Talk:Fascism

Pre 20th Century

Shouldn't there be something about the political situation of fascism before the 20th Century? For instance could Henry VIII or the Borgias be regarded as fascists in retrospect? Slightnostalgia (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Nobody calls them that. Fascism is a group activity and I can't think of any examples in the RS before 1900. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination could Henry VIII or the Borgias be called fascist. deisenbe (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't most of the Borgias kill Jews for instance? And they were all tyrants. I know fascism is stronger than anti-Semetism, but it's a rather daft to say that the Borgias and Henry VIII were not fascists. All political views need to start somewhere. Slightnostalgia (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It is possible to identify ancient people using modern political labels. The movie Spartacus for example has leading characters who can be identified as conservatives, liberals, social democrats and communists. And modern ideologies draw on ideas from antiquity and the Middle Ages, including anti-Semitism. But modern ideologies and particularly modern political parties originated in the modern era. Fascist parties for example were mostly set up following the First World War in reaction to the changed social, political and ecnomic landscape, although a few pre-cursor parties had been set up as early as the late 19th century. If you want to continue your argument, you will need to show reliable sources that draw the same conclusions you do. As for Borgia, I can see parallels with modern liberals and conservatives as well. TFD (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How can not asking anyone's opinion be a form of liberalism? Doesn't make sense, 4D. Could Absolute Monarchy be regarded as fascism? We need a political philosopher round here to write a new section really. Slightnostalgia (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We would need sources that describe it as such. Please direct us to these sources if they exist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

D'Annunzio and Slavs

Re: [1], it appears that @2.39.188.155: is removing the line "This behaviour of aggression towards Yugoslavia and South Slavs was pursued by Italian Fascists with their persecution of South Slavs – especially Slovenes and Croats" without a source. I'm not involved in this topic area so a more experienced editor should probably weigh in, but from a look through sources it appears there are numerous examples (other) of sources primary and secondary suggesting D'Annunzio "declared war" on South Slavs. Intelligentsium 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not know someone could "declare war" on an ethnicity! Perhaps you mean D'Annunzio was declaring war on THE STATE of Yugoslavia. The fact this namesake means "South-Slavic land" is completely incidental. I have never heard about the Legionari hurting Slavs - trust me, if such a thing happened, I'm sure there were many people pointing it out. ;) Please forgive me if I refrain from checking your sources. I am afraid they may be biased in an unpleasant way. Kind regards (actually, no). --2.39.188.155 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

D'Annunzio during the Fiume's occupation was not Fascist: actually, he was a rival of Mussolini. Alex2006 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So, are you working on the "dispute"? Why should my completely legit edits be undone, while you're not even bothering to reach your pathetic consensus on them? Fuck off. --2.39.188.155 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Auschwitz in See also section

With all due respect to all those affected by the Holocaust, I think it's a tad melodramatic to put "Auschwitz" in the "See also" section. The racial policies of Nazi Germany are mentioned in only a few sentences in this article, and there are no mentions of Facism in the article on Auschwitz. They're related, but not directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:4080:1008:0:C46B:F7C5:3EBA:586F (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree that both that and Slavery are slightly random inclusions. And even if it was going to include something related to the Holocaust, why single out Auschwitz? N-HH talk/edits 10:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism and conservatism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right, far left within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Fascists believe that liberal conservative democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

My explanation, we all due respect conservatives alone are not the sole source of fascism in the EU or USA but I feel that someone edited the upper portion of this page to make it look as though only far right types could be fascist yet proof exists on the far left and is not just limited to the FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration policy at times. Therefore I added the words far left in several locations, that is the only change requested. There has been a continuing internet argument that fascism is only on one side and plenty of proof exists to the fact it exists on both sides of the aisle, I feel the edit was a smear on conservatives in general and I've seen both sides engage in such tomfoolery and it's not an accurate reflection of the facts. Also, I'm not asking for this paragraph to be included, I simply want editors to understand my thinking and I'll be glad to cite more sources. Thank you.

My source:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determine.

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. Fascism substituted the particularity of nationalism and racialism—“blood and soil”—for the internationalism of both classical liberalism and Marxism.

It is a matter of controversy whether President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was directly influenced by fascist economic policies. Mussolini praised the New Deal as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book, The Corporate State, with him, presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator.

Juggernautz (talk) 01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Your source is fringe and does not reflect the opinions of informed sources. There are many serious scholars of fascism. I recommend Kallis' Fascism Reader which provides articles from most of the foremost scholars on the topic representing a range of views within the mainstream. Incidentally, while I have found sources that Johnson gave Perkins a copy of The Corporate State, I can find no evidence that it was ever published or that Raffaello Viglione ever existed. Can you provide details of the book's publication? TFD (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  22:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016 for "Fascism"

The proposed edit involves the last sentence of the introductory paragraph for "Fascism". The sentence reads "Fascism opposes liberalisism, Marxism, and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum".

This statement is most likely not true, and at the very least very dubious, as fascist societies tend to be on the far left of a properly defined political spectrum. Fascist governments tend to restrict free markets, and individual liberties.

 The most significant examples of leftist fascism in modern history would be, Communist USSR, Communist China, and also the Nazi Party of Germany.   The Nazi party, aka the National Socialist German Workers Party, were proponents of socialism, and opponents of capitalism. A modern-day example of leftist fascism would be Communist North Korea.    

So I propose the last sentence of the first paragraph be edited to read "Fascism generally opposes classical liberalism, anarchism, and capitalism."

Sources:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Mgaudzels (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahahahaha no. Try some less overtly biased sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia" - Arjayay (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

//Hey guys not sure where to post this. I throughly disagree that fascism has at it's core tenets imperialism, as eurasianism is in it's own weird way anti-imperialist.// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.204.1.1 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an article, Italian imperialism under Fascism, that explains the Fascist project to create an Italian Empire. In Germany, the "Third Reich" was a clear implication that it was the successor of the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Both regimes used symbolism from the Roman Empire. TFD (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Race for more power

There was an older version that explained Race was something the Fascist used for political power by playing the races off one another thus more power for the state, and by disenfranchising a segment(s) of the population of a nation. I thought that was more accurate (of the past or present) I guess it got memory holed.207.119.215.206 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)