Talk:Fascism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classical liberalism

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

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

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

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

Here are the relevant references (bolding mine):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which collective?

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

Mussolini was fascinated by the "Roman Empire" and sought to re-establish it in Africa, Trieste (Ljubljana) and the Aegean Islands. He called Victor Emmanuel "First Marshal of the Empire" etc. Postage stamps featured the Fasces (ancient Roman symbol of authority), Roman ruins, and a Romulus and Remus statue. Lots of other stuff if you need it <g>. Hitler was similarly fascinated by Frederick the Great, issuing stamps in his honor, using old German imagery wherever possible (and possibly making him enjoy Wagner more). "Reich" means "empire" and he used the imperial imagery in his speeches as well. [21] , [22] etc. [23] , [24] and so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latter-day Fascism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

one possible way to reorganize this all

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

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

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

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

3. Fascism and Corporatism

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

4. Fascism as it relates to other issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fascists openly promoted themselves as authoritarian, so it is an important point to reference, in fact I recently found a quotation by Nazi Joseph Goebbels who was essentially describing the Nazis as being associated with fascist states, but the Nazis did not like to use the word fascist because that would ascribe them as being followers of an ideology of a foreign country, so Goebbels described the Nazis as being supportive of "authoritarian-nationalist State concepts" [25] and condemned Bolshevism and democracies for "their joint hatred of of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts of State and State systems." [26] So Goebbels here illustrates that fascism recognizes itself as authoritarian and nationalist in nature. The quote demonstrates the important role of authoritarianism in fascism. I am also quite surprised that our definition of fascism on Wikipedia so perfectly correlated with what the Nazis described fascism as, as I had not seen this quote prior.--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Reorganise Political Spectrum section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I looked up the sources and found the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short, you amply demonstrate that there is, in fact, disagreement about the very applicability of a "left-right" spectrum. "But Hayek and Lipset are in the minority" is OR at best. [27] refers to "left wing fascism." [28] speaks of "left wing Fascists." [29] refers to "left-wing fascism." [30] says "the popular definition of fascism as right wing is misleading." [31] and a slew of others -- not just Hayek and Lipset, to be sure. Thus using the broadest statement at the start, and then having other opinions following, is the proper course in WP. Collect (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horowitz and Bale quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what you added to the article:

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

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

The same applies to the other sentence you added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left, right and center

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

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

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

The quote of "left, right and center" accurately denotes the fact that there is disagreement on any single term for fascism on the political spectrum. Also re" Horowitz in "winners and Losers" page 210 "Like all movements, left-wing fascism has a somewhat chaotic ancestry. Foremost is what might be called the later Frankfurt school, which emphasized in an uneasy mix the early Marx and the late Hegel ..." et seq. [32] "(The Persopnist movement) was a populism, if not a fasicsm, of left, right and center all at the same time." Currently Putin in Russia is not a "communist" but is decidely an "authoritarian nationalist" who wishes to restore the past glory of Russia -- what would you call him? Collect (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Left-wing fascism article

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

Amazingly enough, WP articles are NOT RS for WP zarticles. And GUESS WHO has just edited there? WOW! Sorry, pointing to an article you just edited as proof of anything fails miserably. As does insertion of claims that the "left wing fascists" named by Horowitz and Bale were "right wing" as an example of WP:SYN and WP:OR -- and even WP:UNTRUTH when the cite does not even have "fanchin" mentioned in it at all! [33] cited as a source on Fanchin does not even has his name in it once. Now can we just let it be that some people call something "leftwing fascism" without trying to falsify that fact? Thanks! (Example of edit just made there: The term has also been adopted by conservative American political commentators to describe extreme or intolerant forms of leftist ideology. The term is also in increasing use in contemporary thought to explore unusual hybrid alliances characterizing late 20th and early 21st century political movements. Collect (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Added that fascism was a "radical" authoritarian nationalist movement

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

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

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

"Political spectrum" posits a one-dimmensional (straight line) view of political positions. Many sources now posit 2 or more dimensions -- [34], [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] and a slew of others. What we have, I thought, determined was that fascism is "authoritarian nationalist" as the common core values. This appears to be a general agreement? "Radical" refers going to the "root" of something -- and I am unsure that all fascists would consider themselves "radical" at all. Indeed, some appear to think they are returning to the glories of the past of a nation, and we might as well add "irredentist" to the list of adjectives at that point. Collect (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To the User:The Four Deuces, please do not be impolite toward User:Collect, you did not have to say "I finished high school,...but I have no idea what you are talking about." Please be more polite, and just say something like "I do not understand what you said, could you please explain." To User:Collect, I should point out that radical is seen as an element in fascism. The very definition of radicalism as going to the "root" of something is exactly what one fascist, Plinio Salgado of Brazil said, "Strong governments cannot result either from conspiracies of from military coups, just as they cannot come out of the machinations of parties or the Machiavellian game of political lobbying. They can only be born from the actual roots of the Nation." This quote is in the text of this article under the subsection "Nationalism". Historian Stanley Payne who has written a number of important works on fascism described the origin of the term "fascist" as being derived from the "radical nationalist movement of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento".[40]--R-41 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

pov tag on spectrum section?

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

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

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

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

This is the section that should be removed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

abortion eugenics and euthanasia

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

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

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

This is what you said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

political spectrum heading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Classical Liberalism when comparing economic fascism , see: The concise encyclopedia of economics -Fascism . I don't see how one can avoid clarifying classical liberalism with it's laissez-faire economics for some points in this article. There's a difference to the liberal social arguments with when one is basing them on an economic model of laissez-faire capitalism vs. the socialism/fascism/communism - IMO. Keyword, property rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.9.79 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

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

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

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

Mobutism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amibiguity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Core Beliefs

A) Belief 1

B) Belief 2

II Itailain (possibly Nazi) Fascism

A) Belief 1

B) Belief 2

III Other forms

A) Belief 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[41] Jewish supporters. [42] "veterans ... futurist painters, pro-war socialists and university and school; students" (as being in the "Fascist squads.") [43] "Robert Michels ... develops from syndicalism and international socialism ... and as an early supporter of Mussoline defends Italy's entry into the war against Austria and subsequently Germany. (WW I)" [44] Odon Por was a socialist supporter of Fascism. and so on. Collect (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had thought that the middle class nature of fascism was one of its core aspects, distinguishing it from conservatism and socialism, as well as helping to explain its tenets and appeal as a type of "right-wing" populism. Lipset's article "Fascism as 'extremism of the middle class'"[45], an abridged version of "Fascism -- Left, Right and Center", discusses this issue and it continues to be important in fascist studies. However, as no one seems to find it significant, I will not press the matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity - cont.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Four Deuces (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collectivist?

An editor insists on this in the lede. The cite he gives is [46] which says on page 266 that "collectivism" is the key element in Communist and Fascist ideology. He asserts that the fasces in and of itself represents collectivism (interesting since it was on the US dime all through WW II). I guess the US was officially collectivist as a result <g>. I asked him to come here and make his case for this edit which he has insisted on through multiple reverts. Should he not do so, I would ask for the opinions of others whether "collectivist" should be added to radical, authoritarian and nationalist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(out) It took a lot of work to get consensus on the current wording. Feel free to do a request for comment on any other version use [47] to make an RFC which wil be auto-posted to WP:RFC/A, but absent any new consensus forming, I suggest we stick with this as relatively clear and succinct. Else we will end up with the fifteen cite concatenation of the past. Collect (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Corporatism

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

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

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

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

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

As for Spain: "As a political and social system, corporatism reached the height of its influence earlier in the century in certain European countries: in Spain, it shaped the structure of labour relations during Primo de Rivera's dictatorship and Franco's regime."[48] Corporatism was just as much a part of fascism as authoritarianism. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Fascism Reader by Aristotle A. Kallis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sources cited in the article (first footnote) are Noel O'Sullivan[49] and Aristotle A. Kallis[50]. Reliable enough for you? PhilLiberty (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes. Here is a link about Howard J. Wiarda[51]. He's a good source, but he doesn't override the two who disagree with him. And as noted above, Wiarda gives no rationale for his ad hoc claim that corporatism can't be fascist. The other experts think it can. Nor does Wiarda support his claim that fascism is always totalitarian. Fascism is authoritarian, but not necessarily totalitarian. By taking "corporatist" out of the initial definition, you seem to be claiming that Wiarda's opinion trumps all the other experts. My version of the lede acknowledges that some (like Wiarda, the only one we know of) disagree that corporatism is part of fascism. So I'm putting it back in. PhilLiberty (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why

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

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

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

Political spectrum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since it says no such thing, I wonder what you are worried about. And I submit that Schlesinger is a prominent historian ... see [52] "the moderate right and the moderate left are side by side against fascism and Communism " from The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom

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

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

How many cites do you want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

The sentence now reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

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

This is the current first sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement gives undue weight to the assertion that Historians do not agree on the place of all fascists on the political spectrum. The only basis for the assertion that different fascists can occupy different places in the political spectrum is a 1960 article by Lipset[53], which is indirectly cited four times in the footnotes. Whatever the validity of Lipset's theories, they should not be given undue weight.

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

Below are comments on each of the twelve footnotes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern text [54] "In recent years the political 'spectrum' has been largely replaced as a conceptual tool by a political 'horseshoe' ... It is relatively easy for some voters to shift their support from communist to fascist parties and vice versa." Collect (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you should give the dictionary definition first:

"fascism /fashiz’m/ noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice. " [55] Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Phoenix is absolutely correct and I note that the Oxford English Dictionary is highly regarded and here is a list of their consultants who are considered experts in their field.[56]. While consensus is a good thing, it is also important to change our views as new and better evidence is presented to us. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

DRAFT ADDITIONS MARCH 2006

Fascism, n.

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

”

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

OED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uninvolved editors opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that the issue is also being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and at Village pump [57] Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is where you cited him:

^ [3] Fascism: Post-war fascisms, Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Taylor & Francis, 2004 ISBN 0415290201, 9780415290203 528 pages page 385|quote=...a new synthesis of doctrine -- 'beyond left and right' -- that is, coalescing around a number of tendencies[58]

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

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

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

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

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

I have posted a notice on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[59]. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I absolutely agree with Factchecker atyourservice's clear explanation of WP policy. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to make things clear: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Consensus --89.241.135.133 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC

Proposal

Here is a source I would propose to use in the opening of the section: http://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA79#PPA79,M1 I would propose sticking closely to the wording of the source, so something like:

Most academics describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right". However, there exist dissenting views that fascism represents "radical centrism" or a mixture of "authoritarian conservatism" and "right-wing nationalism". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may more typically be associated with the left (for example, welfarism).

Please note that the last sentence is perhaps not strongly supported by the source cited. However, I think it is true and further support for it could easily be found if need be.

Overall, I think that these three sentences would make a good first paragraph for the Political Spectrum section. Cheers. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I demur. And use of "most" is OR at best -- far more so than saying "historians disagree." The fact is that most current work specifies the authoritarian axis as orthogonal to any economic axis. Your cite in fact says that "ideologies are better seen as multi-dimensional." Page 7 of your cite specifies that it drew "from a broad spectrum of political persuasions. " Page 112 of your cite has Lipset placing fascism in the centre. Thus using your cite for the claims you wish to make is quite problematic indeed. Collect (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most" is not OR because it is directly supported by the source given: It is normally seen as "extreme right".... Unless you want to argue that "is normally seen" denotes something radically different from "most describe as". You could try, I suppose.

The important thing is the statement in the source regarding the consensus on the issue. The fact that other views are acknowedged within the same book is not really relevant, because none of these are directly about the consensus, and they don't therefore negate the statement at the beginning of the conclusion on page 79. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If your source gives substantial weight (as it does) to the other opinions, it is a misuse of the source to use it for only the opinion you like. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't a question of weighing one thing against the other and deciding which wins. We are dealing with two citable facts which are not mutually exclusive: 1) that there is a consensus on this issue; 2) that there are views which dissent from that consenus. The appropriate thing to do is to say both of those things in the section. Logically, stating the consensus should come first. But after that, I'm certainly not opposed to you or other editors citing other sources. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The current wording gives proper weight to almost all opinions. Collect (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It makes no mention of there being a consensus, and gives the impression that the academic community is confused. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording, but would leave out the example of welfarism, which was not inconsistent with right-wing thinking at that time. (Note that the Conservatives introduced the welfare state into Germany over Liberal protests.) The Four Deuces (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Among academics, there is no consensus. Nor does your cite claim that there is, as it clearly cites the disagreements about even the applicability of a "political spectrum" here. Collect (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces: Do you have an alternative example, then? It seems to me that last sentence needs some example, or it is slightly weaselly.

Collect: Consensus does not mean the same thing as unanimity. In any event, my proposed opening paragraph does not use either word, it uses the word "most", which is supported by the source cited. --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet you said "Historians differ" was OR. Your source does not use the word most, while several of the prior sources did say "historians differ" or "disagree" ... which way do you like it? Collect (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Which sources are you talking about? --89.241.135.133 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Try [60] (read about pp 130 on). [61] but you need a hard copy for this one. And so on. Journal articles are numerous on this. Collect (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Google source says "the contributors (to book x) disagree about what kinds of groups are to be labelled right". But it doesn't say anything about whether any of these groups are fascist, so I don't see how it is relevant. It also isn't about academics generally, just about a particular book. And so on, I imagine. With the offline source, it would be helpful if you were to type out the sentence, along with the sentences either side, to ensure that context can be taken account of --89.241.135.133 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

IP: the claim that there was anything left-wing about fascism is problematic. The claims made were that they did not restore monarchy, established church and aristocracy, that they used left-wing rhetoric and that a minority of their leaders were former leftists. The same arguments could be used to argue that the Reagan administration was left-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new start is not only a gross misstatement of the cite (not even) given, it is a gross misstatement of what current academics say about using a "political spectrum." Collect (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to accurately represent the quote, but perhaps you could suggest a better phrasing. Also, current academics who use the Nolan Chart apply it to current politics. Otherwise we would have a paradox that the French revolutionaries were right-wingers who overthrew a left-wing king. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, the article is intended to apply as well to "current politics" -- ought we have a separate "Historical Fascism" article? Collect (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of this article is about parties/governments that pre-date the 1971 Nolan Chart. In no way do I object to showing this interpretation, just insisting that it be given its proper weight. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I note you deleted 7K of fully cited information which included your own desideratum of "right wing" in it. Might you explain which of the sources was not reliable? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the sources were unreliable, just that they did not support the text. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

use of "Sir"

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

In the United Kingdom, people of different ranks are accorded different titles (I am using the term "title" in a broad sense), and it is entirely proper that we use these titles when referring to them. However it must be consistent. "Mr." is also a title, customarily but not correctly applied to all men with no higher title, but it is not used at all in this article. The NYT procedure is to refer to a person by their full name (omitting title) when first mentioned then by their title and last name for further references (in the case of royalty, baronets and knights it would be their first names). However it appears that in this article people are referred to by their surnames alone, with titles omitted. I see no reason why we should single out baronets for special distinction in this article. Curiously the NYT refers to Conrad Black in a recent article as Mr. Black[62], rather than "Lord Black", showing that they are ignoring UK titles altogether. In any case they would never call him "Conrad, Lord Black". Persons' full names and titles are normally only used in highly formal circumstances. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(ec)It is not needed that the article say it is hereditary -- any more than "Queen Elizabeth II" needs a parenthetical statement "the title Queen is hereditary." And the MoS specifically makes the distinction -- ought I copy it all here in bold face? I would be glad to, but I would hope it would not be necessary. At least you grant that his title was clearly hereditary, I trust. (appending) I trust you are aware that Black can not to sit in the House of Lords? [63] he is currently imprisoned, and Labour wishes to "de-Lord" him. Collect (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum

Following discussion about the lede sentence, a very broad consensus was reached, despite one contrarian position and therefore I have inserted the proposed sentences. However it is now important that we improve the section. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I now have added a reference for this. Also I removed another lede section which appeared to be redundant. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you removed 7K of material which was fully cited and which contained your "sine qua non" of "right wing" in it as well. KL<Leaving, mirover, a completely inaccurate claim for a cite which does not support the claim. Care to explain how a person who asked for "reliable sources" can so casually delete so many all in one swoop? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is not necessary to provide numerous sources for a statement. But the sources did not support the text anyway. Also we had already formed a consensus on what the lede sentence/paragraph for this section should be. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all. And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new lede does not say that fascism is "'right-wing' only". The Four Deuces (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ask for a third opinion here. "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors." There is an on-going discussion here involving more than two people. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• → from WP:3O: While the above two editors have dominated discussion in recent weeks, this really does seem to be a larger dispute than is appropriate for offering a third opinion. For what my minimally-researched opinion is worth, it might be worth stating in the lead that fascism is commonly described as ultra right wing, but note that there are problems with trying to sort complex political ideas on a linear spectrum and briefly state two or three major points of divergence from usual right wing thought. In the body, the position can be fully nuanced. I suggest opening a Request for comment using something along the lines of the following text:

{{rfctag|pol}} In the lead, is it appropriate to describe fascism solely as a right-wing ideology, or should its relationship to the political spectrum be more nuanced? The issue is treated in more detail at Fascism#Position in the political spectrum.
Please reserve this section for outside comments. Discussion from previously engaged editors may be found in the preceding sections.

- 2/0 (cont.) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

... Except that there is currently an RfC active at #First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Given that there have been comments to that section today, opening another one might not be constructive. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oxford English Dictionary and Fascism seems beside the point. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might help if this is phrased as a WP:WEIGHT issue. It might also help to distinguish between academic and lay uses of the term. The former is likely to be significantly more precise, but the latter usage more common. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph for the "Political Spectrum" section now reads:

Most academics describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right". However, there exist dissenting views that fascism represents "radical centrism" or a mixture of "authoritarian conservatism" and "right-wing nationalism". Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may more typically be associated with the left.

That is different from "desrib(ing) fascism solely as a right-wing ideology".

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are distorting what the source says. Eatwell says that "right-wing terminology is often used erratically" and "left-right terminology fails to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies", finishing with "the fascist state was 'the synthesis and unity of all values". -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between Eatwell's description of mainstream opinions and his own views. He said that fascism "is normally seen as 'extreme right'", then outlined his personal views.[64] Lipset and all the other historians who dispute the place in the spectrum acknowledge the mainstream view. If you can find a source that says that most academics do not describe fascism as "extreme right", "radical right", "far right" or "ultra right", then I will re-consider. In the meantime I am reinserting the text. Please note also that this is not a discussion about where fascism fits in the political spectrum, or Eatwell's opinions but about how it is commonly seen.

Also, please do not use terms like "you are distorting". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Eatwell doesn't mention academics;

2) "normally" is not "most";

3) You are free to place the sentence "According to Roger Eatwell, fascism is normally seen..." somewhere in the second paragraph with a rest of such views. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not think that the "normal view" should be presented in the first paragraph? As it is the first paragraph presents the views of Mussolini. I see no reason why Mussolini's views should take priority over the normal view in this article.

What do you think of the following as an opening paragraph, citing Eatwell?

[Fascism] is normally seen as 'extreme right', though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as 'radical right', 'far right' and 'ultra right'. However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology as failing to bring out that ideologies are better seen as multidimensional, and that at some levels there can be significant overlaps between ideologies.

The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

To Vision Thing's objections:

1) I don't think it can reasonably be doubted that Eatwell's essay is dealing with academic sources. To take the quote out of context and just say "most" would give the impression that "most people" are of the view described, which is something that we cannot say for sure.

2) Think that to make a distinction between "normally" and "most" in this case is splitting hairs to quite an extreme degree. Are you able to give a rationale for the distinction? Perhaps the sentence could start "Fasicsm is normally viewed by academics as...", but I really don't think that's necessary or particuarly useful to either side of this discussion. It would just be saying the same thing in slightly more words.

3) Giving Eatwell's name within the quote would be appropriate in the context of him being the originator or an idea or in the context of what he says being controversial. Neither of these things appears to tbe the case, so to give his name would give a misleading impression - Eatwell has only really been chosen as a source because the text is online, not because the statement is particularly owned by him. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To Four Deuces' rewrite:

though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is sometimes also conceived as - don't think this adds anything. From the variants there, the reader can already see that the termninology is used erratically (although I also think this word is a bit loaded). Also, I don't think it is clear whether "right-wing terminology" is supposed to denote terminology used when referring to the right-wing or terminology used by adherents to the right wing.

However Eatwell criticises left-right terminology ... - is Eatwell a notable enough figure for his personal opinion to form part of the lead when no-one else's does? I'm not saying that I know for a fact that he isn't, but there is no Wikipedia article on him, for example. Might it be slightly better to say "Some writers, such as Roger Eatwell..." and then say something more general, rather than quoting him more-or-less word for word? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have restored your suggested phrasing. However please not that one editor has removed it twice already. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The new version is pretty good, but describing fascism as a combination of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism does not dissent from describing fascism as far right. Also, there was no need for the excess of quotation marks.Spylab (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually we were discussing the first paragraph of the "Political spectrum" section. No one has yet come up not the new lead for the article. Perhaps you could look at that and comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the current version:

Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left

However, by way of comment rather than objection, I would point out a consequence of not designating authoritarian+consevative+right-wing+nationalist as a dissenting definition of fascism. It is hard to object to the suggestion that, for example, the US Patriot Act fits these four criteria. Does this make it a fascist piece of legislation? I'm not too uncomfortable with this idea, but would note the potential for controversy. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect: Overall, this discussion has gone on a long time. Many users have commented, but you have only found support from one other. I'll admit to not being a disinterested party. However, I would suggest that, whilst you should continue to invite discussion about the matter if you wish to, it is no longer reasonable for you to just delete content which is agreed by other users. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, Collect, just noticed that you only performed one revert, so TFD must have been refering to another user.--78.148.160.141 (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a consensus among academics, it is that Fascism is an anti-conservative ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 10:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's more than doubtful, but it might be worth dicsussing if you can find an RS that makes that claim.--78.144.92.135 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the opening para which had been deleted with the notation "not supported by source". Vision Thing, can you provide a better phrasing for this paragraph? The Four Deuces (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Most academics" should be removed. My impression is that Eatwell talks about general public, and it is much better to use his wording ("normally"). Also, because "right-wing" is today usually associated with conservatism it should be stressed that fascism is anti-conservative. Roger Griffin says: "The broad area of scholarly consensus which now exists, admittedly one with highly fuzzy boundaries, is that: fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism. As such it is an ideology deeply bound up with modernization and modernity, one which has assumed a considerable variety of external forms to adapt itself to the particular historical and national context in which it appears, and has drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right..." [65] So scholarly consensus is that fascism is a form of revolutionary, trans-class, anti-liberal and anti-conservative nationalism that was heavily influenced by both left and right. -- Vision Thing -- 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and also feel the deleted material with eighteen sources should be re-added to the section as well. Collect (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing: I would agree to including something about fascism and conservatism, including views that dissociate the two (although it should also be noted that there are views which do the opposite). However, it isn't clear to me where this should go - I'm not sure if the "political spectrum" section is the appropriate place, although maybe it is. The wording you cite is already heavily quoted in the preceding section.

What should be noted is that the quote from Griffin isn't a challenge to what Eatwell says. I'm going to restore the section lead. If you have concerns about the specific wording, then that is not grounds for deleting the whole paragraph.

I don't think that the argument that Eatwell is talking about "the general public" can be easily sustained. His essay does not include any non-academic views. He is dealing with "attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology". It is clear that this means he is dealing with academic work, not bar-room discussions or people's private thoughts. If you think otherwise, you should say why.

In terms of "normally" vs "most", my only reason for preferring "most" is economy of style. If there's a consensus, then I would agree to go with "normally". --89.241.143.113 (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And in terms of SPA, you are undoubtedly one. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I note your comment, Collect. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try for another four years, perhaps?

" Consensus by assertion? The lede had been stable for four years until some decided that Fascism had to be "right wing" only. I saw no consensus for ythe wholesale change, and no consensus on the RfC above for your wholesale change, I reqorded it to assuage your concerns after all. And each source specifically suupports the text. I have asked, moreover, for a third opinion here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "

"Or perhaps the one removed as being a "duplicate lead" which gives TFD his "right wing" and also includes a full eighteen sources, covering the full gamut of opinions. Including ones which were present for four years until being removed. Collect (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC) . "

Picking dates at random, starting roughly in the center of the years in question, far enough apart that I felt sure that they would be different, I find eight versions, although I am quite sure there are many more, and it would be scores of edits, if one counts the tentative edits during Talk page discussions, on the way to the longer-running versions.

As it was random, the below are not diffs, and thus do not reflect who made the changes or exactly what changes were made, but are just the state of the page at intervals.

• 21 Oct 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=166130801
• 01 Mar 07 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=111876635
• 31 Jul 06 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=66782122
• 30 Dec 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=33288247
• 30 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=29726099
• 12 Nov 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=28146801
• 31 Jul 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=19972021
• 30 May 05 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&oldid=14455891

Anarchangel (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Just to clarify we are discussing the lede for the "Political Spectrum" section.) None of the versions cited above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When the "Political spectrum" section was created 14 July 2008 by User:Gennarous the lead sentence read "The place of fascism on the political spectrum remains a particularly debated subject."[66]. The actual sentence had been inserted into the article by the same editor earlier in the day.[67] On 17 January 2009 User:Collect changed this to "Fascism has been described as left, right, and center."[68] So User:Collect's statement that this "had been stable for four years" is incorrect. I would also point out that glancing at this discussion page shows that there had been no consensus for that change and that the new wording misrepresented the sources cited. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Try looking at the article history going back four years -- not just at its position for one day or so. And not just for a specific "Political Spectrum" section. F'rinstance in 2005: "Many scholars hold that fascism as a social movement employs elements from the political left, but eventually allies with the political right, especially after attaining state power. See: Fascism and ideology"" Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. " (December 2005) And so on. The facts remain -- and your generous removal of eighteen reliable sources seems to indicate more than you might desire. As for your limited claim that I was the one who used the current phrasing, you elide the fact that it was arrived at by consensus -- and the one used was the one which you proposed IIRC <g>. That you now dislike your own wording is interesting. The term "left, right and center" derives from Lipset -- who was cited here well before I made any edits IIRC. October 08 "The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. Fascist leaders themselves produced different definitions of what part of the political spectrum their movement stood, in 1932, Mussolini professed about the twentieth century saying "This is a century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century".[34] However many Italian Fascists like Benito Mussolini were ex-socialists and ex-syndicalists, and upon the Fascists being ousted and then reinstalled in the German puppet Italian Social Republic, Mussolini and the Fascists professed to be a left-wing movement.[35]" June 08 "According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement." and so on ad nauseam. The dichotomies were recognized very early on in the article, and seem to be what you would like to erase -- even your own compromise which no longer suits you <g>. Collect (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

March 2004: "Is Fascism a doctrine of the Left or Right? Fascism is generally regarded as somehow the opposite to socialism or communism. Mussolini himself characterized it as such in a 1932 paper entitled What Is Fascism?: "...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production...." Fascism is the synthesis of the Hegelian dialectic. If the thesis is capitalism and the antithesis is communism, then the synthesis is Fascism. Capitalism says the individual owns property and controls property. Communism says the state owns property and controls property. Fascism, being the synthesis of the two, is that the individual owns property but the state controls it."

May 2005: The origin and ideology of Fascism Etymologically, the use of the word Fascism in modern Italian political history stretches back to the 1890s in the form of fasci, which were radical left-wing political factions that proliferated in the decades before World War I. The adoption of this term by the Fascist Party reflected the previous involvement of a number of them in radical left politics. (See Fascio for more on this movement and its evolution.)

June 2005 " This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum, and the definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves."

November 2005 (note the section title which you aver dates only back less than a year in the article) Fascism and the political spectrum Early fascists demonstrated a willingness to do whatever was necessary to achieve their ends, and easily shifted from left-wing to right-wing positions as suited their purposes. This inconsistency makes it difficult to strictly categorize fascism on the traditional political spectrum. Some scholars argue that Italian Fascism, unlike some other contemporary movements, did not grow out of a strict theoretical basis. Layton describes Fascism as "not even a rational system of thought", and as "unique but not original". Fascism tends to be associated with the political right, but the appropriateness of this association is often contested. In one sense, fascism can be considered to be a new ideological development that transcends the right/left framework.

Some historians and theorists regard fascism and "Soviet Communism" (or more specifically, Stalinism) as being similar, lumping them together under the term "totalitarianism". Friedrich Hayek argues that the differences between fascism and totalitarian forms of socialism (see Stalinism) are rhetorical rather than actual. Hayek would note that the economic preferences of the fascists mirrored those of the socialists and communists. For example all three put in place capital controls, wage and price controls as means of controlling the economy (and subsequently the people as Hayek’s Road To Serfdom claimed). The rhetorical differences he saw are only found in why these economic preferences are put in place; to protect the lower class in class warfare, or to protect the interest of the state. Such rhetorical differences are negligible compared to the real outcomes of the very similar state economic control used by the three supposedly dissimilar ideologies. Likewise, claims that classic liberals, neoliberals, or even neoconservatives, are fascists is equally ridiculous given that their economic preferences are those of openness, free trade, and limited government interference; the exact opposite economic preferences fascists.

March 2007: Fascists have regarded themselves as representing a "third way" between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.[4]

And so on. Note particularly that the article had a "political spectrum" section long before last year. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My disagreement is not with presenting different views but with the wording of the lede sentence/paragraph of "Fascism in the political spectrum". Your wording violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Make your case for each anagram in the puzzle -- but I aver that it is a proper lede, as the purpose of the lede sentence is to summarize the succeeding content. Each source is inline for the material to which it relates, and quotes are used as needed. Thus no violatin of RS (they are each and every one reliable sources), V (each and every one is verifiable), SYN (I make no conclusions from the various direct statements cited), OR (as it is all V and RS and not SYN, it is not OR), and as for "undue" -- it is undue to elide material which contradicts your own favoured position. Undue does not apply to seeking NPOV which, I note, is the only acronym missing in the laundry list. Care to try telling us why eighteen reliable sources do not belong in an article? Collect (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I and numerous other editors have made this case many times. Your lead misrepresents facts and is not supported by the sources and therefore violates all these policies. If you are unclear on the meaning of WP policies may I suggest that you discuss this matter with someone else. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that what was said in the past was said in the past. It is not as if changes have been proposed without discussion. In fact, it was you who most recently brought up the idea of changing the section, Collect. --78.144.216.40 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Use the History tab to see where and when the changes occurred. Also note the RfC on the lede which was removed, which had been in place for some time. As for casting aspersions, this is not the place at all. Collect (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope? I don't understand you. In any event, the History tab refers to the past. Legwarmers, eating weavils and Hitler all used to be popular, but it doesn't mean that they were right. The history of this artcile is ignorable. The RFC is still there, and BTW it is what brought me here, in case you think you are still waiting on a response--78.144.216.40 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See the earlier posts in this section where it was claimed that I had lied about what had been in the article. Santayana still applies. Collect (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, no-one has accused you of lying. You made a claim about the past stability of material in the article which doesn't seem to have stood up to examination. I'm sure this will have been just an honest mistake on your part. Let's forget about it. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try "None of the versions cited above has a "Political Spectrum" section, so the claim that the lead sentence/paragraph for this section has been stable for four years is factually incorrect and I would ask that the editor making the claim redact it." Which certainly does make the accusation. Are you defending that statement? I gave examples dating back over four years -- so my "claim" was formally proven, contrary to those who insist that it was never there. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide one example of this article more than one year old that has a "Political Spectrum" section. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I already did --- did you miss the post above which cited a section named "Fascism and the political spectrum" from November 2005? Seems that 2005 is actually more than one year ago, no matter what calendar you are using. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, Four Deuces did not say that you had lied, he said you were wrong, which you were. Honestly, I don't think this is worthy of further discussion. --78.148.160.141 (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He also managed to think November 2005 was less than a year ago. Thank you most kindly. BTW, a slew of SPA IP accounts with two or three edits who act like they know everything about the history of the article becomes suspicious. Collect (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate. If you suspect me of something, say what it is. I would rather concentrate on talking about the article.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very first edit ever according to your contributuon history was at 22:57 on 13 June. In less than one half hour, you have made seven edits to the article and talk page. You had been here 4 minutes when your edit summary was "Restore lead para - Vision Thing: if you have objections should should explain them (not just state them) in talk.) " which rather implies you are not a new user at all. This is all fact. No need to "insinuate" anything at all. Do you have any questions? Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a dynamic IP address. I thought that was obvious. Nothing sinister. --89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most such stay in a fairly narrow range -- which other ones have you edited under here? Collect (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I *think* I am every IP since 'Opinions given by academics are primary sources in this case'. Genuine apologies if you didn't realise this, but I have consistently indicated it by refering to my earlier posts. I have nothing to hide, but I don't want to get an account, which I'd say is up to me.--89.241.143.113 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, can you please provide a link to the "Political spectrum" section which you say existed in November 2005. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now done my own research and such a section did exist in 2005 and said "Fascism tends to be associated with the political right". However it was later deleted, so Collect's understanding that the section has consistently represented his views over a four year period would appear to be an honest mistake. in fact the section only represented Collect's views after he added them in January of this year. BTW I think that there are only 12 quotes that Collect uses to support his view, not 18, as Collect states. Collect used "reflist" and therefore obtained sources that were footnotes to other sections. However it really is not very helpful to have numerous references if none of them support your premises. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect has now made claims against the IP editor. Please direct any such claims to the administrators, they have no place here. The editors will review and block editors who edit in bad faith, but it is not relevant to our discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you redact your PAs here. I have neither made nor insinuated anything improperly here about anyone. As for the material which appeared in 2005, I am glad you found it -- the material existed at many times prior to my ever edititng here at all, and your claim that it was I who added the cites to that section or that it only referred to a disagreement after I started editing was wrong. And since "reflist" added cites when used for the RfC -- and there was absolutely no way to avoid that on the Talk page, and my statement as to the number of refs in the RfC was correct (I counted the superscripts, and used that for the count -- it does seem that it was correct) the issue of "reflist" is joyfully irrelevant. And since quotes from each cite are given which appear strongly to support the use of each cite for the claims being made, your "proof by assertion" fails. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum - cont.

I have started a new section because the old section is now too long.

The Vision Thing has mentioned Eatwell's definition of fascism which is actually already in the article under the section "Definitions". However we are discussing another section called "Fascism in the political spectrum" which is different. The consensus view, which Eatwell mentions, is that fascists were right-wing. If Vision Thing disagrees, please provide something that supports your opinion. BTW I think that Vision Thing may not understand what the terms "conservative" and "right-wing" mean. Academics were not trying to place fascism on any contemporary American ideological scale. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks OK now (?). Collect, I notice you added to the end of the section, which looks fine (are all those cites really needed, though?). I think the "defintions" section in general could do with a modest tidy, which I'd propose to have a go at in the near future (retaining NPOV, of course!). For example, think that some material in "Spectrum" really belongs in the previous sub-section. Just a heads up so that people can comment if I make changes they don't think are appropriate. Thanks. --89.240.189.28 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oswald Mosley, Baronet

Collect has stated that because Oswald Mosley was an hereditary baronet that out of respect to him we should refer to him in the article as "Sir Oswald Mosley". My opinion was that Wikipedia should not give special status to British or any other titles. If we call some people "Sir" then me must call other people "Mr.", "Ms.", "Dr.", "Professor", etc. This conversation can be read above. Does anyone have an opinion on this matter? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The MoS specifically draws the distinction between inherited titles and "Mr." and the like. If you wish to discuss the MoS, you should do so on the talk pages involved. So far, I have not seen your input there. "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics" and "Sir" for a Baronet is is not an "honorific." Baronets outrank all Knights. Collect (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, what makes you think it is not an honorific? According to MoS "The prenominals Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are honorific titles". --84.13.68.135 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the full distinction between Knight (a non-heritary title) and hereditary titles. "Honorific" refers to a "courtesy title" -- such as "Lord" or the like. (see Naming Conventions) The WP MoS for "biographies", like all WP material relating to "biographies" applies to all articles where the person is mentioned. BLP, for example, applies to all articles where a living person is mentioned, not just the "biography." If you really wish discussion, go the the MoS talk pages. Collect (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Knights of the Garter, of the Thistle and of St. Patrick all rank higher than baronets.[69] Some knighthoods are hereditary, e.g., the Green Knight, while some baronetcies are not hereditary. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Knights of the Garter etc. are not standard "Knights" -- Prince Charles, for example, is a "Knight of the Garter." It is an "order" in and of itself. There are currently, AFAICT, only six who are not titled otherwise (one, John Major, is Guardian to the Princes William and Harry) and so on. A huge total of two non-titled members of the Thistle. And zero surviving members of St. Patrick at all <g>. Dead people do not rank very high, do they? And the fact is that the person in question is an hereditary baronet, so the claim that some baronetcies are not hereditary is absolutely and joyfully irrelevant. Next time you wish to make a big deal about something, make sure it still exists at least. Coming up with a total of six people who would officially be "knights" outranking a Baronet is grasping at straws entirely. Collect (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

By your logic, since Mosley is also dead he does not rank very high, does he? However it would be helpful if you use terms like "most" or even "almost all" instead of "all" in your arguments when exceptions exist. In any case the British honors system draws no distinction between hereditary and non-hereditary titles. The title "Esquire" btw is hereditary so by your logic gentlemen referred to in these articles should be referred to using the prenominal title of "Mr.". I am a little confused by your views. Are you saying that baronets should be called "Sir" but knights should not or that only hereditary baronets should be called Sir. And should hereditary knights also be called Sir? Does this rule extend to their wives and/or former wives who have not remarried? Do we continue to use these titles after the subjects have died? Do we extend this usage to continental orders of chivalry? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And at the time he died, your "exceptions" were still in the single digits <g>. "Esq." is commonly used by attorneys in the US, and is not considered a title. The title "esquire" which you aver is hereditary, isn't. "Today, however, the term may be appended to the name of any man not possessing a higher title (such as that of knighthood or peerage) or a clerical one." as WP states it. Collect (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all perfectly interesting, but the MoS does not seem to make exceptions based on how a title was acquired or how highly the title-holder ranks. --89.240.156.98 (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does. Note that the folks with honorary stuff get initials after the name, not a title before it. Hereditary Bart. is not an honorary title. Collect (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, but why are you telling me this? The MoS has a guideline against using honorific titles inline. It doesn't appear to matter that the title is inherited or that it is aristocratic or that it is non-honorary. Are you confusing "honorary" and "honorific"? The two are not the same. OM's title is honorific, although not honorary. --89.240.156.98 (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The title Esquire is in many if not most cases hereditary, most often when individuals are granted coats of arms, which are hereditary,[70] they become (if they are not already) Esquires and the rank is then passed on through the male line. The term "honorary" refers to the granting of titles, e.g., Bob Geldof, Colin Powell, to persons who are not entitled to use prenominal titles, which is why WP policy states that prenominal titles should not be used in their biographies. It does not mean not hereditary, although in many cases it is not hereditary. American citizens of British ancestry may apply for the honorary award of a coat of arms. The use of the title "Esq." in the US or its misuse in Commonwealth countries does not alter correct usage. Incidentally, barristers in Commonwealth countries are entitled to use the title Esquire and it appears that Americans have continued this practice long after independence.

However I agree that this issue is best discussed elsewhere. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I placed this in the wrong section yesterday:

BLP doesn't apply to Mosley because he is dead, although the same principles apply to all biographies, but without the pressing issue of libel if it is wrong - it is accuracy that is key. His hereditary title was Baronet, so the correct style of address would be Baronet#Addressing_a_baronet 'Sir'. The MoS suggests that apart from in the lede of a biography, the repeated use of a title like 'Sir' is honorific and so banned - that means he should be referred to the same way as anybody else apart from the lede of the biography, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles by using the surname alone after the first reference. As he is dead, he's not going to object, believe me. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He ought to be called "Sir Oswald Mosley" the first time he is mentioned, and then "Mosley" thereafter. It would be ridiculous to call him "Sir Oswald," and I don't think we generally do that with anybody - we don't talk about "Sir Robert" for Peel or Walpole, nor do we refer to Russell as "Lord John" (although his contemporaries certainly did.) john k (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that only apply to articles about them? Otherwise we's have to go through every article when the honors list is updated or a peer or baronet passes his titles on to his or her heirs. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Firstly, we refer to people by their titles only during the period when they held them. We don't call the British prime minister during the American Revolution "Lord Guilford," nor do we call the British foreign secretary during the Congress of Vienna "Lord Londonderry." We speak of Disraeli, rather than Beaconsfield, before 1876, and of Pitt, rather than Chatham, before 1766. There are some articles where we don't do that, but they should be changed. Mosley inherited his baronetcy well before he became a fascist, so it's perfectly appropriate to refer to him in the first instance as Sir Oswald Mosley. Do you think that we should speak of the last peer to serve as British prime minister as Robert Cecil? Should we call Byron George Byron? I simply don't understand this objection. john k (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Jewish fascism" listed fourth -- anti-Semitic bias?

It seems odd to me that "Jewish fascism" appears fourth after Italian, German, and Romanian. "Jewish fascism" to the extent it existed, never held state power, and likely never comprised more than a few thousand people. Why then discuss it right after the European Axis powers while listing Spanish fascism last? Why no discussion of Arab fascism reflected in the movements of Nasser and other Arab dictators?

I suggest the editors review the listing and description of various fascist movement for anti-Semitic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this section has far too much weight. It does not even say what type of support this group had or whether it influenced any future political thinking. Also there were fascist governments in numerous countries that are not mentioned here and many countries had fascist groups that had some influence in the 20s and 30s. Nasser and other Arab leaders do not qualify as fascists in the article because it is only about parties closely related to fascism which excludes most political figures after the Second World War. I think however there should be a section on Arab fascism in Palestine. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- where have you seen a discussion of "Arab fascism" (not Lebanese) other than a general pejorative one? Collect (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should only stick to what sources say are the main variants of fascism? For example, Payne in A history of fascism as major variants (beside Italian and German) discusses cases from Austria, Hungary, Romania and Spain. -- Vision Thing -- 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Else we could end up getting back the melange of sections on every world dictator or "bad group" this article once had. Collect (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of fascist groups that existed in other countries, e.g., the Silvershirts in the US although no reason to give them their own sections. They already have their own articles. Maybe there could be a list. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was a Palestinian collaborator of the Axis, and is frequently mentioned by hardcore supporters of Israel today.[71] I don' think that he established any specifically fascist organization though. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the principle that the article should reflect the sources, but the sources may differ and disagree themselves, so there will still be a question. The book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science has chapters devoted to at least ten movements which are not featured in the artcle at present, as far as I can see. So it may be that the net should be cast wider, not more narrowly.

Agree also, though, that the Revisionist Maximalist section appears in the article in a way that gives it probably undue prominence (although the material in it is good). Perhaps trying to sort out which movements had what degree of political influence and/or historical importance(from virtual irrelevance at one end of the scale to marching-across-Europe on the other) might be the way forward.

I don't think trying to identify an Arab for inclusion in the name of "balance" is the best solution. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you here. But almost all fascist movements in Europe had some impact on the Second World War - the Falange was involved with Franco in the Spanish Civil War, the Romanian fascists helped the Germans occupy part of Russia, etc. I think I'll propose a tentative listing of major fascist movements here:

• Italian Fascism
• National Socialism (Nazism)
• Japanese fascism (the fascist branches of the Statist movement in Japan)
• Iron Guard
• Falange
• Serbian fascism
• British Union of Fascists

How does it sound? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd add the Arrow Cross and the leading French movements - especially the Parti Populaire Français and the National Popular Rally; not sure if the Action Française or the Croix de Feu/RPF would qualify as fascist. Also the Ustashe was more explicitly fascist than any movement in Serbia. john k (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim to be able to give the most authoratative view, but I would agree that thise you list should be in the article. However, I think a discussion about drawing up a definitive list could well go on until the world explodes.

I would prefer to see categorisation around something concrete. The following is just for example:

• Movements that gained complete political control in a particular place;
• Movements that gained significant poltical power in a particular place (eg as part of a coalition);
• Movements that enjoyed a respectable level of public support (I use "respectable" advisedly);
• Fringe movements.

From there, there can be discussions on a case-by-case basis about what should go where.

BTW, I am the same IP as above. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I don't think the fringe parties need much mention though. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing

Please can you discuss changes you would like to make in talk. The material you are inserting is not at all supported by the sources cited, whereas the material you are deleting is properly sourced and other editors appear to agree that it is. As I indicated a couple of days ago, the minor objection you raised can be sorted, I think, through discussion, but they are no reason for deleting properly sourced material in favour of the opposite.

In summary, please discuss changes you would like to make here. Thank you. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long

A lot of this article contains detail that is already contained in other articles. I suggest that much of the article can be reduced and readers who are interested can click the piped links to get further information. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you failed to see how long the article once was. I still consider most of the "not core tenet" stuff to be useless in the article. Saying some fascists work with a church, some don't, seems not to prove much. Ditto positions on sexuality which, to all intents and purposes, are indistinguishable from contemporary governments of all stripes. Ditto the conflicting positions on "welfare." If it is not a genuine core tenet, it does not belong, IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, perhaps a new article on fascism's relations to church, sexuality, welfare economy should be written in order to relieve this article of idle information? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can show some unique qualifying claims, sure. Right now the sections are "some do and some don't" which makes for a rather wishy-washy set of sections. The aspect you cite which is specific to fascism is apparently control of the economy through the government. The other non-core stuff is pretty much as valid as "Brown eyes in fascism" would be while noting the preponderance of brown-eyed fascist leaders. Collect (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wherever possible, think we should be guided by sources, rather than by our own logic, even if that logic might be sound. "Some do some don't" doesn't necessarily mean the material is superfluous or irrelevant. For example, fascists differed in their attitudes to race. That does not mean, though, that racial politics are irrelevant to an article on fascism (and most, if not all, of the sources will support this). Collect, I think what you say would be good for an article entitled "Core tenets of fascism".

I think it would be good to cut down some of the sections, but this should be done carefully with tweasers rather than with a sythe. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is "some fascists are racists" and "some fascists are not racists" adds up to "fascists are part of the universal set" which is, logically, a worthless statement. The title of this particular article is "Fascism" and including attributes which are meaningless to the basic topic is futile. There is enough solid material for the article that we do not need to add useless stuff to it. Collect (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But the statement could take various forms, assuming it is a fair statement in the first place. "Fascists show a greater tendency towards racism than the population at large", for example, or "fascists are equally racist compared to the general population, but are distinguished by the basis of their racism in arguments about bilology" would say something worthwhile about fascism (I'm not necessarily making wither of those claims here). That's the problem with applying our own logic rather than relying on sources. Not everyone might agree. Which is why it would be better to rely on sources as a guide to what is relevant and what isn't. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually no source has ever been proposed for any claim about fascists having a greater propensity for racism than the general population. The requirement that a reliable source be found where it is clear from the current section that no general statement is true seems conclusive. Collect (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good starting point in reducing article's length would be to remove following sub-sections: Integralism, Revisionist Maximalism, Rexism and 4th of August Regime. They are not main variants of (para)fascism and article won't lose anything on its quality if we remove them. -- Vision Thing -- 07:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree but think they should be put in a list with links to their main articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Political Spectrum (still) and Fascist Negations

The assertion that "most" scholars put fascism on the extreme right is unsourced and contrary to most of the sources in the section. In fact, most of the authorities cited in the section say that fascist ideology incorporates elements of both right and left and that trying to peg it at one spot on a political spectrum is not very useful. Lacquer supports this synthesis, syncretist or sui generis view: "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either" in fact he says calling it right wing is "simplistic". Stanley Payne supports the same approach: “fascists “were unique (sui generis) in their hostility to all the main established currents, left right and center." (parenthetical added) Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition p. 8. He goes on to say that this was complicated by the need to find political allies. He notes that they more often allied with the right but also allied with the left. The “[m]any scholars [who] accept fascism as a search for a third way between capitalism and communism” as the section says (nine sources are cited) also support the idea that it is neither firmly left nor right. Roger Griffin notes, "Not only does the location of fascism within the right pose taxonomic problems, there are good grounds for cutting this particular Gordian knot altogether by placing it in a category of its own (sui generis) ‘beyond left and right’." (parenthetical added) As the article says, Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center". As noted in the section, von Mises and Sternhell see fascism as a type of socialism. As you can see, most of the sources in the section plainly DO NOT put fascism on the far right but say that it is problematic to do so. The intro should say just that.

On another but related point, after the 1980s almost all works on fascism include the fascist negations, this article has a fatal flaw if it fails to do so. The article should simply state them, as it had stably in the past for a long period, in the classic form as formulated by Payne: anti-liberalism, anti-conservatism and anti-communism. I am going to edit the article accordingly. Mamalujo (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed above. The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right, even in writings that challenge its position on the right. Curiously even the writers who challenge whether fascism is right-wing consistently refer to it as right-wing. Also, I think that the Austrian economists do not equate socialism with left-wing. There can be socialism on the right as well, e.g., Bismarck's State Socialism. If you want to challenge the intro paragraph then please provide a reliable source that states most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing.

Negations are mentioned under "Definitions", but I have no objection to adding more detail about this to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what you call the "agreed version" is not an agreed version. Seems at this point, indeed, that you do not have consensus behind it. A number of different editors now have removed it, and only you and an IP insist on it (I count four editors opposed to the "agreed version" and only you and the same 200(?) IPs in favor. Last I checked, that makes it the "disagreed version." Collect (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You set up an RfC on the matter and numerous editors commented and I suppose they assumed that the matter was closed. If you like I can call them all back. Perhaps it is now time to request mediation. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous"?? Nope. Mainly you. And there was no RfC on your "agreed version" which has quite clearly been shown as a "disagreed version" IPOF. Mediation is not need when 4 registered editors disagree with a single one. And the single editor does not even claim to have an RS for the claims. Collect (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces you say, "The sources say that fascism is normally considered part of the right", but you can see from my post that almost all the sources in the section specifically do not say that. Which sources say it is part of the right? The only one in the section who appears to say so (and I have not yet verified the assertion) is Eugen Weber. All of the others cast doubt on the ability of political scientists and historians to place fascism firmly in one place on a right left spectrum.Mamalujo (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYN: Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. We cannot take a poll of academics to determine what they believe and must rely on reliable sources (WP:RS) to inform us what the normal view is. The fact that this section is devoted primarily to dissenting views is irrelevant. However as I stated the dissenting views accept that fascism is normally considered right-wing and even use the term themselves:

Zeev Sternhell, Neither right nor left, p. 29, calls fascists the revolutionary right "...the revolutionary right won a resounding victory in Germany and Italy..."[72]

If you look at most books about fascism they are described as right-wing with no explanation needed, e.g., The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right[73], The Fascist tradition: radical right-wing extremism in modern Europe[74], The color of fascism: Lawrence Dennis, racial passing, and the rise of right-wing extremism in the United States[75]

You may not agree with they are right-wing, and you may be right, but Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. (WP:UNDUE)

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to read your sources more carefully. The Routledge Companion at page 2 specifically says that fascism inhereted its anticaptialist stance from socialism and anarchism and that the "question of whether fascism was essentially right wing is not so open and shut" and that such "ambiguities and paradoxes are not 'merely academic' preocupations". You are quite wrong that most books about fascism say it is right wing with no explanation needed. Obviously, The Routledge Companian raises the ambiguity at the very beginning of the book. The other books you mention have the contradiction or ambiguity right in the title: "radical right-wing" or "revolutionary right". Why do you think Sternhells book is called "Neither Right nor Left"? Most scholars point out that it is the radicalism/revolutionary natue and socialism of fascism which are two of its major left wing elements. Paxton, Payne, Griffin, Laquer and Eatwell, just to name a few of the most prominent scholars in fascism studies, all hold that fascism cannot be placed firmly on the right wing.Mamalujo (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism RfC

Due to new disputes over the intro for Fascism#Position in the political spectrum I will now write to all persons who partipated in the RfC. If I have left anyone out, please tell me. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you write to all substantial editors since January 2009 -- a number may not have written in the RfC but may well be interested in this. Collect (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now written to all editors except IPs who appear on this page. If I have omitted anyone please inform me. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the RFC is a little premature. As it is almost every source in the section contradicts the intro which Four Deuces proposes. I think the first step for someone advocating that intro would be to cite some reliable sources (And I think for reliable sources we need historians and political scientists who deal with fascism, because there is a tendency for non-specialists to peg fascism as right wing). As it is, without any sources which support the intro, how can any commenter support the position. That would come down to a simple vote (I like, I don't like) which disregards the sources. Such would be contrary to Wikipedia policy.Mamalujo (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please click here: Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum" and read the on-going discussion of the RfC, which is about to expire. All of your points have been discussed at length and I would ask that you read the discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would also note the option of using the close of the section which has eighteen sources provided. Collect (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments: (a) standard dictionary definitions link fascism with rightwing authoritarianism. End of story - there's your headline for the morning paper. (b) historians argue endlessly about the definition of fascism/rightwing/authoritarianism/etc. They get paid to argue (i.e. come up with interesting ideas) and not to repeat what everybody knows, which is - insofar as those words are used in the generally accepted way - fascism is right-wing. However the generally accepted use of those words carries much legitimate argument. So of course there will be a wide variety of views by historians, and those can be reported, ideally based on some easily accessible academic survey work. However a wide variety of views should not confuse anybody into missing the core idea. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism is useful:

'has been hailed as authoritative, from many sundry quarters. The New York Times described the book as “so thorough and in the end, so convincing that it may well become the most authoritative,” while Terry Eagleton called it a “lucid, engagingly readable study.” Foreign Affairs said the book will be authoritative “for a long time to come.”'(Douglas W. Greene (2008), The Bourgeois Origins of Fascist Repression: On Robert Paxton's The Anatomy of Fascism, Socialism and Democracy, Volume 22, Issue 2 July 2008 , pages 109 - 120)

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Paxton, p218

Greene summarises Paxton as saying 'fascism is a rejection of the Western European Enlightenment. As Mussolini himself put it, “Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies … [Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who can not be leveled by … universal suffrage.” The first fascists rejected the Enlightenment principles of rationality and equality, in particular its democratic theory in support of universal suffrage, and singled out for attack the Enlightenment tradition's self-avowed successors: all the secular democratic and revolutionary socialist political parties, from Latin Europe to Russia. ... Socialists, from reformists to revolutionaries, have always emphasized that, despite their vehement rhetoric, fascists were never anti-capitalist - a crucial point underscored in Paxton's research.' All of that places fascism very firmly on the side of right-wing authoritarianism. Disembrangler (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts are simple here... 1) academics debate where to place Facism on the political spectrum, 2) the vast majority of the non-accademic world places it firmly on the right. We must account for both of these veiwpoints, and should do so in the Lede if we do not want constant debate on this issue. Please stop trying to prove that one viewpoint is more correct than the other... Accept that BOTH are correct. Blueboar (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you've missed out fact (3), that most academics take fascism's link with the right either for granted or as a starting point for debate. Disembrangler (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are two versions of the lead of the section Position in the political spectrum in play (1, 2). I think we should take a step back and leave that section alone until we can reach some kind of consensus.

My objections to the first version is mention of "most academics", wording not present in the source, and attempt to link fascism with conservatism (according to the scholarly consensus fascism is ant-conservative [76]). -- Vision Thing -- 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph that you removed does not attempt to "link fascism with conservatism", it merely said "Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism." Conservatism and the extreme right are not synonymous. The quote from Griffin does not say that "fascism is anti-conservative", rather that fascism is best approached as a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anticonservative nationalism. However we cannot "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." (See: WP:SYN.) Please provide a source that explicitly states that most academics do not consider fascism to be right-wing. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What the Four Deuces and Disembrangler have been saying. In particular, I agree with Disembrangler that Paxton's definition is a) very useful; and b) pretty firmly places fascism on the right. Another source which pretty clearly puts fascism on the right is Ernst Nolte's Three Faces of Fascism - the first face of fascism is the Action Française, which was a French monarchist movement. As Disembrangler says - the point of departure for most academics is that fascism is on the right. Obviously, at that point it's necessary to complicate the picture, because fascism isn't simply on the right - Hitler was not Franz von Papen. In terms of linking fascism with conservatism - well, if the shoe fits. Conservatism is a term that has had many meanings over the past two centuries. What we in the anglosphere call "conservatism" today is what might be described as "liberal-conservatism" - a form of conservatism which accepts liberalism as the basis for government. Authoritarian conservatism is an entirely different beast, and does indeed have connections to fascism. While it would be wrong to say that fascism is authoritarian conservatism, it would be completely correct to state that fascists came to power usually through the machinations of authoritarian conservatives, that when in power they almost always acted in cooperation with authoritarian conservatives in their countries (e.g. Vittorio Emanuele, Hindenburg, Papen, Pétain, Antonescu, Franco), and that authoritarian conservatives typically saw a lot to like in fascism. john k (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It would also be true to say that fascists, especially early, on drew largely from socialists and communists, competed with them for the same supporters, and that many of the early leaders, includidng specifically Mussolini, were socialists. It is also true to say that fascism incorporated socialism/syndicalism or corporatism. With regard to Paxton, see my comments below. He explicitly does not place fascism on the right.Mamalujo (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Any claim that “most academics” or “most scholars” do X needs to identify the sort of academic or scholar, and needs to provide citation to support the claim that most of them do X.
  The article needs to identify the sort of academics or scholars because they tend to do different things based upon discipline. (For example, most historians make some claims that most economists would regard as actively ridiculous.) So, with respect to claims placing fascists somewhere or nowhere on a left-right spectrum, is it historians doing this? sociologists? political scientists? philosophers? economists? English teachers? all of the above? —SlamDiego_←T 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The editors above who are saying that the Paxton excerpt places fascism firmly on the right are sorely mistaken and are puting their own gloss or interpretation on the passage. Indeed, Paxton plainly holds with the scholarly consensus that placing fascism on a simple left right political spectrum is a taxonomical problem. "It becomes hard to locate fascism on the familiar Right-Left political map. Did the fascist leaders themselves know, at the beginning. When Mussolini called his friends together at the Piazza San Sepolcro in March 1919, it was not entirely clear whether he was trying to compete with his former colleagues in the Italian Socialist Party on the Left or to attack them frontally from the right. Where on the Italian political spectrum would what he still sometimes called "national sydicalism" find its place? Indeed, fascism always retained that ambiguity." p. 11. He goes on to say that fascists themselves considered fascism "neither Right nor Left" and also rejected what they saw as the soft, complacent middle. On the same page, he says that the radicalism and revolutionary nature of fascism "often set fascists into conflict with conservatives rooted in families, churches, social rank, and property". Just another fascism scholar who says fascism has elements of both right and left and doesn't fit well on the spectrum. The more we go through this the more sources we will find that say just that. Almost all the sources on fascism say fascism had "right" elements - it was authoritarian and did maintain some status quo, but it also had left elements - it was socialist/syndicalist expanded government and was revolutionary and sought totally remake society. Mamalujo (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a taxonomical problem. Fascist movements often (or even usually) arose out of left-wing or quasi-left-wing movements, and maintained much of the style of the left. Fascists were not simply reactionary right-wingers in the Hindenburg/Papen mode. Fascists were anti-conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-socialist, all at once. But their political alliances were inevitably with the right, and, as Paxton says, facist regimes worked in "uneasy but effective cooperation with traditional elites." Fascism may have been a weird amalgam of left and right wing elements, but that amalgam was largely put into service of the goals of the right. It's not even about maintaining the status quo - it's that Fascists and the traditional right agreed that various parts of the "status quo" needed to be gotten rid of - particularly parliamentary democracy, but frequently also all kinds of other things. Looked at in isolation, sure, fascism has elements of both left and right and arguably defies categorization. But when you look at the way fascist regimes actually operated, it is difficult to say that they were not ultimately on the right, and that, whatever disagreements they might have had with traditional conservatives, ultimately their goals were in many ways complementary, which cannot be said of their relationships with liberals and with socialists. It's been a long time since I've read either Paxton or Payne, but my memory is that Payne's basic issue, at least, was that the distinction between fascism and the traditional right had nothing to do with fascism being further to the right than the traditional right. Fascism was not further to the right than the reactionary non-fascist right. And this was because what distinguished fascism from other political ideologies didn't really fit into the normal left/right dichotomy. I suppose I've rambled on enough, but I think it's wrong to say that people like Paxton and Payne are arguing that fascism is not on the right. They're arguing that fascism is not simply on the right, that calling it a right wing phenomenon is an over-simplification that misses importance nuance. Maybe this is just hair-splitting on my part, but I think that's a significant distinction. Their whole argument rests, more or less, on saying that the left/right dichotomy, as a whole, is oversimplistic. I find it irritating to see them drawn out on behalf of what is effectively the tired old "But don't you see, it's national socialism!" argument. john k (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What I think needs to be done, is to mention the left-wing ideas syntesized into the right-wing end product. For instance, the ideas of revolution, over-throwing the Bourgeoisie, and the national-syndicalist roots of the movement are all important to its development, but that these ultimately led to a authortarian society. It might even be considered a revision of Marxism that "incorpates the anti-conformist left-wing extremists" with the "nationalist right-wingers." So yes, it was ultimately right-wing. But to simply label it right-wing misses too much, and so I think we should back track and cover the left-wing parts of it as well. Soxwon (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mamalujo that editors should not add their own gloss to sources. For that reason, even though I I agree with John K's interpretation of it, the Paxton quote cannot be used directly in support of the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", because it dosn't explictly say that.

However, Mamalujo, I think you are also missing the point a bit. Finding sources that question where fascism should be placed on the poltical spectrum does not contradict the statement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)", even if you were to find a hundred. All you will have done is prove that there are excpetions to the rule, which nobody denies.

The stamement "Most academics define fascism as (right-wing)" can only be supported by a source that specifically says that, and one has been proposed:

'Most attempts to produce a generic definition of fascist ideology have been linked to a particular conception of where fascism stands on the left-right spectrum. It is normally seen as "extreme-right", though right-wing terminology is often used erratically, and fascism is also conceived as "radical right", "far-right" and "ultra-right".' - [77]

It seems to me that the main question is whether this source is usable or not. For example, is it unreliable or does it fail to support the statement it is cited for? --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like there are three objections:

• 1) It source not include the word "academic" (I don't think it needs to, since the essay clearly only considers academic work. Sources don't need to use all the words they are cited in support of, as long as they are not misrepresented).
• 2) A contradicting objection that "academic" is not specific enough (I tend to think we should only be as specific as the source is - looking at the endnotes, Eatwell appears to be drawing on the work of historians, political scientists and, perhaps, sociologists. Would "specialists on the subject" be an acceptable alternative to "academics"?).
• 3) That word "conservative" should not be used because it is misleading (I don't think it is misleading and it is in the source, but I think i can live without it).

As a holding position then, would there be any objections (and if so what would they be?) to:

It is normal to position fascism as extreme right, although the terms "radical right", "far right" and "ultra right" are also used. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents "radical centrism".[fn]

The only thing I would see as missing from this is the reference to "acadmics" or something similar. --78.149.108.242 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposed to Rationalism?

Although many Fascist movements were Anti-Intellectual, I think that it is not safe to say they were against Rationalism. All you have to do is look at anything related to Giovanni Gentile to find Fascism was rooted in Logic. Although this didn't transfer to many Fascist movements beyond Italian Fascism, I don't believe that this is something that is a core tenet of Fascism, as they make it seem by putting it at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.48.190 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is supposed to present mainstream opinion first, followed by opposing views and supported by secondary sources. If you want to present Giovanni Gentile's views then please provide a reliable secondary source (i.e., a book by an expert that discusses his views) that explains what credence is given to them. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Position and rejection of left-right spectrum

I've been through and removed some of the footnotes from the "political spectrum" section. They were too many in number and so I've removed ones that were duplicative or not related to the wording for which they were cited. For example, the quote from Linehan as the end of the section was backed by ten footnotes. All that is really needed is to provide a footnote for the source of Linehan's statement. Citing everyone who has cited or agreed with him is not necessary.

Whilst I was at it, I changed two sentences:

• I took out "Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third position between capitalism in parliamentary democracies and communism." This was backed by nine citations of books, but none of the references included page numbers (which they should according to WP:CITE). Third Position refers to a specific post-war form of nationalism which many writers are likely to view as fascist or neofascist. However, it would seem very unlikely that any of the nine sources would back the statement that "fascism (is) a search for a Third position".

• I changed "The entire aptness of a left-right Political spectrum has also been challenged by many current historians" to "Many political scientists have posited multi-dimensional alternatives to the traditional linear left-right spectrum". A couple of the six sources given did appear to reject the left-right model, but were personal opinions given by individual non-specialists (an economics journalist and a technology journalist). Other sources noted the popularity of various models, but not a rejection of a conceptual "right-left" continuum. The "horseshoe" model, for example, still has a left and a right, it is just a particular non-linear shape.

I also added a reference for the statement "A number of fascist movements described themselves as a "third force" that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether", since I felt it needed one. --78.144.100.103 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)