Talk:Fascism and ideology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Fascism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Fascism task force (marked as Top-importance).


What is the problem with a standard link to Totalitarianism main pages or even the template?--Cberlet 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article for section "Fascism and totalitarianism" would be Fascism and totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not subarticle of this article. For more information see WP:SS. -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Totalitarianism is an article which covers... totalitarianism. What is "totalitarianism"? A concept used to qualify certain political regimes, mainly Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinism (with some disagreements between those who use this suspect). "Fascism and totalitarianism" is an un-needed article when you see the poor state in which "Totalitarianism" is. And, concerning Foucault, you will still have to justify the inclusion of a lame sentence which conveys fairly badly Foucault's thought on the matter (in two words, Foucault has described Stalinism & Nazism as REVERSE operations, which directly opposes this tentative to equates them). Tazmaniacs 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Tazmaniacs. Please stop this petty disruption, -- Vision Thing --.--Cberlet 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if any of you two had actually read Totalitarianism, but there is very little overlap between that article and Fascism and totalitarianism section here. I will ask you again direct you to Wikipedia's guideline on this matter which in a nutshell states: When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title. Totalitarianism can't be considered a spin off of Fascism and totalitarianism section in any possible arrangement. As for Foucault, I don't need to justify anything (although I did); for inclusion of content it's enough that it's sourced and on topic. -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The tangential stuff on Foucault is ridiculous--it has nothing to do with this page. Just more POV left-bashing. The issue of fascism and totalitarianism is one of the central issues in scholarship in this arena. The template is appropriate and helps users.--Cberlet 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Foucault's views have everything to do with this page, and they are connected with Levi's arguments. The template is inappropriate, and in "my" version link to Totalitarianism article is the first thing that user encounters when he is reading the section, so your comment is ridiculous. In both cases you are acting against Wikipedia's polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The continuous removal of the
Main article: Totalitarianism
link by User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] is not appropriate. I have restored it, and will add it to the ongoing mediation.--Cberlet 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs sections added on: Relationship of Fascism to 1. Nationalism 2. Rascism 3. Militarism[edit]

02 June 2007
This article is incomplete without sections on each of the three topics above. Nationalism is the most important omission which is a major part of fascist ideology.
On the subject of rascism, this article asserts that this was an addition of the Nazis, which the Italian fascists were not interested in. Regardless, it formed such a major part of Nazi ideology and the devoted so much energy to attempts to justify it, and idealise certain races over others, that this such be included in any discussion of fascist ideology. The belief that group A were superior to group B was the ideology behind much of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Feel free to add some content on those subjects. -- Vision Thing -- 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "Fascism" in itself, and the basic policy and perspective of it being classified as a "civil religion" more than a political party or movement certainly covers the 3 topics you've listed. At least, #1.) Nationalism, and #3.) Militarism are almost always equated with Fascism. It's hard to find Fascist literature that doesn't mention at least partial characteristics belonging to both categories (Read Oswald Mosley or Achille Starace). As far as Rascism goes, it belongs more to the Neo-Fascist movement where specific races are targeted. Even then, extermination of Jews wasn't on Mussolini's list of things to do. By that token, "Jews" aren't necessarily a race, which can be quite and ironic and comical that Hitler wanted to exterminate those that belonged to a certain belief system and way of life (such as gay, gypsy, or Jew) in order to form a "pure race." In the end, the two spectrums don't match up.

At any rate, just a few thoughts. Nothing to be taken too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascism and the Political Spectrum[edit]

All sources should be people who have some understanding or knowledge of the subject, and some of the sources have no credibility. Also, the article states that Hayek and Mises saw fascism as "left-wing", but no source is given for that. Please provide any reference that either writer ever said this or delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the mention of "left-wing" has been deleted. Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This section begins: "There is no agreement on the position of generic fascism on the political spectrum, as has been described as left, right, and center." Then it references two sources. But looking at these sources, the first source (footnote 3) draws its source from an article by Seymour Lipset. What Lipset actually said is mentioned later in this section: "Seymour Martin Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center". (For some reason this quote is sourced to the book Russian Fascism.(footnote 12))
Suggest that the opening sentence begin something like: "While fascism is generally considered to be on the right of the political spectrum..." and then note that opposing views come from some academics (like Lipset), a few non-academic sources and some fascists themselves (like Mosely). (Incidentally, it is inconsistent to use Mosely's honorific "Sir", when honorifics are not used for other individuals, e.g., Mr., Ms.)
The mention of "left-wing influences on fascism" should be explained. What were they? The reference to the Socialist background of some fascists is irrelevant unless there is a connection with their previous allegiance. (Hilary Clinton used to be a Goldwater conservative, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal liberal.) I could not find any published writers who put fascism on the left.
Also, Lipset's reasoning should be explained.
The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
From Planned Chaos - PDF by Ludwig von Mises
It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. This is in perfect agreement with their habit of calling every party which does not unconditionally surrender to the dictates of Moscow—even the German Social Democrats, the classical party of Marxism—hirelings of capitalism.
It is of much greater consequence that the communists have succeeded in changing the semantic connotation of the term Fascism. Fascism, as will be shown later, was a variety of Italian socialism. It was adjusted to the particular conditions of the masses in overpopulated Italy. It was not a product of Mussolini's mind and will survive the fall of Mussolini. The foreign policies of Fascism and Nazism, from their early beginnings, were rather opposed to one another. The fact that the Nazis and the Fascists closely co-operated after the Ethiopian war, and were allies in the second World War, did not eradicate the differences between these two tenets any more than did the alliance between Russia and the United States eradicate the differences between Sovietism and the American economic system. Fascism and Nazism were both committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. If one wants to assign Fascism and Nazism to the same class of political systems, one must call this class dictatorial regime and one must not neglect to assign the Soviets to the same class.
In recent years the communists' semantic innovations have gone even further. They call everybody whom they dislike, every advocate of the free enterprise system, a Fascist. Bolshevism, they say, is the only really democratic system. All non-communist countries and parties are essentially undemocratic and Fascist.
Theosis4u (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Profile: Hayek: The Hayek Century By John Cassidy has the following:
"Hayek never accepted that fascism was a capitalist phenomenon. To him, Stalin and Hitler were two suits in the same closet, and the closet was marked "collectivism." Hayek dedicated his book "To the Socialists of All Parties." It was directed primarily against "classical Socialism," by which he meant "nationalization of the means of production," but what made it so controversial was the comparisons he drew between Nazi Germany and the way things were heading in the democracies. "Although few people, if anybody, in England would probably be ready to swallow totalitarianism whole, there are few single features which have not been advised by somebody or other," Hayek wrote. "Indeed, there is scarcely a leaf out of Hitler’s book which somebody or other in England or America has not recommended us to take and use for our own purposes.""
Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard" speaks about fascism and it's relationship to social, but also notes its difference with it as well as "classical liberalism" [my summary components. Page 6 is a good place to start but there's more material in there. Theosis4u (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
People read WP articles in order to understand how various topics are described in mainstream writing. They are not interested in fringe views of topics. To make matters worse, you do not even understand the positions that these fringe writers are advancing. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So, not only do you do polling and research for statistical data about opinions of political ideology you also poll what people want to read on WP? :) You asked the question about above Hayek & Mises but now when there's a response of to sources you cast the person away as fringe? Whatever. Maybe you should read again "What is Fascism?" by Robert Griffin. You'll notice he gives some context on the ideological background of the same people that hold the opinion you've been expressing as the valid one. Though, he doesn't cast the non-Marxist interpretation as fringe as you have done. Though he does later continues to associate the word "right wing" without any clarity or justification in that article. Theosis4u (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What has this got to do with the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You mean the Griffin article? This is the interesting part:
Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements, from Italian Fascism to contemporary neo-Nazi movements in the United States. This article relies on a very broad definition of fascism, and includes most movements that aim for total social renewal based on the national community while also pushing for a rejection of liberal democratic institutions.
II Major Elements
Scholars disagree over how to define the basic elements of fascism. Marxist historians and political scientists (that is, those who base their approach on the writings of German political theorist Karl Marx) view fascism as a form of politics that is cynically adopted by governments to support capitalism and to prevent a socialist revolution. These scholars have applied the label of fascism to many authoritarian regimes that came to power between World War I and World War II, such as those in Portugal, Austria, Poland, and Japan. Marxist scholars also label as fascist some authoritarian governments that emerged after World War II, including regimes in Argentina, Chile, Greece, and South Africa.
Some non-Marxist scholars have dismissed fascism as a form of authoritarianism that is reactionary, responding to political and social developments but without any objective beyond the exercise of power. Some of these scholars view fascism as a crude, barbaric form of nihilism, asserting that it lacks any coherent ideals or ideology. Many other historians and political scientists agree that fascism has a set of basic traits—a fascist minimum—but tend to disagree over what to include in the definition. Scholars disagree, for example, over issues such as whether the concept of fascism includes Nazi Germany and the Vichy regime (the French government set up in southern France in 1940 after the Nazis had occupied the rest of the country).
Beginning in the 1970s, some historians and political scientists began to develop a broader definition of fascism, and by the 1990s many scholars had embraced this approach. This new approach emphasizes the ways in which fascist movements attempt revolutionary change and their central focus on popularizing myths of national or ethnic renewal. Seen from this perspective, all forms of fascism have three common features: anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis."
And then the three main components he lists - ANTI-conservatism , Myth of National or Ethnic Renewal , Idea of a Nation in Crisis
In case you miss my point, I see nothing in Griffin's writing above that precludes or someone gives evidence to your notion that the opinions you claim are fringe should be considered as such. Unless one argues, the Marxist view is the only non-fringe one. Theosis4u (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, what has this got to do with the article? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It has to do with the thread you started on this talk page and your insistence to purge all these related articles of sources and statements that don't hold to your own personal view. About the "left-wing" question you purposed above, if a source claims fascist governments were types of socialism [in general or specific] can they or can they not be consider "leftist" on that point? Are you claiming socialism is not generally considered left-wing? Theosis4u (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) See: WP:SYN. They are not talking about the left, they are talking about "socialism of the right", e.g., "State Socialism". The Four Deuces (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lol, your reaching now. :) Claiming WP:SYN while engaged in it. What about State_socialism or the other sources on the economic issue that either supports it as left, center [with various emphasis], or neither left or right - but none claiming it is a "right" economic model. National_syndicalism , Corporatism#Fascism_and_corporatism , Economics_of_fascism , Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism . Theosis4u (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, Mises, Hayek and Rothbard specifically say that when they talk about Fascism, which they consider to be right-wing. It would be helpful if you want to believe in their writings if you would actually read them. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It would of been helpful if you provided a source to show this certainty your claiming to the three about fascism and right-wing. I'll ignore your comment about what I have read or not in my 2500+ book library here at home or available at Again, this use of left-right by these three is conditional upon their personal bias on the nature of ideologies, economics, and the "classical liberalism" theory. Theosis4u (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Neither Mises nor Hayek called classical liberalism "right-wing". Rothbard may have but he saw it as having more in common with the Left than with conservatism. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Nor could or would they associate "classical liberalism" with the left-wing [generality] as it had evolved later in time to being an ideological monopoly of socialistic thought. And with that acknowledgement, you go back to their statements about fascism acting like a form of socialism or socialism being the closest aligned with it you clearly can not conclude that they considered fascism was right-wing as they aligned it with socialism. [yes, you could get around this by claiming there's a socialism-left and socialism-right] Again, I think from their point of view and sometimes explicit writings on this they found the left-right usage as failing to be informative. Did you dig up those sources references you mention about the claim they said fascism was right-wing? Theosis4u (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you have never read these writers. It does not matter, since their views on fascism are not mainstream, but I thought that reading them may help you develop a better understanding of fascist ideology. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Third time, provide your sources. For you to state twice now I've not read them after I've supplied many links to their material online with representative quotes and summaries your starting to appear disingenuous and evasive when your "authority" is challenged. I say authority, since you often fail to fetch for others as much as you throw the bones. But, to be kind, maybe it's just a communication issue between us. Do you see von Mises, Hayek, or let's just say the Austrian School fundamentally disagreeing with Thomas Sowells assessments on this issue as he expressed in "The Vision of the Anointed / Chapter 7 [The Vocab. / header called "The Political "Left" and "Right""? Theosis4u (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Sowell's contention is that it is incorrect to describe Hayek and the American Right as right-wing or conservative, which is consistent with the view of the Austrian economists. Where they differ is that Hayek saw "right-wing" as a meaningful term. Incidentally, did you know that Ledeen, Olansky, and Sowell were all Communists? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, if you could share the source for your comment about Hayek stating what your asserting about the "right-wing". I ask, because I really would be interesting in reading it and understanding where you are coming from because from what I have read by him leads me to different conclusions you've given so far. I knew about Sowell, only discovered the communist background of Ledeen and Olansky. I've only recently read their materials arising from the HNN articles coming out. It's good seeing people changing positions throughout their life, gives their writing more color - even if the swing is from the other way. Theosis4u (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hayek discussed this in "The Socialist Roots of Nazism", The Road to Serfdom.[1] His theory is totally different from that of Jacob Talmon who sees fascism as developing from the democracy of the French Revolution, since Hayek sees it as a rejection of liberalism. Rothbard mentions the "welding together, of right-wing socialism with conservatism in Italy and Germany, where the fusion was embodied first in Bismarckism and then in fascism and national socialism – the latter fulfilling the Conservative program of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, theocracy, and a right-wing collectivism that retained and even cemented the rule of the old privileged classes"[2] You can read too Herbert Spencer's "The New Toryism" where he accuses the Liberal Party of becoming conservatives because they have increased regulation.[3] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Any Reason This Isn't Referenced In Main Fascism Article[edit]

I noticed that this page isn't linked to from the main Fascism article, any reason why not? Theosis4u (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly? Because it's not a very good article. It was created primarily to avoid having a small number of fringe viewpoints and popular talking-points among political talking heads from around the time when it was created overwhelm the main Fascism article. It doesn't really say much that's meaningful or useful, and its content is heavily-colored by the fact that most of its contributors were more interested in establishing fascism as similar to some political position they disagree with or another than in actually discussing or examining fascism itself in a useful fashion. Very little would be lost by deleting this article entirely; everything it covers is covered much better and in a more neutral fashion on the main fascism article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, it seems to have been much improved over time, and now is a decent-enough history of Fascism and its relation to other ideological movements of its day. --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is very haphazard, I suggest a total re-write[edit]

This article does not seem to have much coherent substance to it, it is very random. I suggest that this article be re-written to focus on fascism's relations with other ideologies. Independent articles on fascism's relations with nationalism, communism, liberalism etc. have been scrapped because administrators have stated that these could be on one article about fascism's relations to other ideologies. I believe this article should serve that purpose.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead, moving this to its redirect, Ideological origins of Fascism -- which is the capacity under which it is currently linked to from the man Fascism article anyway. The problem with trying to define relations with other ideologies in any other fashion is that, in general, it's too hazy -- an article listing every time anyone ever accused a political opponent or an ideology they disagreed with of being fascist would be a thousand pages long and list every ideology that has attracted even the slightest commentary since the mid-20th century. Those accusations and comparison are, generally, too vaguely-defined to write an encyclopedic article on them, and too omnipresent to be worth documenting. An article focusing specifically on the documented ideological origins of and influences on fascism, on the other hand, can probably be made much more encyclopedic; I think that this could be salvaged if it were converted into that. --Aquillion (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede to this article is ridiculous.[edit]

Two short sentences saying 'fascism's ideological position on the political spectrum is contentious' in different ways is not a lede. Additionally, it fails WP:LEAD -- the article itself, while, yes, presenting some controversy, generally makes many definitive statements about the generally-agreed on ideological origins and tenor of fascism. The most basic of these belong in the lede in one fashion or another. --Aquillion (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has responded in... nearly four years, I've taken it on myself to throw something together from the main points of the article. --Aquillion (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Alessandra Mussolini a neofascist?[edit]

Why is Alessandra Mussolini being branded as a neofascist? According to the wiki article on her, she's a member of Il Popolo della Libertà, a centre-right party. I'm removing her from the article. The.valiant.paladin (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Her original party, the National Alliance, was widely seen as a post-fascist or neo-fascist party. john k (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)