Talk:Fascism/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Rational reorganization of the ideology section (moved downwards in the talk page)

(has been moved to the bottom of the talk page)--R-41 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Red Guard Vulkan factory.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Wiki3271 rehash of Left/right discussion

A series of tendentious edits by User;Wiki3271 has again worked to make it appear as if fascism is generally associated with the left wing - he does so by exagerrating Mussolini's ties to communism. I know that this has been discussed many times before always with the same inevitable outcome. Fascism is neither purely left or right - but is generally associatied with the far right by contemporary scholars working on fascism. I've reverted Wiki3271's edits twice now - but hope that he or she will now start discussing here on the talkpage instead of editwarring. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Wiki3271 (talk · contribs) of this discussion.Pectore^talk 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

He's just presenting the same old arguments, and as usual...not backed up by scholarly consensus. Not even close. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

His claims that Mussolini was formerly a member of the Italian Socialist Party doesn't prove anything, back then Mussolini stated explicitly anti-nationalist remarks and was an internationalist, as a fascist he was of course a nationalist. People change over time, in my country of Canada, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his youth used to be a left-wing social liberal, now he is a right-wing neoconservative.--R-41 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

__________________________________________________

Wiki3271 here. I'm not sure how to make comments using this Talk page? Regardless, I'll try to respond in this space by sharing my perspective as one who often looks to Wikipedia as a resource. The place for opinion is in the discussion area, below the summary. The summary, at the top, should be limited to facts.

If an editor feels compelled to insert opinion anywhere in these pages, then their entry should be clearly marked as opinion and not displayed as a fact in the main body of the text. It does not matter how well regarded the source of an opinion might be. Opinions are just that, and there are always "respected experts" who can be found who disagree (even if they might not be "respected" by the editor). If an editor feels it is important to add opinion, then all sides of the argument should be included. As a matter of form, and to avoid confusing readers new to the text, it would be helpful if discussion of opinions were included below the summary in a special section devoted to the topic. In no case is it appropriate to simply state a single opinion as fact or as the only point of view.

In addition, one of the responses given was that eugenics is a right wing platform everywhere except in America. That exception is not noted in the text which flatly states that eugenics is a right wing platform (with the implication that this is true everywhere). When exceptions are known, then any mention of the issue should include full discussion. In this example, at minimum, it should be further noted that the opinion (that eugenics is a right wing platform) is not "universal" since American Republicans are considered the right wing in American politics and eugenics is not part of the American Republican platform. If the editor has proof that eugenics is part of the mainstream right wing platforms in England, Canada, France, etc. then evidence of those mainstream platform positions should be included. This will be much more relevant and useful to any reader seeking real knowledge of the subject than the singular opinion from any one source or single point of view.

Resistance to posting full truths on these pages could be viewed as an attempt to mislead readers of Wikipedia with half-truths and political bias, something that I doubt any serious contributor would want. Any attempt to represent an opinion as fact falls into this same category.

If you disagree with the above statements, I will be most interested to read your comments. If you do not disagree, then, the opinion statements should either be removed, or they should be repositioned and discussed more objectively.

Separately, can someone please tell me proper way to post discussion on this page?

Wiki3271Wiki3271 (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all: you are claiming that every scholarly source that says that fascism has far-right traits is "opinion" while you posted in the article the widely discredited and debunked American conservative revisionist Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Goldberg's book was denounced as unscholarly and merely being a political jab at progressivism by multiple historians - even American conservative reviewers called Goldberg's book terrible. Secondly as another user has already said, we agree with you in one sense - fascism is not merely a movement of the mainstream right, it is also not a movement of the mainstream left, it was influenced by the left (particularly by socialists and syndicalists) and the right (by reactionary nationalists like Charles Maurras) and is primarily a syncretic ideology that is uninterested in taking any firm position on the spectrum. However its inherent belief in supremacy of certain nations over others is far right in character. Fascism's supremacist ultranationalist views did not come from fascism's left-wing socialist influences - they came from fascism's far-right influences - reactionary groups in Europe. There was Charles Maurras' Action Francaise in France that advocated far-right racist ultranationalism alongside monarchism, there was the infamous Black Hundreds in Russia who were also far-right ultranationalists and monarchists who were fiercely anti-Semitic, supported the authoritarian Tsar, and were staunchly anti-communist and took part in violence against communists and militant trade unions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-41 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 9 May 2012

This conversation keeps coming up. Wiki3271, Goldberg's views on the left-right spectrum are fringe and therefore should be ignored in the article. TFD (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with labelling opinions one dislikes as "fringe" is that so very many academics hold those opinions. Calling them "fringe" does not make them "fringe." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg is not an academic and his book has received no recognition. TFD (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Show me where I called him an academic. Or redact your post above which makes no sense at all. 2. The fact is that academics have engaged in prolonged discussions about the topics raised, and thus such discussions are not "fringe" as you so readily label them. 3. A book which has "no recognition" has been a major NYT bestseller <g>. 4. The JG book has a substantial GScholar count (132) (IIRC, a system you have used) 5. A great number of current academics have written oon the inapplicability of the "left right spectrum" wrt "fascism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Goldberg's book has been thoroughly debunked by many of the most respected scholars on Fascism and WW2 around. [1] [2] [3] (etc.) No serious academic considers it of any worth whatsoever, and Goldberg is nothing but a journalist, with no credentials or education either. His book is of no more "merit" as a reputable source than something written by Michael Moore. Don't be absurd. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If there WERE reputable academics in this field that agreed with these fringe conspiracy theories, then I'm sure you would have found them by now.... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And you seem to miss the fact that much of the left-right spectrum debate is now mainstream no matter how ill you think of a single book, when so many others bear the same basic point - that a "left right spectrum" is problematic when discussing "fascism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

________________________________

Wiki3271 here. I already agreed to remove the opinion of Goldberg based on feedback posted on the revision “History” page. (Sorry, I was not aware of this “Talk” space when I made those edits.) I also agree with the initial sentences of the article which state fascism is a blend of both left and right concepts. At no time did I make edits to those statements in the article.

Neither of these elements (agreement to not reference Goldberg and agreement that fascism is syncretic) should be an issue since we already agree. My latest [edits] reflect this feedback and it is these most recent edits, and my response above to the removal of these edits, that I hope will be the focus of this discussion.

Separately, User:R-41 incorrectly states that I am claiming "every scholarly source that says that fascism has far-right traits is "opinion".” This is an inaccurate distortion of what I said. I hope this distortion is not intentional. If the intent for this space is discussion, then please have the courtesy to avoid distorting the comments of others and please respond to the issues raised above.

___________________________________Wiki3271 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not intentional. The bottom line is that the intro and the article already accounts for fascism's syncretic stance that includes influences from the left and the right. Indeed the intro shows that fascism adapted elements of Marxist political language and theory while rejecting Marxism's solution - such as fascists' open use of the terms "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" - these terms are not typically used on the mainstream right. Both in public and more importantly in private (where they are not being politicians to the public), fascists like Mussolini and Hitler shared the anti-bourgeois theme of the far-left - they saw bourgeois society as decadent, selfish, and overly rational, unlike proletarian society that Mussolini and Hitler both idealized as hard-working, resilient, and in connection with their instincts. The difference is that fascism fiercely opposed Marx's idea of class conflict - they believed that the class conflict could be resolved through class cooperation and efforts to "proletarianize" the other classes - to create a "proletarian nation". Fascism differed with Marxism on another element - though fascists saw proletarian culture as superior to bourgeois culture, they identified the common soldier as the principal manifestation of an ideal revolutionary proletarian character. Fascists viewed the soldier in war as a labourer whose duty is to struggle, a person trained for violence, a person indoctrinated and disciplined to fight for a cause, and that the common soldiers were united in solidarity under one uniform and united in patriotism (at least in theory) - all ideal traits for the revolutionary proletarian nation that fascists like Mussolini and Hitler desired. At the same time, fascism shared with far-right reactionaries both the complete rejection of the idea of universal human equality as promoted by the left, and violent opposition to leftist proponents of class conflict, such as communists.--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a so-called "consensus view" (3 or 4 scholars have formed a consensus) that fascism is an ideology that is "neither left nor right" or center for that matter, but lies outside the political spectrum. But there is no dispute that fascists in power were right-wing, as were the liberals and conservatives who helped them achieve power. Their contemporaries also saw them as right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well past being "so called" - it consists of most of the recent publications and texts, and not just "3 or 4" as you assert. Mussolini was an opportunist and not an idologue of any stripe, as all the materials, including Eatwell, make clear. Cheers - now try to find sources which back what you assert to be the WP:TRUTH. Collect (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini was a Machiavellian opportunist in so much as his actions to achieve an end, but to say that he held no ideals at all is hyperbole. He always believed that political violence was a means of liberation, he always was disgusted with bourgeois culture, he demanded action in politics over negotiation, and upon reading Nietzsche and Plato's Republic he believed that in order to be able to lead a movement let alone a country - a leader must be an ubermensch/Plato-like Philosopher King Guardian. To follow this ideal, Mussolini was a writer, a revolutionary, a soldier, an aviator, a diplomat, a historian, and a political theorist. In government, Mussolini followed this principle of selecting people he considered to be this way; multiple Fascist government ministers for instance were aviators or directly served in combat during Fascist Italy's wars. Mussolini preferred selecting Fascist members ex-revolutionary syndicalist origins to his government rather than those of ex-conservative ANI origins, because he saw the former as "men of action".--R-41 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't be bothered doing Collect's research for him, but if you go back in the archives he made the same erroneneous claims, sources were provided and lengthy unproductive argy-bargy ensued. The point is Collect needs sources to add material, I do not haVe to provide sources that dispute unsourced, poorly sourced or missourced material. TFD (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- back to ad homs again? Sorry to disillusion anyone, but TFD has not found any material added by me to be improperly sourced. Period. But I guess it is fun to make such posts as above, maybe. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Bickering here is pointless. It will not change the fact that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right - there were ex-revolutionary-syndicalists from the left and the conservative nationalist ANI members from the right in Italy's Fascist Party, just as there were revolutionary socialists from the left like Ernst Rohm and Joseph Goebbels in the Nazi Party as well as conservative nationalists like Hermann Goering, Erich Ludendorff (until the late 1920s), and ex-members of the reactionary DNVP after 1933. However all fascists share the prominent far-right stance that there are innately superior and inferior people.--R-41 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

________________________________

Wiki3271 here. Thank you for your comments R-41. I’m new to editing Wiki pages, and even newer to these Talk pages. You are clearly experienced at this and you’ve made many valuable contributions. I am more of a user than an editor, so I owe you my thanks and appreciation.

My expectation, as a Wiki user, is to quickly find content that is objective. I find your comments, above, to be objective and well documented. We share the same understanding that fascism incorporates many influences from both the left and the right. I took time to re-read the entire article, which is more lengthy than most articles I’ve found on Wikipedia. A complete read of this article delivers this same understanding.

With this in mind, please focus on this issue: the first paragraph, which introduces the concept of fascism, ends with an example that could lead a reader to conclude, “fascism is, really, just far-right”. If data are available that show how much a typical Wikipedia user reads, I suspect it will show the typical reader does not read much more than the first paragraph.

A classic propaganda technique is to present facts in such a way that truth is bent to suit the goal of the writer. Use enough facts to appear objective, but close with the impression you want to last. I hope this was not the intent of those who contributed to that lead paragraph. Regardless, the effect of that last sentence is to mislead.

Whether or not eugenics is universally a far-right platform is not the issue. The issue is ending this introductory paragraph with a single statement that MIGHT lead a reader to conclude that fascism is, really, only far-right. Left to chance, this sort of thing is a disservice to Wikipedia readers. It can be corrected by simply deleting that last sentence in the first paragraph. The content of this sentence is fully covered in a reasonably balanced manner in the main body of the article.

My first attempt to correct this was, admittedly, lame. Please accept my apology. The most direct solution is to simply delete that last sentence. My effort to correct the impression of this last sentence by including sentences showing some left-wing influences present in fascism was awkward and unnecessary. A rigorous discussion of right and left influences is already in the main body of the article.

________________________________Wiki3271 (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki3271, I don't think that last sentence does what you claim it does. The sentence does not say "fascism is far-right, period." The sentence says "fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is a prominent far-right stance." In other words, fascism includes a prominent far-right stance. This does not necessarily mean it is far-right, in the same way that the fact that fascism incorporates some left-wing stances does not necessarily make it left-wing. Now, yes, the sentence may be misinterpreted, but then again anything could be misinterpreted. We should not remove important sourced material on the grounds that some readers might misunderstand it.

The position of fascism in the political spectrum is a controversial matter. The two dominant contending views among scholars are (1) that fascism is far-right, and (2) that fascism is a syncretic movement neither left nor right. The lede should acknowledge both views. Currently, most of the first paragraph is dedicated to the neither-left-nor-right view, with only one sentence dedicated to the fascism-as-far-right view (and even that sentence does not say it outright, merely mentioning a far-right element). If anything, the view that fascism is far-right is underrepresented and we should say more about it. It is certainly not overrepresented, and I vehemently object to the removal of the one single sentence in the lede that currently hints at the existence of this prominent scholarly view. User1961914 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is sad. I see people relying on 'scholarly consensus' that fascism is a right-wing phenomenon, when the scholars in the relevant fields are overwhelmingly leftist as a demographic, and the people relying on such a consensus MUST KNOW THIS even as they say it. Then people on both sides are making the whole thing about Goldberg as if he created the idea of fascism being a leftist phenomenon. The only thing Goldberg's book is good for is to inspire people to hopefully read Hayek's Road To Serfdom, where Nazism and fascism being tied to the push for socialism is outlined in much more detail, and much longer ago. But of course, Hayek is no socialist, so whatever he says will be panned by 'a majority of scholars'. What a load of crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.69.68 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 1 July 2012

You might want to read the Road to Serfdom yourself. Hayek never called fascism left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Rational reorganization of the ideology section

The current description of fascism's ideology is very haphazard and random. As shown below, I have invented an ideology description schematic to help rationally organize the description of ideologies. I have used this basic layout for the Marxism-Leninism article. I would like to apply this rationally-organized components description for this article. I am also looking for suggestions on how it could be improved. Note that the bolded letters below are not shouting but are to indicate a description.

Proposed ideological description schematic for this and other articles on ideologies

Components

Social

(THE SOCIAL COMPONENT SECTION IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE A WIDE VARIETY OF SOCIAL POLITICAL ISSUES SUCH AS ISSUES OF SOCIETY, CULTURE, SOCIAL CLASS, GENDER/SEXUALITY/SEXUAL ORIENTATION ISSUES, ETHNIC/NATIONAL/RACIAL ISSUES, ETC.)

Economic

(THE ECONOMIC COMPONENT SECTION IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE SUCH ISSUES AS WHAT FORM OF ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND AGENDA AN IDEOLOGY SUPPORTS. EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION INCLUDE: THE TYPE OF MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF THE ECONOMY, THE POSITION ON FREE TRADE VERSUS PROTECTIONISM, THE POSITION ON LAISSEZ-FAIRE VERSUS ECONOMIC INTERVENTIONISM., ETC.)

Rights, justice, and security

(THE RIGHTS, JUSTICE, AND SECURITY SECTION INVOLVES A WIDE VARIETY OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS; JUSTICE AND LAW AND ORDER ISSUES PROMOTED BY AN IDEOLOGY. AN EXAMPLE ON RIGHTS AND JUSTICE IS THE ISSUE OF LEGALIZATION OR CRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION. A RECENT EXAMPLE ON JUSTICE AND SECURITY COULD BE THE NEOCONSERVATIVE POSITION ON THE LEGAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO COMBAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.)

Political system

(THE POLITICAL SYSTEM SECTION IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS WHAT FORM OF POLITICAL SYSTEM AN IDEOLOGY SUPPORTS. FOR EXAMPLE THIS SECTION WOULD STATE THAT A CLASSICAL LIBERAL SYSTEM SUPPORTS ELECTED, REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.)

International relations

(THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SECTION IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF A PARTICULARLY INTERNATIONAL NATURE, ESPECIALLY ISSUES OF WAR AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, INTERNATIONAL TRADE, INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ALLIANCES IF APPLICABLE - I.E. THE COMINTERN, THE LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL, THE INTERNATIONAL DEMOCRATIC UNION, THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL - AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ISSUES.)

Environmental

(THE ENIVRONMENTAL SYSTEM SECTION IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS AN IDEOLOGY'S POSITION ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, SUCH AS POLLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE, ETC. THIS SECTION MAY HAVE MORE SIGNIFICANCE AND PERTINANCE TO CONTEMPORARY IDEOLOGIES THAN HISTORICAL IDEOLOGIES WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WERE FAR LESS IMPORTANT TO POLITICS - THUS FOR OLDER IDEOLOGIES WITH NO COHERANT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES, IT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THIS SECTION TO NOT NEED TO BE INCLUDED.)

Please make suggestions for how this political ideology description schematic could be improved, or propose an alternate schematic that is applicable to any ideology.--R-41 (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Material which is not in common for the forms listed should not be listed as an "ideology" of fascism, IMO. In short, we should stick to what is specific to Fascism, and not go off on a wild-goose-chase about "climate change" or the like - part of the continuing problem with the article has been "Fascism can mean A or it can mean ~A, depending." Collect (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I said in the Environmental section that that section need not be included for older ideologies with no coherent environmental policies. But does this rational organization of issues improve the analysis and comprehension of an ideology?--R-41 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Then cross out the stuff which is not consistently true within the topic <g>. I do not mean to sound cross, but the plethora of contradictory claims which plague the article is vast. (Fascism is anti-religion, except when it is for religion, or is opposed to some religions until it decides that it should then support those religions, etc. It opposes abortions except where it supports them. And so on) Collect (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC) )

I agree that the religion section of this article is a disaster. Fascism is complex because of its national variations, but fascist movements' stances towards religion are based upon the usefulness or non-usefulness of religion to their nationalist cause. Fascism in a nation with a single religion (like Italy) typically utilizes the religion only to the extent that it assists their nationalism, fascism in a nation with multiple religions (like Germany) typically de-emphasizes religion or promotes vague spiritual ideals that are applicable to all the religions. We can deal with the details of the material to include in it later, but are these component sections acceptable to describe fascism and indeed any ideology?--R-41 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are assuming that fascism is an ideology, comparable to socialism, liberalism, etc., but that is just one opinion. Therefore your suggestion is inherently POV. TFD (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should note that the lede specifically calls it an "ideology." Are you nopw assertng that it is not an ideology? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Fascism like other ideologies does have a number of generic positions on the political system, the economy, social policy, etc. - also remember that like fascism there is no single universal ideology of socialism though there are generic socialist positions. Perhaps a "Themes" section similar to what is already in the article could go ahead of a "Components" section? What suggestions do you have to improve the organization of the ideology sections of the article? How can it be more rationally organized so that it is easier for readers to understand?--R-41 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I oppose such a change; the Marxism-Leninism article is a mess.. --TIAYN (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the ideology "Components" section of the Marxism-Leninism article is a "mess", the "Components" section of that article is very easy to read and comprehend. That article would be improved by having a "Themes" section similar to the "Concepts" section you added to the Ba'athism article, ahead of the "Components" section. But what suggestions do you have to improve the organization of the ideology sections of the article? How can it be more rationally organized so that it is easier for readers to understand?--R-41 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The article has a tendency to mix up practice with theory; while the Ba'athism article is not great (not even close), its about the ideology and not the practice of Ba'ath regimes. I fear if we end up adding the sections you added to the Marxism-Leninism article, this article will begin confusing the difference between practice and theory. Secondly, fascism is far to complex for such a simplification. --TIAYN (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a solution. Please try to develop an alternative to my recommendation. As I said, how can it be more rationally organized so that it is easier for readers to understand?--R-41 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We should copy the layout of the Liberalism article, and create an article about Fascist ideology entitled Ideology of fascism, Fascist ideology, Philosophy of Fascism or Tenets of Fascism or something. If we should copy an article, we should copy the liberalism article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but is there a way of rationally organizing it so that it does not meander all over the place. Such as categorizing the themes into similar categories as I have described above.--R-41 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved this section to the bottom of the talk page because I believe that people may be confused that this important issue and topic with the article was resolved. It still needs a resolution.--R-41 (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

unsourced sentence

The deletion of the sentence "Big corporations that were in good political favor of the government, such as Thyssen, Krupp, IG Farben, were not nationalized." was reverted. The sentence is suggesting that almost every company got nationalized which is pretty wrong. Fascism relayed on private enterprise [4], it did not promote nationalization as an economic policy. Since the sentence ist not just wrong but also unsourced I thought I could simply delete it. User Collect stated that "this has been discussed in the past I suspect" so I await a valid citation. --Pass3456 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

democracy

why are fascists described as supporters of some kind of cheap political electioneering Democracy with Adjectives for example "sovereign democracy", "soviet democracy", "real democracy" etc ? especially before R-41 when it didn't been created by him alone based on some obscure fringe theories which dont even exist specifically mention that, it is olny R-41 interpratation ! Yiddi (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. We need to change all this. Where the source says "democracy" we should remove "liberal". We should also remove the obscure sources about fascists supporting a form of democracy. TFD (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not wrong, they support a form of democracy (just as the Marxist-Leninist do in theory), but its a form of democracy that has nothing to with liberalism, socialism or any mainstream ideology. Fascist democracy is a unique, and stand alone form of democracy. --TIAYN (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I explained before, none of the articles on fascist ideology I have found define it as a form of democracy. While there are isolated statements of opinion by some writers that fascists claimed to be democratic, these are fairly obscure. They all seem to stem from one comment made by Mussolini when after bashing democracy he says that they were the real democrats. The only people who seem to have taken this claim seriously are the New Right, who want to put fascism in the same camp as liberalism and communism and goes against the mainstream view that fascism was a reaction to liberalism and socialism rather than a form of socialism. In any case ones need sources and cannot willy-nilly misrepresent sources just because one believes them to be wrong. TFD (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The mainstream view has never been that fascism is a form of socialism, its the opposite, its a form of conservatism.. Form of socialism?? Do you even know what socialism is?? Secondly, he bashed liberal democracy, you can still be a democrat in theory and oppose liberal democracy.. Your discussing this from a liberalist point of view. And no, many refer to fascism as having democratic goals in theory. --TIAYN (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please read my comments before replying. I just said, "goes against the mainstream view that fascism was a reaction to liberalism and socialism rather than a form of socialism". You then write, "The mainstream view has never stated that fascism is a form of socialism" then add the insulting rhetorical question, "Do you even know what socialism is??" (with double question marks!!). Fascism is neither socialist nor democratic, despite what some New Right writers have written. TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood... Fascism is not democratic in our sense of the word; but some fascist themselves believe fascism to be democratic.. The same goes for Marxism Leninism; some people still believe that the USSR was a democratic state (even if it was the exact opposite). THe USSR was a dictatorship, but some still viewed it as a democratic state. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Defenders of the Soviet Union believed that the country followed the democratic principles set out in the constitution. Nazis otoh suspended the constitution, never introduced a new one, dissolved the legislature, ruled by decree, and never claimed to be democratic. The argument that nazism was democratic is based on the concept that the Fuehrer directly represented the will of the people, while in theory the Soviet government was subject to laws passed by the people's representatives. TFD (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

But there are other forms of fascism to, such as the falangists in Spain and Italian fascism for instance.. Nazism is not the only form of fascism, just as North Korean juche is not the only form of communism (or whatever it is)... Communism is not less (in theory) democratic because North Korea call themselves communist, but in practice, its far less democratic. What I'm saying is this, there is a difference between practice and theory. --TIAYN (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascism was not democratic even in theory. Neither are military dictatorships for that matter. TFD (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD said: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory"

The Doctrine of Fascism stated that fascism supports an "organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy" [5][6]

As I have said on the Talk:Nazism page, the Nazis did claim to be democratic, they are not democratic in practice but that doesn't mean that they "oppose" democracy. Being undemocratic in practice does not mean that fascism therefore "opposes" democracy. Linking being undemocratic with "opposing" democracy is asserting a negative value held by fascism towards democracy. Even the Italian Fascists said that while they opposed conventional democracy - as meaning liberal democracy, they claimed supported an "authoritarian democracy", so TFD, your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is false. The fascists never held an unequivocal negative value towards democracy, they did however say that they opposed liberal democracy. There is undoubtedly a common Western liberal democratic POV on what the meaning of democracy is - characterized with multiparty elections, universal suffrage, and freedom of speech - these are characterized in the West as "positive" - not every democracy has been this way. What can be concluded fascism is undemocratic in practice and opposes liberal democracy. The material in the intro is sourced, it shows the fascist claim, it does not say that this claim is "true", it simply shows it.--R-41 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, Mussolini once after denouncing democracy said that fascism was "authoritarian democracy". The quote is generally ignored by scholars, and few if any give it the same interpretation you do. Notably it is not mentioned in any book or article about fascist ideology I have seen. Adding it would make the article provide undue emphasis to a fringe view. TFD (talk)

How is that a fringe view?? I mean, seriously, if not the statement of one of the founders of fascism can be accepted as truth, what can? You can't just claim what Mussolini said was nonsense , Thats stupid, thats wrong.. Its like saying Marx's theory of alienation is rubbish, just because its not accepted by many scholars... Just because you havn't heard of it, doesn't make it a fringe theory. --TIAYN (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TIAYN. It is not "fringe" at all, in fact one of the sources I provide for the quote on Italian Fascism's claim to support an "authoritarian democracy", is Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia [7], that encyclopedia is in English-language university libraries - it is at Harvard University's library for instance, [8]. This source that is a study on Italian Fascism says that Italian Fascists repeatedly claimed that fascism advocated democracy, Italian Fascist official Sergio Panunzio said that Italian Fascism's corporatist system represented an "a new organic and harmonius democracy", while rejecting what he called "false, capitalistic and plutocratic so-called democracies" of the Anglo-Saxon world, [9]. Therefore, it is clear that fascists have in fact in theory have claimed that fascism is democratic. So TFD, your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is inaccurate.--R-41 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If Marx only used the term "alienation" once in his writings, no other Marxist writer used the term and no text on Marxism mentioned it, then it should not be mentioned because as you say "its not accepted by many scholars". Very few scholars have commented on Mussolini's one use of the term "authoritanian democracy", although a few right-wing authors have mentioned it. See btw George Watson's Lost literature of socialism.[10] Watson uses obscure quotes from Marx to "prove" that he is the author of the Holocaust. We should present notable fringe theories, provided we identify them as such. But the theory that fascism is a form of democracy has not gained much support on the far right - they normally claim that they are democrats while the fascists were "socialists". We should not in any case give parity to mainstream academic and fringe right-wing views. TFD (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascism is not a form of [liberal] democracy, but the fascists themselves to believe that fascism is democratic.. This is not a fringe theory; many fascists probably believe fascism to be more democratic than liberal democracy.. This shouldn't even be a discussion, you are disregarding the belief of many because you believe that its a fringe theory. --TIAYN (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that "many fascists" believe this? Preferably a source that is about fascist ideology, which is the subject of this article. TFD (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Very few papers have commented on Mussolini's one use of the term "authoritarian democracy", although a few right-wing authors have mentioned it." Are you saying that Cyprian Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia that mentions it here [11], that is in multiple English-language university libraries, including Harvard's library, [12], is a "fringe" source by a biased "right-wing author"? The same source answers your question immediately above when it says: "Fascists deny that they are against "democracy" as such, only the liberal, individualist version of it that has become the touchstone or criterion for judging the others. In this respect they resemble the Bolsheviks, who claimed to be building a "true" democracy..." [13]. I already showed you a source above by prominent historian on fascism, Emilio Gentile whom the The American Historical Review regards as being one of Italy's foremost cultural historians of fascist ideology. Prominent historian on fascism, Roger Griffin notes fascism's claim to be democratic, saying: "In a mystic version of direct democracy, the representation of the people's general will in a fascist society would mean entrusting authority to an elite or (especially in its interwar versions) a leader whose mission it is to safeguard the supra-individual interests and destiny of the people to whom it (or he) claims to be linked by a metaphysical bond of a common nationhood.", [14]. Your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been proven to be inaccurate--R-41 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you present books about fascism that are 3000+ pages long then chances are that they will mention the passage. Your first source, World Fascism, Volume 1 (750 pages) for example mentions it under the mini-biography of Leon Degrelle, someone so minor he is not even mentioned in this article, on p. 170. It is not mentioned in the 25 page introduction. If your source can go on for 25 pages without mentioning your pet theory about fascism then our short article can safely omit it. As I said before, articles are not an opportunity for us to correct errors of omission by academics. If we want to do that then we go elsewhere. What we are supposed to do is reflect what they find important. TFD (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're stubborn, to stubborn for you're own good. --TIAYN (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with TIAYN in that TFD is exhbiting stubborn behaviour. Multiple reputable sources have been provided that disprove TFD's claim, this is now entirely becauce of stubborn behaviour by TFD to refuse to accept that her/his claim "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been refuted. TFD keeps making up new excuses to deflect attention from that. TFD is now resorting to personal attacks, accusing the material of being my personal "pet theory" about fascism - when in fact the one and only thing that I have demonstrated via sources is that fascism has claimed that it is democratic - that is the claim of the ideology that is being addressed. Furthermore TFD is resorting to obscure criticisms to delegitimize the source - demonstrating, as stubborn behaviour, in order to avoid the fact that his claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been disproven. The Leon Degrelle section is not mentioned "under" (if you mean within) the Degrelle section, it is mentioned separately. The World Fascism encyclopedia is a thorough encyclopedia of fascism, Wikipedia articles are summaries, your criticism of Degrelle material is off-topic, and ignoring the fact that this encyclopedia is at the Harvard University library ([15]). There are multiple authors who have noted fascism's claim to be democratic, major historian on fascism, the source by Roger Griffin was directly addressing fascism's claim to be democratic, as was the source by Emilio Gentile. WP:STICK applies to that TFD's refuted claim "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - the bolded emphasis is the part that has been refuted.--R-41 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia says "the same article suggests that there is a way that the term "democracy" can be understood which is compatiable with fascism...." As another source you provided [Arblaster] said, the author paid "lip service". That is not a claim that it was democratic in theory. BTW I do see any source by Gentile. The main issue though is how important this is to the article. If something is largely ignored by the academic community it does not belong in a short article. Otherwise this article would run into thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is Gentile's source [16]. I am refuting the claim when you said: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - the bolded part. You are now resorting to excuses and WP:GAME by evading the fact that multiple reliable sources including Cyprian Blamires' source that is available at university libraries, along with several respected scholars on fascism including: Roger Griffin and Emilio Gentile acknowledge that fascism claimed to be democratic. These contradict your claim that fascism "not democratic even in theory" is inaccurate. Fascism is of course widely regraded as undemocratic in practice, but being undemocratic in practice and ideologically "opposing" democracy are two different things. I sense hypocrisy - you claim that it is not democratic "even in theory" - in spite of the fact that you clearly remember Arblaster's source, and Arblaster does not deny that fascists' claimed to be democratic, he is of the opinion that that claim was not serious as exhibited by undemocratic practice of fascists, unlike Arblaster, you are saying that fascists aren't democratic "even in theory" - when you yourself have just admitted that you remember Arblaster's source that was mentioned a while ago by me, that mentions the very quote by fascists' claiming to be democratic. TFD, you do not hold the right to determine what is "largely ignored by the academic community" - you have been given material by prominent scholars on fascism, Roger Griffin and Emilio Gentile, who both acknowledge fascists' claim that they are democratic. WP:STICK applies to your statement "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - there is evidence by multiple sources and multiple scholars that it did claim to be democratic in theory. If you simply accept that your claim that fascists never claimed to be democratic has been proven false, and move on to a feasible position that involves: (A) "While fascists have claimed that they are democratic..."; in combination with (B) "...fascism is widely regarded as undemocratic in practice by most scholars"; an easy resolution can be made.--R-41 (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While I "do not hold the right to determine what is "largely ignored by the academic community"", WP:WEIGHT requires us to "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". BTW your source appears to be Gregor, not Gentile. I cannot find any other source for Panunzio's "harmoniuous democracy". Do you have any sources that explain how this relates to "direct democracy" and "authoritarian democracy". Are they the same thing? TFD (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources disprove your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory", nothing less and nothing more. It is the Doctrine of Fascism - an official manifesto of the Italian Fascists that claimed that fascism was supportive of an "authoritarian democracy". Your noting that different fascist theorists may have held different meanings or contexts when they used different terms such as "harmonious democracy", does not legitimize your statement: "Fascism was not democratic even in theory". In fact, different liberal theorists hold different interpretations of liberal democracy and subsection democracies within it - such as economic democracy advocated by social liberals - the point of this alternative example being: the fact that a division exists between different interpretations on a system does not justify a claim that there is "not supportive of that system, even in theory". Scholars acknowledge fascism's claim to be democratic, it did claim to be democratic - we have gone over this long enough. You wanted evidence of scholars describing this issue, scholarly sources were given to you, by Roger Griffin - one of the most prominent scholars on fascism, as well as prominent Italian scholar on fascism Emilio Gentile, these prominent scholars have analyzed fascism's claim to be democratic. So as to your complaint of WP:WEIGHT, I point to the fact that several serious sources: Griffin, Gentile, and Blamires' World Fascism encyclopedia - that is available at the prestigious Harvard University library, all address fascism's claim to be democratic and take some time to explain it, you have refused to seriously acknowledge these scholars and Blamires' encyclopedia - that is already used throughout this article. WP:STICK applies to your "even in theory" claim. You need to adjust your stance, because your present stance has been disproven, if you continue to refuse to acknowledge your error, I believe further discussion will be futile.--R-41 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with R-41 (except with the personal attack charge - I don't see any of it)... It may be wise to write an article titled Democracy and Fascism; its a controversial topic, and its a topic which should be mentioned here on Wikipedia.. Some oppose the view that fascism is even democratic in theory (and some hold the opposite view) - an article should be created so that there reasoning is explained... This is an important topic, and should be addressed properly (instead of being barely mentioned).. This is the problem; the vagueness of the statements in the article.. Its not enough of just saying fascist view themselves to be democratic because, like it or not, thats a controversial statement in itself... A separate article should be made, but I don't know enough (and don't have access to enough literature on fascism) to create such an article.. --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have such an article, I helped write it, here it is Relationship between fascism and democracy. Some have criticized it, if it needs improvements then by all means, I support others improving that article. The issue is that TFD has to accept WP:STICK for her/his claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - in theory it did claim to be democratic, I have provided Blamires' encyclopedia, and material from the scholars on fascism, Roger Griffin and Emilio Gentile, that disprove TFD's "even in theory" assertion. That being said, while scholars like Griffin acknowledge fascism's claim to be democratic, Griffin says that fascism was undemocratic in practice. And that brings up real issue here, that fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice. If TFD adjusted her/his stance to supporting a statement such as: (A) "fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice..." followed by (B) "...in spite of fascists' claims to be democratic", that would be acceptable.--R-41 (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source that shows a detailed statement from the Doctrine of Fascism that demonstrates that fascism did claim to be democratic while at the same time opposing "a form of democracy" - referring to liberal democracy. This further disproves the part of TFD's claim that I have bolded the text, that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory". It goes into some detail about the nature of its claimed elitist type of democracy. See below:

Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates the nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered—as it should be—from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically moulded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self-same line of development and spiritual formation.

— Doctrine of Fascism (Source: Stephen Eric Bronner. Twentieth Century Political Theory: A Reader. New York, New York, USA; Oxon, England, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. P. 221.

The above text is from the major Italian Fascist ideological treatise, the Doctrine of Fascism, and it says that fascism opposes a "form of democracy" while it claims that it is "the purest form of democracy". This demonstrates that fascists did claim to be democratic. The real issue, as I have said earlier, is that fascism is widely regarded to be undemocratic in practice.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to show that your theory has received enough attention in the literature about fascist ideology that it should be included. So far you have shown that one fascism scholar mentioned it in passing in a long essay. You keep mentioning Gentile, yet have not provided any sources that he mentioned it. And trivial mentions in primary sources show nothing. So a fascist once said, "We are the real democrats". Accept it for what it was - an isolated example of fascist irony. Some day scholars may discover the passage and write about it and decide that it is really important and then we can start talking about it. BTW some fascists believed in British Israelism. At the risk of WP:BEANS, I suggest that also is too obscure for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I provided you with multiple sources, above this one that was additional. The scholars Roger Griffin and Emilio Gentile address fascism's claim to be democratic. You are resorting to evasion by dismissing the material provided as "obscure" based on irrational comparison of fascism's claim to be democratic - that is noted by the scholars Roger Griffin and Emilio Gentile, and others - to obscure themes; the comparison you have chosen is arbitrary and irrational. If you looked above, I provided you with a link to Gentile's source, but here it is again: [17]. You are increasingly resorting to irrational rhetorical devices, your claim of "fascist irony" is such irrational rhetoric - that is your opinion and your POV that you are projecting as a fact. You simply do not understand, or are unwilling to accept, that your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been disproven by the fact that fascism did claim in theory to be democratic. I believe further conversation here has become futile, I am going to address the issue of you and the other user seeking to claim that "fascism is opposed to democracy", rather than what is now there that "fascism is opposed to liberal democracy" on the basis of your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" to the neutrality noticeboard, and perhaps, if necessary, to request administrator's review of this. I believe that the sources that I have provided you, demonstrate that your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is an inaccurate statement.--R-41 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not obscure, is a reliable source, and your "interpretation" of the reliable source is tendentious. It is cited in other works, and thus I do not comprehend why you are using IDONTLIKEIT so strenuously. R-41 is doing the best he can, and asserting that it is his personal theory in any way is contrary to WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing Emilio Gentile, the scholar, and Giovanni Gentile, the Fascist. Your source refers to Giovanni, who is believed to be the author of the essay that used the words "authoritarian fascism". Again our approach should be to determine what sources say about fascist ideology and summarize them, rather than look for sources that support theories we believe should be included. TFD (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake on that one, I saw a similar book by Emilio Gentile and confused it for this one, nevertheless the man who wrote it is A. James Gregor, another major scholar on fascism, who has written many volumes of work on fascism. Your accusation of "supporting theories" is wrong and hypocritical, I am not supporting fascism's claim to be democratic - I am acknowledging that such a claim existed, you on the other hand are the one who is clearly supporting a POV theory here, that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" - and that claim has been shown to be inaccurate by evidence showing that fascism did claim to be democratic, you have been given every bit of evidence to show that you made an error, but rather than acknowledging it, you are resorting to irrational rhetorical devices, arbitrary comparisons, and other evasions to avoid the fact that your claim is untenable. You need to stop and simply recognize your error, and move to a tenable position, such as: "fascism is widely regarded as undemocratic in practice in spite of claims by fascists that they are democratic". Otherwise further conversation is futile, because you are now gaming the system to defend an untenable argument that denies that fascists claimed to be democratic when evidence clearly shows that that is inaccurate.--R-41 (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

While Gregor does mention the concept of "authoritarian democracy" in a chapter of his book, he does not mention it at all in his 17 page first chapter, "Some issues in the intellectual history of fascism". If it is so important that it should be in this article, why is the topic virtually ignored by scholars who attempt to explain fascist ideology? TFD (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Griffin and A. James Gregor are scholars, Roger Griffin is one of the most preminent scholars on fascism, he has worked with multiple other scholars to develop a definition and description of fascism as an ideology, and he has not ignored fascism's claim to be democratic. Again, here is what the scholar, Griffin has said: "In a mystic version of direct democracy, the representation of the people's general will in a fascist society would mean entrusting authority to an elite or (especially in its interwar versions) a leader whose mission it is to safeguard the supra-individual interests and destiny of the people to whom it (or he) claims to be linked by a metaphysical bond of a common nationhood.", [18]. You cannot seem to understand that your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" has been disproven by the fact that fascists in theory did claim to be democratic. If you believe your claim that it is so obvious that it was not "even in theory", then you should be able to provide unequivocal evidence that fascism in theory entirely opposed democracy, as you claim that fascists did entirely oppose it. You will be unable to do so, you may find some sources taking seemingly anti-democratic phrases from the Doctrine of Fascism out of context - in that they ignore the parts where it claims that fascism supports a form of democracy.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you need to stop using strawman arguments. It is not whether scholars have ever mentioned Gentile's use of the words "authoritarian democracy" in a sentence in his essay, it is what weight they have given them. Secondly you need to explain how you get from Griffin's "mystic version of direct democracy" to fascists "claimed to be democratic". Maybe someday someone will write an article about this and scholars will stop ignoring the topic and it will be so important that it will demand inclusion in this brief article. TFD (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to wait until "someday" by scholars because scholars already acknowledge fascism's claim to be democratic. You said: "Secondly you need to explain how you get from Griffin's "mystic version of direct democracy" to fascists "claimed to be democratic"." Griffin is talking about fascism - you wanted evidence from scholars that they have reviewed fascism's claim to be democratic, they have. Griffin says that fascism is undemocratic in practice, but he is acknowledging that it claims to be democratic in its presentation of itself. Regardless, the answer is staring you in the face in Griffin's quote. But you keep reversing your demands, when I provided evidence of fascists claiming that fascism is democratic, you demand "we need evidence from scholars", then evidence from scholars was given, then you reverse your demand and say "how does that scholar's analysis indicate that fascists claimed to be democratic?" What else could Griffin be talking about in that quote? You are gaming the system if you ignore the preeminent scholar Griffin's work on fascism, and you are hypocritical when you say that I am using "strawman" arguments - you have used plenty of strawmans against me - including claiming that I am promoting a "pet theory". Your claim that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" is factually false. It appears obvious that this is going to have to be arbitrated by an administrator because you are evading and ignoring all material that contradicts your POV that "Fascism was not democratic even in theory" . I and others here such as Collect and TIAYN have noticed your stubborn behaviour, and it is getting very frustrating, so it seems that arbitration by an administrator may be the only way to untie this knot.--R-41 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A "strawman" argument "is a type of argument... based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." Anyway, you keep igoring my points and repeating what you have already said. 1. Gentile's use of the words "authoritarian democracy" is ignored in almost all summaries of fascist ideology that run to under 40 pages. 2. Even scholars who mention Gentile's use of the words do not see it as genuine, hence descriptions such as "lip service" and "mystical form". If you want to address these issues, which are giving proper weight to information and accurately reflecting what sources say, then please do. If you want to ignore them, then say so. TFD (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your points of WP:WEIGHT are not tenable if the the argument you hold is factually inaccurate, and it is factually inaccurate, as demonstrated by the sources I have provided. It is not a matter if fascism's claims to be committed to democracy were "genuine", I don't think that fascists were genuinely democratic from my liberal democratic perspective on democracy - it is a matter that the ideology did claim to be democratic, contrary to your assertion that the ideology did not claim to be democratic, that is the issue here. I can see that further discussion here has become futile with the rigidity of your stance to support your claim that it did not claim to be democratic, administrative arbitration is needed, I have brought the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard, here: [19]--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to discuss the issues that I have raised, then your replies are pointless. TFD (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(od) R-41 has bent over backwards to answer all your iterated posts. That you find actual responses to be "pointless" is telling, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Too long

This article is 177KB. WP:SIZERULE says that articles larger than 50KB may need to be divided, over 100kB almost certainly should be divided. We need to drastically reduce the size. Much of the material seems tangential. Also, do we really need pictures of a Spartan warrior, Augustus Caesar, the Leviathan, Herder, the storming of the Bastile, the fin de siecle, Bolsheviks, and US war planes? It seems to be an indication of lack of focus. TFD (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well under its recent peak of well over 200K, and over 230K just over a year ago. There appears to be almost a rhythm to the size - but since a large amount of the size is due to its over 350 refs, the article is not especially long in terms of length of the article at all. And some of the pics are not needed, of course. Considering all of the refs etc. somewhere around 150K is about where we can end up - the word count is far from excessive at that point. Collect (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The religion section is a hodgepodge of views that don't have any coherence

The one section that I think many of the regular editors here can agree on being bad is the section on fascism's stance on religion. I recall a user saying something along the lines of "if the material is not a coherent stance applicable to all of fascism, it should be removed". I agree with that, if fascism contained no common ideological stance towards religion amongst all fascist movements, then regardless of what policies taken by fascist governments and fascist individuals, such points on religion are moot. Most of what is said is just mentioning all the different fascist movements' individual stances, along with mentioning that Catholics were murdered by Nazis, etc. while Nazis also had Catholics in their ranks. The section is incoherent and shows no cohesive stance by fascism of an attitude religion, if there even is a cohesive stance considering that different fascist groups were based on different religions - from Catholics who were Italian Fascists, to Protestants and Catholics who were Nazis, to neo-Confucianists like Seigō Nakano who founded the Tōhōkai.--R-41 (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Then take it out. TFD (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I get it, you are frustrated and angry at me because of our disagreements on content. Short snarky remarks are not helpful, this needs to be discussed - not hastily removed - other users have invested time in putting in that material, those who want to defend particular material in it should be given time to defend its inclusion, before a decision is made.--R-41 (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While discussion ensues, I shall comment it out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with commenting it out Collect, most users see what is on the page by looking at the page in "viewing mode", not "editing mode" - if you get what I mean. They cannot see what the content is, I think it is very important for users who enter this discussion to be clearly able to see what the content is. I am requesting that you agree to restore the visibility of the section for the purposes I have mentioned.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the section has been commented on a lot in the past - and, aside from some "strange concepts" of what belongs in articles like this, I saw no actual arguments to retain it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This material below is very POV, and is going on the common stereotype that Nazism was "immensely" influenced by neo-paganists, which it was not. I suggest removing this material. See below:

"There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.”</ref>

One of the sources claims that Hitler supported Himmler's and Rosenburg's neo-paganism - this is completely false, Hitler specifically denounced both on them for promoting neo-paganism, scholar on fascism Roger Griffin notes Hitler denouncing them for this, here is Griffin's source: Roger Griffin. Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2005. p. 93.--R-41 (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If something is "completely false", then there is no reason to mention it. TFD (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is important to discuss the major changes that I have proposed to make here to the article, to those who contributed this material here. So that people who contributed or have supported such material be informed about why it is slated to be removed. Nevertheless, I will follow your advice considering that it also makes additional completely false claims that the Nazis sought to restore pagan Germanic gods of antiquity, I am removing that material immediately.--R-41 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving on. The mentioning that the Nazis persecuted Catholic Poles does not indicate that they persecuted them because they were Catholic, as a large percentage of Germans themselves were then and are now Catholic. Following TFD's advice and my own desire to address these issues here, I believe the point has been clearly made, and I am removing that material now.--R-41 (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed more examples of individual instances of repression against religious groups, such as mentioning several Italian Fascist officials persecuting groups of Protestants. The material did not explain why this happened, nor if this is related to a religious policy. Furthermore Italian Fascism made alliances with movements led by Protestants, Mussolini endorsed Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists that had Anglican followers (Anglicanism being part Protestant and part Catholic) and more importantly Mussolini's alliance with Hitler resulted in him allying with a majority Protestant country.--R-41 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct action -a fascist subject?

I doubt this. Direct action is mostly associated with leftist and pacifist movements. It also lacks a fascist portal sign on the Direct Action page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.245.98 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But fascism was a leftist movement. Learn a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.13.87 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazism a kind of Fascism ???

The most of this article is rather good. But from cite "The most important new fascist regime was Nazi Germany, " there is a part which is very uncorrect. Only whithin communistic terminology does "nazism" equal "fascism". It's true that as time went Mussolini got close to Hitler. They even became personal friends. And during the fall of France may/june 1940 Mussolini joined the nazists in the war. But fascist ideology does not include f.i. antisemitism. And when Hitler talkes about "the arian blood" fascists insted talkes about "glory old history" (not only in Italy , Franco reffered to Ferdinand & Isabella and the discovery of America (payed by the iberian nations) - and Mussolini ofcourse reffered to the Roman empire. Fascism is pro-monarchy. Nazism is not. "There can be only one leader". Fascism was pro-colonialisation outside Europe. Hitler instead claimed european territory in the east of Europe. (But especially points out India as a problem to England. (In "Mein Kampf" Hitler uses "England", not "Britain") Fascism stands close to the catholic church (I do not state the opposite today) and Mussolini in person was the man behind the Lateran treaty (Since the unification of Italy under Garibaldi the Chuch-state including Rome and the St Peter Church was a part of Italy. The Vatican state was formed in 1929. Infact all nations that ever has been ruled by fascistic regimes, have all been Catholical. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler just mentiones "the living God" (in a very few centances) and does not care about catholics or protestants. Further fascism not only survived WW2 - it spread ! To Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and most of the countries between Colombia and Mexico. In the case of Chile rumours say that the US Foregin Secretary (Henry Kissinger) supported the fascistic coup 9/11-1973, also the "contras" in Nicaragua had US support to reinstate a fascist regime. In Guatemala fascism arrived through the US company "United Fruit". If nazism and fascim had been the same, of course no such US involvement would or could occur. It's the dictatorship as such that is the only real common denominator between nazism and fascism. And jews were safe in Italy until Germany declared war against it's former allied, in september 1943. The Italian army capitulated whihin 24 hrs, but parts of the navy joined the western alliance. The fascist party also had a supreme organ, The great council. It was this party-organ that fired Mussolini after the lost of Sicilly. Such an organ did not exist in Nazigermany. However in Nazigermany , though centralized, evry city had a mayor (Burgermeister) and a nazi-Gauleiter. Such constructions did not exist in any fascist country. etc. etc. I strongly suggest the removal of the nazi-part in the article concidering ideology. Boeing720 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide sources that scholars have come to this conclusion, rather than present your own arguments. TFD (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to prove a negative ? Like the fact that antisemitism not is a part of fascism as ideology ? If You mean the US involvement in some fascist regimes, then "the contras" against the Sandinistas is very well-known. Remember the "Iran-Contras-issue" ?. The rumours conc. Kissinger is not imperative to my suggestions, nore is United Fruit and Guatemala. But the fact that fascism spread to Portugal, Greece, Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, El Salvador and Nicaragua I do not thinkneed sourcing. It's as well known as it can be. Do I need sourceing of the Lateran treaty ? The Italian unification under Garibaldi and the fact that the Pope had no territory for several decades before 1929 ? Or that fascism is close to the catholic church (but not necessary the other way around)?. Concidering Hitler and nazism I do refer to what he has written in "Mein Kampf". I would appriciate an answer that is a bit more precise - what do need sourcing ? But sources that I do can reffer to is "The rise and fall of the third reich" by Willian S.Shierer , "Second World War, day by day on all fronts" by two italian authors. Alan Bullocks book "Adolf Hitler - a study of tyranny" and sir Winston Churchill's 6 volume encyklopedia of WW2. Did You know that in Nazigermany the school subjects was changed , not only from "History" to "German History" but also "Physics" and "Biology" became "German Physics" and "German Biology" (this is stated by William S Shierer's in "The rise and fall of the third reich" (chapter "The life in the third reich"). Must I proove that this was not the case in Italy or Spain ? However I must correct one thing - Greece is not catholic but ortodox. But this does not change the fact that nazism do not equal fascism. Atleast the nazi impact in history is very close to pure evil. (Auchwitz, Treblinka and other pure death-camps). The worst known fascist mass-murder happened in Argentina in the late 1970's. Thousands of people was flewn out above the Atlantic and dropped in the ocean. (In peace-time). But this still cannot be compared with the nazi-holocaust 1942-45. The holocaust had nothing to do with if You agreed or not with Hitler. Jews and some other ethnical groups just had to die due to "the final solution" and the nazi fanatic antisemitism. While not even "common concentration-camps" was found in by the allied forces in Italy. This is not argumentation, just a presentation of pure facts (tal-side-wise). But this is an argument - "Apart from pure article errors, giving nazism the far lower status of fascism on a scale of evilness makes the nazism unnecessary a bit more legitime. This is based on both the differencies of the fascistic/nazi ideologies and what history has revealed about these two ideologies".(end of my argumentation) Boeing720 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Since sources say it is fascism, you need sources that say it is not. TFD (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is that there is no single, simple definition of "fascism" covering everything to which the term has been applied. Collect (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Fascism Unreliable Source?

Why would the historical aspect of Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism, be unreliable? The part I used as a source document covered the evolution of fascism from the Italian Socialist (communist) party. Furthermore, this book provides a concise view of the history. Regardless of the title, or the theories provided at the end of the book, only the history was referenced. Those historical facts are not in dispute. Furthermore, I made no other reference to any other part of the the book. Finally, reverting the entire edit by stating that Liberal Fascism is unreliable, is overkill. The revision totally removed references from four other source that were not disputed. Should they have not stayed if they were not in dispute? Or was this an act of political censorship? Moesbob2 (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need to get into this? There are plenty of books giving an overview of the history of fascism. If that one has been objected to, why not simply use a different one? Formerip (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Liberal Fascism" is a book completely full of nonsense, and some of the most respected and reputable scholars of WW2 and Fascism publicly denounced it. It's written by a journalist with no historical background whatsoever, and is no better used as a "source" for anything than a book written by Michael Moore. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

ISTR an editor on another page saying That's a profoundly un-encyclopedic view...and would have Neo-Nazis "in charge" of the pages on Nazism. These pages are about provable facts from reputable sources, not "puff pieces" designed to promote ideologies. The book here is as reliable a source as the books you like on other articles - the difference is only whether you "know" them to be the "truth" or not. Ascribe opinions as opinions and let the readers weigh them as such. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Wiki-Stalking" me, now? Regardless, the academic consensus is that "Liberal Fascism" is beyond WP:FRINGE, and well into the realm of absolute "propaganda."[20] Here are some more actual HISTORIANS commenting on what a pile of nonsense it is: [21][22]. You might as well quote the opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Adam Sandler, or Marilyn Manson on the subject, as they have just as much WP:WEIGHT as Goldberg. The fact that you'd defend that book is very "telling." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Try being civil here -- as I antedate your contributions on this article by a large margin (starting in 2008), your accusattions are ill-mannered and not likely to impress anyone at all. Ever. Collect (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to your cutting-and-pasting of things I had written previously. You must really like me! :D And either way, as noted above, Goldberg is a laughing-stock to anyone outside of Conservative talk radio. Might as well be citing that show "Ancient Aliens" from the History Channel. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You made an accusation. Try redacting it instead of offering some sort of excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of your additions were to report Goldberg's opinions, which is not an rs problem but one of WP:WEIGHT. Since Goldberg is not an expert in fascism, there is no reason to report his views. Even if it met rs, WP:RS says, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." I doubt it meets rs however, since despite the extensive footnoting, sources are frequently misrepresented. TFD (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be sufficiently cited by others (76 according to Googlescholar). Widely reviewed in respected publications. And generally well-received, contrary to assertions of it being "fringe." As for your "knowing" that sources are "misrepresented" - find RS sources for that claim, please. Collect (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please show us an example of this "book" being cited in a peer-reviewed journal. I'd love to see that. (NOTE: The Institute for Historical Review doesn't count. I've presented numerous examples of RS from some of the most esteemed scholars in the field, denouncing the book as nonsense. You, on the other hand, have presented nothing. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Click here for the cites. It proves only that the book deserves its own article. The first cite for example is from a self-published book, Rebellion (iUniverse). No serious source on fascism uses it as a source. If we want to write articles from a non-mainstream POV, then there are other fora where we may do so. Mein Kampf btw has 1,537 cites,[23] but that does not make it a reliable source. TFD (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a great idea -- compare Goldberg to Hitler! Um - since the others citing the book are NOT NAZIS who like the book, your wonderful reaching of Godwin's Law is superb! Meanwhile - show me the peer-reviewed reliable sources for Goldberg misusing sources. Collect (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was Roger Griffin who first made that comparison, right here in one of the RS that I already posted, but which you obviously did not read:

"Liberal Fascism is to be seen as a mischievous exercise in party-political journalism writ large as a pseudo-academic monograph, its revisionism far removed from that of a legitimate academic exercise in rethinking a basic historical issue from a fresh angle. Rather, its revisionism directly parallels that of the Institute of Historical Review, which produces euphemistic essays in Holocaust Denial misleadingly adorned with full scholarly apparatus, an airbrushed Playboy variant of racist political pornography." -- Roger Griffin [24]

You just set yourself up for THAT one, chief! --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking now at the way that Google Scholar finds citations, it appears that it includes any book, including other opinion books like Goldberg's, vanity-press books, and articles where the book has been reviewed/ridiculed. I searched EbscoHost and only found references to it in reviews of the book itself, usually in Conservative publications like the National Review (which is Goldberg's employer! LOL!). Like I mentioned before, he is the Conservative equivalent of Michael Moore, and his "work" should be viewed accordingly...and is, by every reputable scholar on Fascism or WW2 on the planet. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 16:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And again you forget that the book meets WP:RS, has been reviewed in strong journals (The Economist etc. are not right wing nut rags) (not just the National Review etc. for gosh sakes!) and the claim by TFD that it misuses sources would require reliable sources for such a claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that you did not actually read any of the sources that I posted. (Not surprising. You never do.) Here are some excerpts from just the first one, that written by Roger Griffin, a well-respected scholar of fascism:

"Goldberg’s book perverts historical and historiographical truth with the scarcely hidden agenda..."

"It is a work of sustained pseudo-historical calumny and defamation disguised under the (constantly slipping) carnival mask of an ‘alternative history’."

"Liberal Fascism is to be seen as a mischievous exercise in party-political journalism writ large as a pseudo-academic monograph, its revisionism far removed from that of a legitimate academic exercise in rethinking a basic historical issue from a fresh angle. Rather, its revisionism directly parallels that of the Institute of Historical Review, which produces euphemistic essays in Holocaust Denial misleadingly adorned with full scholarly apparatus, an airbrushed Playboy variant of racist political pornography."

"It is no more ‘true’ than the Da Vinci Code (and contains for the gullible an equivalently alluring subtext of conspiracy theory)."

"He cites theories solely to ridicule their abstruseness."

"Typical of the misleading, ahistorical analysis that permeates this book is that it presents the debate about fascism as still being hopelessly confused. There was a time, namely between the 1960s and early 1990s, when many academics outside the Marxist camp expressed despair at the prospects of ever finding a broadly consensual definition but this is no longer true and has not been for well over a decade."

"Symptomatic of this willful distortion of facts is the way he cites my assertion about the ‘welter of divergent opinion’ concerning the definition of fascism without mentioning (there is no endnote) the awkward point that this was written in 1990 (published in 1991) and that it is a statement now radically superseded by the growth of a general acceptance of fascism’s futural thrust towards a reborn national or ethnic order beyond conservative communism, and above all liberalism (in the economic, political and ethical sense)."

I stopped there, not because of lack of examples, but rather because I didn't want to fill up the entire talk page by completely obliterating the idea that this book is anything but a complete absurdity. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Any book, including fiction, conspiracism, etc., that is a best-seller gets reviewed in the press. Philip Coupland whose paper "H.G. Wells's ‘Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for the concept of "liberal fascism" in Goldberg's book, said that Goldberg misrepresented him. See the history channel site where real historians discuss the book. "it was greeted largely with silence among those academic historians and political scientists....Few spoke out, as Roger Griffin suggests, because they recognized that Goldberg’s book was more of an exercise in polemics than a historical work, and as such not really appropriate for academic consideration. Its use of history was so shoddy and propagandistic, and its claims so frankly absurd, that very few of them considered it worth taking seriously."[25]

There have been many books written about this subject by people who have actual qualifications. There is no need to scrape the bottom of the barrel with a polemical misrepresentation of history.

TFD (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And this one has been reviewed by serious historians - your cavil is empty. And your use of "David Neiwert is a freelance journalist based in Seattle. He is the author of The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (PoliPoint Press, 2009)." who is not an historian at all belies your POV on this! Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Niewert wrote the INTRODUCTION to the piece, which featured a plethora of "serious historians." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The propaganda book Liberal Fascism is garbage, not a reliable source on the topic of fascism.Spylab (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Find reliabke sources for what you "know" to be the "truth" please. Collect (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I already did. You just refuse to admit it. WP:IDHT, and nothing more. We've shown why it is NOT RS, from the mouths of reputable scholars. You haven't provided a single reputable scholar to back up your assertion that it IS. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct: the notion of liberal fascism is fringe. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(out) See WP:KNOW: "Ronald Reagan used the quote: "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” This is from a man who said "facts are stupid things", thought that he fought in WW2, and was probably senile when he was elected president. TFD (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering you added the Reagan reference, it was inevitable that you would cite your own edit. And your asides here are fully as inane. Cheers - but your post has absolutely nothing to do with the price of eggs, does not tear down any wall, does not pump gas, does not do much thus in any sense in trying to improve this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)