Talk:Fascism

Imperialism bit

"Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[5][8][9][10] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations."

I have a problem with this. You can say this about any nation, including democracies, especially powerful ones like the United States. There's no question that the US has been imperialistic in both the past and present, so why present this as a core ideology of a fascist society when fascism is not necessarily imperialistic and imperialism is not necessarily facist. ScienceApe (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be an overlap between fascism and other ideologies. Until the Second World War, mainstream politicians in the UK and other countries called themselves imperialists. The idea of "national rejuvination" however is distinctly fascist. Bear in mind too this is about ideology. There are ideologies that oppose imperialism, war etc. even in countries that support them. TFD (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic in the original query. Just because these traits may be seen in other systems/ideas/countries, that does not mean they are not, generally, a feature of fascism or fascist regimes. There's no rule or principle that says a lead can only mention things that exist in or apply to the topic exclusively. Even if not all fascist regimes were particularly imperialistic, the general observation still stands, as does the point that the sentence does not simply say fascism was imperialist but that it saw imperialism, war etc as having some quasi-spiritual benefit to the nation. Beyond that, it's also, ultimately, a question of sourcing: if reliable authorities assert these features, that's good enough for us, subject to an element of editorial judgment about how and where to state it exactly. N-HH talk/edits 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My contention is that imperialism could also be said to generally be a feature of Democracy based off of the same reasoning. If it's not an intrinsic characteristic, I don't think it should be included. ScienceApe (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That logic does not seem coherent. Both fascist Italy and Germany eventually fell back on an appeal to Imperial Rome (Italy) or the Holy Roman Empire (Germany), demonstrating that imperialism is tied to a notion of cultural superiority that often is accompanied by an imperative to lord it over others in order to spread the superior cultural paradigm.

Democracy, on the other hand, is a decentralized political system that is not amenable to the above-described features, unless corrupted and used as a mere ideology to justify exploitation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And whether it's a feature of democratic states as well or not doesn't matter. If something is a feature of fascism – and, more importantly, noted as such in reliable sources – that's good enough for us. It's hard to argue that imperialism in the form of national expansionism, and a belief that such expansionism is a sign of a vital nation, are not noted characteristics of fascism. N-HH talk/edits 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to lede

I cannot discern where in the body "Fascism promotes the binding of economic, military and political power, making each stronger than they could be as independent entities" is adequately explained. Can someone point it out, please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything in the body that suggests or explains this, or that it is a wholly accurate assertion anyway. It's not utter nonsense, but it's impossibly subjective and analytical for the lead, especially with no reliable source and/or content in the rest of the article to back it up. The IP who keeps editing it in needs to do more than that to justify its inclusion. N-HH talk/edits 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I do not know if this is the correct place for mentioning it (so I apologize here and now if I am not in the proper location). Fascism, which comes from the Latin word fascis--"a bound bundle of wooden rods"--was a Roman symbol of "power and jurisdiction" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces). The German National Socialists during the Hitler era used the word Gleichschaltung 'coordination' to indicate all areas of society in synchronous harmony with one another (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleischaltung). Consequently, the idea that fascism promotes "binding" is deceptive in the sense that it does not simply promote it; rather, it is the logical basis of system itself. As an aside, Gunther Reimann in his 1939 book, The Vampire Economy (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007) shows that rather than promoting economic unity, fascist economic systems promote division, inefficiency, and corruption at levels significantly higher than found in free enterprise systems (0100 [UTC], 11 November 2013, Comment by Gesetzlich Geschutz). Gesetzlich Geschutz talk/edits 01:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)01:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction: in one of the sources already in the article, it says that fascism's relationship with socialism is mixed

The intro is portraying a limited understanding of fascism's relationship with socialism. It does not acknowledge issues that the author Cyprian P. Blamires describes in World Fascism: A Historical Encyclopedia that is used in this article.

Blamires says that the relationship between fascism and socialism, including claims by some that fascism is a type of socialism is "complicated by a number of factors", including that Mussolini in World War 1 who upon becoming a supporter of Italy's intervention and a nationalist, initially claimed that he had not abandoned socialism but that he had abandoned internationalism, and that there. Blamires says that "the Left has almost from the very beginning universally regarded itself at the opposite extreme from fascism of any stripe". He goes on to say that the distinction from "mainstream" socialism and fascism is that it has regarded itself as a universal doctrine not limited to national boundaries or religious boundaries for instance and pursuit of equality, but that fascism in contrast outspokenly promoted elitist nationalism.

Thus Blamires addresses two key factors. (1) that the fascism-socialism relationship is mixed, including that socialists and members of the political left denounced fascism from the outset-this addresses external factors that affected this mixed relationship. (2) that its key difference or breaking point with socialism is its elitist nationalism.

Providing some clarification in the intro, as well as some detail in the main body of the article of Blamires' analysis, could improve readers' comprehension of why fascist movements that held figures with socialist backgrounds and some movements that called themselves "socialist", are not widely considered as socialist, nor left-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.216.184 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an odd introduction. Conservatism and neo-conservatism in the U.S. have similarly had apostate socialists as leaders, but no explanation is provided in articles about them. TFD (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference between fascism and the neo-conservatism example you mention, is that fascism appears to have a very mixed relationship involving socialism-in some instances distancing themselves and at other times embracing it, whereas neo-conservatives who were formerly socialists don't keep going back to socialistic themes to justify their actions. The content in the article shows that Mussolini at least initially claimed to support socialism after becoming a fascist. Then there is info that Mussolini sought to bring in the political right into the movement and watered down more radical elements of the movement. Lastly there is material showing a quote of him in 1940 denouncing both Marxism and "capitalist slavery". It seems at least that fascism appealed multiple times to socialistic political rhetoric to justify its actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.216.184 (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

if you read the before and after writings, you will see a lot has been retained. The modern right btw often uses a populist appeal against the elites, and claims to represent the people. TFD (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed for the use of "radical"

What does "radical" mean here? Radicalism (historical)? Political radicalism? Both of these almost universally refer to left-wing politics in the world at large (and even in the Anglosphere); I would avoid using the word "radical" here--it has very specific historical connotations. How about using another term? Even fascists themselves might contend with the label "extremist." Although two sources are cited here that use the term "radical," I'm dubious mainly for the following reason (aside from the fact that they are both published in the USA, one of the few cultures that uses the word "radical" so loosely). In the definitions of "fascism" in the following major online dictionaries (which are about as unbiased as we can get), the word "radical" is utterly absent: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism), Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism), Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism; which is based on a variety of other sources, including the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries), and the Cambridge Dictionaries (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/fascism). Wolfdog (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article begins, "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism." Since this is only one possible definition, it should be attributed in the text, followed by an explanation of what the author meant. TFD (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I haven't looked at the sources, but radical would generally be more neutral than extremist, and is more commonly used with respect to political movements--whereas extremism is applied to more fringe-ish groups. That's just my impression.

One other personal observation would be that fascism originally grew out of more localized syndicalist movements. The values they espoused were "radicalized" and misappropriated at the national level, ascribing a sort of 'localism' to national politics. The problem was that syndicalism was to a substantial degree (if I real correctly) based on regional economic and industrial circumstances, which doesn't (and didn't translate to the national level in any recognizable form. You should read the syndicalism and national syndicalism articles. Syndicalism, in particular, is generally described as being a leftist movement, which was later influenced by nationalists.

In that sense the world view of the fascists--in Italy, at any rate--could be seen to be more delusional than extremist. So radical probably is more appropriate for use in describing their politics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the term "radical" is used to mean they wanted far-reaching change, and is used to describe their authoritarianism and nationalism. It is pretty standard to refer to groups to the right of the mainstream as "radical." See all the books about it.[1] TFD (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But again, these books come from an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Elsewhere, the term "radical right" is an oxymoron. Also, the first paragraph of "Fascism" talks about how its "right"-ward (i.e. far-right) position is somewhat disputed. As I initially asked (strengthened by our arguing here), why don't we use a more clarifying phrase or word, instead of "radical"? However, TFD, your first comment here also makes sense to me. Wolfdog (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all the books on the first page of hits are about Europe or Israel. If you are interested in how terminology to describe the Right varies between U.S. and European scholars, I recommend, The emergence of a Euro-American radical right, pp. 10-11.[2] TFD (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant that they appear to come from American authors and publishers. Your link offers a good historical description. Again, for the purposes of clarifying further, why don't we put "radical-right" in the first sentence, or is this due to the fact that the "right" part is still in question? Wolfdog (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of how they were 'radical' is that they perceived themselves as unconventional and at the fore of a political movement that was both rooted in tradition but also ahead of the prominent paradigms of capitalism and communism.

Syndicalism has a fair degree of affinity with aspects of socialism applied in a regional scope, while fascism was opposed both to international proletarianism (i.e., communism) and international capitalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of "radical" is fine. Using radical to simply mean advocating large scale change is not a "loose" use of the term, even outside of America, here in Britain that is exactly what radical means. I'll grant the OP it is used more often to refer to left-wing than right-wing movements, but that doesn't mean it has leftism packaged into its definition. I think it's enlightening to consult the dictionaries on the definition of "radical" because while they all mention extreme or far reaching change or view, none specifically tie this to left-wing views. Here is the initial definition from Merriam-Webster:

having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people

actually later on in its "Full Definition" Merriam-Webster even uses the term "the radical right":

d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

what about dictionary.com? the third definition is:

favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Finally, I have a HarperCollins dictionary here (Collins Shorter Dictionary and Thesaurus ISBN 0 00 470907-1) and its fourth definition is:

person of extreme (political) views

No mention anywhere of any necessary association with any particular political views, it just means views favoring drastic or extreme change, in whatever direction. I think "radical" is the appropriate term to use, and as Ubikwit said, it is more neutral than "extremist". It may be used more often to describe the left than the right but I don't think that is ever inherent to its definition, even outside America.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Right vs Left Wing

Both terms have different meanings in different countries/eras. They are relative terms only. What was right wing by 1934 German standards (e.g. socialism) would be considered left wing on the political spectrum in early 21th century US politics (or 1934 for that matter). Therefore, they serve to obscure rather than elucidate. The subject can be addressed using clear language that explains what fascism/fascists did and said. ProfJustice (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem in using descriptive language to present what RS say about the topic. There is a prohibition of using WP:OR to make such characterizations without support from RS. This not an article about the relative use of terminology in different places at different points in time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, in 1934, socialists and Communists were left-wing, while conservatives and fascists were right-wing. The terminology remains the same today. TFD (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So would we be justified in saying "right-radical" as a clearer term than merely "radical"? Wolfdog (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)