Talk:Fascism/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Secondary sources

Collapse per SOAP and NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In all the articles relating to Mussolini, Hitler, National Socialism, and Fascism, there is way too much reliance on secondary sources. Most of these articles use as "reliable" sources liberal, Jewish, American, and British authors giving their interpretation of events and doctrines. There are disputes over whether Hitler believed this, or whether Hitler believed that, whether Mussolini believed this or that, etc. That's because you have all these different authors writing their propaganda and nonsense, making accusations, attributing beliefs to people, instead of just using the actual speeches and writings of Hitler and Mussolini to know what they believed and desired. Furthermore, almost every single quote attributed to Hitler, Mussolini, etc., uses post-war books as sources, rather than the respective speeches or letters they actually come from. If all the quotes are authentic, then the reference to the actual sources (speeches/letters), the date of the speeches/letters, where the speeches were held (or who the letters were written to), etc. should be easily presentable. But I have a feeling no one will be doing that, since the majority of quotes attributed to them is bunk. As for this article in particular, two things that jumped out at me were the claims regarding anti-clericalism and Darwinism. I've seen dozens of anti-Fascist and non-Fascist books (and even a few neo-Fascist books) make this claim of Darwinism. Yet it's to be found nowhere in Mussolini's speeches or autobiography. The best that can be brought forth is the statement on war in The Doctrine of Fascism, but that's reading into it. And as for the anti-clericalism, that's a bunch of nonsense. This article only cites Mussolini's autobiography (My Rise and Fall) 4 times out of 314! And it conveniently ignores the content in it where Mussolini relates the story of his first speech at parliament, where talked about how he brought back the name of God to the political arena against Freemasons, and how Fascism is helping the Church and priests. Is Mussolini's own autobiography going to be dismissed for an article relating to his own doctrine? Or is it only considered reliable when it fits in with the antifa agenda? Further, the Doctrine of Fascism states that "Catholicism completes Fascism". So the claim of Fascism being anti-clerical is wrong. If some individual Fascists were anti-Clerical, that's their problem and irrelevant to Fascism itself. --ChristianHistory (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) The problem with the Fascists own self-published primary sources, i.e. their propaganda, is that the Fascists were less than honest about their intentions when they intended something they knew to be unpopular. The primary sources give us an insight into what they wanted people to think at the time of publication but their actual long term intentions are not as easily discerned. This seems to be very much the case concerning their relations with the churches. Fascism seeks to consolidate all power in the hands of the state. This means that all independent religious organisations need to be subsumed or destroyed by a Fascist state. Destruction was clearly not an option when it came to the major Christian churches, and the Fascists certainly recognised that the churches could be useful to them, so the plan was to gradually get them into a position where they were allied with and controlled by the state as far as possible. The Nazis had some plans to actually change the nature of Christianity in a fundamental way but other Fascists were probably quite happy with it as it was, they just wanted the churches under their control as organisations. So the situation is far less clear cut than you make out. More generally, a good secondary source is more reliable than a primary one as a schollarly secondary source tries to be objective in a way that the primary sources are not. I think the primary sources we can use best when looking into the real intentions and attitudes of the Fascists are probably the internal documents of the Fascist governments and parties where they freely discuss their options away from the general public and hence unfiltered by propaganda. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC) So basically your response is: Facts can't be trusted, so we will resort to our own propaganda. How is it that Fascist "propaganda" is dishonest and can't be trusted, but Jewish and Allied propaganda can? I suppose Jews and antifa have no agenda. God forbid!--ChristianHistory (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Oh dear. If you really feel that all academic and historical writing about Fascism is nothing more than Jewish propaganda, while the writings of the Fascists themselves can be taken at face value, then there is really no point in taking this any further. Your question has been answered. It is not my problem, nor Wikipedia's, if you don't like the answer. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Post-war academic "scholarship" was written by whom now? Not merely non-Fascists, but anti-Fascists. Fascism is an ideology -- both governmental, economic, and social. How is it for a supposedly neutral encyclopedia we are not supposed to trust Fascists themselves on their own ideology and policies (established statements and policies), but are supposed to trust non-Fascists and anti-Fascists on what they say Fascist ideology and policy is (a conspiracy)? That's absurd. How about we use Fascist and National Socialist sources for what Judaism is and see if we get a satisfactory article. --ChristianHistory (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC) And another thing, how is it Fascist speeches and autobiographies about what Fascists themselves believe in can't be trusted and are not reliable sources, but super secret diaries that were made public are reliable sources? --ChristianHistory (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Your opinion is meaningless, because it is against Wikipedia policy regarding primary and secondary sources. In particular WP:PRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Also, your arguments are based on the (false) premise that no non-Fascist sources can possibly be objective about Fascism...as you appear to be asserting that they are somehow part of a Jewish/Anti-Fascist "conspiracy" to make Fascists look bad? -- Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) It's not my opinion. It a fact, admitted even by our friend DanielRigal here, that what Fascists say about their own beliefs contradict what non-Fascist "scholars" claim Fascist beliefs are. How can you claim to have a neutral article on what Fascism is when you dismiss the Fascists own statements of beliefs in favor of non-Fascist claims of what Fascism is. Those in favor of the non/anti-Fascist false understanding of Fascism are the ones pushing a conspiracy. As DanielRigal said, post-war "scholars" cry conspiracy by claiming that the Fascists were conspiring and had a hidden agenda regarding their own policies and lied about their own ideology. "Fascists say they believe x, but I, a anti-Fascist scholar and honest historian, say they really, truly, secretly believe z." Yeah. Right. --ChristianHistory (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC) The bottom line here is that the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are incompatible with your suggestions. If you'd like to start a Fasciopedia project using only primary sources, taking Mussolini's word as fact, and discounting the scholarly writings of Jews and other minorities, MediaWiki is thataway. Rivertorch (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) The user ChristianHistory said "Most of these articles use as "reliable" sources liberal, Jewish, American, and British authors giving their interpretation of events and doctrines." So ChristianHistory believes that Jewish people are "unreliable" sources as well as every American and every British scholar. That is openly anti-Semitic, anti-American, and anti-British that collectively excludes the opinions of hundreds of millions of people residing in these areas to be considered. The article currently includes secondary sources as well as quotes from fascists, so it is not excluding fascists' own views. The proposal by ChristianHistory that this article should exclude all non-fascist evaluations of fascism is completely unacceptable, violates NPOV and and is openly prejudiced, discriminatory, and xenophobic towards Jewish, British, and American people. The user ChristianHistory appears to be a neo-Nazi, or other anti-Semitic fascist who is using this section of the discussion page as a soapbox, that is opposed by Wikipedia, for a pro-fascist viewpoint and the defense of fascism from review by non-fascist scholars. This section should be marked as a soapbox, ChristianHistory has no intention on having an open discussion, her/his mind is already determined to force out non-fascist interpretation of fascism, it is apparent he/she will not accept any opposing side - it is not a rational argument - thus all discussion and consideration of this user's points should be ignored and this section should be put into a collapsible soapbox template.--R-41 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Oh give me a break with your "anti-Semite" "neo-Nazi" canards. Post-war Jewish, American, and British scholars are not reliable on this topic because they pretend to write about the beliefs of their enemy while openly contradicting their enemies own statements of belief, and alleging an ideology which was never expressed. It's people like you, R-41, who are the real racists and full of hate, looking under their bed for the evil boogeyman they don't like, waiting to pull the race and Nazi card on them. I'm not proposing an apologetic for Fascism, I'm proposing an article that actually teaches the truth (heaven forbid!) about what Fascism is and was, not what its enemies openly contradictory allegations are. Is it acceptable to dismiss the Jews own beliefs on Judaism and appeal to pre-war National Socialist and Christian historians which state things about Judaism that the Jews themselves don't actually believe? Yes or no? Well gee, that would just be unacceptable, "prejudiced", and "anti-Semitic", wouldn't it? But when the shoe is on the other foot... You said: "...ChristianHistory has no intention on having an open discussion, her/his mind is already determined to force out non-fascist interpretation of fascism..." What a hypocrite you are. You have already determined to force out the Fascists own interpretation of their own belief. As if Mussolini didn't know what he believed, he needed to have post-war Allied sources clarify everything for him. --ChristianHistory (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I am re-collapsing this thread. Multiple editors have told you that what you propose for the article violates core policies. You do not have consensus, and it's time to drop the stick. Your characterization of groups of people is patently offensive and creates a hostile environment for other editors, and now you have begun making personal attacks in clear violation of policy. Please consult the relevant guideline if you're unclear on what is and what is not appropriate on talk pages. In the meantime, please do not reopen this discussion; if you wish to complain about my collapsing it again, you may file a report at WP:ANI. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

More Nonsense Edit Warring To Come!

And of course, it will be by some POV Warrior who wants to whitewash Fascism being on the Right. It's not as if we haven't had this discussion a bajillion times, or that every reputable scholar on the planet considers Fascism to be Right-Wing. Of course, since I've already reverted the silliness, and he's reverted it back, I can't touch it without violating 1RR, so someone else will have to delete all of his deliberate attempts at propagandizing here. I've also reported him to the Edit Warring Noticeboard for his violations of the restrictions placed on this page. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that he has self-reverted, which is a good sign. Lets hope that we can discuss this sensibly now.

It is not so much named editors with different understandings of the subject that puzzle me; It is the never-ending flow of POV IP editors. It sometimes feels a bit like an organised campaign to wear us down, but that way paranoia lies. I think it is just that there are a lot of ill-educated people about who think right=good, left=bad and that nuance is a type of French perfume. Whether somebody is pointing them in our direction I really don't know. The other things I find puzzling are why they get so upset and why they take it out on us. Do they write indignant letters to the historians we use as sources telling them they have got it all wrong? I doubt it. I wish they could just realise that Fascism being on the right doesn't taint the non-Fascist right any more than the non-Stalinist left needs to apologise for Stalin. They are defending themselves against an accusation that isn't even being made. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is due to people getting their "information" from non-scholars, usually radio talk-show hosts with nothing more than a high-school diploma, or debunked journalists that no reputable historian supports. They have heard all their lives, from everyone from their high-school history teacher onwards, that Fascism is a Right-Wing ideology, so when someone contradicts this, usually by twisting the meanings of the definitions of the terms "Left" and "Right," (usually into some ludicrous "Big Government" vs. "Small Government" paradigm...) or by relying on fraudulent information, or the works of non-historians, they feel that they have learned a "secret truth," and must spread the "news" to all. It's like the "zealotry of the newly-converted." But yes, your comparisons to Stalinism are particularly apt. Your average Right-Winger is no more a "Fascist" than a Left-Winger like Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "Stalinist." -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't view it as very becoming for you to speak of me or what my intentions could have been in my absence. I should point out that I haven't encountered a "1RR" article before, I'm afraid I'm not one of you seasoned Wikipedians. I wasn't trying to whitewash anything, my intention was to have the article worded in as objective a way as possible. What is "right" or "left" varies between different countries and different time periods. To try to place fascism on some nonexistent universal left-right scale trivializes the conversation. How for example would you categorize fascism within the left-right paradigm existing in the United States? "Right wing" in US politics refers to the belief in a free market economic system with little to no intervention on the part of the state, and a decentralized, constitutionally limited form of government with more power and autonomy granted to the states. This contrasts greatly with fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler who criticized free market capitalism and favored a highly centralized authoritarian state. Also, despite what your favorite talking heads have told you, just because someone disagrees with you on something does not automatically make them a Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly fan.--Cyrrk (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I get my interpretations of the political spectrum from reputable historians and political scientists, not "talking heads." Your description of the American Right is a typically erroneous paradigm (invented fairly recently), as while the American Right is often in favor of "small government" in economic terms, they are quite Authoritarian on social issues. Those who favor "small government" in both cases are Libertarians, who are generally Left on social issues, but Right on economic ones. Fascists are just plain Authoritarian on everything, but the academic community, and in particular, the most reputable historians on the subjects of Fascism and the history of WW2, are pretty much in 100% agreement that they are considered to be Far Right. Even the Oxford Dictionary defines it as such: [1]. And yes, I'm quite abrasive online, particularly when this issue comes up, because we seem to be having the same damned argument every week...with a constantly revolving group of newcomers who each fails to read any of the previous discussions or consensuses that have been reached. Frankly, that's why this page is 1RR. It's constantly under assault. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Libertarians are usually considered to right wing. It's pretty much only libertarians themselves that don't like to be called right wing. Local Panel (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. That's just another nonsense argument that's popped up in recent years. The Cato Institute, one of the foremost Libertarian think-tanks on the planet, explicitly states that Libertarianism is, "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The Libertarian Vote. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's consistent with what I just said. Libertarians tend to shun the Right Wing label. But it usually considered Right Wing by non-libertarian sources. Local Panel (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Like what? Show me these alleged "sources." The original Left-Wingers (as in the people for whom the term was invented) were Classical Liberals, and much closer to modern Libertarians than either Liberals or Conservatives.

--Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Conversely, some libertarian movements preaching extreme individual freedom belong well on the right of the spectrum..." Page 5 in Stackleberg. Local Panel (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The post-war parties that developed from fascism generally advocate small government and oppose immigration. TFD (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you give me some examples of these?--Cyrrk (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Authoritarian on social issues? Which? An example of authoritarianism on social issues would be criminalizing homosexual activities, which isn't an idea that would gain much traction in most of the world outside of Islamic countries. Opposing gay marriage is not social authoritarianism as that's a debate about granting an additional right which did not exist before. It's not small government vs. big government, that's an oversimplification. It generally comes down to the federal government vs. the states. Also, Merriam-Webster defines fascism without using terms "left" or "right" [2]. What I referred to with talking heads is how Democrats often try to stereotype those who disagree with them as being in the "Glenn Beck crowd" and such, which despicable just as as labeling all Democrats as "terrorist sympathizers" is. The media often pushes that "us vs. them" mentality.--Cyrrk (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Democrat, for the record. I am, however, a hardcore Civil libertarian. And yes, any attempts to block gay marriage are based purely on religious reasons. These reasons are often stated explicitly by these social conservatives as being religious, and there is no justification for denying these rights to people other than because of religious reasons. Just because they aren't as Far Right as the "Sharia Law" Muslim extremists who want them criminalized or executed, doesn't mean that it isn't still an example of "Big Government" Authoritarianism. Either you believe in "small government" and Liberty, or you believe that certain religions have the right to dictate the laws of the USA. Social conservatism also supports "big government" authoritarian views on drug use, pornography, prostitution, and birth control, and in the USA, promotes "Christian Supremacism." All of these concepts are clearly authoritarian, and clearly examples of "big government" intervention, regardless of how you wish to "spin" it. And since we're on the Fascism page, I'm sure you'd find support for most of these social conservative policies well within the scope of most Fascist government programs, for the record. Either way, your position is not supported by reputable sources. And on Wikipedia, unless you have RS, you ain't got @$%#. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Even one of the sources, Roger Griffin, cited in the "majority of scholars consider fascism to be on the far right" statement calls fascism a "conceptual labyrinth", and points out that it has "drawn on a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right, anti-modern and pro-modern, to articulate itself...".[3] There is no universal left/right spectrum, and even if there were, it would be impossible to place fascism on it. I maintain that the most impartial way to close the article's summary would be with "There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides."

Also, opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily from a religious standpoint. One could argue that setting the precedent that "all consenting adults have the right to marry each other" would also cause polygamy and incestual marriage to have to be legitimized. And Ron Paul, who can be considered the preeminent libertarian on the national stage, takes a pro-life stance, while also supporting the decriminalization of drugs and the right of states to legalize prostitution and gay marriage should the voters decide to. With abortion, despite the rhetoric about "women's rights", you need to take into account that we're dealing with the rights of two individuals, not just one. Social conservatism in the US isn't authoritarian, no one's campaigning to reinstate anti-sodomy laws. And what national leaders are promoting "Christian supremacism"? And what have I been "spinning" exactly?--Cyrrk (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Any attempts to divorce Fascism from the Right is "spin." End of story. We've had this argument a million times already. Please consult the archives, as well as the large amounts of RS showing this to be the accepted scholarly position. Also, your attempts to try to make social conservatism not seem authoritarian are absurd, and show that you really don't have the ability to be objective on this matter, which by the way, has gotten very off-topic. And if you want examples of "Christian Supremacism," all you have to do is listen to Michelle Bachmann, David Barton, Pat Robertson, Rick Santorum, or any other prominent social conservatives talk. Furthermore, just because Ron Paul isn't Libertarian on every issue...does not mean that Libertarianism is what Ron Paul believes. That's a logical fallacy. It's like saying that since Ronald Reagan is widely considered to be a Conservative...yet he raised taxes on many occasions...that Conservatism means raising taxes... Just silly. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're blatantly ignoring the fact that one of the sources cited to back up the statement that "...a majority of scholars generally consider facism in practice to be on the far right.", Roger Griffin, described fascism as drawing on "a wide range of cultural and intellectual currents, both left and right...". So if we have two sources, Junginger Horst and Roger Griffin, that describe fascism as a synthesization of both left wing and right wing positions, and acknowledge that there is an ongoing debate on how one could categorize it in the left/right spectrum, and two sources that label it as right wing, that isn't enough consensus to support the "a majority of scholars generally consider..." claim.

In fact, I'm only assuming that the other two describe fascism as right wing; I'm given reason to doubt even this, because as I said, one of the three sources given for the "a majority of scholars generally consider" statement, Roger Griffin's "The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology", doesn't back it up at all.

You're also ignoring my explanations on social conservative positions with abortion and gay marriage. You're simply stating "social conservatism is authoritarianism" matter of factly as if I were supposed to assume it to be true just because you said so. And you didn't back up your claim that social conservatives support "Christian Supremacy"; you merely gave me a list of names and told me to listen to them talk. That's ludicrous.--Cyrrk (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Social conservatism is well-documented as being authoritarian on the Wiki page for it. The very concept of it, that the government should have more power to enforce certain "values" or "morals" on people, is itself prima facie authoritarian. Your arguments regarding gay marriage and other issues are illogical, and fail any test of reasoning. On the other hand, I'd love to see your RS claiming that it isn't. "Christian Supremacism" is the idea that Christian Biblical Law should be codified into US law. People like Bachmann, Barton, Palin, etc., have repeatedly stated that US laws should be based on Biblical Law. This is just as authoritarian and anti-Liberty as Sharia Law. Regardless, you continue to be way OT. I'll let the other "regulars" here continue the actual discussion regarding the Left/Right discussion, because frankly, I'm getting bored having to re-teach you people the things you should have learned in high-school history class. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The social conservatism page only refers to the movement as authoritarian because you edited it to say so. Social conservatives aren't giving the government more power to enforce any values. When you're discussing gay marriage and abortion, you're discussing special privileges which weren't already granted. Gay marriage has never been practiced in the history of western civilization, so it's a debate over redefining an institution which forms the backbone of our society. Give me a single example of Palin or Bachmann calling for Biblical law in America. And for you to compare Christian law with Shariah law just shows what a biased, warped angle you are coming from.

Yes, I added that statement, and presented two academic citations backing me up. That is how Wikipedia works. Your opinion is meaningless, unless you have academic citations to back you up. I see you making a lot of edits...but not adding any citations generally. In other words, you are changing the article to fit with your own POV, without adhering to Wikipedia guidelines, or any kind of academic scholarship. Furthermore, Biblical Law and Sharia Law are almost identical on most issues, and the idea of using ANY kind of religious law as a basis for government in the USA is opposed by the Constitution, and is far more "big government" and Authoritarian than anything ever promoted by President Obama. It's sick, twisted, and borderline Fascist, and I didn't fight against Islamofascists in the US Army, just to have the same kinds of laws instituted here in the USA, based on Leviticus, rather than the Qu'ran. Furthermore, gay marriage has indeed been practiced in many cultures, and is not prohibited by many religions. In fact, when the Christians came to power in the Roman Empire, one of the things they did was specifically outlaw the practice, as it had not been against the law until that point. Finally, your illogical argument about "special priveleges" is the same kind of argument which was used by Conservatives to fight against abolitionism, African-American civil rights, and women's rights. You're just being ridiculous. Now, I've warned you a few times about going too far off-topic, and I suggest you read this: WP: Notaforum --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

False, gay marriage was never practiced in the Roman Empire, and social acceptance of the practice of homosexuality waxed and waned throughout its history. Notice I also said western civilization, you can not point to a single time in the history of western civilization in which gay marriage was in open practice. And concerning what I said about gay marriage being a special privilege, and your shameless attempt at painting me as having the mentality of a slavery supporter, the point is that legitimizing the idea that consenting adults have the right to marry each other would also mean we would have to recognize incestual marriage and polygamy. So by your definition, those who oppose polygamy and incestual marriage also must be authoritarians, correct? Why do you keep bringing up Biblical law? It's a nonissue. You keep claiming that there is a popular movement to put Biblical law on the books in the US, yet you fail to back this up with even a shred of evidence. And there was nothing right-wing about the southern democrats. Unless you conveniently have forgotten, the South was one of the most loyal bastions of support for Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with other progressives like William Jennings Bryan. The South only began to shift to conservatism in the 60's and 70's.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Many scholars have discussed the practice of homosexual unions in the Roman Empire. It wasn't "common," nor was it practiced by the upper classes, for whom marriage was largely arranged due to non-romantic concerns, but it happened. It was only outlawed because of the imposition of Christianity as the state religion. [4]. And it's clear from your complete ignorance regarding the history of southern conservatism, that you don't actually read history books. I'm done arguing with you about off-topic things on this talk page, and no amount of citations will convince a person like you because frankly, it's apparent that you've made your mind up, and no amount of scholarly consensus will dissuade you from your biased opinion, even though every historian on the planet would laugh at it. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You're one to talk about bias. I don't think you even read that article you're citing. "Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against." So how can you assume from that one sentence that gay marriage was ever openly practiced or accepted by Roman society? And you seem to have conveniently ignored the word apparently. I have no idea whether there were a few isolated incidencts, but what gives you the idea that it was ever recognized and accepted by the general society? Who are these scholars you're mentioning? And for you to claim I have a poor knowledge of history is nothing short of psychological projection. You have proved on here repeatedly how poor your own grasp of history and politics is, and I think you're well aware of this. Whenever you get taken up on any of your nonsense, you accuse others of going off-topic, you go ad hominem, or you simply ignore it.

"you can not point to a single time in the history of western civilization in which gay marriage was in open practice.", Canada, since 2006 (sorry, I'm new and don't know how to do those fancy citations)--Fallind (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Reteaching? All you do is keep dodging the point that the Roger Griffin source acknowledging that fascism draws upon both the left and right. It's as if you think that ignoring the issue will somehow make it disappear.--Cyrrk (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I've said before, we've already had this argument many times. You completely missed the point regarding the Roger Griffen citation, and you completely DELETED all the other ones, without just cause. The article ALREADY recognizes that Fascism "draws upon both the left and right." Nobody's disputing that. HOWEVER, it is clear, from the vast majority of sources, (even though you seem determined to delete all those that disagree with your un-academic world-view...) that Fascism is considered by nearly every scholar on the planet as being "Far Right," because the primary elements of the ideology are those associated with the right. You seem to have a clear problem being objective at all on this issue. I didn't write this article, nor did I have any significant hand in editing it. Generally, all I do is protect it from vandalism. Furthermore, your edits, particularly your edit-warring on the Roger Griffin citation, are grounds for another report to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Do we really need to "go there" again? --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary elements of the ideology are associated with the far right? Like what? How about "The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat" which called for strong progressive taxation, a lowerment of the retirement age, and workers getting their own representatives in industry commissions? Yes, that sounds very right wing. How about the fascist third-way economic policy, finding a path between socialism and capitalism? Where do you think these ideas would fit on the American political spectrum in the modern day? I'm unacademic? You're the one making ludicrous claims such as "Michelle Bachmann supports Christian Supremacy and favors implementing Biblical law", which you refuse, repeatedly, to substantiate. And you have the very unacademic tendency of making blanket statements such as "all writers and scholars consider fascism to be right wing" once again, as if I were supposed to assume it to be true just because you said so. And I removed the Oxford Dictionary citation because even though you could present one dictionary that refers to fascism as right wing, I could cite for you others, Cambridge[5], Merriam-Webster[6], that don't label it as left or right.--Cyrrk (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean? Illogical. Here's apparently how your mind works: Source 1 says, "The sky is blue." Sources 2 and 3 say, "The sky has clouds." Therefore, since Sources 2 and 3 do not mention the color of the sky, you conclude that Source 1 is "lying," and should be disregarded. Actually, what you NEED to find, is a reputable dictionary that defines Fascism as "Left," which you will not be able to do. And I've avoided your comments regarding Bachmann and Palin, because it's a very off-topic debate. All you have to do is Google them. They've both made statements to the press about such things. Now, have a nice life. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I need to find a dictionary claiming fascism to be on the left? I never argued that it was on the left. Most dictionaries take into account that fascism is a complex ideology that cannot be categorized on a simple left/right spectrum. You found the one dictionary, Oxford, which is refusing to acknowledge this and is doing nothing but trivializing the conversation with that partisan spew. If I were to find a dictionary labeling fascism as left wing, I would object to that as well. No, it's not an off-topic debate. You've been claiming social conservatism amounts to authoritarianism, and that there is a push to implement Biblical law in America. When I ask you to verify these claims, the best you can come up with is to give me a list of names of conservative politicians and tell me to "google them". It seems you have a tendency to accuse others of going off topic whenever you realize you can't back up a certain statement you made.--Cyrrk (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cyrrk. There is this statement that was taken out, yet backed up by the source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Fascism&action=historysubmit&diff=459052215&oldid=459046654 Local Panel (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course you do. Your POV is legen....dary. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That sentence was removed because it was American-centric, not international. The American political spectrum is affected by the US having underlying classical liberal foundations in its Constitution and political culture, thus its political movements on the left and right publicly emphasize their commitment to liberty, equality of opportunity, emphasis of individual rights and individuality, and meritocracy as opposed to right-wing movements outside of the US without a classical liberal basis that emphasize order; natural or religiously-ordained hierarchy; collective society- be it religious/cultural, ethnic/national/racial/tribal, or family/clan; and even today in some cases such as in the Middle East and Africa, nepotism. As such its politics is divided between a left that is social liberal versus a right that is neoliberal combined with social conservatism. There is no mainstream politically significant anti-Enlightenment far-right movement in today's USA that rejects Enlightenment essential ideals of individual rights, equality of opportunity, and meritocracy. The international spectrum includes reactionary and absolutist monarchist movements that do not exist in the USA. The Italian Fascists - the original fascists - publicly declared themselves right-wing at the height of their power on two occasions which are shown in the intro, they of course as nationalists had to portray themselves as having an ideology that could appeal to anyone in the nation and thus said that their right-wing position was not too significant. Yes, they did have leftist origins of a number of members as they did rightest origins or political opportunist origins of other members.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC):::

The fact that this is an international dictionary requires that terms that don't mean the same thing everywhere be pointed to and explained, in order avoid confusion. Local Panel (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)]

You need sources to back up your views, not arguments, otherwise it is just original research. Note that arguments like yours have taken up over 30 pages of other editors' time. TFD (talk) 06:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been paying attention. The statement is sourced. It explicitly says that the term is a source of confusion. Local Panel (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural relativism does not necessarily apply to basic political ideology, the left-right spectrum is explained in universal terms on the intros in the Left-wing politics and the Right-wing politics articles. The left is based upon an egalitarian ethos that rejects social hierarchy in society; the right is based upon a hierarchical ethos that sees social hierarchy as either natural or beneficial and opposes the left's desire to dismantle hierarchical institutions and systems in society. There are cultural variations of left vs. right, but they follow the basic scheme I described. The American political spectrum is founded upon an underlying classical liberal political culture - thus even the American political right has elements of left-wing ideas from classical liberalism- such as support of equality of opportunity and meritocracy while being suspicious of the social liberal left of dangerously infringing the country's classical liberal ethos of limited government and imposing taxation without representation in the name of egalitarian social welfare policies - this is an Anglo/American phenomenon on the political right. Whereas in Iran led by a socially conservative Islamic theocracy, the mainstream Iranian political left has elements of right-wing theocratic ideas as they typically portray themselves as religiously based and accepting of conservative Sharia law. So yes, of course culture affects politics and how the left-right political spectrum plays out in certain cultures. But the political spectrum itself is based upon the general universal tendencies of egalitarian (left) vs. hierarchical (right).--R-41 (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, fascism is "extreme right", which is a political family that also exists in the U.S. - it stands for the common man against the elites and scapegoats minorities and appeals to conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very culturally-specific example of far right. A more general definition is that far right politics advocates supremacism and completely rejects the concept of social equality - racists, xenophobes, sexists, religionists, homophobes, and others who have been identified as being far right all typically have the common quality as viewing a group as being inferior and degenerate to a superior group. At the most extreme far right people pursue extermination of "inferior" people. The far left is the opposite, far left politics advocates complete egalitarianism and completely rejects the legitimacy of any social hierarchy - far left people are hostile towards any stratified institutions such as capitalist economies or people associated with stratified institutions and desire a radical revolution while refusing compromise to forcibly remove these institutions and people from power and create a society offically based on complete social equality. These are the extremes of the spectrum.--R-41 (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A huge amount of "truth" appears above, much of which is not "truth." There certainly have been far-left xenophobes and murderers, racists and general "baddies." Oncluding Stalin's anti-Semitism and purges, the anti-Tibet acts of China, racism in Vietnam, the odd concept of "equality" in Cambodia and so on. I would also point out that one group TFD has labelled "far right" was criticised because it was not racist or anti-minority -- making that post self-contradicted! So let us deprecate what we "know" to be the "truth" and finally simply stick to representative reliable sources. The way WP policies require. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But as I said earlier political culture and situation of a society can variate general adherance to the political spectrum. while Vladimir Lenin was a staunch opponent of chauvinist nationalism and widespread anti-Semitism in the former Russian Empire, however Stalin was assimilated into Imperial Russia's anti-Semitic outlook. Cambodia has a long-running animosity between Cambodians and the Vietnamese, Pol Pot exploited this to gain a nationalist base and popular support for his regime. In the West, just look at the anti-Islamic uproar in the United States over accusations that Obama was Muslim, Obama was forced to publicly refute he was Muslim and said he was Christian. As for China's actions in Tibet and Uighuristan are part of a general attempt by China to forcefully maintain territorial unity and avoid a violent ethnic/religious breakup of the country like what happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia, though the West does not like to acknowledge this, Tibetan nationalists have grown increasingly violent and chauvinist in Tibet towards Han Chinese - and the Dalai Lama has criticized them for this. China's actions are mainly rational self-preservation of territorial unity - the Chinese government provides financial support to Tibetan cultural associations, rather than irrational hate-driven chauvinism. Still, as I said, a person or political movement holding a supremacist belief that there are degenerate inferior peoples in society is a far right position, regardless of other views that may not be far right.--R-41 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems as if the only "arguments" in opposition to the Far Right classification of Fascism are based upon Logical fallacies. "Conservatives are opposed to raising taxes. Ronald Reagan raised taxes. Therefore, Ronald Reagan was a Liberal." LOL. Of course, making any kind of attempt to decide classification based on anything but the conclusions reached by scholarly experts in Reputable Sources is nothing but Original Research, and therefore not fit to be part of a Wikipedia article, regardless of one's personal opinions on the subject. End of story. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All this pontification is unnecessary. Trying to impress others guys about the knowledge you think you have accomplishes nothing. All that matters is whether is something is sourced or not. I put in a statement that said the term "Right" was a source of confusion because that label refers to laissez-faire philosophy in America but that Right in the European sense differs. And it was deleted. But it's sourced, so it should not be deleted. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it, or if it conflicts with everything you think you know. Local Panel (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, bring it up with the person who deleted it...a person who has been mostly absent from the discussions on this talk page, as far as I can tell. I thought the sentence was fine, once it was tweaked. --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to impress people with knowledge. If you looked at the discussion board I have been responding to specific claims, Collect brought up issues of xenophobia - traditionally a far right phenomenon in political support of xenophobia - as being held by Stalin, Pol Pot, and very inaccurately Maoist China in regards to Tibet. I bring up what needs to be known. Left-wing and right-wing are long-established political concepts, and Wikipedia currently has very good definitions of them backed up by many sources on their respective articles that I mentioned. LocalPanel the sentence you added was American-centric, what about 1-billion-people-populated China whose official political culture is significantly different than any we have described that would put social democracy as a reactionary ideology from the state's Marxist-Leninist perspective? We can't include and account for every cultural variation of political culture. --R-41 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The clear solution is to clearly define the basis on which the "spectrum" is being used -- I suggest that the spectrum is widely viewed as obsolete at best, and that from time to time and place to place there are no absolutes around on which to assert placement in the "political spectrum" (noting the large number of earlier posts in the archives here showing that the spectrum was deprecated by Schlesinger and others more than a hlf-century ago). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you have it backwards. An aspect of the "Right" in the U.S. is that it is laissez-faire. The far right in Europe today has largely accepted laissez-faire as well. But that is not what makes groups right-wing. Similarly "no child left behind" is considered left-wing in the U.S. but was considered right-wing in other countries. TFD (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I have or don't have backwards. I'm not giving my views. All I want to do is put in the article what the source is saying. If you think what the source is saying is backwards you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not something to discuss here. Local Panel (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say what you want to put in. TFD (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think it says then? If worse comes to worse I'll just put a direct quote from it. Local Panel (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your link was to p. 3, but I see that it should have been page 5.[7] But I do not think that your summary is entirely accurate. You write, "The labeling of fascism as being on the right of the political spectrum causes some confusion...." But Stackelberg did not say it was a "label" and he wrote about the left-right confusion today, not confusion about the meaning of the term right-wing, certainly not in 1933. But Stackelberg was writing for a modern U.S. audience. The confusion in the rest of the world might be why U.S. conservatives call themselves "right-wing", a term normally reserved for extremists. TFD (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Modern US Conservatives are always trying to "Newspeak" terms like "Right-Wing" and "Conservative" into meaning completely different things from their actual meanings. For Pete's sake, they've rewritten history to where it was "Conservatives" who were the champions of Civil Rights! (LOL. Seriously. Glenn Beck claims this on a regular basis...) Next thing you know, they'll be claiming that Ronald Reagan launched the space program, the word "Liberal" just means "America-Hater," and Hitler was a card-carrying Liberal Democrat. Of course, no one with any education or intelligence would believe such nonsense...but they (US Conservatives) largely get their "info" from uneducated dropouts like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and Sean Hannity, so it's really no surprise... --Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So what if he didn't use the term "label"? What difference does that make? He uses the term "heading" on page 4. It's basically a synonym for our purposes. If your objections about my paraphrasing are going to be that trivial, again, I'll just put in direct quotes and it will be settled. I don't understand the rest of your statement, so I can't comment on it. Local Panel (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(Since this article is about fascism, I presume Godwin's law does not apply.) Compare the following two statements: (1) Hitler pursued anti-Semitic policies, (2) Hitler pursued policies that have been labelled anti-Semitic. There is a difference in meaning of the two sentences. TFD (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW while the writer of a lengthy book may choose to explain terminology to his readers, it does not belong here.[8] We are writing for a general audience, not for people who are confused after watching Fox News Channel commentators. TFD (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you claim that not 100% scholars agree about fascism's position in the political spectrum - but you have not stated what the alternative definitions are. Here is the main one: the alternative political spectrum definition other than far right that a number of prominent and respected scholars such as Stanley Payne and Ze'ev Sternhill is that fascism is syncretic - a mix of political positions ranging anywhere from far-left to far-right with no concentration on the left, right, or centre - thus the claim by scholars and even fascists like the Nazis and the Falange that they are "neither left, right, nor centre". But revisionist ideas that fascists were left-wing are completely flawed, and even Hitler, in spite of his National Socialists having a very left-wing sounding name, in Mein Kampf attacked left-wing politics and right-wing politics, saying: "Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf. These are Hitler's own words condemning left-wing and right-wing politics. The mainstream scholarly political spectrum identification is far right, the alternative scholarly identification is syncretic. But identification as left-wing is produced by right-wing revisionists and as can be seen is not backed up by fascists' own statements.--R-41 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Even then, Payne and Sternhell were writing about "fascist ideology", not fascist government. TFD (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

When did I say that my personal view is that fascism was left wing? I think you mistake me as having a POV on the matter. I don't care whether it's in actuality left, right or center. So it does not good to try to convince me. All I want to do is bring forth information from existing sources. The article is lacking representation from various significant viewpoints on the matter, as well as explanation about what is meant by the terms right or left when it is labeled one or the other. Local Panel (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Far-right and syncretic are the two mainstream political spectrum identifications. Far-right is by far the most common, syncretic is the less common, but still scholarly supported alternative alternative identification.--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. Local Panel (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, to TFD, we are talking about ideology here, that is what this article is about. The practical obstacles or plans deliberately not pursued should largely be put on articles about fascist governments. For another example: even communist governments did not achieve ideal communism nor did they fulfill all the steps of historical development that Marx claimed were necessary. Our focus should be on ideology not merely fascist governments - the fascist governments in Italy and Germany faced constraints on their more radical plans by the conservative-oriented militaries and economic elites in those countries rather than just lying to the public about their plans (which they did indeed do, but not on everything) - Mussolini was frustrated by upper-class bourgeois identity in Italy as contributing to division of the country and wanted to pass laws getting rid of first-class compartments in trains, etc.; Hitler wanted capitalism abolished and replaced by a mercantlist-like economic system; but neither could overcome conservative-minded elites who restrained this.--R-41 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are presenting a POV (which btw is considered reactionary) that fascism should be viewed by what they promised in 1919 rather than what they delivered in 1941. Do you really think that it can be placed on the same intellectual level as socialism, liberalism and conservatism? TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

But then why should liberalism be viewed by what it promised in the late 18th century - the promise of liberty, equality of opportunity, and self-determination of all peoples with what it offered in the early 20th century: liberal governments denying women the right to vote until the 1920s, the acceptance of authoritarian colonialism, and acceptance of racist conceptions of underdeveloped societies? It is all about context. You claim that I am focusing on the 1919 radical promises of fascism and not what you say are the 1941 supposed more conservative realities - it probably will shock you to know that the info on Mussolini I mentioned where he officially condemned the bourgeoisie, supported a radical policy of removing bourgeois entitlements, and told the Italian people to enter contests to draw cartoons ridiculing bourgeoisie society, all took place in 1938 to 1939. Italian Fascism can largely be placed on a similar intellectual level as socialism, liberalism, and conservatism because much of its arguments were generally coherant, feasible and highly intellectual, though often exaggerated by fascism's intentional hyperbolic irrational appeal to emotion. However Nazism cannot be placed on the same intellectual level because much of its focus was on racial arguments that were based on racist conspiracy theories, with more practical technical ideas have been known to borrowed or emulated from Fascist Italy or the Stalin-era Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that these liberal core values did not change, but they were sometimes in conflict and different liberals at different times have balanced them and developed different policies. Early liberals rejected democracy because they feared the masses would use their power to deny freedom. Colonial settlement was allowed in terra nulla. Slavery was defended on liberal principles. See for example The debate over slavery: antislavery and proslavery liberalism in antebellum America.[9] Similarly, China defends free enterprise on the basis that it will improve overall conditions for the people not on liberal principles of freedom. TFD (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberal core values have enormously changed since the 18th century. In the 18th to mid-19th century, liberals only supported suffrage of propertied classes, liberals initially did not support democracy - viewing democracy in light of the ancient Greece examples; liberal governments did not permit trade unions to be formed. But these positions changed drastically. Yes, liberals did have some values that remained relatively consistent, as did the fascists - their radical, social Darwinist nationalism and ideas of imposing national class collaboration to eliminate class conflict.--R-41 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The core values of freedom and equality have remained, their balance and interpretation has changed. TFD (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The change of balance and interpretation of ideas can be said to to be the same for fascism. It always supported a radical social Darwinist nationalism combined with advocacy of an economy of class collaboration. Like liberal governments it had to wiggle its way through opposition and prevailing mentality of society to impose its change. Upon being entrenched in power after 1925, Italian Fascism grew increasingly more radical and forceful - the idea of Mussolini openly confronting the Italian bourgeoisie in 1922 in a coalition government would have been political suicide, but in 1938 he appointed Achille Starace to lead a propaganda assault on bourgeois society as being uncooperative and not compatible with the ideal national society the Italian Fascists supported.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But significantly core ideas did not include nationalization of industry, full employment or the welfare state, any more than they do in Communist China, or liberal Western nations. TFD (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fascist Italy had the highest percentage of state enterprises in Western Europe in the mid 1930s, the Fascist state by 1939 controlled 100% of Italy's armaments industry, 80% of the shipping industry, 80% of the locomotive industry, 75% of the iron industry, and huge portions of other industries, see here for source: [10].--R-41 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your source says, "During the banking crisis of the Great Depression, Italy had little or no choice but to intervene massively in the economy to surmount this colossal market failure" (p. 301). TFD (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point. But bear in mind that Fascist Italy was intervening and nationalizing sectors of its economy before the Stock Market Crash and the onset of the Great Depression. The Fascist regime formed a centralized and strongly state-controlled oil company, Agip, in 1926, by fusing multiple oil companies into it, giving the Italian government major control over the country's oil industry. The general inclination of Fascist economics, like that of any similar totalitarian ideology, was to seek centralized control over the economy. The Italian Fascist movement had declared their intention to nationalize the armaments industry in the Fascist Manifesto of 1919, and although much of the original radical elements manifesto was unfulfilled or scrapped due to the movement's courting of conservative nationalists in the ANI, it did belatedly fulfill this goal by the 1930s. But to stay on topic: Italian Fascism like liberalism and other ideologies did have some central core concepts and ideas that were consistent, others fluctuated in response to the times or circumstances or political alliances. I say Italian Fascism but I am also referring to other fascist models based on Italian Fascism but I do not intend to claim that Nazism was consistent. Nazism's racialist-driven agenda was extremely irrational and based on conspiracy theories, thus overall it cannot be reviewed as an intellectually sound ideology, where it held non-racially motivated policies - those can be reviewed on an intellectual level.--R-41 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

AGIP was designed to reduce Italy's dependence on foreign oil but was a minor enterprise. But your next point about the armaments industry is apt: the fascist manifesto said they would nationalize the armaments industry but they did not. The reason as I stated above is "core ideas did not include nationalization of industry, full employment or the welfare state". As this source says, "The Fascists were not totally inactive in the energy field, though their efforts in this direction came largely to naught.... AGIP... was handicapped by... lack of genuine government encouragement and support...." TFD (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair enough rebuke. Though the state controlling 100% of the armaments industry is the equivelant of nationalization.--R-41 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue of relation of anti-clericalism and fascism again - needs to be resolved

The one thing, and only thing that the now blocked User:ChristianHistory brought up that is in fact an important issue that has also been brought up as by other users is the sentence in the intro that says that fascism is inherently anti-clerical. While it is true that in the original Italian Fascist movement there were a number of Fascists with anti-clerical backgrounds (Roberto Farinacci) there were also many Fascists with pro-clerical backgrounds and Fascists who shifted their initial position (Mussolini going from anti-clerical to rejecting anti-clericalism), the same was the case in the Nazi Party - there were anti-Catholic anti-clericals like Alfred Rosenburg and pro-clerical Nazis who sought alliance between the Catholic Church and Nazism. The Falange in Spain during its time when it supported fascism under Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera held an unusual compromise of being anti-clerical in the sense of being opposed to the Catholic Church having greater power than the Spanish state, but at the same time the Falange was fervently pro-Catholic and emphasized Catholic culture as central to Spanish identity - a policy that continued under Franco's de-radicalized authoritarian conservative Falange. Plus "anti-clerical" typically refers to institutionalized religions with clerics as leaders of the religion - such as the Catholic Church and Islam and others, but does not apply to all fascist movements because not all fascist movements are from societies with institutionalized, cleric-led religions. I think that the issue of clericalism and anti-clericalism is an issue that was decided at the national level by specific fascist movements - especially in regards to whether religion could serve as a national unifying force such as in monolithically Catholic states like Italy or Spain, or a dividing force of the nation such as in Protestant-Catholic religious divided Germany, and not an overall attribute of fascism.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Creeping Fascism

Why does 'creeping fascism' redirect here? If the articles are to be merged, the term 'creeping fascism' should at least be defined in this article. I found a cached version of a page for 'creeping fascism', so it did at one time exist. But I found no discussion or rationale for merging the two. 75.65.21.44 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda

I see no reason for inclusion of the Rwandan Coalition for the Defence of the Republic[11] in the article. It is not "widely accepted as being a fascist party". Lots of groups have at some time been call fascist, but that does not mean we should coatrack them into the article. TFD (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible sources for claims include: [12] "The wounded breast: intimate journeys through cancer" by Evelyne Accad. Routledge at [13] seems to confirm a connection. Siler cites Africa Watch from 1992 in [14]. [15] Scheere labels the CDR as "fascist" ("Genocide and crisis in Central Africa: conflict roots, mass violence, and regional war"). Bunch of others - but clearly not an unsupported claim to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

These are at best passing references to the CDR as fascist, the type of reference that can be found for any extremist group. A reference to the statement of a person reported in a book about cancer that the Rwanda regime was "fascist" is pretty far from what one would expect to support the claim. One can certainly find examples of numerous groups that have been called fascist at different times by different people. Your source, Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, does even call the CDR fascist or even far right. TFD (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you ought to read the entire Routledge RS cite. And I would note this is "tip of the iceberg" on this - the group was decidedly racist, irredentist, militaristic, and authoritarian. What facets are missing? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The Routledge Companion btw does not even mention the CDS. TFD (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The roblem is that some sources explicitly connect Rwanda government with fascism. Routledge states that it has an "uncanny resemblence to those of fascists or far right in the past". Try [16] page 170 'The party's ideology was blatantly fascist." [17] with multiple statements about the movement being "fasciste". [18] UNESCO report also. [19] page 95. Conclusions explicitly made by sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying something has a "resemblance to" does not mean it is the same thing. Not only that but Routledge do not even mention the CDR. Otherwise you have just Google-mined for passing references that you think may support your views. TFD (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no "view" on this other than to note that Wikipedia uses what are called "reliable sources" and not what we WP:KNOW about a topic. The problem is that enough reliable sources make the claim that policy requires that they be given some weight in the article. The idea of NPOV is that disputed claims get reliably sourced as well - not that no claim ever make it into an article which has a reasonable scholarly source backing (including a UN report). Cheers - I am glad you "know" the "truth" but all I do is follow those stupid Wikipedia rules. BTW, some of the same exact sources are used on other Wikipedia pages as reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your allegedf UNESCO report is actually a report by Reporters Without Borders (who receive part of their funding from UNESCO) and you appear to be relying on a footnote. Your last source is a French translation of a book by the English journalist Linda Melvern, which is critical of the UN, and says that the Rwandan Patriotic Front once described the CDR envoy and radio and television boss, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, as a "fascist thug". Could you please not misrepresent sources. TFD (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied to elsewhere where you made the errant and egregious claim that I back calling a group fascist on the basis that some person referred to "fascist thugs." Such is a gross and improper misrepresentation of may posts, and is so noted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the edit. Do you deny making it? TFD (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Issue of indigenous fascism in post-colonial states - especially in Africa, i.e. "tropical fascism" and "Afro-fascism"

As mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of fascism in post-colonial states is admittedly a controversial topic amongst scholars but still a relevant one. There are Western scholars like American historian and political scientist Robert Paxton who reject the idea of fascism being developed in "Third World dictatorships" and though he admits there have been post-colonial regimes with resemblances to fascism including Zaire under the rule of the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Mobutu Sese Seko or the regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, he denies that they are "legitimate" fascist regimes in Africa. Similarly Roger Griffin claims that aside from white South African fascism, there is no real phenomenon of African indigenous fascism because he claims that the "conditions" are not right - in that indigenous African societies have not been affected by liberalism, secularization, and cultural nationalization that he claims are needed for the rise of fascism, and claims that such indigenous societies where traditional religious culture has resisted Westernization are not susceptible to fascism. However there are other scholars such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz, a scholar on African history, has identified a list African regimes as being part of the phenomenon of "Afro-fascism", including: Francisco Macías Nguema's regime in Guinea, Mobutu Sese Seko's regime in Zaire, Idi Amin's in Uganda, Gnassingbé Eyadéma in Togo, and Mengistu Haile Mariam's regime in Ethiopia. (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25.) Other scholars have used the term "Afro-fascism" as well, it is mentioned in Stuart Joseph Woolf's book Fascism in Europe [20]. Another example is the term "tropical fascism" used to describe a variant of fascism used to describe the nature of movements and regimes in post-colonial and Third World states. (African geopolitics , Issues 17-20. OR.IMA International, 2005. Pp. 104.), [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]) Bear in mind that I have excluded from this list POV sources - such as by politicians (especially on the far left) who throw the term "fascism" as a slur.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you not just say that in the article. Instead you present a source that refers to the CDS as "fascist", then use it as a coatrack to describe what they did. Instead it would be better to explain what scholars said about their relation to fascism. TFD (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think that the the Popular Movement of the Revolution of Zaire and Mobutism should be listed in the article as being disputed amongst scholars as to whether it is an example of indigenous fascism in Africa or para-fascism/quasi-fascism, just as just as the allegedly "Austrofascist" regime of the Fatherland's Front in Austria is debated as to whether it was fascist or para-fascist but is considered important to the study of fascism. From my readings case for Mobutu being either fascist or at lease para-fascist is strong: Mobutu sought to purify Zaire of Western white culture through revolutionary nationalism, his party was anti-communist and anti-capitalist, it applied the claim of being syncretic - common to fascism - claiming to be "neither left nor right nor centre", the MPR's supporters trumpeted single-party and single-leader rule, in one speech an MPR supporter denounced the idea of multiple leaders and political parties in the country saying: "In our African tradition there are never two chiefs...That is why we Congolese, in the desire to conform to the traditions of our continent, have resolved to group all the energies of the citizens of our country under the banner of a single national party. (Wrong, Michela. In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz. Harper Collins. ISBN 0060934433). The Mobutu and the MPR sought to replace Christianity in Zaire with a religious devotion to Mobutu and the MPR with interior minister Engulu Baanga Mpongo once saying to supporters of the MPR: "God has sent a great prophet, our prestigious Guide Mobutu. This prophet is our liberator, our Messiah. Our Church is the MPR. Its chief is Mobutu. We respect him like one respects a Pope. Our gospel is Mobutuism. That is why the crucifixes must be replaced by the image of our Messiah". (Meredith, Martin. The Fate of Africa. PublicAffairs, 2006. Pp. 297.). The Manifesto of N'sele laid out the intentions of the government which included expansion of the national government's authority, a program committed to upgrading labour standards, having the country gain economic independence, and the creation of an "authentic nationalism" in Zaire. (Simpson, Andrew. Language and Nationality in Africa. Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. 228) This should not be considered sources that deliberately say that Mobutu was fascist or para-fascist/quasi-fascist - there are other ones, only those that say so should be used for such a claim. However these sources can be used after such a sourced statement to show the nature of the regime. I myself don't buy the argument that indigenous Africa is not economically or culturally "ready" to have fascism or that it universally does not have the "conditions" as those of Western culture - many African leaders have been Western-educated or Westernized. Also, poor economic conditions in Latin American countries didn't stop Latin Americans from forming fascist movements. In the case of Mobutu he directly addressed Western political concepts - nationalism, the left-right political spectrum, anti-communism and anti-capitalism, etc. Plus though Mobutu could not fulfill all his plans or achieve complete totalitarianism or that it was a corrupt kleptocracy as some point out - neither could Mussolini achieve a totalitarian state and the fascist regimes in Italy and Germany were notoriously corrupt. Plus Mobutu's regime was organized enough to organize the kind of well-organized, gigantic mass rallies dedicated to his regime like those of the Italian Fascists and the Nazis, take a literal look for yourself of such rallies in the first minute of this video and the militarist display of personality cult saluting of Mobutu at 6:14 to 6:44 in the video: [26]. Be aware that I am not totally in favour of listing every African dictator or genocidal despot as a fascist - I agree with Robert Paxton that Idi Amin's regime was not fascist - it was a military dictatorship that was genocidal.--R-41 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what arguments you or I find more persuasive. Unless there is consensus that a party was fascist, we cannot say it is, and cannot use the claim as a coatrack to describe what the party did. All we can do is explain the claims that it was fascist, while clearly stating the extent of acceptance of that view. TFD (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is disputed just as the concept of Austrofascism is disputed, the MPR and Mobutism is a prominent example of a disputed example - but bear in mind that that it is "disputed" between scholars - some say it was not fascist (and by saying that they are revealing that it is an issue in scholarship on fascism) and others say it was fascist or quasi-fascist. We have included quotes by fascists in this article and descriptions of their policies, we should mention that Mobutism is a disputed example, but also mention key points from its ideology and quotes from its leadership figures on the issue of single-party state, Mobutu as a supreme leader, its radical nationalism, its syncretic politics, anti-communism, etc, and also Paxton's and others views in order to give the readers a background - it allows them to understand the nature of the regime and the debate of whether it was fascism, quasi-fascism, or neither.--R-41 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found a prominent scholar on fascism, Walter Laqueur who says: "And finally, the racism of the Nazis and the admixture of nationalism with quasi-religious elements of other fascist movements have found new expression in Third World ideologies ranging from Mobutism to Qaddafism." "...these regimes do contain fascist elements, if as yet in a primitive framework". [27]--R-41 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not appear to be replying to my comments. See WP:COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject." BTW prominent scholars have found influences and similarities to fascism with a whole range of modern political groups, including the American Right, which we could mention, but we do not therefore add sections about the Moral Majority, Tea Party, etc. TFD (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur is a reputable and respected scholar on fascism whose works are included in this article and he appears to be seriously addressing the close similarities of Mobutism to fascism and not merely out of a political attack on Mobutism as some biased scholars with an axe to grind do on topics of the Tea Party. Plus with respect to the addressing of Mobutu as fascist or quasi-fascist or not fascist by respected scholars in Europe and Africa, it is not a trivial point like that of ridiculous claims that the Tea Party is fascist - no respectable scholar on fascism has addressed the Tea Party as fascist, but multiple respected scholars on fascism have addressed the issue of Mobutism in connection to fascism. I am not saying that we only include sources that speak of the similarities of Mobutu's regime, we can include others that negate the claims, such as Robert Paxton and others who claim the regime did not have the organizational capacity or power to achieve any of its agenda and that they claim that it was a regime of a paternal autocrat and kleptocracy alone that was disguised in revolutionary overtures.--R-41 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, Laquer does not say that Mobutism is fascism just that it is similar, and you have not even established what degree of acceptance that claim has. Regardless many things are similar to other things and it is coatracking to start adding narratives about all the things that have been compared to fascism. One could say for example that Australia is similar to Canada, but it would be coatracking to add the history of Australia to the article about Canada. TFD (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What about the source that includes Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz's assertion of the existence of "Afro-fascism" that includes the regime of Mobutu in Zaire? (Michel Ugarte. Africans in Europe: the culture of exile and emigration from Equatorial Guinea to Spain. University of Illinois Press, 2010. Pp. 25). Doesn't this demonstrate that Mobutism's connection with fascism is an issue addressed by scholars? I am not saying that it is positively asserted that it is fascist, but that it is a subject of discussion and debate amongst scholars, just as the concept of "Austrofascism" is discussed and debated as to whether the Fatherland Front's ideology was genuine fascism. We used to have a section in the article on para-fascism that included known movements with fascist influences and others under substantial debate by scholars as to whether they were fascist, para-fascist, or not fascist, I wish it could be restored.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism".[28] Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. TFD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The term "Afro-fascism" was used by Algerian politician Hocine Aït Ahmed, he was a radical socialist revolutionary though - so I would question him on bias issues, though it has also been used by other scholars such as in these sources : [29], [30], [31]. The first source acknowledges that the term exists, but believes it is an exaggeration. Could you please explain in a very short and simple way what coatracking is. I don't understand it--R-41 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can find an rs that says Liniger-Goumaz uses the term "Afro-fascism".[32] Apparently other scholars do not use the term and unless I you find that there is a consensus that these regimes were fascist, you are coatracking them into the article. The result would be that the article represents your personal views on fascism. Coatracking is using the relevance of another topic to move on to a discussion of that topic beyond its relevance to the article's topic. So one could on an article about dogs mention that they are similar to cats, but turning the article into a discussion of cats would be coatracking. TFD (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I just showed you a series of other sources on "Afro-fascism" and "African fascism". As I said, there are sources that directly discuss African fascism a.k.a. Afo-fascism, and sources - including Paxton, Laqueur, and Payne that discuss the issues of fascism in Africa. Paxton and Max-Liniger-Goumaz address claims of Mobutu's regime being fascist.--R-41 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have found sources that compare African tyrants with fascism and possibly one or two that call them fascist. In order for us to consider them fascists you would need a source that says they are considered fascist. The book Fascism and the far right briefly mentions the CDS and never says it is fascist or far right. This treatment is similar to that of other books about fascism. Yet you think in this brief article it deserves an entire paragraph. Obviously your weighting of different topics is outside the mainstream and is contrary to neutrality. TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require an entire paragraph, I suggested more lengthy focus on Mobutism, but that is not necessary. It can be one or two sentences. Liniger-Goumaz, Laqueuer, and Paxton are all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist. There are similarities and disimilarities according to these authors. As I said, it can be one or two sentences mentioning that "there is debate amongst scholars on the appearance of fascism and quasi-fascism in Africa, such as in the case of Mobutu's MPR regime in Zaire whose relation with fascism has been addressed by scholars on fascism and African history. Most scholars believe that though Mobutu's regime had outward similarities to fascism that it is not fascist,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) scholar Walter Laqueur claims that Mobutu's regime contained elements of fascism,(REFERENCE PLACED HERE) and a minority such as Swiss historian Max-Liniger-Goumaz claim that Mobutu's regime is an example of "Afro-fascism".(REFERENCE PLACED HERE)". I am not claiming that every African tyrant or despot is a fascist, but the Mobutu regime has been addressed by two major scholars on fascism and Max-Liniger-Goumaz who used the term "Afro-fascism", these all discuss its relation with fascism - that is worth noting in this article.--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) No they are not all addressing the issue of a regime claimed to be fascist, they are merely comparing them to fascism. So that is what the article should say. And in order to even mention Liniger-Goumaz you would have to show that his views are significant in fascism literature. TFD (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Max-Linger-Goumaz's material on African fascism is mentioned in many scholarly works and as an important work of literature, see here: [33]. In particular, Michael Ugarte ascribes to use Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism" - originally used by Goumaz based on his focus on the political phenomenon he first discovered in Equatorial Guinea, to describe multiple regimes, including Zaire under Mobutu.[34] Another source from the University of Arizona describes a recently published novel that accepts Max-Liniger-Goumaz's term "afro-fascist" to describe the regime of Francisco Macías Nguema of Equatorial Guinea. [35] and an encyclopedia listing Maz-Liniger-Goumaz's "afro-fascist" description of Equatorial Guinea [36].--R-41 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link shows that a number of books about Africa refer to Liniger-Goumaz's term "Afro-fascism", although there is no evidence that any of them have accepted it. More importantly your link shows that the concept has been entirely ignored by writers on fascism, which is why we should also ignore it. Tbis a classic example of POV pushing. TFD (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tbis a classic example of POV pushing" - You are overreacting. I am rationally discussing this with you. Many scholars reject that "Austrofascism" was a real fascist ideology, but we have an article called "Austrofascism" and Austrofascism is discussed by scholars on topics of fascism. Laqueur says that Mobutu's regime had "fascist elements". Other scholars address the issue - they address it because Mobutu's regime has been claimed to be fascist. What is the problem with having a few sentences that address the issue of Mobutu's regime and perhaps Nguema's regime, just as books on fascism address claims of austrofascism or claims of Peronism being fascist or quasi-fascist? I have presented a series of sources that are for the description, against the description, and Laqueur against but claiming that fascist elements exist in Mobutu's regime. Also, be careful with what you accuse someone of, assume good faith, and be polite - you were uncivil, not polite, nor assuming good faith in just out of the blue slandering me as POV-pushing: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH).--R-41 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You want to add things to the article that mainstream books on fascism ignore. That violates neutrality. If you believe the experts are wrong then you should publish your articles and correct their errors. But this article is not the place to begin that campaign. And could you please keep your posts brief. TFD (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Laqueur and Paxton - scholars on fascism specifically mentioned Mobutu's regime in relation to fascism - so it is addressed by mainstream scholars on fascism. I included these specifically because they address the claim of fascism on Mobutu and reject the claim - though Laqueur claims it has "fascist elements". Plus, as I said you did not adhere to this: "While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them", "If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to assume good faith and politely point out the perceived problem either on the article's talk page or the user's talk page." (Source: WP:POVPUSH)--R-41 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So historians say Mobuto was not fascist, although Laqueur(whose views tend to be outside the consensus) says he was influenced by them, and you want to use this as a hook to write about Mabuto. That's a coatrack. TFD (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine, I rescind my proposal. I gave sources but it's too bad that Western society can't take seriously claims of fascism in Africa such as Mobutu's MPR and others. Maybe you're right TFD that I should do my own independent research project on it - I'm almost at my undergrad degree for Political Science and History. I am disappointed with Western scholars' treatment of Africa as lesser than the Western world and such a foreign, "backward" place that Western political ideologies have not taken resonance there. I thought I would find more sources on Mobutu as a quasi-fascist though I didn't think there would be many legitimate ones saying that his regime was all out fascist. But anyway, fine, I'm canning the proposal - you are right that more sources are needed.--R-41 (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fatal problem with the article

The article does a good job describing historical fascism, particularly as it pertains to the 1920s-40s. It's clear why there is such an emphasis on this period: the WW2 era coloured all our perceptions about fascism and we seem unable to stop associating the ideology with little men brandishing funny moustaches. But it is dangerous for an encyclopedia to stop the analysis there and not delve deeper into fascist thought. There are subtler, less stereotypical forms of fascism around us in the western world to this day. For example, I would argue that modern corporatism (and government support thereof) takes a nod from fascism, in the sense that it leads to more centralization of resources in a capitalist context, often with direct links to government. The fact that no major political parties are calling themselves "fascist" today does not mean that fascism is gone. So let's stop talking about this as though it magically disappeared in 1945.

There are only 2 sentences I can find in the whole article that hint at fascism beyond 1930s stereotypes. Both sentences appear at the beginning of the section "Variations and Sub-forms". They are: "Movements identified by scholars as fascist hold a variety of views, and what qualifies as fascism is often a hotly contested subject. ... Para-fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian regimes with aspects that differentiate them from true fascist states or movements." Everything else in the article seems to stick to historical models. In fact, some of the sections are blatantly written using the past tense, as if fascism "ended".

Some questions that come to mind, and are not addressed in this article:

-What sort of political parties / groups exist today that do not call themselves fascist but espouse ideas strongly linked to fascism (either because the ideas are fascist or developed out of fascism)?

-How much does a group have to stick to the key elements of 1930s fascism to be fascist? e.g. the intro section in the article is written as though dictatorships and eugenics experiments are necessary elements of fascism. Is this really the case? That's a terribly restrictive view.

-Since fascism traditionally considered itself the natural enemy of communism, did fascism (albeit under different names) play a role in opposing the Soviet bloc during the Cold War? I honestly have no idea on this one!

-What do we make of a country like China? It claims to be communist, but it has clearly moved to a business-oligarch economy while preserving authoritarian government. This meets 2 of the conditions of historical fascism. So what are we left with? (For the record, I don't think China is fascist. But there's some real food for thought here.)

I don't expect someone will be able to just add a simple section to the article to address these issues. This requires time and thought, not to mention expertise. But I really hope some of you take up the call. In responding, please do not interpret my comments as another rant from a right-wing (or left-wing) American ideologue. Let me be clear that I'm not writing any of this from an American perspective, or from the perspective of American current events (I'm not even American). This is a much bigger issue than the Republican candidates' race.

Thanks :) Nojamus (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The reason there is not more emphasis is that we do not give much coverage to fringe views, and do not present the original ideas of editors in articles. TFD (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nojamus, I don't know what article you have been reading, but this article in much of its sections is well-developed and well-sourced and has provoked little controversy amongst most users, surprising for such a controversial topic. The heyday of fascism is important to be aware of, it is linked to a specific period of time, in specific circumstances, and in specific susceptible areas. If you want to know the mindset that brought it forward, learn about the fin de siecle, Friedrich Nietzsche's challenge of morality and claiming the need of an "ubermensch" ("superman") - his works had influence (it is said everyone who was anyone at the time read Nietzsche because he caused so much controversy) - leading to a loss of confidence in Enlightenment politics amongst the bright minds of Western society; Sorelianism - and its legitimation of revolutionary violence, and themes and figures of Italian nationalism - especially Gabriele d'Annunzio and Enrico Corradini. Knowing these is a good start to understanding the background that fostered fascism.--R-41 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)