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edit questioning Rhodesia's inclusion

It "is similarly considered by some.." and refers the reader to South Africa, above. There it says, "Many scholars have labeled...". Both those phrases are too vague. I want to know, and include, who specifically said Rhodesia's and South Africa's racial systems were fascism. I'm adding requests for citation, and hope to be able to include references supporting the statements.

If a formal system of racial discrimination is the basis for South Africa's listing as fascist, I would also want to know if any other countries have or had a formal system of racial discrimination. The anonymous editor's comparison with the confederate states in 1860 implies, I guess, a connection to slavery. Is slavery still legal anywhere in the world today?

Academic Question

This may or may not ultimately pertain to the development of this page, but I wanted to spark a bit of an academic discussion. During my research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that Fascism is likely the most effecient form of government known to humanity. Now, this is not to say I condone fascism, merely that, for all intents and purposes, it appears to be the most efficient, especially in Domestic matters.

Consider that it creates an atmosphere of fear to repress dissent while at the same time creates an outpouring of awe to some singulary ruler. So in time, all come to love "the leader" or risk ostracism or worse. This means that changes in policy (when needed) are easily made because there is no opposition. Likewise, there is no fear of failure, because supporters will rationalize government failure through cognative dissonance, while opponents will not be free to point out that failure. So even when the government makes a mistake, it is easily rectified because a fascistic government has the ability to quickly change policy to both cover the mistake and recover from it.

The only downside I see to fascism, from merely a historical observation, is its militancy. It seems that a fascist government tends to over-extend itself and lose a successive number of battles until the enemy is so strong that it overwhelms the fascist state. If a fascist state did not engage in militancy, I forsee no reason it could not exist in perpetuity.

For example, if America were to become fully fascistic, and cease to engage in nation-building and other militant foreign policy, the US would likely remain fascist, because such a system is based on a self-perpetuating chain that feeds on itself. The citizens love the leader, and the leader presents the appearance that the citizens are loved. So long as an inept ruler never rises to power, or a ruler that oppresses his supporters, fascism can last forever.

Again, this is merely a preliminary conclusion I have reached, and it in no way means I condone fascism. Fascism may be effecient, but it is ultimately counter the ideals of personal liberty that I support.JJ4sad6 15:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The domestic repression required by fascism to stay in power is not efficient but quite costly, and it generates resistance that ultimately would lead to revolutionary revolts or gradual transformation--as is true with all totalitarian govenments.--Cberlet 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but if the opposing citizens practice self-censorship and rationalization through cognative dissonance while the pro-leader/regime majority citizens also practice intimidation of the opposing minority. The trick would be to ensure that your supporters were always in the majority. Special machiavellian tricks could also be used, such as "pseudo-coups" that look like a new face when the opponents become a larger group than the proponents, but in reality it is simply a new leader supported by the new majority to maintain the regime/fascistic state. The ultimate trick is to find the perfect balance between minority opponents and majority proponents. A balance where the majority still believes they are free while the minority knows they are not, but where the minority is too afaid to speak out about the oppression or where (ideally) they rationalize it away.JJ4sad6 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Repression, if self-imposed, need not be costly to the state's ends. The generation of resistance is minimized, and the tendency to revolution or transformation diminishes with time as more of the population learns to accept the self-imposed repression. --Dschor 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, look at the American Revolution. Most people in the Colonies were against it, or didn't care either way. Only a small minority actually wanted the revolution. And likely the only reason it suceeded was because that small minority was of the rich land-owner class, who were influential enough to sway the underclasses. Had the small minority been tradesmen or some other lower class, we'd likely still be English.

And like I said before, if the opposition minority does one day become powerful enough to overthrow the fascist regime and/or becomes the majority, the leadership can always perform a "pseudo coup" and install a new puppet who matches the desires of the opposition, at least superficially. It could even be done "democratically" through elections, where the regime takes into account what the opposition wants, creates a candidate that acts like they fit that mold, and the opposition elects them, only to later have a candidate much like the previous regimes. And people in general have too short a memory to hold that against the regime, so if it is done once every decade or so, there is no suspicion that the people are being played for fools.

But as you suggested, most citizens will come to accept their self-imposed repression, which is exactly what a fascist state would desire. The ultimate goal of any such regime would be to have an opposition that excepts their repression by rationalizing through cognative dissonance. In other words, if the opposition excepts their repression because they believe they somehow deserve it, or that it is for the greater good they aren't as free as others, the the regime could potentially last forever.JJ4sad6 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The long inidctment of the Bush administration having neo-fascist tendencies is not NPOV. It takes up a substancial part of the article for its relative merit.

Clinton

The stuff about Clinton did not actually name who was making the accusations, so that it appears the author themselves was making the case. I believe this violates one of Wiki's rules.

Ok, added some sources. Its late, and I need to get to bed. I will add more later. You're fine with the Bush segment?JJ4sad6 07:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush and the Republicans

What connection between alleged wrongdoing by Bush and the Republicans and neo-fascism is being alleged here? If there is no cite to reputable published text making claims linking activities by Bush and the Republicans to fascist tendencies or neo-fascism then it all has to be deleted. Such claims do exist, but this page is riddled with original research an unsubstantiated claims. I am no fan of Bush and the Republicans, but most of the claims on this page regarding them have no connection to fascist ideology or neo-fascism. Wikipedia is not a blog site. It is an encyclopedia.--Cberlet 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The Fascism WikiProject has run into this problem before where broad "bad" "right-wing" things have been used as evidence that the Reps are fascist but haven't cited reputable sources and haven't been able to link the "bad things" to fascism specifically (or used an incorrect definition of fascism). - DNewhall

Neiwert essay

David Neiwert is a published author and his essay has been cited in scholarly treatments of the subject. Please do not cut material simply because you disagree with it. --Cberlet 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I did not cut the Neiwert section because it was improperly cited or because of a conflict with my own POV.

4 paragraphs of block quotes from David Neiwert is not relevant or NPOV. Neiwert, a virtually unknown blogger, is given 4 paragrahps of block quotes while the far more notable Noam Chomsky is only given a one-sentence summary supported by a couple of links. To my knowledge, Neiwert's expertise on this subject goes only as far as having authored some book-length journalism about northwestern militia groups, a topic of doubtful relevance to the subject of the article.

Neiwert's book and clippings from his blog belong in the external links section. There is no practical advantage to duplicating hundreds of words in block quotes from his blog other than to unecyclopoedically color the section with his own less than neutral POV. rehpotsirhc 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That section seems to go off on a tangent a bit and that amount of text isn't necessary since the first paragraph says what he's warning against. The others are just eloborations that can be found at the link given if more clarrification is needed. - DNewhall

Cberlet, this is the third time you've reverted this huge block of Neiwert's text over the objections of another editor. You've never answered the objections of DNewhall or Silverback or myself outside of the terse irrelevancies in your edit summaries. (You might as well stop asserting that he is a "published author." While true, it's totally insubstantial as to whether or not the text is appropriate for the balance of the section.) --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The entire section "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" is a list of complaints that have almost nothing to do with fascism as an ideology. The relatively small (hardly "huge") quote by Neiwert makes an important and nuanced point. I will be happy to summarize the section "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" into a short paragraph to balance the page if that would help. The content of the short Neiwert text is far more compelling and representative of a serious approach to a discussion of fascism than the laundry list of authoritarian and repressive actions that do not add up to fascism. The "huge" weak overly simplistic section remains, the short substantial Neiwert section keeps getting deleted. That is a good example of a POV deletion. --Cberlet 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any editor who wants to defend the list under the heading: "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" or should it simply be removed and replaced with some quotes from published sources such as the Britt essay? --Cberlet 13:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"laundry list of authoritarian and repressive actions that do not add up to fascism". Cberlet, you're exposing your non-neutral POV. The section describes it as a list of things which some people think add up to fascism, which is accurate. Would you consider withdrawing from this topic in favor of a more neutral editor? --ANON

Rebuttal (Fascism in the United States)

"The rhetoric of the administration is still supportive of individual rights..."

This is no argument! Most of the rhetorics totalitarian and otherwise police-state-like regimes, whether nazi, fascist, communist or otherwise moronic, do not coincide with their actions. Words are only for those who believe them. The actions are what count. Hitler sincerely believed that he would bring happiness and joy to germans by eliminating jews, communists, etc. Lenin and Stalin believed (or at least their statements show that they believed) that they would bring eternal well-being on planet Earth with their communism and their revolutions (albeit resulting in the deaths and torture of millions, including their own compatriots.

Did Hitler, Lenin or Stalin make a habit of criticizing "big government?" :) --rehpotsirhc 14:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Defend section or it gets removed

Is there any editor who wants to defend the list under the heading: "Particular allegations against the Bush Administration" or should it simply be removed and replaced with some quotes from published sources such as the Britt essay? I am serious. I can see nothing but original research. Happy to see another argument.--Cberlet 17:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How about replacing that with a list of references to books and other sources describing the fascism of the Bush administration? I put in Glenn Greenwald's.

It's undersourced, but most of it is certainly not Original Research.

I added references to a number of the particular allegations against the Bush administration (in an attempt to increase the use of verifiable sources), but the references have been removed again: the page appears to have been reverted. What's going on here? That doesn't seem like a reasonable reversion. (Of course, it could just have gotten eaten by a computer bug.) --ANON

Just listing repressive acts is Original Research. This page needs to have cited text based on a reputable published source who says the Bush administration is fascist or has fascistic aspects because 'blah, blah, blah." Britt could be cited. Neiwert and Chomsky are cited. But the list is not connected to fascism by cites. I agree that the Patriot Act is a bummer. Not good enough. I need to find a reputable published source who says it is a step on the road to fascism. Otherwise it is Original Research. Making the list have better cites that back up the list is not relevant. It is the list--without a cite to someone stating the specific issue or act is linked to fascism--is just so much POV OR hot air.--Cberlet 20:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Can a Jew be a Facist?

Just a thought. Could, perhaps, Meir Kahane and the JDL, some of the Israeli extreme right, be considered fascist? For that matter - perhaps even the Ba'ath movement? Discuss among your selves--Dudeman5685 04:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, theoretically, a fascist government/movement can have jews in it although there are vey few historical examples of it. Meir Kahane and the JDL are not fascist, however, because they are fighting for a return to Torah law. One of the central ideas of fascism is the rejection of previous types of government/ideals for a newer and stronger system which usually puts them at odds with conservatives. - User:DNewhall

Several scholars have discussed the elements of fascism in Meir Kahane, the JDL, and certain settler movements--pointing out that fascism is both reactionary and modernist (Jeffrey Herf coined the phrase); and citing the clerical fascist movements of interwar Europe that sought to implement theocracies. But how would this fit on this page?--Cberlet 12:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No evidence of Fascism in the US

I removed the section since it was pointless to keep it there at this point, since our Editor-in-Chief Mr. CBerlet has taken it upon himself to abolish all remains of what was once a strong article. I would again point out to our Editor-in-Chief that:

1. A novel is NOT evidence of a fact, no more than Through the Looking Glass is evidence of Wonderland. 2. Paleo-Conservatives ARE NOT fascists, and such a characterization is certainly POV. 3. Original Research includes those items NOT previously published elsewhere. Our Editor-in-Chief is used to dismissing anything not found in an Academic Journal. Therefore, things found on other website, or in weekly news magazines, national/local newspapers, or even VIDEO evidence from a congressional testimony (to name a few) is apparently original research due to the fact that it was not written about by a PhD from Harvard or Yale, and published in a thick journal that HE is familiar with.

So let's just let the Neo-Fascism in the US concept die until Cberlet does, and then maybe we can actually work on all sides of the issue and move forward in laying out the evidence. Our Editor-in-Chief is far too concerned about maintaining his control over this fiefdom he has carved for himself. JJ4sad6 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please edit in good faith and avoid further tirades and personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather you had edited in good faith, instead of abusing your power over this article. You have made yourself judge, jury, and executioner over this article, and it really should stop. As another editor had mentioned above, you should consider stepping aside for a time to allow a more neutral editor to review this information. Ideally someone NOT from the US who will not inject their political views into what they decide to keep and delete, as you have done time and again. JJ4sad6 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks.--Cberlet 03:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How about leaving the revised section up for a week and asking for a Request for Comment?--Cberlet 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I'd say the section is technically correct JJ4sad6 does bring up an interesting fact that evidence for the claim isn't really given. All that's given to back it up is a fictional book, a letter on the web, a pretty POV paper, and a guy's blog. I'm tagging it as "citation needed" (and maybe as being POV) for the time being but lets leave the current version up. - DNewhall

DNewhall, you may remember the old incarnation of this article with its laundry list. I spent a lot of time putting that list together, and it remained on here until I turned my back long enough and Cberlet took advantage of my absence to delete it all. In his view (according to what he has said on here) he viewed that laundry list as OR, which is not the case per the regs of Wikipedia, as I've pointed out to him twice now. He has also said that merely listing various things that might add up to fascism is not evidence of fascism.

What he fails to realize is that as fascism is a complex concept, it has multiple parts, and thus a fascist government may display several, many, or all stated aspects of fascism. In other words, warm-blood, hair, and live birth each individually do not add up to mammal, but taken in conglomeration, there is a strong indication that an animal with those three characteristics is an animal. Likewise, election fraud, political oppression, corporatism, militarism, nationalism, and a unitary leader taken separately do not mean a government is fascist. But added together and backed by evidence, a clearer picture of fascism forms.

We will NEVER find a PhD from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Berkley, or Penn State who is willing to write a journal article about US fascism. They know it would be the end of their careers, and possibly their lives. There was a Kansas professor who was brutally beaten for stating ID is not science. Something similar could happen to an academic who states that the US is becoming fascist.

I think there are two problems with editing this article. First and foremost, Cberlet needs to quit acting as the Editor-in-Chief for a while. He has already shown himself to be biased time and again. The section "Neo-Fascism in the US" does not need to be written in such a way that it is 100% proof that the US is a fascist government. As I've said before, when the US is 100% fascist, we won't have the luxury of reporting on it at that point by definition. We have a working definition of fascism at the top of the article. I did that for a reason so we would have a place to start when determining if a government is fascist or not.

Going by our Editor-in-Chief's standards, then we would have to delete every nation's fascism on this page with the exception of Italy, as there have been no real academic discussions of fascism outside of Italy. And then at that point, this article would simply mirror the Fascism page and be redundant. So in other words, neo-fascism, being the contemporary concept that it is, requires the accumulation of evidence that may support the claim, as it is too soon for anything to have been written about it. Compare this idea to a page on a new movie. If one is writing about a movie, then he or she has to include "evidence" from currently available sources: newspapers, other websites, trailers, etc. He or she can't wait around for a scholarly journal to write about the movie to use that as evidence.

In summation, I am merely asking that Cberlet take the above into account and step away as Editor-in-Chief of this article while others work within the rules of wikipedia to rebuilt the article. JJ4sad6 09:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a Request for Comments at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics .--Cberlet 12:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding exactly what the section says. The section does not say that the U.S. is, or ever was, fascist but just that certain scholars have debated the it is/has been. This is correct. People have argued that the New Deal in the '30s was fascist and that the modern Republican Party is fascist. Both arguments are incorrect but they have been made. Taken as the section is now ("The presence or absence of fascism in the United States has been a matter of long-dispute from a variety of political viewpoints") it is correct (the presence or absence of fascism in the U.S. has been a long-disputed topic). However, it does not cite any real (read: NPOV) sources and this is a problem. - DNewhall

To assert the correctness of the authors' arguments over the New Deal is not the task of Wikipedia editors, but the fact that they have argued that the "New Deal" was "corporatist" is indeed true. I am not sure though if this needs to be added here or in the New Deal article. It can be added here or in the fascism fascism as an international phenomenon article if there was some form of 'political movement' around it. Intangible 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found an article "Flirtation with Fascism: American Pragmatic Liberals and Mussolini's Italy" by John P. Diggins. It might be interesting to dissect and be entered somewhere. Intangible 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An extensive (some say absurdly long) discussion of claims by conservatives and libertarians that the New Deal had elements of fascism is already at Fascism and ideology. This page is about post-WWII issues. --Cberlet 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if Diggins is a conservative or libertarian. Does it matter? Intangible 20:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Diggins can be a vegetarian; it does not matter as long as there is a proper cite to a reputable source; but please stop having discussions on the wrong page. Just go and edit Fascism and ideology. --Cberlet 21:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

JJ4sad6, I was checking on the RfC, and have the following thoughts:

• If some useful information has been removed, see if you can find it and point to it so that others can see if it's useful. I went back a little ways, but I have no idea in what time frame it might have been removed.
• Don't forget, a good list will not only show how the US is similar to fascism, but points of dissimilarity as well. Since the US government has not labelled itself as fascist, nor is there clear evidence of a widespread belief to that, our job is to show supporting and disproving facts and let the reader decide.
• Stop the WP:POINT. I can understand why you would be upset if your hard work was removed, but let's approach this without escalating the conflict.

I'm not as knowledgeable about this particular subject as some of you apparently are, but I'll keep an eye out for ways I can help. Sxeptomaniac 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

While I most definitely welcome a neutral, non-biased point of view, I do want to point out that it is logically impossible to provide evidence that the US is not Fascist. One cannot prove a negative. The ideological opposite of fascism could be argued to be anarcho-libertarianism, so the only way to provide evidence that the US is not fascist is to prove that it is its direct polar opposite. The US is far from anarcho-libertarianism, and so are just about all other 190 some nations, so even that is not a very useful way to point out that the US is not fascist.

Also the timeframe I am referring to is the editions in late summer of 2005, basically before Cberlet began to remove all the work that I and others had added into this page when I had other pressing matters to attend to and Dschor was banned. With the defenses down, Cberlet took advantage and remade the page in his image.

Finally, I also welcome the fact that you are not as knowledgeable about fascism, as this means that you may serve as a useful non-biased arbiter of this matter. Again, I would urge you to consider that it is not possible for us to prove a negative in this matter. Thanks! JJ4sad6 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should be trying to prove that the US is not fascist any more than that it is. I think it would be better to focus on similarities and differences. What qualities does the US share with fascism, and what is different. For example, while the high degree of nationalism could be said to be similar to fascism, the current low support for the president would be dissimilar, if I understand the concepts from the article correctly.

To use the mammal analogy, let's talk about the features, and let the reader draw the conclusions. To say that the US is fascist is just going to continue to make the article hotly disputed. Sxeptomaniac 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, with that said, then I should be able to revert my laundry list if someone else is willing to write how the Bush administration is dissimilar. I selected the items on the laundry list that met the definition we have at the top of the article. The items also came from previously published sources, or were primary sources. JJ4sad6 09:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wolin quote

If you want to put in a quote by Wolin that's fine, however, I don't think it's that much to ask that it relates to fascism. The quote:

"Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them with a crime or allowing access to counsel."

"The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest."

makes absolutely no mention of fascism nor anything related to fascism. Also, remember WP:CIVIL and that includes accusing someone of POV pushing by removing a quote that DOES NOT REFERENCE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARTICLE. - DNewhall

The chomsky bit, wolin bit and blog thing can go imho. Intangible 01:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, this brings us back to the "fact" that there is no Fascism in America because 1. the government has not admitted to being fascist, and 2. no one with a PhD writing in an Academic Journal has said the words "The US is fascist". If this is what is required as proof, then we must remove the Greece section and several of the other nations with the exception of references to Italy, as Italy is the only nation in the history of the world to admit to being Fascist, in addition to being the only nation studied by PhDs in academic journals as fascistic. JJ4sad6 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If a political movement after WWII espouses fascist ideas it can be listed here, since this the neo-fascism article (of course in countries where you can speak of a fascist government, like in Italy, or in some lesser sense Greece, you could mostly do with a link to their respective articles, and work from there). In the United States there have also been neo-fascist movements, like the American Fascist Party, if you like it or not. Wikipedia is not a truth seeking mechanism, there is only npov, consensus and verifiability. Intangible 02:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's my point, there has been no government after WWII Italy that has espoused the ideals of fascism. We CAN include groups that actually call themselves "fascist", but then, are they fascist or neo-fascist? If they are fascist, they don't belong on this page. The definition of neo-fascism must be more complex than simply "post-WWII fascism". Afterall, Conservative and Neo-Conservative are significantly different. Likewise, it is not appropriate for us to include "pseudo-fascism" with "neo-fascism" as the verbage indicates two different concepts.

With all of the foregoing in mind, if we are to go by the determining factors laid out for us by Cberlet (that the government must admit to being fascist and/or that it had to have been written about in an academic journal), then I propose we remove ALL sections and references on this page with the exception of 1. those groups/governments that have actually called themselves "neo-fascist", and/or 2. those governments/groups that have been written about in academic journals. This would leave Italy and Guatemala, in addition to those groups that have called themselves "neo-fascist" or that meet the definition of "neo-fascism". However, as there is no agreed upon academic definition of "neo-fascism" we should only include those groups that have declared themselves "neo-fascist" and not "fascist" as those groups should be placed on the "Fascism" page.

Therefore, if the definition of "neo-fascism" is merely "post-WWII fascism", we can keep Italy (and those Italian groups that call themselves fascist), Guatemala, and any other groups, post WWII, that have declared themselves fascist. All other references on this page MUST be removed, including the Sinclair Lewis novel (which I originally placed on this page) as it was written before WWII, and thus would relate to "Fascism" and not "Neo-Fascism" per our definition. Likewise, as I have said before, a fictional novel is not evidence of a historical fact. I originally placed it on this page as a lead in to the laundry list showing that while it had been written about in fiction, some of the aspects of fascism were beginning to manifest in the US. However, if the laundry list is no longer apropo to this article, then the novel is no longer needed as a lead in to the concept... as Fascism apparently does not exist in the US. JJ4sad6 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is best to use a "post-WWII Fascism" definition as criteria to include political movements in this article. This is easy for self-described movements. It is harder for non self-described movements, even when they get discussed in academic papers as being neo-fascist, or when movements transcend traditional "Extreme Left" and "Extreme Right" boundaries, such as National Bolshevism. Academic consensus is not a replacement for wikipedia consensus under wikipedia editors imho. I think too much effort is put by academics into describing all kind of fringe movements after WWII, none having mass appeal, and only serving as academic job-security. This goes also for the left-right dichotomy, that is all too prevalent across wikipedia. I might even start a policy debate on that one, since making a wikilink constitutes NPOV, which I think (far) left and right cannot give. Intangible 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The talk about how to define "Neo-fascism" or "Neo-nazism" warrants an individual article. This is an interesting bit to include on a meta level. Intangible 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CBerlet, what's the source of the Wolin quote? - DNewhall

The Wolin cite, on the page, scroll down. Really, please put some effort into editing.--Cberlet 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Title move

It should be neo-fascism, since this concerns not the specific fascist movement in Italy (Fascism) but a category of movements after WWII. Neo-Fascism should either direct to Italian fascism or neo-fascism then. Intangible 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Addition of neo-fascist definitions

These should be put forth on a separate page, since they concern the definition of fascism itself, with references to various authors. The only thing that remains to be said is that neo-fascism is a political movement after WWII striving for an authoritarian government. Intangible 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Neo-fascism can be defined only in reference towards fascism, so a short summary should be included here. As I understand it, basically neo-fascist design all far right post-war movements imitating in a way Italian fascism, and I rather agree with historians who prefer to reserve the term "fascism" to Italy & Germany. However, I do think it is a good idea referring to Fascism & Nazism and the other related movements between the WW. I recall that each pages must be independent, this is why I argue in favor of including resume & quick overview here. Tazmaniacs 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not all authoritarian governments are fascist--and there is disagreement as to which movements and governments after WWII can be classified as neo-fascist. Most scholars of neofascism include those movements that are based on Italian fascism, German racial nationalist, and clerical fascism; as well as some new forms of ethno-nationalism. "Neo-fascism" or "Neofascism" are more accurate spellings. Paxton's recent work on fascism offers a widely praised set of definitions. The definitional text on this page needs lots of work.

For the record, I think that JJ4sad6 has totally misrepresented my views on neofascism and my actions on this page and the previous page that was discarded amd merged into this page. The consensus of many editors was that the laundry list was mostly POV original research that had no substantial cites to published authors linking the elements in the list to allegations of neofascist tendencies in the Bush Administration. I oppose the re-introduction of the laundry list. The link to the Britt article is quite sufficient.--Cberlet 18:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, the recent wave of re-writes has vastly improved the aticle (but too much Sternhell for my taste) :-) --Cberlet 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a primary source a valid source? I would think a primary source is the best source possible. So the video link I had included SHOULD be re-introduced at minimum. Again, the argument between Cberlet and I is whether we can only include those items where someone important (read: the government or an academic) calls something fascist versus using citable references that meet the definition we have at the top of the page. We are NEVER going to find a reference to Bush, Clinton, or anyone in the US administrations calling the US government fascist, but we CAN find incidents that meet the definition laid out on the page. I will refer you back to my mammal analogy. If we are studying an animal, and we include citable references indicating aspects of that animal that meet the definition of mammal, we should include them, and as the neutral party suggested, allow the reader to decide for themselves.

Let's look at this another way. Going by Cberlet's approach, we are to expect that the Democratic People's Republic of Congo is in fact a Democratic Republic of the people, because they say so. If I were to provide evidence that it is not in fact a Republic, but rather a authoritarian nation, this evidence would not be acceptable UNLESS the government had called themselves authoritarian or it had been published in some academic journal that the Democratic People's Republic of Congo was authoritarian.

I think Cberlet is working too hard to make this page of wikipedia something that could pass muster with the Americal Journal of Political Science, when it does not necessarily need to reach that level even per the wikipedia regs. Besides, from an academic point of view, if we ONLY include references from previous academic publications, we will never move towards anything new. I recently wrote a report on Christian Reconstructionism and another on the motivations that perpetuate the War on Drugs. If I only included references from academic journals (and I made extensive use of JSTOR), I would have only reiterated what others have previously said in the academic world. Sometimes you HAVE to go out on a limb IF you can back it up with evidence that isn't necessarily from an academic journal. I went out on a limh by presenting evidence that showed ways in which the Bush administration met the definition we have on the page. My evidence came from primary sources (such as the Clinton Curtis video) and secondary sources (such as newspaper articles, etc). It was not original research as I was NOT saying "Bush is Fascist" but merely saying "here are some citable incidents that meet the definition of fascism". Also, Wikipedia says of OR that work that had not been previously published is OR. Again, if I said "Bush is Fascist" that would be OR, however, I presented a list and allowed readers to draw their own conclusions. In other words, I attempted to merely present the citations without analysis.

Would I have to go the length of actually writing my laundry list into a report, having it published, and then having another wikieditor cite it on here for Cberlet to be satisfied? Even then, I anticipate he would not be satisfied unless it was in one of the top 10 journals and only if I had a PhD in political analysis. Granted that's my opinion, but that is the indication I get from his approach to his self-determined role as Editor-in-Chief of Neo-Fascism. JJ4sad6 22:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No original research. Cites to reputable published articles. You (JJ4sad6) have been ignoring these mandates on this page since last August. By "merely saying 'here are some citable incidents that meet the definition of fascism'" you are producing original research. If you cannot read, understand, or follow the basic Wiki guidelines, you should not be wasting our time with these huge posts on the discussion page. You certainly should not be editing this article until you are willing and able to read, understand, and follow the basic Wiki guidelines. --Cberlet 23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least we're starting to get somewhere, now we only disagree about the degree of the reputable source. I maintain that a reputable source can be something like a USA Today article, NYT article, or even a congressional hearing video.

'"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"'

Note: Unpublished data. If it was previously published in a newspaper article, I should be able to use it. Your point, Cberlet, is that I can only use sources that say "Bush is fascist" or something to that affect. Our neutral observer, however, has suggested that I can use information that makes up a laundry list and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Again, I am not making the statement "Bush is fascist", but merely using the agreed to taxonomy we have already in place to list incidents that meet that definition.

Again, this is NOT the American Journal of Political Science, this is wikipedia. There are standards, but they are no where as strict as an academic journal. And you, Cberlet, cannot arbitrarily set different standards for the page you have made yourself editor-in-chief over. JJ4sad6 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have included the concept of totalitarianism and claims by various people that the "Free World" could fall under this category, as I think it gives new elements on the criticisms of an eventual "American neofascism". Theodor Adorno is one of the first to have made such a criticism of mass consumption society following his stay in the US. This seems particularly relevant to any discussion of an "inverted totalitarianism". Furthermore, I have introduced the question of international cooperation between neofascist movements, which seems that we can't avoid although until now we have ignored the political context of neofascism, that is the Cold War. However I just threw out these ideas, they probably need a re-write which I will astrain myself in some close future unless one of you get there before. Tazmaniacs 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Section on the United States

Simply deleting the entire section except for internal links is not acceptable. Happy to continue the discussion.--Cberlet 02:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Comment has been filed for this article.--Cberlet 02:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bits because nowhere it describes where the United States is supposed to be fascist. Actually it is pretty much the same old 'progressive rhetoric' again, the same 'progressives' who lauded Roosevelt's New Deal. Intangible 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not about your POV, the issue is that reputable published sources have made the claims. It is that simple. We can debate how much should be quoted, but to simply delete material with which you disagree is forbidden by Wiki guidelines.--Cberlet 15:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They were political opinions, by people long known to make such political statements. Wikipedia is not a blog—such as dailykos, so I removed them boldly. Intangible 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are fine with me removing them again? Intangible 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not. I propose mediation. Do you accept?--Cberlet 01:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any arguments put forth that support or warrant the inclusion of those bits, so I can not agree or disagree to any mediation (yet). Intangible 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created an entry on the mediation page. You are expected to go to the mediation page and post a response as to whether or not you agree to mediation. Please go to this page: [this page] and respond.--Cberlet 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've responded with a disagree, since I do not see the use of mediation yet. Intangible 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what mediation is supposed to achieve here. Anyways, I've rewriten the section to adress the points against it. - DNewhall

Rewrite for Neo-Fascism and the United States

See also Neo-Nazism in the USA

Movements identified as neo-fascist include the American Fascist Movement. Arguably neo-Nazi groups include the National Alliance, and the American Nazi Party.

The presence or absence of fascism or fascist elements in the United States since the Second World War has been a matter of long-dispute from a variety of political viewpoints. Some have argued though that American economic policies have had fascist elements since the New Deal. This is further discussed in the New Deal and Fascism and the United States articles. Few scholars support these claims.

Noam Chomsky has warned that people in the U.S. need to remain vigilant to keep America from drifting towards fascism.[2]. Some link growing corporate power to fascism.[3].

Sheldon S. Wolin, emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University, speaks of an "inverted totalitarianism" which "has an upside-down character": political apathy instead of mobilization of the society, "short-circuits" in the voting system replaces the abolition of the parliamentary system, and media state control is replaced by concentrated ownership of the media.[4]

Writing in the Toronto Star, Paul Bigioni argues that neo-liberal economics and the George W. Bush administration are pushing the United States closer and closer to fascism. [5]

In several essays, author David Neiwert has explored the rise of what he calls "pseudo-fascism". Neiwert concedes that "American democracy has not yet reached the genuine stage of crisis required for full-blown fascism to take root" and thus "the current phenomenon cannot properly be labeled 'fascism.'" He warns:

"But what is so deeply disturbing about the current state of the conservative movement [in the United States] is that it has otherwise plainly adopted not only many of the cosmetic traits of fascism, its larger architecture -- derived from its core impulses -- now almost exactly replicates that by which fascists came to power in Italy and Germany in the 1920s and '30s."[6]

External links for this section

• David Neiwert, Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis, online essay.
• "Fascism, Anyone?" (14 Characteristics of Fascism) by Lawrence Britt, Free Inquiry magazine.

---

• Removed stuff from the links if it's referenced in the text.
• Removed Bill Crews quote since he's using the term as a political epithet and it's unsourced.
• Removed the Wolin quote because it doesn't relate to this article. I'd be in favor of removing the reference to it completely since the only mention it makes to fascism is in the title. Does he mean actual fascism or is he using it as a political epithet? I'd say it's too vague to be considered relevent to the topic of the article.
• Removed the Bigioni quote because it showed that a liberal democracy could be totalitarian but not explicitly how the U.S. could be fascist.
• Added "[in the United States]" to the Neiwert quote.

<-------The issue is not editing content. The issue is seeking mediation to prevent Intangible from simply deleting all the content arguing there are fascistic aspects to the current scene in the United States. If you look above, Intangible states plainly that the content is being deleted because it is "progressive" or "political" rhetoric that offends Intangible. Pure POV bias. No attempt at serious, constructive, good faith editing. In addition, JJ4sad6 periodically argues that only the text written months ago by JJ4sad6 (and rejected by a vote of other editors) captures the proof that the current Bush administration is a pulsating den of fascists. So between the actions of JJ4sad6 and Intangible, it is difficult to find a middle ground where serious published claims about neofascism and the United States can be explored fairly, accurately, calmly, and in an NPOV manner. Feel free to attempt to negotiate a constructive compromise. I wish you the best of luck, DNewhall. I am seeking mediation to stop this endless, pointless edit war.--Cberlet 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that his issue with the section is that it is, in his view, POV and irrelevent. While simply deleting it repeatedly is certainly the wrong way to go about it I do think he does make a valid point. The quotes weren't entirely relevent and I've tried to edit them accordingly in my rewrite above. The section does seem a bit POV but I think that that is mostly derived from a misunderstanding over the section (it does not say conslusively that the U.S. is or was fascist just that certain people have made the claim). By all means, continue with mediation but I just question whether it is necessary in this case.

Anyways, are there any objections to the rewrite above? If not I'll add it into the article in a day or two. - DNewhall

I think your edits are useful and constructive. Please insert them.--Cberlet 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read those references? Chomsky doesn't talk about fascism. Wilton doesn't talk about fascism. Gross' book is over 25 years old, hardly a good reference for a current description. Bigioni and Neiwert are not to be taken seriously, the one tries to equate neo-liberalism with neo-conservatism, the other talks about pseudo-fascism, which he argues is not genuine fascism. I am not sure what to think of that. Intangible 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Gross's book is 25 years old makes much difference in this case. It makes the argument for the development of fascistic tendencies in the U.S. during a period that's well within living memory and is potentially relevent to today.

It's true, Chomsky does say "But I doubt that the word fascism is appropriate for the current situation; at least, I wouldn't use it." (which I think should maybe added to the article), however in the article he "has warned that people in the U.S. need to remain vigilant to keep America from drifting towards fascism" so the statement and link is relevent to the section in this case.

Bigioni does not try to equate neo-liberalism with neo-conservatism. Neo-liberalism is typically used to mean free-market capitalism whereas neo-conservatism means the recent trend towards traditional values and hawkishness in politics (not necessary the exact definitions mind you). One relates to an economic theory the other a social theory.

Neiwert is pretty well regarded as being knowledgable about fascism (a bit POV perhaps) and, again, he doesn't say that he U.S. is fascist just that it's quite possible that it could become fascist. The Neiwert reference should definitely be in there (the quote could possibly be removed though).

One thing I recently noticed in the section though is the Britt article. The Fascism Wikiproject has decided that his list is not an accurate enough depiction of fascism to be used as a reference for a movement being fascist or not (it was debated on the Project's Talk page and the Talk page for another article (looking for it now)) so I think it should be removed. - DNewhall

Chomsky is specifically attacking the Bush Administration. Neiwert is specifically attacking the Republican Party and the Christian Right. Bigioni states: "In the post-war period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital." Clearly Bigioni is not to be taken seriously.

Maybe User:Cberlet has some better argument, I haven't heard from him yet... Intangible 21:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My argument is that even though Intangible personally may think this material is junk because of biased political views, if it has been published, it needs to be considered. Wikipedia is supposed to help readers find information about various topics. Wikipedia is not a place for Intangible to delete material because it doesn't pass some POV sniff test for political leanings. I dislike the Britt list. I find it overly simplistic and based on a fallacy of logic. I do not agree with it. I also think most of the libertarian and Austrian School arguments are a giant pile of steaming crap. It doesn't pass my political sniff test (really!). But I defend posting the libertarian and Austrian School material on this page in detail. I think it is useful for readers to judge the value of published text for themselves. If it was published in a respectable outlet, we should seriously consider including it here. I am tired of this endless attempt at political censorship by Intangible. This is a side issue page on debates over fascism and ideology. Please, everyone, stop trying to edit this page as if it were the main or only page on Fascism.--Cberlet 23:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is criticism of the Republican Party it should be entered in that article, not here. Intangible 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a huge post before Cberlet did but I think my internet stopped working at that very second and it didn't get uploaded sadly. I don't have time to repost it all now but the jist of it was that there is nothing in WP:RS that says we can't (or shouldn't) use the Neiwert or Chomsky quotes. Also, I fail to see how the Bigioni quote given is supposed to illustrate that it is an unreliable source. If anything it seems to argue the opposite. - DNewhall

<-------Note to Intangible. Your attempt to censor this page and delete text with which you have a political disagreement is an outrageous violation of numerous Wikipedia policies. You have already refused mediation. Further attempts at trolling or POV pushing will force me to seek further sanctions.--Cberlet 02:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see some of the old information accusing Clinton and earlier presidents of being Fascist to give it a big more NPOV and to show that political enemies uses the accusation of Fascism on just about everything they do. PPGMD 20:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but since some of the earlier text cited some of my published work, I think someone else should restore it and edit it.--Cberlet 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Ba'ath Party neo-fascist?

The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in Iraq, does not follow the values of international socialism but rather Arab Socialism which is defined in wikipedia as opposed to Marxism, opposed to ending all religious freedoms, the Hussein Ba'athist government placed a religious slogan on the Iraqi flag in 1991, supports arab nationalism, is authoritarian, opposed the socialist ideology of equality of humanity in its acts of persecution, genocide, and ethnic cleansing on ethnic groups like the Kurds, Iraqi and Iranian Shiite Muslims in, Marshland Iraqis (their marshland was destroyed by the Hussein government. With all these actions considered, the party leans to the right on social issues such as utilizing religion for political motives, opposition to human equality, while remaining on the left on fiscal issues that give the government control over industries, media and the like. These make me conclude that Ba'ath is a neo-fascist political organization.

Some scholars agree with you. Cite them, and add text.--Cberlet 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Likud Party Fascism Par Excellence

Truly surprised that the Likud Israeli party is not mentioned in this article. Everything said for the Baath goes for the Likud double. Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, settlement, repression, collective punishment, taking of land, disparate treatment, unequal treatment based on religion, race, trying to recreate an ancient mythical glorious past, racial religous theories, militaristic state. Very insightful reading.

"Ippolita was 21 when her grandmother died, in 1961, at the age of 81, but never asked her about her past, about her affair with Mussolini or her role in the Fascist movement. And Sarfatti, she says, never volunteered information on the subject. She talked about art, recited Dante, Shakespeare, Edgar Allan Poe and did crosswords in Figaro Litteraire. "After the war there was a deep collective repression, people tried to forget, did not boast about it. There was a kind of self-censorship. People are only now starting to talk about that period, and also about my grandmother," Gaetani says.

When did you learn about your grandmother's part in Mussolini's life and in the Fascist movement in Italy?

"Very late, at the age of 17, 18, and from friends. It was not talked about at home. There was repression in Italy. Everything was imputed to the Germans, all the evils, the race laws, the persecutions. In my home, too, everything was imputed to the Germans. When I grew up and started to read, I understood that f ascism and Nazism are interchangeable. My mother did not think so - she continued to say that fascism was all right until it cozied up to Hitler.

"In my opinion, if the blacks and not the Jews had been persecuted then, many Jews would still be fascists ... In fact, it is the same today. Many Jews in Italy are fascists, because fascism is far closer to today's Israel; they are persecuting the Arabs. If you go to the Rome Ghetto today, you will see that part of the Rome Jewish community is truly fascist, fascist in its mentality, in the head. And the situation in the Middle East complicates matters. They accuse everyone who speaks out against Israel of being anti-Semitic. And in Italian politics they are far closer to the right than to the left." "

The Jewish mother of Fascism Haaretz article on Margherita Sarfatti by Saviona Mane Take Care! --Will^(talk) 03:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of the reasons you list for Likud being fascist only two of them are part of some scholarly definitions (trying to recreate an ancient mythical glorious past and being a militaristic state). If you could find a reputable cite saying that they're fascist they could be mentioned. However, they seem to be a standard mildly-conservative, pro-capitalism right-wing party which would more than likely make them opposed to fascism. - DNewhall

• I guess that's why I'm taking a breather from editing the Juan Cole page. The Israeli lobby camps out there to criticize him and label him an anti-semite or new anti-semite b/c he is such an effective critic and calls it as he sees it. From his online column Informed Consent

"Monday, July 26, 2004

200,000 Israeli Fascists Demand Colonization of Gaza

Tens of thousands of rightwing Israeli imperialists formed a human chain aimed at stretching between Jerusalem and Gaza to protest plans of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw Israeli colonists from Gaza.

Let's just talk a little bit about Gaza. The Palestinians are largely descendants of people who have lived there for literally thousands of years. Male Palestinians and male Jews are very closely related according to DNA research. Gaza was not given to Israel by the United Nations in the 1948 partition, and it was never a site of significant Jewish population. It was conquered by Israel in the 1967 war, but the United Nations charter forbids the acquisition of territory by military force. This is a place where hundreds of thousands of people face severe poverty and even hunger, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Palestinians in general are facing unprecedented poverty and malnutrition, including the children. So this is the place you choose to insert 7500 Israeli colonizers? While we are at it, why not steal some land from starving Ethiopians and colonize Ethiopia (oops, that was the 1930s)? I mean, it is one thing to lack compassion for people who are suffering. It is another to want to kick them while they are down.

The justifications given by the fascist protesters in Israel for colonizing Gaza included the conviction that God had given them the Palestinians' land, that Palestinians did not educate their children to want "peace" (i.e. to accept being stolen from?), and that failing to colonize Gaza would somehow endanger Israel itself (hunh?).

Of course I am being provocative in calling the protesters fascists. Fascism, unlike other mass ideologies such as Communism, is not easily defined (and for definitional purposes it is better to look at Spain, Italy and Japan in the 1930s rather than Germany, whose ideology was in many ways peculiar and the scale of whose atrocities, including the Holocaust, make almost all comparisons invidious). The Likud Party is deeply influenced by the thought of Zeev Jabotinsky, a Zionist extremist deeply influenced by 1930s fascism. Fascism remains a useful analytical tool for understanding modern politics. Each country's fascism has been different, since fascism is more a style than a specific ideology. Among its attributes is

1) Radical nationalism. Fascism celebrates a cult of the nation, seeing it as the ultimate human value, trumping all others. Thus, one may lie, cheat, steal, spy and murder for the nation without shame.

2) Militarism and aggressiveness. Fascist political movements are expansionist, dissatisfied with their national boundaries and seeking to colonize the territory of neighbors. Thus, Franco got his start by oppressing Muslims in the Rif and Ceuta, Spanish Morocco. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Japan annexed Korea and much of China.

3) Racism. Fascist movements, because of their extreme nationalism, tend to demonize ethnic groups considered outside the nation. Racism becomes a justification for violence, since groups of people are defined as essentially demonic or threatening, and therefore deserving of being repressed in order to prevent them from doing evil. Milosevic justified his killing of Bosnians on the grounds that they were disloyal to the Serbian nation and easily seduced by Muslim fundamentalism. (Before Milosevic attacked them, Bosnian Muslims were the most secular in the world).

4) Favoring the wealthy, punishing the poor. Franco put down miners in Asturia and the workers of industrially advanced Barcelona. Mussolini drove Italian peasants further into poverty. Both favored wealthy elites with their policies. They despised the poor and drove them deeper into poverty. In all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made dirt poor by Israeli policies.

5) Dictatorship. Fascists disliked open democratic elections. Here the Likud fascists depart from the profile, but only slightly. Although they participate in elections in Jewish-majority Israel, they do not want Palestinians to have independence. They have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population. That is, over 9 million people live under Israeli rule, but only somewhate over 6 million of them get to engage in democratic self-governing (fewer if one considers how many obstacles have been placed in the way of democratic participation by Arab Israelis). The Oslo process would have given Palestinians a democratic nation of their own; the Likud Party and its American acolytes conspired to keep the Palestinians from ever having that status, which has meant more years of living under Israeli military rule, not significantly different from Ceuta under Franco.

No American media will report the demonstrations in Israel as fascist in nature, and no American politicians will dare criticize the Likud. But the fact is that the Israeli predations in the West Bank and Gaza are a key source of rage in the Muslim world against the United States (which toadies unbearably to whatever garbage comes out of Tel Aviv's political establishment), something that the 9/11 commission report stupidly denies. If the United States is hit again, as seems likely, the fascist Likud demonstrators will be in the chain of causality. If their cause were just, the US should stand with them and risk taking the hit. But although the cause of Israel's own peace and security is just, the cause of colonizing Gaza and the West Bank is fascist. That shouldn't be defended by the US, and the loss of even one American life in defense of Israeli aggression and expansionism is intolerable.

posted by Juan @ 7/26/2004 07:08:33 AM " Take Care! --Will^(talk) 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would the pre-Civil War Blacks have been entitled to have called the State of South Carolina a fascist state according to Professor Juan Cole's definition and analogy with Israel? Indoubitably! It would have been no solace to them that the rich planters could vote or had the right to habeus corpus! Take Care! --Will^(talk)19:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not there are reputable published sources that make the claim. And if yes, then the proper page is Neofascism and religion, not here.--Cberlet 23:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User Isarig, an inveterate and uncivil reverter deleted the Israel reference without descussion per his pattern leaving a comment it's an unreliable blog. A blog is unreliable as to FACT but not as to OPINION. The well known blog www.informedcomment.com of Professor Juan Cole is well known, has won an award as an expert blog, is authentic and reliable as to his OPINION. Isarig to his pattern will now engage in a wheel war and enlist some of his Israeli lobby cohorts that camp out at the Juan Cole biography article and try to trap me in 3RR violation. Any assistance would be appreciated. Best Wishes. Will314159 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On checking the source, I have two major problems with that paragraph:

1. The source does not support the paragraph. The source makes the fascism claim against Israelis protesting against their government, not the government itself. As such, it does not belong under "Regimes often called fascist after World War Two". Sorry, but that alone qualifies it for removal.
2. Plagiarism. Two sections were direct cut-and-pasts from the source ("In all the territory dominated by Israel, the poorest subjects are the Palestinians, who have been made dirt poor by Israeli policies." and "They have long favored Israeli military rule, which is to say, dictatorship, over the Palestinian population."). Since they weren't quoted and cited, it's plagiarism. I made minor edits when I was doing some quick cleanup, but not enough to eliminate the problem.

As a result, I am removing the paragraph. Sxeptomaniac 15:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)