Talk:Fascism/Archive 19

Fascism and Nazism

Why do people consider Nazism and Fascism the same thing? It is an insult to Fascism. Ask any generic Fascist, Italian Fascist, or even Falangist organizations and they will tell you Nazism is its own political ideology. So why is it tought in schools and published in wikipedia that they are the same??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gostanford22 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Fascism

I dont understand what fascism is nor what it's ideology is?ELDRAS (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Practical differences between Communism & Nazism

Those who are adamant that communism and Nazism are not the same beast seem to be carrying the day here. Could some of you please explain how, say, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany were different in any aspect other than rhetoric? The refrain seen repeatedly on this talk page is that "Communism represents egalitarian ownership of the means of production by the people!" or some such. While that may be the rhetoric, it has never born out as the actual result. The same goes with Nazism--lofty rhetoric that results in abrasive tyranny.

It seems silly and frankly intellectually bankrupt to insist that Communism and Nazism were opposites just because they insisted they were, when it would be nigh impossible to tell the difference between the two absent the propaganda.

Communism: Everyone owns the property for the common good! (And then the Party takes your property) Nazism: You own the property, and we'll regulate it for the common good! (And then the government takes your property)

Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Mao's China are as different as 1984's Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. So really, is there a real difference aside from rhetoric? 204.111.250.207 (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)El Jefe

This is an article about the concept itself, so the underlying theory matters. The "practical" part is already covered in various historical articles. As this is an encyclopedia, it is important to represent these ideas accurately and concisely. And accounting for how fascists and communists see themselves in relation to each other is a part of ensuring such precision. Nobody would suggest that the complexities associated with the title Roman Emperor be reduced to the one-liner "autocrat in purple toga." 24.69.170.138 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nazism and Islam

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, who was an anti-Zionist Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. In the 2000s, some commentators have compared extreme Islamism to fascism, using the disputed term Islamofascism.

The first half of the paragraph is wrong. Collaboration implies that the mufti was involved in their activities, which he wasn't. He was trying to get money and materials from them, with some success. But that doesn't make him a fascist. Saddam managed to get money and materials from the west, but that didn't mean that he subscribed to our ideology. We were just useful to him at the time, and vice-versa.

The second half is true, but content free. It doesn't contain any useful information that wouldn't be covered by adding to the see also, which I will do. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

However, the mufti did help the Nazis recruit Bosnian Muslims into the Waffen-SS, the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian), which participated in counter-partisan activities.King Henry V 15:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Manachim Begin's Irgun got their first training in Italy under the ausipices of the Italian Fascist Navy. Zionist-Revisionism was in fact fascist, mimicing Fascists wearing Brown shirts and, beating up Jewish Communists.DavidMIA 08:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)dwaltersMIA

Between 1940 and 1941 Lehi proposed intervening in the Second World War on the side of Nazi Germany to attain their help in expelling Britain from Mandate Palestine and to offer their assistance in "evacuating" the Jews of Europe.[1] // Liftarn

There was actually a collaboration between Nazi Germany and Zionist Miltias in the Middle-East, the SS actually smuggled guns to the Haganah which included David Ben-Gurion. Streicher also said in the Nurenberg trials that the Jews were used as a model, in regards to racial laws. The Nazis actually identified more with the Jews than with Muslims.--Sviatoslav86 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, they I don't think they did. According to the Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs article, Goebbels said the following;

"You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity."

Granted, they had very little understanding of what the Muslim religion entailed (calling them "Mohammedans" should be a dead giveaway already). But based on their misunderstandings, they seemed to prefer it to Judaism - which they opposed as a race, not particularly caring what that race's religion might be. And I find it hard to believe that the SS would help a Zionist militia under any circumstances - not impossible, but hard to believe. Where did you hear about that?

As for the old accusations of cooperation between Nazis and Arab Muslims;

The Arabs of the time were under French and British colonial occupation, and Zionist militias were conducting terrorist activities against Arab civilians in Jerusalem and the area around it (call it Israel, Palestine, Canaan, the Holy Land or whatever you want). That made the Nazis the enemies of France and Britain, and also the Zionist militias because of their antisemitism. The Arabs liked the Nazis based on the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle, not because of any particular ideological leanings.

Geopolitics is based on common interests, not ideology. People who say Islam is fascistic because of Arabs who supported Hitler might as well say America is communist because we supported Stalin. 147.9.201.243 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union and China

Why are these two being deleted? It is a fact that "The term fascism is sometimes applied" to these authoritarian regimes. (JoeCarson 16:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

It's sometimes applied to the mayor of Derry's office. It is important to use some modicum of editorial judgement. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Be boring This is an encyclopedia. I want to remind editors here to restrain themselves when it comes to including in the article whatever their idiosyncratic research into fascism happens to be, whether that be the secret history of the Catholic church's involvement, that Roosevelt was a crypto-fascist, that communism is really fascism, or whatever it is this week. This isn't the place for it. Jkelly 20:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism is explicitly a nationalist ideology. The ideology of the Soviet Union and Communist China was/is explicitly internationalist. Fascism is also strongly linked with anti-communism. 'The term fascism is sometimes applied' as a catch-all political swear-word, about anyone the speaker/writer dislikes, which an encyclopedia should not encourage, IMHO. (edit conflict: I agree with Jkelly). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are only two criterions for listing some regime as fascist. It must be authoritarian and called by that name by someone. Soviet Union and China satisfy both. And paragraph is talking about the scope of the word "fascism"... -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to your criteria, Russia under Peter the Great was a fascist state. Steady on. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That only says that there is no point in listing all authoritarian regimes which are labeled as fascist by someone. -- Vision Thing -- 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. See the section below. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then whole list should be removed, and not just entries that you two don't like. -- Vision Thing -- 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<- I don't like including China and the USSR because it seems to me to make the term arbitrarily broad, in a way that is not true when describing (eg) Franco as a fascist (which I wouldn't, BTW). Fascism and authoritarianism are not synonyms. But, as you imply, the whole section is weasel-worded and citation-free, and needs trimming or citing. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This selection is from "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology" by Roger Griffin. Here he is describing why using most modern, "generic" (fascism as an ideology and not WWII Italy) definitions to call the Soviet Union and Communist China "fascist" is incorrect (even though he is referring to his own attempt at a minimal definition of fascism here he earlier described how his scholarly definition is considered by many the "norm").

"Other misgivings are more pardonable. Two arise directly from the attempt, practically unthinkable before the new consensus, to base a definition of fascism exclusively on its ideology, so bringing it in line with every other major political, social, and religious ‘ism’ of the modern age. I did not make sufficiently clear one corollary of this approach, namely that the ultra-nationalism has to be an explicit part of a regime’s official doctrine for it to fit my ideal type. The point has not been lost on some that every communist state from Russia and Romania to China and North Korea has not only preached the appearance of a new era, and a new man, but has behaved ultra-nationalistically in its foreign policy and social engineering. Yet even if in practice they have thus pursued a programme of ‘palingenetic ultranationalism’, this is far from qualifying them as fascist states in terms of my ideal type, because their charter myth remained officially Marxist-Leninist internationalism. In theory capitalism was in its death throes, not the nation. Socialism was the phoenix of the old order, not the nation."

This is pretty much Squiddy's opinion above just from an eminent scholar of fascism and totalitarian politics. - DNewhall 02:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons why this article has a POV tag is refusal of left leaning editors to accept Griffin's "consensus" definition of fascism. -- Vision Thing -- 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century By Gregor. A scholar of fascism who believes that Marxism in China and the Soviet Union was essentially fascist. (JoeCarson 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC))

Are you actually quoting Gregor? He's incredibly fringe. john k 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How long do we have to put up with this nonsense that fascism is left wing-and that communist regimes are (somehow) fascist? This appears to be nthing more than POV pushed by a couple of editors on this page, or reasons known only to themselves. Authoritarianism was a term coined to equate fascist and state communist societies(amongst others)-'authoritarian' does not equal fascist-no mater who slings the term around (as many do).Felix-felix 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely, I suppose. This article really just ranges from middling through embarassingly bad to incomprehensible, spending most of its time at "embarassingly bad". It's just the result of this page having a fascination for Larouchites / Anti-Catholic / Anarcho-Capitalists / other fringe group of the week rewriting the page from their POV, and there not being enough editors who both care about writing a encyclopedic summary of what mainstream experts say about fascism and have the energy to keep the article from degenerating into a screed. Frankly, if it's going to be written from a weird POV and be used as a platform to equate unrelated political ideologies with fascism, I'd rather that it be by Americans still fighting the cold war than some of the other ones we've seen here. Jkelly 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" equates fascist and communist sates, not "authoritarianism". -- Vision Thing -- 22:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"The term fascism is sometimes applied". That is the criteria for inclusion. If we are going to change it to "had many features in common with fascism", Pinochet at the very least should not be on the list and China (both then and today), Russia (Soviet era and today) and the US (New Deal and today) should all be on the list. (JoeCarson 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

I've reverted the edit about the USSR and China again-not only is this contested by all but 2 of the editors, but directly contradicts the intro and the following para. Please stop this fringe POV pushing.Felix-felix 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Vision Thing:

Would you be good enough to share with the rest of us the actual text (and some of the surrounding text) in the two sources you've cited that, in your mind, supports the assertion that the USSR & the PRC -- both of which were run by Communist Parties -- somehow come under the heading of "fascism"? A few words about the authors would be nice, too. Cgingold 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I second Cgingold's request. At the moment, the text is OK by me (indicating that the scope of the word is broad etc) IF these authors, or other serious authors, have used the term in this way. But it also seems to me completely ridiculous to call Stalinist regimes fascist, unless we accept a fairly meaningless attenuated definition of fascism as synonymous with authoritarianism and/or totalitarianism.BobFromBrockley 15:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending passage until this can be resolved.Felix-felix 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Tang Tsou says: Paradoxically, the program of the ultraleftists, which marked the culmination of the totalitarian tendency in the Chinese Communist movement, soon led not only to its total repudiation but, more significantly, also to sweeping historical reexamination by the current leaders. Mao's successors were forced to ask the fundamental question why a movement for class and human liberation had developed into one of the most oppressive systems in Chinese history – what the Chinese Communists call "feudal fascism."

Alfred D. Low quotes Chou Enlai: There followed a bitter denunciation by Chou of "the Soviet revisionist clique from Khrushchev to Brezhnev" that made a socialist country degenerate into a social-imperialist country. The ruling group "had restored capitalism, enforced a fascist dictatorship and enslaved people of all nationalities." -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These are quite interesting, but they only tell us that certain Chinese apparently have used the term on occasion -- though we don't really know just what it is they mean when they say "fascism". What's more important, though, is that neither example supports the assertion that there are credible scholars who regard either the USSR or the PRC as examples of fascism. In both cases, the authors are merely quoting the views of other people. If you've got something that really does the job, please, don't keep us waiting. (The suspense is killing me!) Cgingold 14:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is there a mention of "credible scholars". Only criteria is "sometimes applied", and the sources I provided support the claim that "fascism" is applied to Soviet Union and China. -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This might also be a good time to remember the shortcomings of academic translations (especially in a realm like political science). It's unlikely that Chinese communists go around actually using the phrase "feudal fascism" and whatever phrase they do use could easily be lost in translation since this is an English translation of a Chinese (I think) author who is in turn reporting on what other people have said. --mroconnell 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Author is born and raised Chinese, who received his Ph.D. in political science at University of Chicago. -- Vision Thing -- 15:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, to include the USSR and China as inaccurate examples of fascist regimes, it makes more sense for them to be in the second para-but frankly they have no place in the article at all.FelixFelix ^talk 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Deal

I've removed this spurious section, which appears to have been based on a quote by Ronald Reagan. State intervention in the economy is not fascism.FelixFelix ^talk 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Reagan is far from the only one. President Hoover talking about the New Deal said, "I tried to show him that this stuff was pure fascism; that it was a remaking of Mussolini's "corporate state" -Herbert Hoover. Alot of politicians around that time admired fascism and the New Deal was American version of it. For example, US Conferssman Milford Howard said "I want to go on record at the beginning of this unpretentious book by avowing my faith in Benito Mussolini, Italy's great premier, and Fascism, the child of his marvelous brain, as the highest expression of a pragmatic philosophy of government..."Anarcho-capitalism 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism. Corporatism is characterized by a high degree of state intervention in the economy. It just doesn't require the nationalism and militarism of fascism. The New Deal doesn't deserve its own section but FDR's government certainly warrants a mention in the first paragraph of this section.

(JoeCarson 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

You are correct in saying corporatism is a defining characteristic of fascism and you seem to be using corporatism mostly correctly. However, that section sounded almost overtly POV. If the section was rewritten in a more NPOV tone it could possibly be included. For example, the line "Some aspects of the Roosevelts New Deal were labeled as fascist." is very vague and seems to be almost intentionally so to be weasel-y. Did FDR call the New Deal fascist or use fascist models? Do scholars call the New Deal fascist and are those scholars reputable and/or neutral? Etc. - DNewhall 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of reputable scholars say the New Deal was fascist, largely from the Austrian School of economics. As far as "neutral" I don't know, but, is there such a thing as a "neutral" scholar?Anarcho-capitalism 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The passive tense is not anybody's friend. To say that conservative opponents of Roosevelt labelled the New Deal as fascist (or, alternately, communist!) is true, and perhaps should be mentioned somewhere. It is going a good deal further to say that "reputable scholars" have made this claim. What are these people scholars of? I would posit that they were not scholars of fascism. john k 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe Rothbard and Mises were sufficiently prolific to be considered scholars of fascism, and both men would certainly have considered the New Deal fascist.

(JoeCarson 20:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I don't see how two economists can be seen as scholars of fascism, a political movement with no clear or consistent economic program. john k 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard and Mises were more than economists. Their breadth of knowledge would qualify them as historians as well.

(JoeCarson 12:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Says who? I've never seen mainstream historians or political scientists quote them as authorities on fascism. Generally, any work I've read on fascism treats the Vienna School interpretation as obviously specious, and dismisses it in a few words, or simply ignores it. john k 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wolfgang Schivelbusch in Three New Deals writes:

The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip.

He also quotes from Hitler in his book

He told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Will Transcends the Interest of the Individual".

If Hitler thinks you're a fascist, you're probably a fascist. (JoeCarson 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Right, because everything Hitler said was motivated by his sincere desire to speak the truth as he saw it ... a man utterly beyond any desire to manipulate or misrepresent ...

I think the key issue here is to distinguish between two really different issues: first, "fascism" in popular perception which means how people use the word "fascist" in general discourse, (the Reagen quote goes here if anywhere) 0n the one hand, and the scholarly analysis of Fascism on the other hand. Some scholars of fascism see it as one form of corporatism and argue that corporatism was a dominant political response to the global economic crisis of the 1930s. Populism (e.g.Juan Peron in Argentina, Velazco-Ibara in Ecuador) and the New Deal (in the US0 are other forms ofcorporatism but responding, at least in part, to the samechallenges fascism - thatother form of corporatism - was responding to. here, discussin the similarities and differences between fascism, populism, and the New Deal as different (NB diffeent) forms of the same broad phenomenon, corporatism, helps place Fascim in its historical context in part by putting it in a comparative-politics perspective. I think that the article must provide a good account of these scholarly discussions. But they are categorically different from Reagan or anyone else calling Roosevelt or the New Deal "fascist."Slrubenstein | Talk 13:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, Hitler doesn't count because he was bad. And what of the scholar who wrote the book? Clearly, the New Deal and FDR's administration had much in common with fascist policy in both Italy and Germany. It is appropriate to examine both the similarities and differences but it is biased to exclude the New Deal when Hitler himself viewed it as fascist and many scholars of fascism view it as essentially fascist. It is laughable to exclude the New Deal when Pinochet is included. Did Pinochet ever express admiration for Mussolini? Wikipedia is here to allow users to educate themselves and we cannot accomplish this when editors are ignorant about the topics they write about. (JoeCarson 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Hitler is not a reliable source on the New Deal, surely? That there were similarities between the New Deal and fascist administration does not mean that the New Deal is fascism. Fascism is defined by particular characteristics. Most of those characteristics (extreme nationalism and anti-liberalism, particularly) are not to be found in the New Deal, even if others (corporatism) are found to some extent. As to the list with Pinochet, that's an example of mission creep, where a sentence originally about regimes of the interwar period that have been called fascist somehow expanded to include Brezhnev and Mao and Pinochet. I removed that part of the discussion, and added Pinochet in instead alongside Suharto, as a recent dictatorship which tends to be called "fascist" only by opponents. I also removed Peron, although I wasn't sure that was appropriate, but he was clearly from a later period than the others, and really a different phenomenon, I think. john k 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the New Deal is called fascist by its opponents, and deserves mention as an interwar regime that is often called fascist. The Soviet Union and China also deserve mention as postwar regimes that are sometimes called fascist. (JoeCarson 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

There is a lot of popular currency for calling any right wing dictatorship "fascist," even if it doesn't have much currency among scholars. On the other hand, there is very little currency anywhere for calling the Soviet Union or the PRC (although Chiang's ROC has certainly been so described) or the New Deal fascist. The comparison has certainly been made, but it is in no way comparable to the same kind of statements about Pinochet or Metaxas or Salazar or whatever. You are trying to obscure the basic fact that it is very common to describe any right wing authoritarian as "fascist." This fact should be clearly presented with relevant examples. If you want to add business about people having compared these other regimes to fascism, add it somewhere else. But the basic fact is that the vast majority of both scholarly and popular understandings of fascism would specifically exclude both a non-authoritarian movement like the New Deal and Marxist-Leninist regimes from their definitions of fascism. One can disagree with the scholarly and popular understandings, but we should still present them clearly and fairly, and not mix it up with fringe right wing political theory. This is clearly an issue where due weight comes into play, not to mention general desire to express ourselves clearly. john k 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not on what all leftists know. -- Vision Thing -- 12:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It is surely verifiable that it has been a very common line on the left to call pretty much any right wing authoritarian regime "fascist." This usage is not merely that of the far left (which also tends to do things like call social democracy fascist), but also of the moderate left. Whether or not one believes that Salazar or Pinochet or Metaxas was a fascist (personally, I do not think this is a useful term to describe their regimes, and I think most scholars would agree), this usage is a historically significant and important one, it has strongly influenced a broader public understanding of what "fascism" is that goes well beyond those who would self-identify as being on the left, and it should be highlighted and mentioned in the article. The article should not, of course, imply that this usage is correct, but it is widespread enough that it ought to be mentioned. Claims that the Soviet Union or the New Deal were fascist have been made only by very tiny groups, and have had no effect on popular understanding of the term "fascism." As such, they are not significant, and mentioning them in the same breath as the very common description of various authoritarian right wing regimes as fascist is both a problem of clarity and one of due weight. john k 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the section to mention other regimes that have been called fascist, not "somewhere else". Many liberal scholars of fascism consider fascist and Communist states to be quite similar and have referred to Communist regimes as fascist. Furthermore, among American presidents FDR was second only to Lincoln in his authoritarianism. You are trying to obscure these facts. It is important to point out that most authoritarian regimes that are considered right-wing are called fascist, but it is also important to point out that many regimes often considered left-wing have also been called fascist. (JoeCarson 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

And in this case, they are not called fascist by right-wingers, but by their fellow comrades. -- Vision Thing -- 12:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering communism and fascism to be similar is not at all the same thing as considering communism to be fascist. Totalitarianism is a theory that asserts certain similarities between fascist and communist regimes, but it does not assert that fascist regimes ought to be called communist, or vice versa. The idea that there are similarities is a common one. The idea that those similarities make it appropriate to describe communist regimes as fascist is not. This is not the same issue at all. As to FDR being second to Lincoln in authoritarianism, that's neither here nor there. As to what "fellow comrades" say, that is exactly the problem. That Stalinists called Social Democrats "social fascists," or that social democrats, in return, called Stalinists fascists, was always simply a polemical tool in an intestine conflict within the left. These usages never gained any traction, and basically the nuances of such usage do little more than mark anybody who use them as being a devotee of some particular leftist splinter cell. On the other hand, the much broader usage of "fascist" to refer to any right wing authoritarian movement is quite mainstream. It probably isn't right, but it is much more significant than some arcane struggles between Fourth International Trotskyists and Fifth International Trotskyists who call each other fascists in order to taint the other guy as not real Trotskyists. Perhaps the latter phenomenon can be mentioned somewhere, but it's not at all the same thing as the other. john k 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to add the reasons for the New Deal being considered fascist, we must add reasons for all the regimes in this section. (JoeCarson 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Recent edits continue to muddy the waters. It is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Adam Curtis of the BBC, FDR believed that the Great Depression had shown that "laissez faire capitalism could no longer run industrial economies. It had become the job of the government." His new policies grabbed the attention of the Third Reich, especially Joseph Goebbels.

Goebbels: "I am very interested in social developments in America. I believe that President Roosevelt has chosen the right path. We are dealing with the greatest social problems ever known. Millions of unemployed must get their jobs back. And this cannot be left to private initiative. It is the government that must tackle the problem."[2]

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.24.233 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So; FDR's economic policies make him a fascist.

I'm curious. When did FDR abolish unions? The right to collective bargaining? When did FDR pass laws requiring the consent of the previous employer before a worker could get a new job? When did FDR's economic policies cause real wages to drop by 25% between 1933 and 1939? R2Parmly (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to RFC:

The New deal was socialism, not fascism. You could, however, mention the Regan comment as an example of "fascism" being used used as a negative word to insult a political policy. Something like "People have at times have used the word 'fascism' to cast a negative light on political policies, for example Reagan said... blah blah blah..."futurebird 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Statism and Collectivism

In the intro, we currently have both these terms-which makes one of them redundant. To my mind, statism is the more accurate term, but one of them should definately go.Any ideas?FelixFelix ^talk 18:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the redundancy? These terms are orthogonal, though an instance of one is usually accompanied by the other.

(JoeCarson 18:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

I think both are redundent if authoritarianism and totalitarianism are in there. Statism is a factor in authoritarianism and totalitarianism covers collectivism. Plus, the concept of totalitarianism was given its name by the Italian Fascists. - DNewhall 18:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism doens't have to be collectivist. Collectivism is part of the fascist ethic. The rulers advocate that individuals renounce self-interest and work for the good of the collective - the state or race. The collective becomes more important than the individual and the individuals exists as a means to serve the collective. Facism is antithetical to individualism and militates against it. Collectivism is opposite of individualism. Also, the source lists statism, antiauthoritarianism, and collectivism separately.Anarcho-capitalism 18:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

DNewhall makes a good point; authoritarianism and totalitarianism cover all the bases and then some. Totalitarianism forces the people into collectivism. (JoeCarson 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC))

Statism is "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry" [3] Anarcho-capitalism 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do totalitarianism and authoritarianism imply collectivism and statism? If they do and we still include the two latter terms, we are being redundant but accurate. However, if they do not and we do not include those terms, we are not being accurate. (JoeCarson 12:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC))

Seems to me that statism is a form of collectivism in which the state is the collective, so collectivism is a little redundant. Might as well drop it. Totalitarianism, following, is a form of statism. So, keep authoritarianism and totalitarianism as neither are necessary components of the other. But drop collectivism and statism, because totalitarianism is the most specific type of both. There may be a little disagreement over whether totalitarianism is necessarily statist, but it seems so to me. ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems sensible-the intro and defining features should be short and punchy.FelixFelix ^talk 10:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Collectivism is a philosophical position. It's not necessary that a totalitarian or authoritarian is based upon the philosophy of collectivism. How about a source? "Collectivism does not necessarily mean totalitarianism." -Ralp George Hawtrey, Economic Destiny, p. 187. It is true that most totalitarian regimes we have seen preached collectivism, but it's not a necessary definitional condition that they do. For example, a regime could justify their totalitarianism on religion - that God wants this. Anarcho-capitalism 16:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that collectivism does not necessarily mean totalitarianism-but its the reverse that we're arguing, that totalitarianism is necessarily a form of collectivismn (for whatever stated reason)-thus all totalitarian systems are, by definition collectivist, if you like-thus 'totalitarian' in the intro makes 'collectivist' redundant. How about appending your citation to 'totalitarian'?FelixFelix ^talk 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An illustration of this point; "Totalitarianism is collectivism." The Only Path To Tomorrow by Ayn Rand [4], not really my cup of tea, but it makes the point. My feeling is that the intro should be punchy, so the interested reader could quickly and accurately get a feel for what fascism was all about. The more terms we put into the intro, the harder that is, so I reckon that redundant terms should be pruned out.FelixFelix ^talk 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not understanding that essay. She's not saying that totalitarian regimes are collectivist by definition. Rather, her claim is that all totalitarian regimes in history were justified on upon the collectivist philosophy. If you want to get to what fascism was "all about," then collectivism is essential. Fascism is essentially a philosophy - a philosophy that states that the individual should serve the collective, whether it's the state or, as in Nazism, the race. Mussolini spoke harshly against individualism.Anarcho-capitalism 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you're understanding my point-no-one is trying to deny that fascism was anti-individualist. Totalitarianism is by definition collectivist-do you know of any totalitarian systems which were philosophically or practically not collectivist? As Switch said above totalitarianism is a specific form of collectivism, and, as such the term totalitarianism in the intro makes 'collectivism' redundant. This is what Rand is talking about in her essay, I don't really see why your use of the word 'justified' (rather than, say, 'based on' or 'founded in') makes any actual difference, or if you could possibly demonstrate that it does. Or indeed, if you could defend that interpretation of the text in the first place.FelixFelix ^talk 18:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not seeing that collectivism is a philosophy - the belief that the group is more important that the individual - that self-interest should be put aside in order to further the interests of the group - whether that's a nation, state, race, or social class (i.e. anti-individualism). Totalitarianism is not a philosophy but a state of affairs. Collectivism is said to be the philosophy upon which totalitarianism is premised. You can't begin to understand fascism without understanding its philosophical foundations as distinct from its actions.Anarcho-capitalism 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New Deal, again

A) How is it POV to say that Roosevelt's America was not authoritarian? In what way was America in the 30s authoritarian? There were free elections and respect for civil liberties. Given the number of actual authoritarian regimes in the 1930s, the idea that the US was authoritarian at this time is absurd, and it is not POV to mention this, since it is undisputed.

B) Is it actually accurate to say that the New Deal is normally perceived as "left wing"? The United States in the 30s had more of an actual Socialist and Communist left than at pretty much any other time - certainly than in any later time. And the relationship of those groups to FDR and the New Deal was, well, complicated. I'm not convinced that any of them would have accepted it as left wing. In a world where the far left was represented by the Soviet Union and the Comintern, it seems problematic to describe the reform liberal corporatism of the New Deal as "left wing", or as being generally perceived as such. It was obviously perceived that way by conservatives in America. But that's different.

C) I'd also like for somebody to check and see if the source cited actually calls the New Deal fascist, and if so, if it qualifies as a reliable source. I am highly dubious that any actual scholar would say the New Deal is fascist, rather than merely that it shared certain characteristics with fascism. john k 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Page 190 of the edition of the book that we are citing in the article says no such thing. This is trivially verified -- amazon.com has a "Search Inside" feature for that edition. Jkelly 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's remove the whole damned thing, then. john k 05:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson.

p. 18

He also quotes from Mussolini who found the New Deal

"reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"

p. 23

...the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip"

p. 190

Go to the library and check it out for yourself. (JoeCarson 11:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

"reminiscent" "strains of thought"This is simply not good enough. Ridiculuous POV nonsense.FelixFelix ^talk 13:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic will come up again and again and again as it has over the years. I continue to insist that to effectively comply with NPOV, it is important to distinguish the views of a range of political actors (e.g. Reagan, Hitler) from the views of a range of scholars. Also, we do need to be clear on the different ways scholars sometimes classify fascism as one type of authoritarian regime, and sometimes as a type of corporatist regime. NPOV is not just abour including different views, but also providing enough context to understand the different kinds of views and differences between views. This leads us away from simplistic and fundamentally stupid claims that "The New Deal was fascist" to the kinds of claims encyclopedias ought to have: "Some politicians have associated the New Deal with fascism in order to ...." and "Some scholars have called attention to the following similarities between the New Deal and fascism in order to ..." i.e. claims that are clearly situated and help better educate the reader rather than just push a certain POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make a practical suggestion so as to avoid a tedious revert war with (Joe. We should either have a section called "Fascism as a form of corporatism" whcih provides non-fascist examples of corporatism and explains Fascism's place among them, or we should have a specifically historical section that addresses how Fascism was one of a variety of statist responses to the economic challenges of the 1930s. The quote about the New Deal would belong in either one of these sections, but obviously it has no place in a section on authoritarianism. I have made two proposals - they are worth discussing a couple of days before acting on them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A separate section on fascism and corporatism would be a great, but is it appropriate to include here rather than in the Economics of fascism article? As for authoritarianism, FDR was quite authoritarian for an American president, though he was not as successful in this regard as Mussolini or Hitler. (JoeCarson 16:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

"not as successful in this regard" suggests that it was FDR's goal to establish a state like the Third Reich. I don't think that most scholars would accept such a claim. This is particularly rich given that actual fascistic elements in the United States - like Father Coughlin, or the German American Bund - invariably detested Roosevelt. john k 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FDR was not as successful in gaining power for himself. I do not believe he wished to model the on US Nazi Germany. Mussolini and Hitler's admiration for FDR is more relevant than the scorn of fascists in the US. To claim otherwise, that's rich. (JoeCarson 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

The "admiration" which Hitler and Mussolini expressed for FDR has a lot more to do with their desire to obtain approval from Americans of their regimes than it does with any actual affinity of the New Deal for fascism. They were saying these things to try to convince American visitors that their regimes were more or less similar to Roosevelt's, and thus to garner sympathy. Little value should be attached to these as analytical statements. john k 20:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, who has actually checked out the source? The quotes are pretty clear. Shivelbusch (along with Hitler and Mussolini) considered the New Deal to be fascist. Corporatism is implied in one of the quotes. So what about that statement in the article is wrong? (JoeCarson 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Schivelbusch did not consider the New Deal to be fascist. His book argues that there are similarities between the New Deal and fascism, but, so far as I can tell, does not argue that those similarities make the New Deal "fascist." There is a difference. john k 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the book. (JoeCarson 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

Why should I read the book, when the available summaries of it directly contradict your claims, and you have yet to provide a single quotation in which Schivelbusch calls the New Deal fascist? john k 02:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Inserting "even" before the USSR and China implies that the editor disagrees with this. It's fine to state that many scholars see important differences, but we should of course prevent the editor's POV from being obvious. (JoeCarson 13:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, a broad description of fascist regimes can 'even' include communist ones-'even' as fascism is explicitly anticommunist. It's not weasel words, and the sentence doesn't make proper sense without it. Frankly, I think that even including them is pretty POV. We could always remove them altogether.FelixFelix ^talk 13:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page is not here to foist marxist propaganda on the reader. The sentence is fine w/o this weasel word. (JoeCarson 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, it makes little sense without it-according to our intro, fascism is anti-communist-thus 'even' is a necessary word, assuming of course, that we keep these dubious examples at al.FelixFelix ^talk 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most scholars would lump Naziism and Stalanism together as forms of totalitarianism, but distinguish between them in that Fascism and socialism/communism were actually competing and in conflict. This is not propaganda, it is good social science. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, most scholars do not accept "totalitarianism" as a valid frame of comparison. Some scholars would lump them together as totalitarian, and others would merely say that they are similar in their authoritarianism, and that totalitarianism is a flawed concept. What almost nobody would do is say that Stalinism is fascist, which is I think where we agree. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Felix, Communist states were not communist. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, we are not talking here about scholar views about fascism/socialism/communism, but about labeling some regimes as "fascist" by their opponents. -- Vision Thing -- 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Then do we have to mention Social Democracy as "fascist" as well? And Liberalism? Just about everything has occasionally been called fascist by their opponents. But the tradition of calling right wing authoritarian regimes "fascist" is a much stronger one than that of calling liberals or social democrats or communists "fascists." john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The last part of the sentence makes it clear that most scholars make important distinctions. Adding "even" makes it clear what the editors belief is. The sentence makes it clear that some definitions of fascism are broad, cites two examples of how broad, and mentions that most scholars see important distinctions to be made between these examples and the archetypal forms of fascism. Even is superfluous in this context. (JoeCarson 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

No, the sentence is not making a stance on any issue it is simply saying that the Soviet Union and PRC are included in such definitions if the reader believes them not to be (which, since we are referring to communist regimes here in an article on fascism, makes sense). - DNewhall 18:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is not making a stance on any issue as it currently reads. However, the inclusion of "even" makes it clear what the editors stance is. (JoeCarson 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

How so? As I've said above it does not and only helps to clarify the point. - DNewhall 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I like the current version of the section, if we unhide the first paragraph and add the New Deal. I don't seen any weasel words in there and it separates name-calling among the USSR and China from scholarly works. (JoeCarson 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I think "even" is a natural thing to include, given that, as others have noted, explicitly fascist regimes are virulently anti-communist, and this is generally considered a key trait of fascism more broadly. As such, the word "even" seems more or less necessary. john k 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. I have a proposal. Why don't we just let Joe have his way on this. I know, the rest of us are having conniptions over this, but what's the worst that could happen? Consider the likely results, in terms of how this material would be perceived by readers:

Yes, it's no doubt true that a small minority of less-educated readers will simply accept the idea that the regimes in the USSR & PRC were both Communist and fascist, as a statement of fact. But not to worry, they will be vastly outnumbered by all of the other readers -- who will either, A) feel confused and stupid, assuming that the cause of their inability to make sense of things resides between their own ears, or B) feel confused and exasperated, blaming the whole thing on Wikipedia, which clearly is an unreliable source, just like they've always heard.

Now, that's a win-win situation, wouldn't you say?

Cgingold 13:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confident that all uneducated yet open-minded and curious readers will recognize the similarities between fascism and Communism upon further study. Those who are not curious probably wouldn't come here anyway. Those who are open-minded and educated will already understand the similarities. So I am for including these referenced portions of the section. (JoeCarson 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Dubious source

"In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson." Really? So FDR suspended human rights and the right to habeas corpus, arrested his leftwing opponents and bribed/coerced his centrist opponents to gain a suspension of the constitution, then abolished all other political parties, abolished the States, andfinally assassinated his opponents in the Democratic party?

I find it hard to believe this is a serious academic source. The comparison is obviously ridiculous.--Triglyph 14:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Similarity does not equal 100% congruity. (JoeCarson 16:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Non-sequitor. You have not responded in any weay to Triglyph's comment.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The process was similar, as the quote states. The final outcome was different, but the quote does not address this directly. Triglyph is comparing the outcomes of the extra power. (JoeCarson 16:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

I believe the process was not similar, and I believe that was precisely Triglyph's point. What exactly was this "similar process?" What makes it similar? And according to whom? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of human rights, habeus corpus, etc. are consequences of the process, although these and other actions were part of the process to gain more power. I don't feel like writing any more quotes from the book right now, but (one of) the whom is Shivelbusch. (JoeCarson 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

How does that make it fascist, though?FelixFelix ^talk 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What process, exactly, was similar? Even interpreting this narrowly, the idea that anything FDR did was very much like the Enabling Act is ridiculous. The book description of Shivelbusch suggests that he does not, in fact, feel that the New Deal was Fascist: "Far from equating Roosevelt, Hitler, and Mussolini or minimizing their acute differences, Schivelbusch proposes that the populist and paternalist qualities common to their states hold the key to the puzzling allegiance once granted to Europes most tyrannical regimes." I don't think anyone would disagree that there were similarities (although there would certainly be disagreement on how important they are). But that those similarities are what constitutes "fascism" is an argument I don't think anyone serious would make or has made. john k 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

His recognition that they were not the same does not negate the fact that they were very similar. I'm sure any scholar of fascism would recognize profound differences between the German and Italian variants, but these are both still considered fascist by most. This section is about regimes that have been called fascist. Most of the other regimes don't even have a reference. This one has a reference that points to the work of a scholar and two arch-fascists pointing out the similarities with fascism. If you were to apply your standards to all regimes in the section, the section would not exist. (JoeCarson 11:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

To my mind, the section is supposed to be about governments which are widely held to be fascist. That some people think that a particular goverment is fascist is not necessarily enlightening or notable. I think you'll find far more descriptions of the current US administration being fascist, than FDR's administration (and alot for the current UK government too... ). I don't think that this is a difficult concept to grasp.FelixFelix ^talk 12:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current US administration should be listed as a regime which is often called fascist. But if we are only to include those regimes which are widely held to be fascist, then the list certainly needs some pruning. I am going to hide this section until we can agree on a NPOV rewrite. (JoeCarson 14:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

I don't see why the list has to be hidden whilst the aforementioned pruning occurs-I'll reveal it now.FelixFelix ^talk 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Carson-is there any reason you wish to smear FDR and the New Deal?

Spain

I do not know of the historical sources that claim Tojo's Japan was fascist, and woul dlike to know what they are. However, I think there is overwhelming agreement among historians that Franco's Spain was fascist - it was authoritarian if not totalitarian, relied on a highly exclusionary kind of nationalism, and was corporatist. I see no justification for removing the example, if anything we should add much more material on Spain. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who suggested removing Spain? I thought Franco's fascism was widely accepted. I know my family experienced it first hand. (JoeCarson 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

There is certainly not "overwhelming agreement" that Franco's Spain was fascist. It certainly included many fascist elements, and the Falange was clearly a fascist movement in the 30s, but I would say that the general consensus is that Francoism does not really conform all that well to the ideal type of fascism represented by Italian Fascism and German National Socialism in the 20s and 30s. It relied too much on traditional conservatism, and, notably, Franco himself was a general, not a party leader. Certainly Franco's movement owed a lot to Fascism, and it is often considered to be fascist in non-specialist works, but I'd say that if you look at books on comparative fascism, Franco's Spain is considered a hybrid at best, like Antonescu's regime in Romania. As to Tojo, I would say that no specialists would call 1930s and 40s Japan fascist, but that in more popular literature, it, along with just about every other right wing authoritarian movement of the period, has been considered to be fascist, and sometimes called such. I think Barrington Moore uses Japan as his case study on fascism in Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, for instance. The Fascist connections are obviously far weaker for Japan than they are for Franco's Spain, however, where the influence of genuine fascist tendencies is much more universally acknowledged. But actually describing Franco's regime as a "fascist" one is certainly not universally accepted. john k 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think these comparisons are valuable but the article is currently not organized in a way to facilitate effective presentation of these scholarly debates. What do you suggest? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Although this was certainly a dominant theme of German National Socialism, it wasn't in Italian Fascism for example, so I've removed it from the defining characteristics of fascism in the intro.FelixFelix ^talk 07:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry does not seem to be dedicated to the narrow meaning of "fascism" (i.e., Mussolini's brand) but to the broader movement that included the Spanish Falangistas, the French, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc. nationalist/existentialist movements of the 30s. Broadly speaking, Fascism was anti-semitic. In addition, it is undeniable that Italian Fascism had a streak of xenofobia and nationalism in it, which if it did not extinguish the tiny Italian Jewish community, as the Germans did, it is doubtful that had the Axis won the war it would've not done it, too. In conclusion, the distinction is specious and in the given context, narroly casuistic. --Damis 19:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference for fascism being broadly anti-semitic? A separate section on the German form should certainly include this, but I do not believe anti-semitism was a defining quality of fascism. (JoeCarson 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

I'd say no. After doing a cursory search through the books I have and some papers the closest I've seen is Richard Griffiths who argues that while not inherently racist or anti-semitic (Fascism, pg. 3) it was the policy of many fascist movements and therefore, when looking at fascism from an international perspective, becomes something we can ascribe to fascism because it was such a common policy (ibid, pg. 133-136). However, Eatwell, Griffin, Passmore, and others argue against this thinking (using Italian Fascism and Salazar's Estado Novo as common influential counter examples). If it's to be included it should be something along the lines of "Most scholars reject the argument that anti-semitism or racism is a defining characteristic of fascism, however, there is a portion that argue that since it was a common enough policy it should be included in the definition for practical purposes". - DNewhall 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can an exception test (and confirm) the rule? I always thought that the answer was yes. Fascism was, by and large, antisemitic. German, French, Scandinavian, Romanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Austrian (need I continue) brands of fascism were strongly and murderously antisemitic. If you want to qualify the statement you might probably say "While there were some regimes that did not practice overt anti-semitism (e.g., Italian or Spanish), most fascist movements have practiced various forms of antisemitism, from genocidal policies to discriminatory legislations." As for antisemitism in Mussolini's Italy see [5] --Damis 01:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of British people are white, but that does not mean that being white is an inherent part of the definition of a British person. Many fascist movements did adopt antisemitism at some stage, but this was rather a common expression of their palingenetic ultra-nationalism than a defining feature in itself. It so happened that Jews were a convenient and relatively uniquitous minority in 1930s Europe, and so proved an easy outlet and scapegoat for many fascists. As noted above, Italian Fascism, which it is fair to say was the founding and defining fascist movement, established itself in a country with relevatively few Jews and only implemented antisemitic legislation after 16 years in power (and under Nazi duress). Similarly, the main British fascist movement, the BUF, was founded without antisemitism as part of its programme, and this only developed later, in part as a desperate measure to gain support, and in part as a result of Jewish opposition to the BUF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.178.172 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectivism

As this is covered by Totalitarianism,as discussed above [6], I've removed it from the intro. There's no point having multiple redundant characteristics in the intro, which should be punchy and to the point.FelixFelix ^talk 07:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As Anarcho-capitalism explained it, it's not redundant. -- Vision Thing -- 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Collectivism is a philosophy that the group, the collective, is more important than the individual and that self-interest should be put aside in favor of promoting the interest of the collective - whether it is a nation, race, state, or social class. Totalitarianism is not a philosophy but a state of affairs. All totalitarianism is not necessarily based in the philosophy of collectivism. The fascist form of totalitarianism, however, always is. (Also, not all totalitarianism is fascism).Anarcho-capitalism 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ALL totalitarianism is necessarily based on collectivism-how can it not be? Can you provide any examples which are not, in philosophy or practice? As such, it's a type of collectivism-thus making that term in the intro redundant.FelixFelix ^talk 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I can easily conceive of a totalitarian regime based on religion - subservience to God rather than subservience to the group - that God simply commanded this form of government. But, fascism is always based on the philosophy of subservience of the individual to a collective, whether that's a race, nation, state, or social group.Anarcho-capitalism 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase you-totalitarianism is always based on the philosophy of subservience of the individual to a collective, whether that's a race, nation, state, or social group. Your religious totalitarian regime would have to have subservience to God AND the group, or it would be individualist, and thus not totalitarian.FelixFelix ^talk 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if that were true that "all totalitarianism is necessarily based in collectivism," the philosophy of collectivism is distinct from the state-enforced adherence to that philosophy. That's even implicit in your assertion.Anarcho-capitalism 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the philosophy (if you can call it that) of collectivism is much wider than the practice of totalitarianism-which is a specific form, as I've said before.FelixFelix ^talk 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if totalitarianism isn't always collectivist - which it seems to be - statism is, no? We should include the specific terms, not the incredibly broad "collectivism" and "individualism" whih together incorporate everything. Anyhow, when can totalitarianism not be collectivist? Totalitarianism is about the acts of the state, which are always based on the importance of some collective rather than the individual. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An Islamic theocracy would be totalitarian but not based in collectivism. The philosophy behind it is not sacrifice of self-interest for a collective but for Allah. Collectivism is usually what's used to justify statism, but not always. What links all forms of totalitarianism, though, is the idea that there is some "greater good" than self-interest - whether that greater good is a a state, a race, or a god. If you can convince people of that, you can manipulate and exploit them.Anarcho-capitalism 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. It's a big thing to separate the "individual," "god," from the collective, the religion or church. Especially so when you're separating a metaphysical concept from a physical organisation. Regardless of that though, because either way would constitute OR, can statism not be collectivist? ~Switch ^{t c g} 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism and the political right

The discussion continues. "most scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements." this is a defensible statement, easily documented, and discussed repeatedly here on this page and on other Wiki pages.--Cberlet 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with adding that statement, but we shouldn't begin the intro with it. (JoeCarson 21:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Apart from being riddled with weasel words ("who are those most"), this statement is not defensible. If this article is going to talk about "fascism in its broadest sense," and not just Italian fascism, then France is a good second place to look. Robert Soucy acknowledges that are two "Schools" of researchers of French fascism (the others rallying around Sternhell), and it basically boils down to the question if Croix-de-Feu is fascist or not. Intangible2.0 21:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian obscure marginal citation contest is distorting this entry

The insertion of absurdly obscure citations to suggest that most major scholars of fascism agree with the increasingly distorted list of common features of fascism must be jolly fun if it is a contest, but for an encyclopedia, it is creating a biased and distorted entry. The issue is what most major scholars of fascism consider core elements. I am sure if I dug through obscure citations I could find equally absurd things to add to the list, but it would not make the entry accurate nor NPOV. We really need to discuss this troubling new pattern of edits.--Cberlet 03:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And so we should rely on the more catholic interpretation of the socialist saturated academia? Perhaps it is not a contest, but you certainly give the impression as if you've already won and are annoyed at others continuing the race. You see, thinking and interpretation never cease, and perhaps more and more people are beginning to realize a basic reality - there are resources and there are those who control them. The control can be fluid and voluntary or they can be ordered by those with power. And while there can be jolly fun in making theoretical differences between ideologies, there is a basic principle that interaction can be free and voluntary, or there can be coercion and force. Regardless of what you call it, Statism is Socialism, the fight then is just between which axiomatic set of beliefs endows the righteous to coerce. Those who tend to quibble the most with the burgeoning libertarian interpretations tend to be Statists who resent the implication the THEIR brand of thuggery is somehow co-equal with others.--12.28.101.34 (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropraiteness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

National Socialism

The mediation request was closed becasue not all listed editors agreed to the mediation. We still need to have a discussion about the continuous redirect of National Socialism and National socialism to Nazism instead of National Socialism (disambiguation); and the continuous insertion of claims concerning the term and its use, especially in the lead, but also elsewhere. This discussion is best held at Nazism so we can all, literally, be on the same page. I invite editors of this page to participate. Thanks. --Cberlet 15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Fascism and Nazism forms of Socialism?

Please take part in the current vote to rename the Nazism entry to National Socialism. See: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. This is part of a longstanding dispute that goes back at least to 2004, in which some editors argue that Fascism and/or Nazism are merely a variety of Socialism. This is the view of a small number of libertarian/Free Market authors, and an even smaller subset of authors on the left. I argue that a majority of scholars reject this formulation, but this is being challenged on a number of pages. In addition, several editors have started redirecting [[National Socialism and National socialism away from National Socialism (Disambiguation) to Nazism, which they are attempting to rename National Socialism, as part of this larger campaign to suggest Nazism is Socialism. If you are interested in the outcome of this vote and the larger discussion, please visit: Talk:Nazism#Requested_move. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the question is no, and we have dealt with this ad nauseum before. It is time to treat these kinds of arguments the way people at the Evolution page deal with creationists. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people are still falling for fascist populist propaganda in the year 2007 is a bit depressing. Of course there was no greater anti socialist force than fascism. socialists were their first victims and collective control of state and industry were the opposite of what fascism created. furthermore, capitalists and elites were more accepting of fascism than trade unions.

The answer is undoubtedly yes, but this should have no bearing on the title for that article.JoeCarson 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini clearly stated:

• "We cannot confiscate the property of landlords; we are fascists, not socialists." [source: Weiss, John. The Fascist Tradition. Harper & Row, 1967. page 91]

Italian fascists never called themselves socialists. The application of the term "socialism" to Italian fascism is done exclusively by outside sources, usually libertarian or conservative. -- Nikodemos 22:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So Hitler doesn't count?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Adolf Hitler

JoeCarson 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just proven that different fascists made different and often contradictory statements on the subject of socialism. (By the way, that quote was not even necessary - we already know that Hitler called himself a "National Socialist"). There are likewise numerous quotes by fascists saying they support private property and free enterprise, and numerous quotes by fascists saying they want to impose restrictions on private property and free enterprise. Does that make sense? No. And that's the whole point. Some fascist views do not, in fact, make sense. -- Nikodemos 23:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So is Nikodemos going to reply that just because the NAZI's called it socialism that it wasn't? That would ruin his argument that since Mussolini said it was not socialism that it wasn't. When it comes down to it it doesn't matter what those leaders said. The systems were what they were. I don't know how anyone can deny that they were both socialism. Property was controlled by the state for social good. Billy Ego 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So you disagree with Mussolini? Interesting. I thought you were a fascist. -- Nikodemos 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do disagree with Mussolini. I don't know how he was defining socialism but the system was socialism. He was a master politicians and knew what to say to get elected. Billy Ego 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume you are right about Mussolini. How do you decide which things he said for propaganda's sake and which things he was being truthful about? Same goes for Hitler. -- Nikodemos 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By looking at the actual economies. It's not necessarily a matter of them being truthful or not more than it is a matter of how they were defining their terms. We do know that both Hitler and Mussolini were in favor of putting property under social control. If you examine the systems both of those economies property was either nationalized or if kept private it was put under the control of the state to make sure that that property was used in the public interest. Billy Ego 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and that's why they are labelled right-wing. Hundreds of political scientists, historians, and economists have written on fascism. If they are socialist how come the majority of these people say they are right-wing? Furthermore, how do you define socialism? If I consider the word "red" to mean the color blue then I can argue that the sky is usually red with you indefinitely and still be correct. The way around this is to use commonly accepted definitions and I believe that using the most commonly accepted definitions of socialism and comparing them to the most commonly accepted definitions of fascism will show that the two are fundementally different.

However, here's the end-all-be all argument for me. Fascism was from the beginning vehemently opposed to communism, democracy, and socialism. That's what they themselves said. Are they self-hating socialists then? Also, Mussolini advocated neo-liberal economics so much so that Milton Friedman wrote about Italy's economic policies in a good light. How's capitalism socialist? Plus, socialism is more than just an economic policy, there is a fundemental underlying social policy which fascism rejects. - DNewhall 01:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I define socialism as the state controlling a nation's resources for the public good. Mussolini was led to believe laissez-faire was the best policy in the beginning but he soon came to the realization that it was not in the people's interest. The capitalist were exploiting the people by being allowed free reign. "The IRI invested directly in industry, particularly shipping, steel, shipbuilding, chemicals, electricity and telephones. By 1938 the Italian state controlled four-fifths of shipping and shipbuilding, three quarters of iron and half of steel, while as a result of the 1936 Banking Reform Act, the the Bank of Utaly and most other large banks become public institutions. By 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state-owned enterprises outside the the Soviet Union." -Adrian Lyttelton (editor), "Liberal and fascist Italy, 1900-1945", Oxford University Press, 2002. pp. 13 The means of production were controlled by the state as the people's representative. Industry syndicates were set up to make sure people received a proper wage, employment insurance, health benefits, etc Prices of goods were set through syndicates so that everyone could afford them. A welfare system was set up for the poor. And so on. If that's not socialism I don't know what is. Billy Ego 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have that book (Liberal and fascist Italy), and nothing like that quote appears on page 13. That page deals with the last years of World War II and does not include any reference to the "IRI".

On another note, rather than arguing in vain about the meaning of "socialism", isn't it better to just list the concrete economic policies and let the readers decide what name they should go by? -- Nikodemos 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Wrong source. It's Mussolini and Fascism by Patrick Knight, Routledge 2003, page 65. Billy Ego 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what happened. I accidently cut and pasted the source that was below that one in the Economics of fasicsm article list of references. Billy Ego 02:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is how Mussolini was using the term "socialism." He was referring to "Marxian socialism." "Fascism [is] the precise negation of that doctrine which formed the basis of the so-called Scientific or Marxian Socialism." Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore Billy Ego 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

<-------------::Most editors do not agree with this "Fascism is basically socialist" marginal POV. See the recent poll at: Talk:Nazism#Survey_-_in_opposition_to_the_move. Continuing to push this marginal POV on several pages could be considered tendentious editing.--Cberlet 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Billy Ego 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, not again!! Here is the final answer: the vast majority of scholars say no, a small but significant minority says yes, and all of your personal opinions do not matter. Period!! What's wrong with this place?--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer is NO! To JoeCarson and Billy Ego, and all you fanatically capitalist Ludwig von Mises/Friedrich Hayek/Ayn Rand nuts, assuming fascism is a subtype of socialism, by your very definition feudalism is a form of socialism! After all, feudalism entails a centrally-planned command economy with state ownership! So I guess (by your definition) socialism OUTLIVED CAPITALISM BY AT LEAST 3000 YEARS! After all, if socialism means state ownership and control of the economy, then feudalism is part of socialism, and the Roman Empire was a feudal society. Therefore the Roman Empire was socialist!

Clearly, you have not understood Feudalism. I suggest you read that article.JoeCarson 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Its mind boggling how pathetically crowded with extreme personal bias (on all sides), convenient interpretation of facts, histories and definitions as it suits each biased viewpoint, and tedious bickering over minutiae and semantics this "debate" is. It's no wonder so many regular folks find themselves infinitely frustrated with "academics". The agendas are so transparent here. Fascism has become inexorably associated with Nazism. Nazis are seemingly the only memebers of the human race who are universally accepted as "bad guys" (literally every other monstrous group throughout history will have *someone* defending them - only Nazis are nearly totally marginalized). As a result, you have basement dwellers of all stripes pouring out of the woodwork as soon as their pet ideology is labelled as "fascist". I especially love the desperate move to separate socialism and, "liberalism" as having no association. Try to remove your ideological blinders and use a MODICUM of common sense. Whether "right wing" or "left wing", the minute someone starts espousing a state system that dicates that the government should sieze control of everything "for the common good" and begin redistributing it, individual rights have just been tossed out the window and you have something that sounds an AWFUL lot like fascism. Just because it may be causes you feel are "right" and you hate capitalism, or wealthy people, or whatever and you feel that the outcome will be "good" doesnt change that. Have enough faith in your ideology to at least argue that "fascism can be good as long as good liberals are imposing it" That would be far more accurate than the BS arguments here! (this is to everyone in general and not JoeCarson) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.103.195 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think adding Jonah Goldberg's well-documented historical points from his Liberal Fascism would clarify many a point on this matter. Asteriks (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think if you do so we had better make sure that this article very very clearly distinguishes between fascism as a political (etc.) system that developed in Europe in the 20th century, the definitions and conditions of existence of which are debated by historians, political scientists, and other scholars, and the word "fascism" which is a moral epithet used in a variety of different contexts today, including for example by radio personalities. Jonah Goldberg is a journalist, not a historian. Liberal Fascism expresses his personal views,m which, in America's current political climate, may well be notable views that should be included in this article as examples of contemporary political discourse ... but not as historical research. To put it simply: Goldberg is using the word "fascism" to say something about liberals; the book is really about liberals, not about fascism. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but wonder whether you wrote that paragraph without bothering to read Jonah Goldberg's book (at least in any depth). On the contrary, Liberal Fascism gives a plethora of examples of praise by leftists (famous as well as less famous, extremist as well as mainstream) for the régimes of Hitler and Mussolini — albeit at a time, of course, before World War II broke up. And why shouldn't they have? "Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state." Doesn't the core of fascism (without the — admittedly overbearing and rightly so — negative connotations) thus fit in with the outlook of the liberals?

So you've got things backward, I believe: Jonah Goldberg is not using "fascism" as an epithet to hurl, more or less irresponsibly, at leftists (the way they have been hurling it at conservatives for generations): "Throughout the 1920s and well into the 1930s, fascism meant something very different from Auschwitz and Nuremberg. Before Hitler, in fact, it never occurred to anyone that fascism had anything to do with anti-Semitism." Instead, he (Jonah Goldberg) has gone back to the origin of the word — before the war and before the Holocaust — and discovered that Americans on the Left (who are for government intervention, etc) found much to admire — and much to be copy — in the system.

"'Everything in the State, nothing outside the State,' is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word 'totalitarian' to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept in which every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole." Asteriks (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Nazism and Fascism, like Christian democracy, are seperate ideologies that have in common elements of both conservatism, liberalism, socialism, etc.

- In common with conservatism, emphasis on the values of patriotism and strong national unity. Emphasis on the superiority of European culture and race (this is no longer a conservative value, but in 1930s Europe, it was).

- In contrast with conservatism, complete overhaul of the established order, and subordination of organized religion to the State (catechism and other forms of religious teachings were modified to include obedience to the Führer. Some churches were pissed, others happy).

- In common with socialism, belief in communitarism, welfare state, etc.

- In contrast with socialism, rejection of class struggle and support for the market economy.

And such and such and such... course definitions of "conservatism" and "socialism" are themselves extremely arbitrary, which is a whole different story. But altogether I think they deserve to be their own ideology, whose location on the present-day political spectrum really can't be determined. 147.9.201.243 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is more to do with a nuance in difference in meaning between Americans and Europeans. What Americans regard as Socialism is perhaps not quite what Europeans do (and don't cite the wiki socialism article please!)... Think of what Americans call "Socialist" states: USSR, DPRK, China, Cuba etc... is there anything closer to Fascism than that?! The core of Fascism is that all members of the state are owned by the state: rather like ants, termites, and bees etc... However, in Europe, the word Socialism doesn't conjure up such images; it's more to do with "social" policies - what Americans would recognise as "Liberal". Rather than continue with the endless cyclic argument... why not take a survey of which side most Americans are on; and which side most EU-ers are on! Following on from the above comments... you might go for a description along the lines of "Palaeo-Socialism". Frankly, as I've always argued... this sort of argument would not arise if Wiki English had been split into English English & Wiki American English along the lines of Wiki Norwegian Bokmal and Wiki Norwegian Nynorsk, years ago (not to mention the other equally similar dialectal wikis) ...the issue is partly language, culture and meaning... MacDaddy87.112.85.19 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)