Talk:Fascism/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

I think we are pushing very close to needing arbitration here

The discussion board has been going almost out of control in the last day since I added the information from the Doctrine of Fascism that included a quote stating that fascism is right-wing. Some have claimed that because the fascists made policy changes this may be invalidated. But remember that this was a published policy book by the Fascist regime in Italy at that point definately did declare fascism to be right-wing. This was a major policy book of the Fascists that can't just be overlooked as if it were a political pamphlet. On the issue of fascism's position on the political spectrum, this declaration by the Doctrine of Fascism needs to be acknowledged in this article as a stance that was officially adopted by fascists. The Doctrine of Fascism is often used by historians as a source for studying fascist policies, so let's keep in mind that scholars have used it as a source. To exclude this important statement from it, after users have rightfully demanded sources for the left-wing vs. right-wing debate on fascism, would be highly suspect of manipulative intent. I say this because I share the concern that another user raised that certain users may be unjustifiably intending to remove that reference for their personal political interests. In the past few days, I have seen some fairly offensive derogatory statements being made on this talk page with users denouncing left-wing or right-wing politics, this is unacceptable. If other users share this concern, I suggest this article will have to receive arbitration. To users who want to constructively engage on this topic, I warn them to be on the lookout for partisan users who want to push agendas (either left-wing or right-wing) on this page.--R-41 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope reason can prevail, but whenever someone hopes for that, it rarely works out. The opening paragraph yesterday was sufficient at conveying the major themes as well as the cracks and the variations in those themes. If we can't agree to even that, arbitration is most definitely the only way forward, unless we want to sit here and argue until old age.UberCryxic (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact according to many sources is that Mussolini totally ignored the "Doctrine." If he ignored it, then it can hardly be considered definitive of much at all. Collect (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the theory that fascism was anything but right-wing is based on a reading of Mussolini's doctrines. There is no question that his government was right-wing. But I accept your point - we should use secondary sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen reference that in his writings towards the end of his life, he stated he was always a socialist/communist [Memoirs?] - I haven't had time yet to confirm that. I did find this though that the Doctrines wasn't written by him but rather by Giovanni Gentile. Else where, it says it was co-written with him. Theosis4u (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying Mussolini said Fascism was right wing, but that's meaningless, because what's right and left changes over time. Liberalism used to be on the left, but that's when liberalism referred to laissez-faire capitalism. Liberalism was a challenge to conservatism, which was not free market. Later the meaning of "liberalism" changed, whereas today, in the United States, liberalism is associated with welfarism and government direction of the economy, after the New Deal. And the right is associated with laissez-faire. So when Mussolini was saying he was against liberalism, he was saying he was against laissez-faire. But today laissez-faire economics is considered right wing. Obviously Fascism isn't for laissez-faire, but for a controlled economy. So Fascism is not on the right in economics. I think it's improper to put Mussolini's quote up there, without some modern writer explaining what he meant by "right." Immoral moralist (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IM, the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not your personal views of the validity of the political spectrum. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed resolution re "political spectrum"

The political spectrum section and issue within this article had been much more stable prior to 2009. My personal opinion is that POV pushing began and that some attempted to create more of a "consensus" among scholars than really exists. The truth of the matter is that, although fascim was commonly called right-wing or some variation of that, some also said it was radical center or left or eshewed such categories. The reality is, most scholars of the subject don't spend a lot of time on the subject (so neither should this article) and most also now recognize that there is a taxonomic problem with placing it in the political spectrum. I would suggest the subject be omitted from the lede, because 1) there is dispute on the subject, 2) because it is not that important, and 3) the article was more stable and not subject to edit wars when it was omitted and 4) because it is a POV magnet. I'd also suggest that the section "Political Spectrum" return to an earlier, more stable and less POV version such as this or similar version. The section was relatively stable in this form, with slight variations, and not the subject of edit wars. Mamalujo (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely disagree, although your opinions are reasonable. We have much scholarly evidence to suggest that fascism belongs to the right, and the subject is notable enough that it deserves some kind of recognition in the lead. It would be a serious mistake to shy away from a particular topic just because it's controversial. What you're suggesting would be the easy thing to do...without actually solving anything. It seems like you're arguing that we should just sweep this problem under the rug and pretend it never happened. I don't think that's what Wikipedia is about, nor is it a great strategy in conflict resolution.UberCryxic (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that arbitration is an option. It is used for conduct rather than content. I would remind editors that the goal of the article is to present accepted views of the topic and that stating the view of fascism as right-wing is not an endorsement of that view. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that this is a controversial topic, but I have to agree with UberCryxic on this, we now have a source by Mussolini saying that fascism is right-wing combined with a large volume of scholarly work supporting the claim that it is right-wing. The statement of the Doctrine of Fascism is very important to the issue of fascism's stance on the political spectrum, I would find it very strange and suspicious if it were completely omitted from the article.--R-41 (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, I would add that WP normally values secondary sources over primary sources. So I am surprised that the phrase Scholars generally consider it to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum, which is based on secondary sources and came as a result of very hard and fraught discussion amongst editors, has been suddenly demoted in favour of citing the Doctrine of Fascism, which is a primary source. Particularly since I can't see any discussion in relation to this decision. I would not be opposed to both being included in the lead, but to prefer the primary source seems wrong to me.--FormerIP (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think primary sources are valuable additions and I like details. I would offer caution though, I bet it will become a struggle later because once you introduce that primary source [lead or in body] there will be a valid reason to include ALL primary sources. As I already wrote above, "I've seen reference that in his [Mussolini] writings towards the end of his life, he stated he was always a socialist/communist [Memoirs?] - I haven't had time yet to confirm that. I did find that the Doctrines wasn't written [exclusively] by him but rather by Giovanni Gentile. Else where, it says it was co-written with him." And, since this is about Fascism in general, then many others could be valid primary sources for inclusion as well, just not Mussolini's. To argue strongly for a "only Mussolini" position would then open up the can of worms of comparison or inclusion of Nazi/Hitler as fascist. Theosis4u (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MY GOD, why do some people have a problem with it saying "Fascism is usually considered right-wing, although a significant number of historians consider it in the center or neither left nor right." Why the desire to hide the truth, in the lead, that it's a significant view that it's in the center???? I know it can't be a space problem. It only a few words. Why??? Immoral moralist (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone mentioned before, fascism is not some little cute puppy :) Know one wants it associated with their own ideology and because of that they cherry pick what attributes to emphasis or ignore about fascism in comparison to their own ideology. The problem also lies in a number of issues. Historians can't agree on a consistent definition of fascism, fascism changed over time and in different places, they lost WWII and losers don't write history, and it's a mixture of the "best" from the left and the right making it a patchwork doll. Now, with that said. All opinions are most likely valid when we strictly use the context that the author uses in the claim it's left, right, center, or none of the above. Each author is making judgment calls to highly regard some aspects and minimize others. They also are the sole judge and jury on what is their left-right form of measurement. So, when someone says "fascism is right-wing to me" my response isn't "You lie!" but rather, "How are you defining fascism and how are those characteristics right rather than left or center? What about this issue of it being used differently?" It's only by understanding how they formulate the opinion I could find a rational disagreement with it - if needed, I just conclude it isn't of much value. We need to ask more questions of our sources - why, for example, we believe what is or isn't the majority opinion? There's been no research that has been done on it, to actually confirm quantitatively what the majority opinion is. Theosis4u (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to do a study on what the majority opinion is. We just need sources that claim what the majority opinion is, whether a significant number of people have an opposing view, etc. One of the sources says fascism is "usually" considered right wing. Good enough. My source said "a good number" of historians believe it to be in the center. That should be good enough. Immoral moralist (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We come across similar issues with global warming, intelligent design, flouridation, smoking and cancer, the moon landing, professional wrestling, etc. But the articles should not give undue emphasis to minority opinions. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

... and climate-gate and the validity of the IPPC  :) Theosis4u (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's right articles should not give undue emphasis to minority opinions. But simply pointing out that a minority opinion that is significant is a significant minority opinion, is not giving the opinion undue weight. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To Immoral Moralist

In the spirit of compromise, I like your idea, but can we just modify it a little bit....to:

Fascism is generally considered right-wing, although some [or many] historians consider it in the center, or neither left nor right.

That "significant number" bit is bothering me because I fear it could create more support for the supposition than actually exists. "Some" is linguistically dangerous, but not if it's backed by citations, as we're going to do.UberCryxic (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

UberCryxic, do you think that any mainstream publication would express it that way? It seems to be a compromise between a mainstream view and a fringe view. The fringe view has been popularized lately by Jonah Goldberg's book and Glenn Beck's writing an introduction to Cleon Skousen's book. Meanwhile these fringe theories have not been accepted by the US conservative mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Deuces, the sentence above says nothing about any fringe views. It obviously will not cite people like Goldberg or Beck. As I've said a million times before, I don't particularly like mentioning anything but what I consider the obvious (fascism is a psychotic right-wing philosophy), but something has to give to break this impasse.UberCryxic (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem with saying just "some" doesn't inform that reader that it's not a fringe view. The source I gave said "a good number" of historians. If you're worried about "a significant" number being interpreted that it could mean a view of 49%, the most NPOV thing to do is to use the words "a good number" because that's exactly what the source says. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This article by Robert Griffin called "What is Fascism?" really complicates the issue of "majority" opinion and so forth. I see this article was also mentioned in an older talk page Talk:Fascism/Archive_18#Anticonservatism here . I'm still reviewing the contexts of Griffins work though I probably will not have time until much later tonight to thoughtfully contemplate and cross reference some of its points. Theosis4u (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

IM, I think the scholarly source you cite should influence the article, but remember that this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, so we don't have to parrot other people's talking points. "Some" seems to be the best word to use.UberCryxic (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered this page - Fascism_and_ideology - why aren't we delegating the issues of right/left/center and the specifics to that page? Leave this main page with a simple statement like "Fascism has been described and defined in various ways throughout the years since its beginning, please see Fascism_and_ideology for more details." .Theosis4u (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is that article not embedded in the main fascism article? Let me search within the code..Nope, not there. Nor is this article - Definitions_of_fascism. Anyone know the history behind this? Are those rogue pages or did someone remove those links from the main article so their absence would allow them a fresh chance to write anew? What a soap opera these pages are -- Chip Berlet was involved in these topics in the past? Talk:Far_right/Archive_3 Need to see if he's still around.. Theosis4u (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is on the Left

It is a common misconception that Fascism is "right" of center. If one views the political/economic structure as Total Government control on the Left and No Government Control on the Right, clearly Fascism should be on the Left. The problem is that many people confuse the "militant" aspects as being "right", but that is a belief that was created from the anti-military Left common in today's society then with political history.

Consider these sections of the Nazi party platform:

"13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.

15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *

18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race."

or this quote from Hitler himself in 1927:

"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 (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene (talk • contribs) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, I would remove the sentence stating that is a "far right" concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2010

Unfortunately these article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's the way this place is written. Beyond that, three more specific points, worth stating/restating since this one seems to keep coming up again and again, either in discussion or in drive-by edits -

• IP, you surely noticed that your second sentence starts with an "If ..", before you came to your conclusion. Quite a big one, as it happens
• As noted, this has been discussed at length in the past, and in quite tedious detail (all in the archives)
• The issue isn't framed in the article text in quite the simplistic way being described. The text does not say Fascism "is" far right. What it actually says, at various points, with emphasis added, is as follows - "usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum" ... "normally described as extreme right" ... but also "used as a pejorative word, often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum"

I don't see the problem with most of that. --Nickhh (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it a requirement that an "article must reflect mainstream views, even when they are wrong"? RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fact is, this 'No Government Control / Government Control Left/Right' thing is something you've made up in your head to distance yourself from the hard fact that Right-wing politics has an extremist viewpoint which is just as distateful as the Left's. That's right - right wingers have to own Fascism the same way the Left has to deal with Communism. In any case, No Government Control would be Anarchism, which is a hard-left viewpoint. Not surprising you've got both extremes on the Left, which is the standard viewpoint of most right-wingers anyway. Mdw0 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP wasn't completely correct in that the 'right' stands for no government control. Historically, the 'right' promotes individual liberty, minimal governmental interference, and a lack of populist sentiments. RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving the article - not to diss anyone for their beliefs. The fact is, there is significant debate about how to apply the "left-right" system, and this debate goes back to 1948 and Arthur Schlesinger's "Beyond Left and Right" if I recall correctly. Collect (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right - that was a cheap shot on a straw man and not about the article. My apologies. Mdw0 (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) </s,all>

No, I think the IP is arguing the Cleon Skousen view that the French Revolution was a right-wing revolution against the left-wing Bourbon dynasty. Both sides were under a misconception as to which side they were really on. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to the IP (who clearly likes the Nolan system), but to another (who apparently thinks "something you'v made up in your head" is a valid comment on this page) - but phrased it not as a response lest it be misunderstood. The issue of any arbitrary system is that it will surely get misused (a la Murphy's Law). Collect (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nolan chart puts libertarianism, fascism and communism as centrist, The Four Deuces (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would not reply to an Ad Hom, but this for the person that said "I made this up in my head." That is completely false. It is a well known belief, and here is a youTube example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfYaNKKM8

It is silly to put the Communists on the Left and the Fascists on the Right. They are not polar opposites. Both are systems where government has lots of control over individuals. Please do not that personal or idealogical, as that is not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.228.178.190 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we not put them both on the right? Communism after all had statist aspects. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Collect, it appears the IP is referring to the theories of Cleon Skousen, not the Nolan chart, as is clear by his citing of a you tube video prepared by the John Birch Society. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we put them both on the left? Fascism has quite a few progressive traits. The thing is, Statism belongs in the center. That's probably the reason we get the idea that Fascism and Communism are very much alike, when, if you study them more closely, you'll see that they both hire thugs to beat the crap out of you, but they do it for almost completely different reasons. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed both would be more accurately put on the left. It would seem that Fascism is seen as a movement of the right not because of the ideologies it espouses, but rather because historically Communists have called Fascists "Right Wing" because of their opposition to Communism. Communism and Fascism apparently have a lot in common - populist (traditionally left wing) movements seeking to implement a strong statist government (also traditionally left wing), requiring the individual to give up freedoms, abdicating these to the state for a common good (again, an attribute of the left that goes hand in hand with populism and statism). Both apparently decried traditional institutions, such as marriage and religion, preferring individuals to seek the benefits of these institutions in the State. Both go to some length to legislate morality (or rather, morality in the State), and legislating aspects of peoples lives (as opposed to liberty in the individual to manage their own lives). Both co-opt business and national economies under government control. The Communists consider Fascists "Right Wing", it appears, primarily because of a difference in how they approach their populism - Communism relies heavily upon the notion of class warfare to rally the masses, whereas Fascism relies upon the State (ex: Mussolini) and/or other common focal point (ex: Hitler relied heavily upon race) to rally the people as a people, and not a class. There are, of course, variations on these themes. Be that as it may, because of their commonalities, it would appear that calling both Fascism and Communism aspects of the 'left' would be far more accurate than calling either one an aspect of the 'right'. Of course, feel free to correct me where I've missed something/gotten something horribly wrong. RPuzo (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, your theories are very interesting, as are mine and everyone else's on this topic. Now read this page, and maybe this one, and maybe this one as well, and the voluminous talk page correspondence. We can all repeat ourselves over and over again, it's fun you know. --Nickhh (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we accept that this is a discussion that's been done to death... --FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this is an unsettled issue, it would appear that removing the "... on the far right ...", and not attributing Fascism as a facet of either the political Left or Right would be appropriate. As a WP newbie, I appreciate your patience. As an aside, other than this discussion page, is there another place in WP that's been having this discussion? RPuzo (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. And accept that what we are trying to do on this WP page is to record what mainstream views are in respect of an admittedly simplistic - but prevalent - classification, not each argue our own corner about how X "ought" to be classified, or what is the "true nature" of Y, and how it actually has "much in common" with Z, or how we should use a different classification altogether, like this thing I once saw online suggested we should. Seriously, this is one of the easiest points about this topic, and if we can't get this one cleared up once and for all, we may as well all give up and go home. --Nickhh (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And may I add that theories that would require us to say that Louis XVI was to the "left" of the Gironde (or that the present-day government of Spain is to the right of Franco) are not mainstream. - Jmabel | Talk 02:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the theory presented by the IP says that monarchism is left-wing while anarchism is right-wing. It is in the youtube video mentioned.[1] The reason for the common misconception is that we have been mislead. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." Given that the terms "left" and right originated to describe positions during the French Revolution, it is quite a remarkable stretch to say that the terms should be redefined even in that context. But I'm done beating this particular horse. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fascism has much more in common with the far-right than with the left. As Jmabel mentioned, the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" emerged from the French Revolution. The left-wing supports greater egalitarianism often claiming that the move towards egalitarianism is a progressive step. The left often uses idealism to promote this. the right-wing either supports or tolerates established social hierarchy. The right often uses realism and tradition to justify this, claiming that complete equality cannot be achieved in the real world. The monarchy, church and aristocrats in France were right-wing because they objected to the left-wing's intention to impose egalitarianism upon France. Now some examples. For instance, right-wing economics rejects the idea that equality is possible or desirable in the economy, and claims that hierarchy in the economy is either inevitable or desirable and that equality is an artificial imposition. Left-wing economics claims that equality is a goal to be achieved and that it is hierarchy is artificial that imposes inequality. A right-wing racialist believes that there are superior and inferior races in a hierarchy and rejects the idea of equality. A left-wing humanist believes that races do not exist and that differences between groups of humans is not a result of superiority or inferiority but imbalance of resources that causes inequality. Fascism is much more in favour of the hierarchical politics of the right than it is with the egalitarian politics of the left. It certainly borrows ideas from the left, such as calls for collectivism and social solidarity along nationalist lines, but presents them in a right-wing manner (i.e. the idea that a nation must strive to be superior to other nations and assert its dominance). In the U.S., the authoritarian vs. libertarian scale is commonly confused with the left-wing vs. right-wing scale. There have been many big governments on the political right, that's what absolutist governments were. The political left has often resorted to larger governments because they seek to put through their agenda of egalitarianism throughout different aspects of a society (i.e. class, gender, and ethnicity).--R-41 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No personal opinions count -- we must, perforce, use what others have written. A short position. Clearly some have stated forcefully in articles that there are connections between fascism, as a political philosophy. and the left, and a practical connection historically between fascist parties and right-wing support (as well as a surprising amount of left wing support). After that, this page shoiuld be used for determining which sources properly get used. Collect (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand those who find the constant repetition of the inane "left wing fascism" arguments frustrating and feel compelled to try to explain the mainstream consensus to the people who come here with eccentric views. Were this a general discussion forum I would be making very similar points myself. Nonetheless, I agree that this is counterproductive on a Wikipedia article talk page. The more we argue the more it gives the impression that there really is a debate to be had as to whether Fascism was left wing and, even worse, the more this page gets turned into a general discussion forum and distracted from working on improving the article. Besides, we are never going to talk any sense into people who are on a mission to redefine the English language for political ends or their dupes.

In future we must try to be more disciplined. People who come here with unreferenced opinions should be politely but firmly and succinctly referred to the appropriate policies, principally WP:V and WP:FRINGE. If they come back with suggested references then we discuss those. If anybody wants to engage further with the eccentrics then the user's talk page is the best place for any discussion that is aimed at educating the user, rather than improving the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, amount of state control has nothing to do with left-right distinction. What really matters is that right-winger would say "people are not equal" and left-winger would say "people are equal". Both free market, aristocratic monarchy and a fascist state are the means to secure people's inequality while socialist state or anarchist communes are the means dedicated to secure equality.--MathFacts (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually free markets were originally promoted and are sometimes still promoted as a means of achieving greater equality. Workers in England could buy cheap imported food from America while American farmers could import cheap farm equipment from England. This was opposed by the English landed aristocracy and American manufacturers. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case those who promote free market are on the left side. This was actual at the stage of development of Capitalism. So Capitalists were on the left side at certain historical stage.--MathFacts (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all easily resolved with sources. If it can be sourced that fascism is on the left is a significant view then NPOV requires that that view be mentioned, as long as it's not said that it's the usual view if the sources don't say it's the usual view. Likewise for fascism being a mix of left and right or neither left and right. Immoral moralist (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Already done. Please read previous discussions. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not already done. The source says a "good number of historians" say it's a mixture of left and right or neither left not right. That means that the view is significant. It has to be mentioned in order to be NPOV. Please review that NPOV policy. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead says "is usually considered to be on the far right" (my emphasis) and the "Position in the political spectrum" describes the various views of this. Incidentally being a mixture of left and right does not mean that it is not far right. Left-wing ideology has affected all other modern ideologies and fascism is no exception. That does not mean that there are no right-wing ideologies. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's logically impossible for it to be on the far right and to be neither left nor right, or a mix of right and left. Saying it is on the far right precludes it from being neither left or right. Read this article. It talks about the view that it is neither left or right, or that it's part left part right, in the article. So naturally the introduction needs to reflect that. If editors didn't consider the view significant it wouldn't be in the article. It's POV to only present the one view, if other views are significant. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IM. Although the information you are seeking to include may be verifiable, I think your edit gives it undue weight. NPOV does not require that every viewpoint that is verifiable should be included in the first paragraph of the article, and there is a whole section covering this issue in the article body. --FormerIP (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not every verifiable view should be included. But some views are more significant than others, significant enough that they need to be represented to keep the introduction from being POV. I think this is such a view. Many sources talk about this view. It's definitely not a fringe view. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

They copied some of their rhetoric and organization from the Left, but their policies were taken from the Right. Essentially that is what the New Right in the US did. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Anti-laissez-faire capitalism is hardly right wing. And it wasn't only rhetoric. They instituted central economic planning and strong government control over business. Nationalizations as well, as by 1939 Italy had the highest percentage of state owned enterprises other than the Soviet Union. They also dramatic expanded social welfare programs. The anti-capitalism was not just talk. It's easy to see why it would be a common view that it is not a far right doctrine. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It think a good guide to weight here would be to look at other tertiary sources, such as encyclopaedias and dictionaries. I think it will be hard to find any that give this particular side issue a great deal of prominence. Where they refer to position on the political spectrum, it seems to me to be the case that they will just describe fascism as right-wing and leave it there. We're not obliged to replicate any other reference work, of course, but if none can be found that does what you are proposing to do in the first paragraph, then I think a good argument is needed as to why we should be any different. --FormerIP (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead of course is meant to be a brief but accurate summary of the article. As noted previously by myself and others, I fail to see the problem with "usually described as far/extreme right" as a concise summary of what is in the main body of the article, and of what is found from either a cursory or a more detailed review of all relevant sources, from the media to dictionaries to more weighty academic analysis. In 95% of these, you will normally find the words "extreme right" within two feet of the word "fascist". The detail about dissenting minority views, about the way fascist movements sometimes borrowed elements of radical left-wing ideas/tactics and discussion of the obvious over-simplification involved in relying on a linear spectrum can be left, as they currently are, for the relevant sub-section. The recent changes were at least one step better than the endless vandalism of simply swapping right for left and the lengthy original research being posted on this talk page about how fascism is actually the same as socialism, but they are unnecessary and are making a simple issue far more complicated than it needs to be for the lead section. Is there any way we can call a moratorium on this issue, and focus on the rest of the article for once? --Nickhh (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your solution runs afoul of how WP works. The problem really is that there are two distince topice -- fascism as found in the 1930s, and fascism as ideology, which end up being rather distinct issues. And it is not OR to cite sources which do, indeed, equate fascism as ideology with aspects of socialism. Further, it is not up to us to discuss fascism on the talk page - the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, fascism qua fascism <g>. Collect (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, my request for a moratorium was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but in fact of course Wikipedia largely works in whatever way its contributors make it work - which in many cases is precisely the problem with it. However, an agreement to pause and move on seems to entirely within the scope of such a system. And I agree, we should be discussing the article, with reference to reliable sources - exactly as I said we should. Preferably other bits of it for once though. Many of the contributions on the talk page are very much random original research, without any reference to sources at all, or at least any serious sources, which ultimately have very little to do with how the page should be written up.--Nickhh (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with only saying "usually considered to be on the far right," is that it leaves the impression that the view that it is neither left or nor right, or centrist, is too insignificant to point out. The view that Fascism is far LEFT may be fringe, I'm not sure, but the view that it is centrist or neither left nor right, is not fringe as the source says a "good number" hold that view. Many sources are available for this. So saying only that it's "usually considered to be on the far right" is POV pushing. NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Now you my claim that the article is NPOV since the view is mentioned later in the article, but the lead by itself needs to be NPOV as well. The lead is not exempt from the NPOV rule. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The adverb "usually" implies that other positions exist, which in fact are explained in the article. The lead is no place to go into extensive detail about the various minority points of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what it implies, but my point again is that if it only says that, then it also implies that differing views are not significant enough to be mentioned. Since the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view, the lead is POV pushing. Nobody is advocating "going into extensive detail." Immoral moralist (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement that "the view that Fascism is in the center is a significant view" is incorrect. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My source disagrees with you. The source I gave said that "a good number" of historians says that fascism is. If a good number say that, then it's significant. If only a few held that view, then it would not be significant enough to mention. In addition, the editors of this article think it's a significant view as evidenced by the face that view is discussed in the body. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your source does not say a good number place fascism in the center. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It says a good number consider it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's what I put in the lead. I was just using shorthand here in Talk by saying "the center." And that a good number hold this view can also easily be verified using search engines. Immoral moralist (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, not the place to list the numerous alternative theories. Incidentally fascist economic and welfare policies were a continuation of conservative ones. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is the place to list alternative views if they're significant. Otherwise the lead is POV, by definition. For the lead to be NPOV, either the significant alternative views be listed along with the "far right wing" view, or the "far right wing" view needs to be taken out of the lead. Immoral moralist (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IM, can you find any other tertiary source that gives a degree of prominence to any alternative "political spectrum" view which would be comparable to putting it in the first paragraph on Wikipedia. As Nickhh points out, it is common for encyclopaedias etc to just describe fascism as "far right" and explore the topic no further. I am not proposing we should do that. But the cite you have provided is from p 147 of a reference work entirely devoted to the topic of fascism. If they don't see fit to mention it until that point, why should we put it in the first paragraph? --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. Book publishers don't. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

According to NPOV: "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held view". What we have here is a disagreement over whether and to what degree the material you wish to insert represents a minority view. If it is a view that is significant enough to include in the first paragraph here, how is it that other tertiary sources seem to not mention it all all? They don't abide by NPOV, true, but they will each have their own version of it. Is it plausible that NPOV is a radical enough policy to turn things that are barely mentioned in other tertiary sources into things that demand top billing on Wikipedia? --FormerIP (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give a detailed description, just a simple note that good number of historians regard it to be a mix of left and right or neither left or right. That's it! Just the note of the fact. There's not a shortage of space. And it wouldn't be taking away the statement that fascism is "usually" considered far right. That would stay there. To answer your question, the reason why you would find tertiary sources that don't mention it at all is, again because not all sources are NPOV. But the lead here on Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were trying to give a detailed description. You do seem to be trying to give a very high degree of prominence to a POV that other tertiary sources give very little prominence to or do not mention at all. My question is how can such a radical difference from other tertitary sources be justified. Not all sources are NPOV, true. But it is also hard to see how taking a view radically different from all other tertiary sources can possibly be NPOV. There is, indeed, no shortage of space here. Some of that space is lower down in the article, which is where this viewpoint properly belongs, I would suggest. --FormerIP (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because practically all other sources other than Wikipedia are POV. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is extremely rare, if not completely unique among tertiary sources. Wikipedia is not trying to emulate other tertiary sources. It's something very different, where if a view is mentioned then by law all significant differing views are required to be noted as well lest it's POV pushing. That the information is later in the article is good, but that still leaves the introduction POV. The introduction has to be NPOV regardless what's in the rest of the article. Immoral moralist (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But you need to explain how it is NPOV to give such high prominence to a POV that is not normally considered significant. We don't emulate other tertiary sources, but going at complete odds to them ought to ring alarm bells. --FormerIP (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one claiming the view is not significant. I'm claiming the view is significant. I have a source saying a "good number" of historians hold the view. To me, that's saying it's significant. In addition, all you have to do is use a search engine to see that the claim is true. And I don't know how you are backing up your claim that nothing the view is "complete odds" to other sources. On page 79 'The Fascism Reader' by Kallis they note "others have seen fascism as 'neither left not right', as a doctrine of the 'revolutionary center'" In the introduction to the Fascism article in the Routledge Encylcopedia of Philosophy is says "Fascist ideology it is sometimes portrayed as merely a mantle for political movements in seach of power, but in reality is set forth a new vision of society, drawing on both left and right-wing ideas." So obviously they're not saying fascism is far right. Immoral moralist (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) IM, why do you wish to give prominence to one of the minority views and ignore the others? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

History News Network has relevant information on this topic now. http://www.hnn.us/

Michael Ledeen Responds to Liberal Fascism By Michael Ledeen

Introduction By David Neiwert

The Scholarly Flaws of Liberal Fascism By Robert Paxton

An Academic Book — Not! By Roger Griffin

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions By Matthew Feldman

The Roots of Liberal Fascism: The Book By Chip Berlet

Definitions and Double Standards By Jonah Goldberg

To say some of these "historians" are objective after reading some of their articles above is laughable. Others above, do declare the left/right doesn't or shouldn't apply to fascism. Theosis4u (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Minority views should be given prominence based upon their significance. Some minority views may be insignificant, therefore need not be mentioned for NPOV. The view that Fascism is in the center, or to say neither left or nor right, or left and right mixed, is a significant view. So in order for the lead to be NPOV it needs to be mentioned. By the way, there is no such thing as an "objective" historian. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What historians say that fascism is in the center? If someone is called a centrist, does that mean they might be fascist? If they are called far right is their any question that they are close to fascism? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See Third_Way_(centrism) for a reference as as fascism as being "centrist". I'm not sure if that's the same point that IM was making though. Yes, there's a question about the "far right" being close to fascism! Where would you place Classical_liberalism or something like Anarcho-capitalism ? Theosis4u (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That article does not discuss fascism at all. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does, it says:

"Past invocations of a political 'third way', in this sense, or a 'middle way', have included the Fabian Socialism, Distributism, Technocracy (bureaucratic), Keynesian economics, Italian fascism under Benito Mussolini [3], Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, and Harold Macmillan's 1950s One Nation Conservatism.[4]""

Theosis4u (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing centrism with "third way", which your source does not do.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Look above. I gave sources. If someone is a centrist in economics, then it doesn't necessarily mean they're fascists, but just that they're on the same general area of the left-right spectrum as fascists. Fascists didn't want state communism or laissez-faire, but something in between. In other words they didn't want complete government control over business and neither did they want to leave businesses and the market totally free of control by the state. This is why it's a common and significant view that fascism isn't "far right," as being right wing in economics often means support of laissez-faire. Immoral moralist (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So it would seem that there's no agreement either here or in the main stream as to what Fascism is. It would appear that because reasonable people will disagree on this, the attribution of Fascism as being an attribute of the 'right' (far right, near right, whatever) should be removed. RPuzo (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Integrate Other Existing Wiki Pages On Fascism

Proposal, it seems the first issue that should be addressed is if the these pages - Fascism_and_ideology , Definitions_of_fascism , Economics_of_fascism - should be integrated into the main Fascism page or should they be removed. To discuss those same very topics for edits on the main doesn't seem very efficient without first deciding on the proposal. For myself, it seems fruitless to press forward on some of the open threads here until that is resolved. Theosis4u (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Let me repeat it again: No. Drop this obsession you have with integrating other wiki pages into this one. I've told you a million times forget those pages yet you still keep flouting long-established Wikipedia guidelines.UberCryxic (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm so disgusted by the way this entire process has moved forward that now I simply support the version implemented by VoluntarySlave. Like I said, if you plan to be in a permanent mentality of wiki-warfare until you get your way, you're just going to receive a lot of blowback and never achieve anything.UberCryxic (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Many other articles have under sub-topics the use of "See also" and "Main article" that then give a more in-depth treatment of the topic. Not sure you misunderstood my proposal or simply don't like that way of doing things as other articles have. Usually, articles that do that leave short summaries on the main - then tend to reflect the lead of the other article. I also don't know how I could be accused of "wiki-warfare" , I don't do edits [at least so far]. I come to wikipedia for information and I like to find the treatment of a topic to have some consistency as I read the various pages one will get on a topical search. Unfortunately, I usually find this "state of disrepair" on most subjects. Theosis4u (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hide soapbox discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left. Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "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" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding jStiene 05:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Seeing fascism as essentially a permutation of totalitarianism is only one approach, held by some scholars, but disputed by many others. Indeed, it would be very reasonable to argue that this approach has actually largely fallen out of use. See, for example, Wolfgang Sauer, "National Socialism: Totalitarianism or Fascism?" American Historical Review Vol. 73, No. 2 (1967): 404-424. The Fwanksta (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Fascism is Neither Right, Nor Left. Fascism has little to do with classes or money, but the structure of government itself, specifically a dictatorship. Similar to pre-parlimentary monarchies, fascism is simply the absolute rule of a single leader. Hitler, Stalin and Lenin were all dictators and fascists, as were Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ghengis Khan or any other figure throughout history that demanded and exercized complete control of the population. Communism and Marxism relate to class, money, distribution of wealth or control of production. Fascism is not the polar opposite of marxism, communism or socialism. As stated above, many communist regimes were dictatorships, not of the proletariet, but by a single ruler. I describe a dictatorship as a country in which one ruler can have anyone else imprisoned or killed. Some Czars might even fall under that definition. That the NAZIs literally stood for National Socialists tell you it had left leaning aspects of collectivism. And is almost completely unrelated to corporatism, capitalism or aristocracies, other than those factions might also seek a single ruler, as in the case of the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler and FDR. "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" - Adolph Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306) Both fascism and communism generally involve the centralization of power and move from democracies or republics' rule by election with single party systems replacing political competition, inevitably followed by control of speech, the press and assembly. Totalitarianism is totalitarian regardless of the labels applied to a system. Either people have the freedom of speech, press religion and assembly, and the power to choose or remove their leaders, or they live in a police state of self appointed rulers. Power by appointment will always lead to coruption and abuse as has every example of totalitarianism throughout history. It may start with intellectuals but always ends with generals. Power attracts those with a power lust. It is the limits of power the founding founders of America set up that tried to guarantee the limit of government control, granting the power of freedoma and self rule. In a democracy it is ok for everyone to vote in their own best interest because the result is social hedonism - Most people get what they want. Laws should be established to protect minorities, whether in race, or even economic standing, but the populace should always have a right to chose and remove their leaders. In a democracy, the government works for us. In China and the Soviet Union, people worked for the government. The main difference is we can fire our "employees" regardless of their title in a democracy, such as President or congressman. In a sense democracy is a dictatorship of the masses. Over 100 million people decided on the American President in 2008, in which 100 million chose a leader based on their views, wants and needs, rather than having one appointed to make those decisions for them. Competing parties and candidates, like intellectual discourse, allows people to choose between themselves, force rational arguments from each side, and provide the best chance for freedom and fairness, with various political sides balancing each other out. The danger to our freedom invariably comes any time one side tries to remove their ideological competition, which removes a free populaces ability to decide for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstiene (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

Following discussions UberCryxic removed the POV-Intro tag. Immoral moralist had supported the tag because inter alia the intro did not say that a "good number" of historians saw fascism as centrist. However, IM has been asked and has not provided a single example of an historian who considered fascism to be centrist. IM has re-inserted the tag which I will now remove and ask IM to provide evidence that the current phrasing is POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh, just look in the article. It says "A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things." The citations are there. Immoral moralist (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV indicates that NPOV requires that when a view is expressed then all significant differing views must be mentioned. You've said a couple times now that since the view is mentioned later in the ariticle that makes the article NPOV. Sure, but that doesn't make the lead NPOV. Without the significant opposing views mentioned, the lead is by default POV. Therefore the tag claiming the lead is POV is accurate. Immoral moralist (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point, the article's talk page is almost turning into a soap box. There is no meaningful dispute anymore, and hence our work is essentially done.UberCryxic (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean not meaningful? There is nothing "soapbox" about this discussion. If this were a soapbox discussion I would be arguing that Fascism in the center. That's not what I'm doing. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful about edit-warring to insert tags. There is no special privilege around tags that allows them to be replaced if their presence in the article does not have consensus. See WP:EW if you disagree. And remember the 1RR restriction on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. And it goes the other way too. Please be careful about edit-warring to remove tags. There's no special privilege that allows removal of tags if the absence of the tag does not have a consensus. How are you going to prove where the consensus is? Immoral moralist (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that other editors support placing an POV tag on this article, could you list their names? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think there's a pretty clear consensus to remove the tag, judging by the fact that only the above user supports its inclusion in the article!UberCryxic (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Demur. Collect (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So 2 to 2 in regard to the tag. That's not a consensus. Immoral moralist (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Most editors, now and in the past, regard this issue as settled. We cannot let a vocal minority hold hostage an article of such importance.UberCryxic (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The past is the past. This is today. You can't claim that because there was consensus in the past, that there is consensus today. Immoral moralist (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Immoral moralist has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, this issue may now be moot. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The intro needs a concise definition of fascism's nationalist social and political views like the intro has for fascism's economic views

The intro has a good summary of fascism's economic stances to allow a basic understanding of its positions. However fascism's key nationalist basis needs a short summary in the intro as well. I found a source a while ago that was put as a reference to a statement in the intro that was a good summary both fascism's competitive and social darwinistic nationalist views, but this was removed later. It is later down in the article. Here is statement was by Alfredo Rocco that gives an excellent summary of fascism's nationalist views:

"Conflict is in fact the basic law of life in all social organisms, as it is of all biological ones; societies are formed, gain strength, and move forwards through conflict; the healthiest and most vital of them assert themselves against the weakest and less well adapted through conflict; the natural evolution of nations and races takes place through conflict." Alfredo Rocco.

I think that a short summary of this with a reference attached to it should be in the intro. This would make the intro very effective.--R-41 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Normally secondary sources should be used - writngs by scholars of fascism rather than by fascists themselves. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Writings by people in a group are not necessarily indicative of what the group actually believes. Else one would find Stalin was the strongest proponent of "free speech" in history <g>. IMHO, what we can establish is that aside from being totalitarian, seeking a strong national identity, and believing in central economic controls (as opposed to the mayhem of the free market), there is remarkably little in common between different movements identified as "fascist." Collect (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I submit to agree that it probably is best to use the sources of scholars, as it is true that Mussolini like Stalin did lie. However, I wouldn't say that different fascist groups are as different as they may seem - fascism as a nationalist movement has to be based on the nation's history, meaning that each will be unique and have to appeal to different aspects of its history to promote fascism, and may not be able to have a form of fascism exactly alike to Italian Fascism.--R-41 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Defintion of fascism in the first sentence

I think it is crucial that we replace the the expression “radical and authoritarian nationalism” with the far more precise and informative the term “palingenetic ultranationalism”. --Loremaster (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And the readability of that phrase is? Collect (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine palingenetic ultranationalism with a corporatist economic system.

I find it reads quite well. However, the most important factor would be whether or not it is more precise and informative. --Loremaster (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is the first sentence of the article. Of course it needs to be accurate but it also needs to be comprehensible to an average reader looking for a basic introduction to the subject. My preference is for the first few sentences of any article to be pitched at a level that a reasonably bright high school kid could understand. I think a more generic term is better at this stage and the more specific concept of "palingenetic ultranationalism" can be invoked a bit later on. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I still support the use of the term “palingenetic ultranationalism”, only using the term “ultra-nationalism” instead would be a compromise I could accept. --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "radical and authoritarian nationalism" is significantly better than "palingenetic ultranationalism." The latter is jargon and, worse, the jargon of one specific author (Griffin), not a generally accepted terminology for fascism. The term is properly discussed later in the article, but the lede should use terms that are both broadly understood and broadly accepted.VoluntarySlave (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, although “palingenetic” may be an obscure term, “ultra-nationalism” alone is a term that is both broadly understood and broadly accepted. --Loremaster (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DanielRigal, radical and authoritarian nationalism is the best terms. The fact that four sources say exactly the same definition (which is rare in many cases with other aspects of fascism) shows that it is a strong definition with backing by many sources. It deals with all the factors of fascism, it is a radical nationalist movement and not moderate, and that it applies its nationalism in an authoritarian manner. And also the definition's inclusion that fascism involves corporatism in its nationalist politics, that is viewing and organizing the nation as single organic community. Joseph Goebbels associated Nazism with "authoritarian nationalism" which was radical and revolutionary in that he claimed that such authoritarian nationalism was overthrowing the French revolution order of democracy. Ultranationalism is radical nationalism. The Nazis did not want to say that they were fascists because that would link them in tutelage to an ideology of a foreign country, the original capital "F" Fascism of Italy. "Palingenetic ultranationalism" is too vague. It is confusing and ignores the authoritarianism of fascism. Secondly palingenetic has many meanings according to the Wikipedia article on it which makes it confusing. I assume you are referring to the political variant stated in the article that talks about a nation being connected to past entities of itself. I'm very sure that all nationalist movements are palingenetic, in that they all promote such linkages to past states. The disputed Republic of Macedonia claims to be a heir to ancient Macedonia of Alexander the Great and its ultranationalist supporters are fervent on this - with "palingenetic ultranationalism", it could be said that democratic political parties in the Republic of Macedonia are "fascist" by this definition. I'm not criticizing you for bringing up this definition as it is an okay one, but I think the one that exists now of radical and authoritarian nationalism that was achieved after a long period of discussion, is a very good and concise one. However I would definately promote and support you adding such material on fascism's palingenetic aspects under the "Nationalism" sub-section in this article, as that sub-section needs more info.--R-41 (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Palingenetic ultranationalism is both redundant (as almost all forms of ultranationalism draw their doctrines from the genesis of a particular nation), and much too "sciency" for an ordinary reader to completely understand its meaning or its relation to fascism. However, I do have an additional proposal to make. Would the word "revolutionary" be an adequate inclusion to the first sentence?

Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a radical, revolutionary and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.

Unless "radical" and "revolutionary" sound too redundant...--UNSC Trooper (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

First, although I accept the argument that the term "paligenesis" - which is meant as a synonym for “national REbirth” or “REnaissance” - may be too obscure or intellectual, the notion that term "palingenetic ultranationalism" is redundant doesn't make any sense since Griffin explains that the synthesis of palingenesis and ultra-nationalism differentiates fascism from para-fascism and other revolutionary ideologies. This is very important fact that most people don't know! Second, not all nationalist movements are palingenetic since many of them do not have have a past state to link to or simply choose not to emphasize it. Third, if one takes the time to read the definition of ultra-nationalism on Wikipedia, we discover that the notion that this nationalism is both radical and authoritarian is implied. --Loremaster (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The definition "paligenetic ultranationalism" is probably not the best for an initial definition, but it does include the important notion of rebirth or revival that isn't noted currently. I'd like to see a tweaking of the phrasing that included that. Bartleby (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

UNSC Trooper, I would be careful about using the word "revolutionary" to describe fascism. Fascists were very "iffy" about whether they were fully supportive of revolutionary ideas, a mix of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary ideas. Fascists claimed that the only valid form of revolution was achieved through violence and war, and interpreted violence and war as revolution. However they did not approve of social upheaval and revolution by the masses on their own, Fascists identifying the masses as not having the knolwedge or capacity to adequately govern themselves. Italian Fascists and German Nazis repressed revolutionary class conflict forces and supported conservative establishment forces prior to rising to power. Fascists claimed that an elite vanguard group of capable officials had to be responsible for government and for purposeful violence and war to bring about a necessary revolution to place such a capable elite in power. There were many reactionaries amongst fascist movements and even some monarchists. Fascist double entendre (double talk) on controversial issues is common, such as the revolutionary versus counterrevolutionary issue. The term "radical" is the most appropriate - it says that they were deeply committed to their movement, plus it is found alongside "authoritarian nationalism" to describe fascism in four references. I think the phrase "radical and authoritarian nationalist" is a very good summary of its general position and outlook.--R-41 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum

This section has undergone various changes since it was last discussed and no longer provides the same weight on various views. I will therefore revert these recent changes and ask that editors wishing to re-insert the removed text to provide reasons for reinsertion. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section has been too reduced and now is vague. Very valuable criticisms about the incapacity of the left-right spectrum to interpret fascism have been removed without justification. Furthermore, material about Italian Fascism having altered its positions on the political spectrum over the years has been removed, again with no justification. I would like to see this material restored immediately unless there are real outstanding problems with such material.--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:Weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the proposal by Deuces. Go ahead and change it Deuces.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article intro is fantastic now, Perhaps the "traits" section should be condensed down

Intro is very clear now and I don't see any objections to it. The traits section seems to be a little long and dragged out. I think it should be condensed down to core areas. Also, the info on the different types of fascisms like Nazism and Integralism in different continents should be condensed down to the bare bones that answer (1) Why is it associated with fascism, (2) is it an important example of fascism and why? and (3) what legacy did the ideology have on fascism. So for instance, Nazism was associated with fascism due to its endorsement of Italian Fascism and it's use of the core fascist themes, second: it is important because the arrival of Nazism to Europe altered the political balance of power in Europe; and three it is important to fascism because it brought racism to be a fundamental attribute to many fascist movements since. But indepth discussions of the ideologies should be left to the articles on those ideologies.--R-41 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see several problems with the intro: it presents a fascist view of fascism, it is equivocal in calling them far right and the terms fascism, fasciwst or fascism are repeated about twenty times. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the use of the term fascist can be reduced. The article needs to present the fascists' proposition of their ideology, not because it may be true, but to understand what fascism presents itself as. Criticism of this presentation should be in the article under a criticism section. But for us to automatically assume that fascists are lying about all their positions is bias, even if we have good reason to suspect so, as I imagine you like me and others oppose fascism. But to ignore their claims would be the same as an opponent of democracy editing the Democracy article to say that the claims by proponents of democracy are fraudulent - then the article would end up saying "Democracy is allegedly a system of popular rule by the people, but is commonly criticized for being mob rule, a tyranny of the majority democracies have caused the deaths of many people in wars". I think you can see the problem. As much as I don't agree with fascists, their claims should be represented on the article, just as the claims about democracy are on the democracy article. Criticisms for fascism should be put in a criticism section, there critiques of fascist claims can be made. That way the article is being fair.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The new section added on fascism in the Middle East is very aggressive in tone and biased

First of all with this new section has many flaws. First, it is poorly written and utilizes sparse sources, even from TV shows to make claims, focusing entirely upon Arab fascism, while ignoring the fact that fascism existed amongst multiple nations. Second, it places the Middle East as a separate section, when it is part of Asia. Third, there is the notability issue of a number of the movements. Fourth, on the issue of Arab fascism it attempts to present it as a heterogeneous movement - I have looked into Arab fascist movements they were not heterogeneous - they were divided upon which state should be the head of a pan-Arab state, this was connected to the factional divides amongst Arabs.

As mentioned above, I think this section on fascism in the Middle East is very badly written. It is very true however that there were strong fascist groups in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, where anti-British tendencies had combined with both Iraqi and Pan-Arab nationalism that influenced members of the Iraqi government, including Iraq's education minister named Shawkat, who created the Al-Futuwa youth paramilitary movement in Iraq, that was based upon fascist lines. Claims that Ba'athism is based on fascism are possible, under Saddam Hussein it advocated a Greater Iraq to be the leading constituent republic of a pan-Arab state but unlike fascism, Ba'athists cooperated with communists and held no entrenched principles of anti-communism as fascism does. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is widely believed to be a fascist party in Syria (though it denies it) which advocates a Greater Syria. At the same time, there were other non-Arab fascist movements in the Middle East, one was the Revisionist Maximalism, a Jewish fascist ideology associated with the fascist Brit HaBirionim political faction created by Abba Ahimeir that was briefly on the rise in Jewish nationalist politics until the rise of Hitler, after which Revisionist Maximalism and other Jewish fascist ideologies collapsed when fascism grew supportive of anti-Semitism. This faction was small, but it was believed to have been influenced by the nationalist politics of Zeev Jabotinsky, who formed the more popular nationalist Betar movement that some believe is fascist or para-fascist in nature.

I am gravely suspicious however that adding information on fascism in the Middle East, including the fact that fascism influenced both Jewish and Arab political movements could likely result in a fierce edit war between Jewish and Arab nationalist editors over this, just as Croat and Serb nationalist editors on Wikipedia have edit wars that try to show how each side collaborated with fascists.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No need for a long discussion, that is up to the person who wants it in. I took it out. TFD (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's back again and it is still focused almost entirely on Arab fascist movements collectively without mentioning non-Arab fascist movements like Turkish, Jewish, and Iranian ones. Whoever keeps adding this is intent about it, I wish they would read the critique I made about it. It makes little distinction between the different Arab fascist movements, it just declares that Arab fascist movements existed in the Middle East. This is wood for a firestorm of edit warring if it remains so focused on Arab fascist movements.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it again and requested that the editor discuss it here before restoring. TFD (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And I had to delete it again. The few references I was able to check were dubious, and it appears to be written from a polemical stance. --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"dubious"? and is it really fair now to omit so much from that historic era? is there an argument that they were not fascist/or fascistic influenced? why should THIS be excluded and categorized as "POV" Sallese (talk)

Please indent your comments. I am sure that something should be included here but it needs to be less polemical and better references. The paper "An unholy alliance" for example is just a paper downloaded from the web. Then we get a thesis. The Larsen book is a collection of essays, and I think you will need to provide fuller direct quotes (on the talk page not the article) to demonstrate that it supports the material. As stated above its focused on Arab political movements not the wider middle east. --Snowded ^TALK 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I added the "unholy alliance" is because someone (R-41) above complained why it's all about "arabs" (though it doesn't really make much sense, Middle east IS mostly arab anyhow), which is why I added the "unholy-alliance" link, on top of this previous [3] one.

- I am adding this:

Since the beginning of the Second World War in September, 1939 it has become common to lump Fascism and Nazism together as agents of "world revolutions."

-An this on Turkey:

Mussolini's fascism impressed many in Turkey, there were many similarities between the Italian fascist regime and the Kemalists, including racist rhetoric and authoritarianism

As to al-Futuwwa being a Hitler Youth model and Shawkat's praising Hitler ( , there added more ref.) and inciting against the Jews there are many references.

As to the groups including green shirts, young Egypt, SSNP (with its: "Syria Uber Alles" and the swastika flag), etc. of course they have to be mentioned.

-And omitting the PDF file on Iran "unholy-alliance". Leaving this about Iran.

Reza Shah Pahlavi, interwar ruler of Iran, sometimes referred to as 'the Mussolini of Islam'. resident Germans worked actively for National Socialist propaganda, and by May 1940 there were about 4000 Nazi agents across the country.

What do you think so far? (maybe the Fred Holliday should be omitted?) Sallese (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a comment on how fascism has been seen since 1939 in a book published in 1941 is poor scholarship and should be taken out. Could you please stop inserting text without discussion because there has been no agreement with any editors about these additions. TFD (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I reverted it --Snowded ^TALK 22:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove it after TFD's comment anyhow, What Larsen book are you referring to (that contains essays, etc.) dear Snowded? the middle east section does not include any of it, it's in the Asia area, by other editors - entirely. You can see-check it here User_talk:Sallese. Sallese (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I meant to say Blamires not Larsen, moving back and fore between versions. Intent to remove noted - would you also indent comments? Thanks

I see, you mean this source mentioned twice, these two pages (342 [4] - 343 [5])? they don't appear essays. Sallese (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Middle east section is unbiased and historically imperative

I don't see anything wrong with putting historic facts as it were. Facsism's champion - Mussolini's foot in Libya and Hitler's "friend" Mufti's control in the M.E. & over Arab movements, were too great to be ignored when talking about fascism.

True that Baathism was influenced by both: Socialism AND fascism, as those sources linked - say so.

Yes, we can add the Iranian fascists too, starting with the cooperation with the nazi regime, (which I will be adding) after all, the middle east is primarily Arab, no Arab should be "offended" it's not about Arabs as a whole, it's about Arab movements and leaders.

I don't believe that today in age, real fascism exist, but when it was in fashion, yes, Arab movements were IN, in fact, omitting this is exactly a POV. Maybe it should be included into Asia, we'll try this Sallese (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

During the Second World War there were fascist sympathizers and political parties everwhere in the world and there is no reason to give undue emphasis to the Middle East. The ME section is now larger than the one for Italy! Also, while there are obvious similarities between the Iraqi Ba'athist Party and fascism, the same is true of countless other pro-Western third world dictatorships. I notice too that you omit the Lebanese Phalange, the most successful ME true fascist party. TFD (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have more info on the phalangists?, I start off (current version) "There was an unholy alliance-nazi links with totalitarianism in Middle East including Iran", I can't understand why there was so much talk about Asia and not about the M.E. Mussolini's Libya, the pan-Arab movements, the Mufti parts, they're all so huge (especially as comparing (Hitler's pal) the Mufti's powerful leadership with the small Phalangists... Sallese (talk)

You can click on Phalange to read more about them. They are significant because they remained a major force after the Second World War and still exist. However I disagree on the significance of fascism in the Middle East, compared with Europe. If you want to include a lot of detail about fascism in the ME then you should create a new article. You might also wish to work on the article Nazism in the Middle East. TFD (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, actually this section, originally was not started by me, but I have researched that era, so it does interest me. Sallese (talk)

What about the Jewish fascist ideology Revisionist Maximalism, a self-described fascist movement associated with Abba Ahimeir. Ahimeir also acknowleged that his ideology was based on the politics of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, a popular militant nationalist Revisionist Zionist who admired Benito Mussolini and Fascist Italy, sought alliance with Fascist Italy, and whose Betar youth wing of his Hatzohar movement utilized brownshirt paramilitary uniforms [6]? They weren't associated with Nazi fascism, but held close association with Italian Fascism. Militant Zionist (Jewish nationalist) politics was highly potent in the British Mandate of Palestine during the 1930s amid the Arab-Jewish conflict. Jabotinsky and Hatzohar were influential in the politics of the Middle East.--R-41 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it's not a transparent POV, when objecting to (posting) the real Goliath fascist groups in the Arab world (the "elephant in the room," AKA: Hitler's Mufti, Futuwwa, Green shirts, Young Egypt, proto-fascist organizations in the Levant, Syrian-SSNP, Lybia-at-Mussolini, et al) in the 1930s... yet, highlighting a scrachted out thing, forcing doudtful "fascist" face on the very victim of the real fascism of that time... (I am not here to defend any Zionism, or any Zionist movement, but truth shouldn't be switched around either) it's more than just rewriting history, it might be a trend of twisting it all around. Why does everything have to be in "arab vs jew" light and attempts of supposedly "balancing" it out? why can't history just be told as it is-was? Sallese (talk)

In the article about Christianity it would make no sense to have a huge section about Christianity in the Middle East, South Korea or China that was larger than the section about Christianity in Europe or the Americas. The same applies here. TFD (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Why does everything have to be in "arab vs jew" light and attempts of supposedly "balancing" it out?" Why? Because Zionism proponents seem to be trying to hijack the article to further their agenda of portraying the conflict in the Palestinian mandate as another front in a global fascist vs. anti-fascist struggle, which is completely inaccurate from a historical standpoint.Ndriley97 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from anti-Jewish rant in: [7],[8], [9]? aka by damning "zionists" you mean all Jews? Please leave your campaign out of this page I am not posting about zionism here, nor do I defend them. We are trying to avoid any Arab vs Zionists here, it's about the past history not about the M.E. conflict, thank you very much.

Sallese (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear TFD, I didn't see the article about Christianity. Sallese (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If we mention every Arab fascist group, there will be a dispute, it will be seen as discriminatory. Why? For instance there were many German and Japanese fascist movements, to list them all would take up a lot of space, and provide undo focus, thus it could result in an accusation of dispute. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is one worth mentioning, it was and remains an exceptionally strong fascist political party in Syria. Futuwwa was a youth movement run by the Iraqi minister of education, was it part of a larger political party? - I do not know. The Ba'ath Party has more in common with Nasserism than fascism, Nasserism was authoritarian, nationalist, but not anti-communist (Nasser and al-Bakr of Iraq worked with communists and sought alliances with communist countries like the former Yugoslavia) and not seeking a third way between a command economy and a laissez-faire economy as fascists do - it favoured a command economy.--R-41 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical correctness, Goliath vs the small / speculative

The Elephant: - At least seven different Arab nationalist groups had developed... [10] - The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitler, wrote Kamil Muruwwa, the young editor of the Beirut paper An-Nida', to the German Foreign Minister in Berlin. The year after Hitler came to power, Muruwwa translated Mein Kampf from English into Arabic and published it in daily installments in An-Nida'. [11]

This is about the past, not about current conflicts, so what's the argument of throwing in there a weak link to fascism by non-Arab zionist group? Besides the weak link, the salad between ahimeir and Jabotinski, how you tried to "connect" it and make it appear as somehow linked to Fascism, if they were not fascistic in it's far fetched, which is why originally I wasn't for posting the Phalangists, as they were not really fascistic in behaviour. What does this phrase mean "highly potent in the British Mandate of Palestine", threw it in there? it can be very deceiving, giving the wrong picture as if that group fought the British on some illusionary "fascist" motives and not on Zionist (return to their historic land/Zion) roots. Although, if to mention that obscure case, the Arab-Palestine zone is much larger and much more damning, see a peek here about the fascism and nazism in establishing Palestine party / movement. [12]. But (I do have the information on my talk page but not intend to post it) I purposely didn't want to touch that arena. only the Mufti part, as he was so major in connecting the Arab world to nazism and fascism.

Real fascist vs sensationalists' politics' terminology

I tried to avoid the term Islamo-fascism here, or the sensationalists throwing around the term "fascist" today in the M.E. conflict, including on Hezbollah with their Nazi salute, and others (even though some are genuinely trying to connect the roots of PLO to Nazism), or politically motivated exaggerations by opposite parties in the political arena. This is about the real thing. The historical fact is that the father of fascism in Europe, Mussolini was anti-Jewish and agreed with the Mufti al-Husayni that the Jews have no "right" in Palestine [13].

I don't think there's a dispute over futuwwa the Hitler youth model of it being part of the Iraqi' government, as Shawkat was the official head of the education minister. (pan-Arabist Futuwwa Youth was a model of the Hitler Youth [14], Officially modeled after the Hitler Youth [15]. The pan-Arab government also sponsored the Futuwwa Youth movement [16], [17][18], More: Arab boys in Baghdad were often sent to Germany to attend Hitler Youth events... join the Futuwwa, paramilitary programs based on the Hitler Youth groups [19]). It has also a historic significance due to their hand in the Farhud pogrom.

Consensus

I can agree that when mentioning Baathism also socialism has to be mentioned, that it was influenced also by fascism (as I corrected it on my talk page), which is true, as the sources mention both, that Aflaq took both: European fascism & socialism.

While at that, since you are on the subject, there's a lot of information out there about German "racial" ideology (Fichte) upon Michel Aflaq's colleague (Arsuzi) that influnced Michel.

IMHO, The Futuwwa (al-Muthanna's wing), Mussolini's Libya, SSNP were the most fascistic.

The purpose of me inserting Iran & Turkey the more minor faces of fascism at that time, was only per your request.

What, out of the larger picture can you agree to be included? Sallese (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the article is about fascism, not fascism in the Middle East. TFD (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear The Four Deuces! Do you object to all those sections: Fascism#Europe, Fascism#Americas, Fascism#Asia, please explain the differences between: Europe/Asia/Americas and the Middle-East (or, why the M.E. is special to be excluded), if you want a trimmmer M.E. section it can be arranged, only highlighting a few major ones - those most resembling fascism. Sallese (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not trying to exclude the fact that there were Arab fascist movements, I have no objection to having the Syrian Social Nationalist Party included, it is a major one that has major political influence in Syria. You mention that there were several Arab nationalist movements with close links to fascism. In Germany, there were dozens that were either fascist or very close to fascism, with the strongest being the Nazi Party followed close behind by the German National People's Party that moved from being a monarchist party, to being close to fascism. "Mussolini's Libya" does not count as meaning that the population supported fascism - Fascist Italy had to wage a long and bloody war in Libya with the Senussis led by Omar Mukhtar fought for independence until they were brutally suppressed, so Libya under Fascist Italy is not an example of fascism being popular amongst Arabs. And why not include the Revisionist Maximalism of Brit HaBirionim, I mentioned it because it is a very unique example of fascism, fascism has been commonly associated with anti-Semitism, but it is an exception. It's leader Abba Ahimeir was a self-declared fascist, who declared in a book he wrote, aptly titled "From the notebook of a Fascist" in 1928. And what about fascism in Turkey and Iran? Turkey lost its empire in World War I, and nationalism was very strong in Turkey afterwards. Plus as to the issue of a section on the Middle East, the Middle East is part of Asia, and a section on Asia is currently there. But first in importance, I agree that the Syrian Social Nationalist Party should be put in.--R-41 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far we can agree on SSNP, Futuwwa, YoungEgypt (as that book describes them on being most resembling fascistic Italy) and not on facsist-Mussolini's Libya?

I think the line that The whole Arab youth is enthused by Adolf Hitle [20] is probably the most important of its shear size in the middle east.

The problem with that isolated case you mention is, that it's just that, a rare case (that still needs research), the abnormal can't be prioritized before the other dozen of pan-Arab fascist groups that are NOT included, besides, it defeats the purose of historical accuracy that fascism was anti-Jewish, which is why Marcus Garvey - I don't think has to be included, though he proclaimed himself a "fascist before the fascists Hitler/Mussolini." [21] - since European Fascism (the subject of that page) was different than that of Garvey, in its totalitarianism against all "others" that are "not in line" with the fascistic top, smashing everyone in their way. Hence, just because someone declared himself a "fascist" it's not always the case. And again, then, it was a very small group anyhow, not to mention it's relatively minor against the Palestinian-Arab part massive movement by the Mufti (quoted above). So, I didn't want to touch the Zionist-Palestine arena... I left it out.

POWER = IMPORTANCE! My point is that the biggest shakers in the middle east were: Mufti (due to massive Arab-Muslim support and the Nazi regime backing), Mussolini (in the Africa & Arab world), the fact of a goverment like Iraq having the Hitler-Youth (Futuwwa) is way too major than some fringe groups.

Mussolini in Arabia Newsweek excerpts: October 7, 1940... made a trip to Libya and there proclaimed himself the "Defender of Islam" Leaflets which reminded Arabs that Mussolini was there "defender" [22]. In Egypt the Italians have adopted much of the same line, and last week they also continued efforts to woo King Farouk with promises that if he threw in his lot with the totalitarian powers he might become the head of a greater Arab state. [23]. In 1937 Mussolini had himself ceremonially proclaimed the 'Protector of Islam' (More here: [24] and here [25])

I did not include "ALL" Arab fascist groups, especially the minor ones or those that weren't so fascistic in nature like the three: Futuwwa/SSNP/YoungEgypt.

Do you want Iran, Turkey to be included? I hope TFD won't object that because of that, it's (M.E. section) is "too large." I am trying to shrink and trim.

Sallese (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mussolini only held loyalty to fulfilling what he deemed as the Italian nation's destiny to be restored as a new Roman Empire, with himself as its ruler, any alliance he made was to be in the interest of Italy. He was a Machiavellian who flip-flopped on the issue of supporting Hitler because in 1933, he wanted a fascist government in Germany, in 1934 he opposed the Nazis because their aim to annex Austria toppled a regime that was a faithful ally of Fascist Italy, and then in 1936 supported the Nazis after Nazi Germany was the only country to support and congradulate Italy for its invasion and occupation of Ethiopia. Support of Hitler by in the Arab community in general may more indicate a preference for the ideals of Nazism, particularly its anti-Semitism, but back in the 1930s many societies had high anti-Semitism and racism until it became taboo after the Holocaust. My country of Canada in the 1930s as lead by Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King was a liberal democracy that was notoriously racist against Jews, Canada's aboriginal people, and non-Whites in general. Canada's system of residential schools that involved the destruction of aboriginal culture and regular maltreatment of aboriginals resulting in a massively high death rate was designed to "eliminate" the aboriginal people as an independent culture. But Mackenzie King and his Liberal Party of Canada were not fascist. South Africa had many political parties that did not reject democracy and liberties for whites but denied civil rights to people of colour and supported Hitler's anti-Semitism during World War II. What me and other Wikipedia editors need to know about Al-Futuwa is if it was connected to a political party, or if it was a paramilitary wing of the Iraqi state. Regardless, I have looked into Al-Futuwa, and at the least, it is clearly a para-fascist youth group, like the National Organisation of Youth under the para-fascist regime of Ioannis Metaxas' regime in Greece.--R-41 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course there were non-fascist anti-Jewish forces, but fascism was the outstanding - most anti-Jewish (alonmg Nazism - as they copperated) in rhetoric and in action and it's anti-Jewishness was a FEATURE in its FASCISM. I'm not sure I follow the "legitimization" of such a Hitleristic anti Jewish nazi youth group, al-Futuwwa, Was it not a HITLERJUGEND group? and it is/was not called FASCIST? I am not sure what you mean by "political", all Nazis, Fascists groups claimed to be "political."

Wait, do you mean the futuwwa group in Palestine? that's not the same as the Iraqi al-Futuwwa (FYI)!

Futuwwa factsheet

Described fascist: al-Muthanna / it's youth wing al-Futuwwa
[26] (Gibb, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen and Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, Joseph Schacht, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 4, Brill, 1954, p. 125) [27]

Officially modeled after the Hitler Jugend
[28] [29] [30][31][32]. [33] (Mattar, Philip, Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East & North Africa, p. 860) [34][35]

Besides espousing a fanatic Pan-Arabism, the Futuwwa adopted a frankly totalitarian ideology [36]

I hope you are not disputing all, the facts, and so many resources!

Now, a question, Do you have any information of Arabs resisting fascism/nazism in that era? It can help me in my research, thanks. Sallese (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then, this Al-Muthanna movement should be included since I remember reading that Al-Futuwa's founder was the minister of education in Iraq in the 1930s. So it was in the seats of power in Iraq, so that is a prominent one to mention. But I notice in the Google Books link that you are looking up Al-Muthanna's association with Hitler, though that does link it to a fascist movement, it would be better and more clear to find sources that link it directly to fascism itself, or the root of all fascism, the capital "F" Fascism of Italy. As for Arabs resisting fascism, there was , as I mentioned Omar Muktar in Libya, and Libyans aided the British in defeating the Italian and German armed forces. There were Arab leaders in Iraq such as Nuri as-Said who resisted the Iraqi government's decision in 1941 to rebel against British authorities in favour of the Axis Powers. Egyptian Arab nationalists initially had a flirtation of admiration of fascism in the 1920s, but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted. The main point that needs to be understood is that there were fascist collaborators, anti-fascist resistance and very many bystanders who either were: afraid to resist the political winds; saw fascism and fascist powers as an opportunity to exploit; were swayed by fascist demagoguery of national redemption, economic security, and grandeur; or were ignorant of the issues at hand in Europe.--R-41 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fascism & al-Muthanna

• Memories of state: politics, history, and collective identity in modern Iraq, by Eric Davis, 2005, page 74
  

"the al-Muthanna Club, whose members, heavily influenced by European fascism, formed the core of new radicals for the civilian-military Pan-Arab coalition..." [37]

• The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Volume 4‎ - Page 125 (by Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb, Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Bernard Lewis, Charles Pellat, Joseph Schacht - Islam - 1954)

"from the Fascist- oriented al-Muthanna Club, later renamed the National Democratic Party; the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon; and others" [38]

I appreciate very much this line: "Egyptian Arab nationalists initially had a flirtation of admiration of fascism in the 1920s, but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted." intending to insert it (I hope you have a link/source to this), as I am inserted the fact that Mussolini's party imposed racial rules against Arabs as well (alongside Jews & Africans), to show that some Arabs were VICTIMS of fascism as well!.

Thanks to you, I found more on Omar al-Mukhtar

Umar al-Mukhtar VS Amir Shakib Arslan

After hanging Umar Al-Mukhtar, a book came out "the new land of Islam," the book praised Shakib Arslan for envisioning Italian victory and for prescribing, in time, for the correct Arab attitude, and also lauds General Graziani the henchman of 'Umar al-Mukhtar in 1931 for being the true friend of Arabism.

Amir Shakib Arslan was by far the most important figure in the context of Mussolini's influence in the whole Middle Eastern arena, He undertook to spread the world of the Duce, and to exploit the Abyssinian crisis in order to inspire the younger generation in the Middle east to revolt against the French and the British. He hoped that such an uprising would enhance pan-Arabism, especially his brand, namely Arabism with a strong element of Islamic identity and solidarity. In the dozens of articles published in 1935, he combined the negative messages of radical Islam with the modern message of fascist propaganda. Most of Arslan's work was published primarily in Syrian, Lebanese, and Palestinian papers, in some Egyptian press and was widely read in Egypt.

Sallese (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are focusing way to much on support of fascism by Arabs, in the examples section for Asia the focus must be specific Arab fascist movements. This section should not make a judgement on whether Arabs as a whole were either supportive or non-supportive of fascism, such a judgement would appear as stereotyping. It should also not just claim that because some people called someone a "Mussolini" like figure that that automatically makes them fascist. Mussolini and fascism were highly popular for a time, Winston Churchill, a person who accepted parliamentary democracy unlike fascists, once said that he admired Mussolini and that he would be honoured to don the Italian Fascist black shirt uniform. He ended up being one of those who led the campaign to destroy fascism in Europe.--R-41 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am adding more on the fascist character of Iran's Pahlavi

Iran's Pahlavi's regime was described (among other things) as fascist in style, and it was this characteristic that led the allies to be worried it might fall into Nazi Germany control The Pahlavi regime, like those in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, propounds a vigorous nationalist ideology based on chauvinism, imperial nostalgia and the cult of a leader. On 17 September 1941 the shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mohammaed Reza Pahlavi and go into exile. In March 1943, German SD agents parachuted into Iran (Operation Franz) and a "Nationalist Organization of Iran" in exile in Germany worked with radio propaganda on behalf of fascism. Sallese (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I was trying to inform you at all. There were many para-fascist regimes and movements - para-fascist means that it was influenced by fascism and holds a number of major components fascist doctrine (i.e. radical and militant nationalism, anti-communism, advocacy of a state corporatism, leadership cult, paramilitary group usage, and authoritarianism) - a police state) but holds significant differences from fascism. I want the section reorganized in the manner that the other example fascist movement sections are: focus on the specific fascist movement - not the country and not the nationality of those involved. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party is a major example that should be mentioned (I imagine that pro-SSNP users on Wikipedia will deny its fascist roots, but the combined fact of its radical and militant nationalism advocating a Greater Syria, anti-communism, its flag that is obviously based on the Nazi swastika flag, along with multiple sources that say it is fascist are enough to overcome that).--R-41 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just reorganized it, there's no question about what you said that the SSNP was the most fascistic, I think that for historical accuracy the general activities has to be noted (because of proprtion of the entire epopulation in the ME, the influence it had, etc.), What do you think of the Young Egypot Assoc. it was defined as fascist, or should we move it to para-fascism?

---

Not sure what TheFourDeuces means by "bias", biased towards anti fascism? what are the 2 sides that he refers to? aren't all those mentioned historic fact? I have omitted all the MASSIVE fascist parties and activity in Arab-Palestine for the very reason NOT to get into a ME two-sides story. though, because of TheFourDeuces comment I have put NOW more guilt on the fascist influx than on local, it starts off like this:

1) Before Italian fascism & Hitler's propaganda, there wasn't a known fascism trend in Arabia.

More on what I have added recently to make the locals look better:

2) Mussolini's PNF passed racial legislations against Arabs (as well as against Jews and Africans). [362] It has been argued (by author Robert Gerwarth) that the Italian Fascist regime committed its most numerous crimes against Arabs, blacks and Slavs.[363]

3) ...but the brutality which Fascist Italy imposed on their fellow Arabs in Libya from the 1920s to 1931 led them to be disgusted. Initially the fascist regime took a hard line against Libyan Arab nationalists, who had been fighting a civil war for independence for many years under the leadership of Omar Mukhtar.

All the three sections above weren't needed so much from a historical point were it not for claims of "biased", so its in there anyhow.

What clearly is not "para-fascism"

• "Mussolinism," adopting his fascism in the ME. The leading advocate of a rapprochement with fascism in the Middle East, the pro-Nazi Rashid Ali al-Gaylani. His main propagandist = Shakib Arslan, the "fruits" of the Arab-fascists collaboration in Tunisia [39]
• The leader = Mufti (called the 'Fuhrer of the Arab world,' he was a totalitarian, crushing everyone in his way including Arabs that didn't go along with his line), flown to fascist-Italy by Mussolini, out of fascist-regime Iran where he was hiding, meeting with him [40] and coming out with a declaration in support of his fascism & promising a fascist cooperation [41] [42], his hands in forming a few fascist groups, especially his influence over forming the SSNP (as fascist-Arab-street overshadowed religious differences) [43].
• The youth scouts of al-Muthanna defined as fascsist (cited above), it's wing = "Hitlerjugend" futuwwa (who had nazi activity in Nurmberg, and interchgange with Hitler Youth leader Baldur von Schirach in 1938-1939), with its "totalitarian" ideology [44], it's importance in history because of: pro-axis Iraqi' government sponsorship, ministry of education head: Saib Shawkat's prominece, his "territorially expansionism," his vision... and the Farhud action.
• SSNP, Its swastika-type flag, its own "fuhrer".
THE THREE 'IMPORTANT' FASCIST GROUPS

The following discussion on the "shirts" and their fascist characteristics borrows from a brief but excellent article by Elsa Marston, "Fascist Tendencies in Pre-War Arab Policies: A study of Three Arab Political Movements, [PPS SSNP, Misr al-Fatat (Young Egypt), and Futuwa]," Middle East Forum, 35 (May, 1959), pp. 19-22 [45]

Also quoted here [46], and here: [47]

As agreed to avoid the (deeper into) Palestine real fascism, though there was much of Mufti's parties, youth & other groups, and plans clearly defined as fascist.

What's propably along the lines of "para-fascism"

• Baathism, although it was founded also upon European-fascism, socialism was also (probably as much a) base for it. Though there's this:

  the ideological similarity between Baathism and fascism is quite striking.

  (American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials, Barbara A. Bardes, Mack C. Shelley, Steffen W. Schmidt, published by Cengage Learning, page 18)
• Nasserism, even though Nasser & his rule referred to as fascist in style. or Qaddafi (Gadhafi)'s Libya. [48]

You cannot use a brief observation from an introductory US politics textbook to argue that Ba'athism was parafascist. You have to use books about fascism written by leading experts. TFD (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point here, I didn't use this particular source in the fascism page, I only quoted it here. Sallese (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In question

When the writer mentioned at least seven groups as proto-fascists in the Arab world.

Sallese (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The section spends way to much time talking about regimes and groups that were "fascist-like" of "kind of like fascism". It spends too much time illustrating every possible and known fascist movement in the Middle East rather than focusing on important ones and ignoring the Jewish fascist ideology Revisionist Maximalism associated with Brit HaBirionim] that should be included if all fascist movements are attempted to be described in the section. But I do not see mentioning every one as useful. The Syrian Social Nationalist Party and Al-Muthanna of Iraq were two prominent ones that have held major leverage in power in governments. And note that they are specific fascist movements. Let's leave out the debatable ones and the para-fascist absolute monarchy of Iran. The atmosphere of the Middle East is not the issue in this section, based on the other sections, the focus should be on the specific fascist movements themselves.--R-41 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In your point of view, does it not have to be mentioned at all, Do you agree on such a statement, "public opinion in support of fascism in the Arab street"? One might say, in reference to what you refer to as "the discussed fascism here as in other sections," A tiny group without any support in the public can't be equated --when writing history-- as a massive backed up group/s. In any case, the inner content deals with Mussolini's propagandist in the ME & the three groups, most of all. regards.

Baathism, sources

What dio you guys think of this source:

Gary A. Donaldson is the Keller Foundation Chair in American History at Xavier University in New Orleans. He is also his university's director of undergraduate research [49]

"The Baath party had its origins in European fascism and Arab nationalism"

(America at war since 1945: politics and diplomacy in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War Gary Donaldson, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996, p. 144) [50] Sallese (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to find if claims about Ba'athism being fascist are accurate, look up books about fascism made by these major English-speaking scholars on fascism: Roger Griffen, Matthew Feldman, Walter Laqueur, Stanley Payne, and Zeev Sternhell. I would investigate Griffen's work first, he is an author who has cooperated with multiple other authors, including ones mentioned here, to create a cohesive definition of fascism.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Will try in the next few days, you should know that I appreciate yout hat tips, it seems you have researched quite a lot. That Umar al-Muktar, the more I read about him, the more fascinated he 'looks'.

I couldn't find so far in Roger Griffin's book Fascism: Critical Concepts in Political Science, about Baathism nor about Aflaq.;; Though, since you mentioned famous Walter Laqueur, here's by him:

Since then (post WW2), conditions have changed, and fascism outside Europe has become a possibility and, in some cases, a reality. The Iraqi and the Syrian regimes have pronounced fascist features... Both the Iraqi and the Syrian leadership belongs to the Ba'th party, and elitist, pan-Arabist group that arose in the 1930s partly as a result of the rise of fascism in Europe.

Fascism: Past, Present, Future by Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press US, 1997, p. 162 [51]

And something attributed to him.

Fascism in the twenty-first century? by W Laqueur - 2007... Colonel. Nasser's pan-Arab dictatorship in Egypt had common features with fascism--the monopoly of a state party, the role of the leader, of propaganda..

[52] Sallese (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

All you can say about this is that according to Laqueur Ba'athism had fascist influences and similarities. While this may be true it is not so significant that other writers would mention it. See for example, this description in Political ideology today makes no mention of fascism. The fascist comparison was made by George Bush, as part of the justification for the Gulf War, as Laqueur mentions. He could have called them Stalinists, but that probably would have enraged the Soviet Union and alienated left-wing support for the war, and therefore self-defeating. TFD (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sallese, again the problem is that you are picking straws to put together an argument to demonstrate Middle East had active fascist political influences within it, what I am trying to tell you is that you have already found a clear cut example to answer that question: the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and Al-Muthana in Iraq. These were two prominent fascist movements in the Middle East that have had influence on the governments of Syria and Iraq that should be mentioned. Add those in the manner shown in the other examples in the Europe and Americas section and the point will be clearly made without any dispute. The other examples are more hazy and more likely to continue to be in dispute. And please remove material saying that the Middle East was somehow unique in that it had fascist influences in it, fascism is typically strong in any region with tensions between different cultural and national groups in combination with economic crisis. The Middle East had significant fascist influences just as South Africa had, the thing in common between them was national tensions, in the Middle East between Arabs and Jews as well as the European powers there, in South Africa between Whites and coloured people.--R-41 (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)