Talk:Fascism

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Fascism.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.


This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9 Archive 10
Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14
Archive 15 Archive 16
Archive 17 Archive 18
Archive 19 Archive 20
Archive 21 Archive 22
Archive 23 Archive 24
Archive 25 Archive 26

Contents

[edit] Please Note

This page has grown long from time to time and topical subsections have been pulled out and new pages created. Please do not complain about information missing from this page until you have explored the Fascism Template pages. Weaving links to existing pages or adding text with pointers to longer discussions is both appropriate and useful.--Cberlet 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Persecution

From the "Positions on Religion" section:

Nazis arrested and killed thousands of Catholic clergy (18% of the priests in Poland were killed), eventually consigning thousands of them to concentration camps (2600 died in Dachau alone).[125] Although Jews were obviously the greatest and primary target, Hitler also sent Roman Catholics to concentration camps along with the Jews and killed 3 million Catholic Poles along with three million Jewish Pole.

Wasn't the persecution of millions of Poles mostly motivated by the Nazi supremacist ideology, not because these Poles were Catholic? I would also think that the persecution of members of the clergy was to kill people who had leadership roles to render Polish society powerless. The Nazis did persecute some upstanding Catholics that criticized them in Germany as well, but early on struck a (now very controversial) deal with the Vatican, the Reichskonkordat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevo2001 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leftist Political Terms?

I don't understand why this sentence is here:

"fascists supported revolutionary politics, and fascists like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler used leftist political terms such as "proletariat" and "bourgeois" to describe society. "

"proletariat" and "bourgeois" are not leftist political terms! If one is associating them with Marx (who didn't invent said words) then they would be right-ist (very conservative) not very liberal. --Russ Frank 16:11, 02 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Element of fascism: "opposition to laissez faire capitalism"?

In the listed elements of fascism is "opposition to laissez faire capitalism", and the references given are the following:

  • Calvin B. Hoover, The Paths of Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World, The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20;
  • Philip Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168

Could the text for these sources be provided for independent review? I have seen no evidence that fascists opposed free market capitalism and did they not ally themselves with them? --Jfrascencio 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."
This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."

We fascists do not trust the market to take care of things. The market can operate to an extent, but state must make sure resources are distributed in an equitable manner and make sure that workers aren't being exploited. We support minimum wage laws, welfare system, laws against usury, etc. That's what fascism is all about. The "invisible hand" just doesn't work. Billy Ego 03:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascists, especially Strasserites, often claim to be a "third way" between capitalism and communism. Almost all socialists and the majority of scholar claim this is a deluded self-perception. --Cberlet 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it not a third way? Is it laissez-faire capitalism? No. Is it Marxian socialism? No. Therefore it's a third way. Besides some nationalization private property is allowed but the use of that property is under the supervision and control of the state to make sure it is used for the common good. There is a welfare system, wage controls, price controls, etc. Billy Ego 16:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now how about some text from the source that is alleged to say that "most" scholars see it as on the political right or allied with right-wing movements? The source given in the article is John Hoffman and Paul Graham. Introduction to Political Theory. Pearson 2006, p. 288. ISBN 0-582-47373-X Billy Ego 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has happened before. The majority of editors believe that the most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years have disagreements, but generally do not describe fascism using the terms developed by fascists to describe themselves. Nor do most respected and cited scholars of fascism in the past 20 years adopt the perspective of the libertarian/Austrian School ideologues, none of whom are considered mainstream scholars of fascism by most academics who study fascism. Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find.--Cberlet 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
What "marginal view" are you talking about? Billy Ego 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey I just caught a really flawed from statement from you. You said "Marginal views and original research are not acceptable in the lead or as a significant portion of the text in an entry, no matter how many obscure and marginal cites one can find." Well, if many sources can be found, then it is by definition not a marginal view. Capisce? Or are views "marginal" just because you say they are? Billy Ego 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I can find thousands of cites from the Marxist left on the nature of fascism, probably far more than you can find cites for your marginal views. In neither case would this justify adding this to the lead, or making it a disproportionate part of the entry. Even for fascists, size isn't everything...--Cberlet 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Are we supposed to just take your word for it that you are able to find more cites for your views? The only way to know what is marginal and what is not is to actually try to pull up sources and compare numbers. So far you're saying that other views are marginal. There is no reason to believe you. Billy Ego 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are supposed to visit a library and see what I am saying is easy to document.--Cberlet 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You haven't documented it. You're just saying it. Where is your comparison of the numbers of sources? Billy Ego 18:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet does not have to do your research for you, nor does he have to prove anything. Since the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to alter the status quo (see WP:SOURCE), it is your responsibility to demonstrate that the article, as it previously stood, did not present the views of the majority. -- WGee 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The burden is on whoever wants to delete the material. If something has a source then it shouldn't be deleted. I can go around deleting sourced things that you put in by claiming they're "marginal." But do I? No. I'm not a vandal. There is no way to know what is "marginal" or not without a thorough compilation of sources and comparing numbers. Billy Ego 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You are simply wrong. Please study Wiki guidelines and stop disrupting this and other pages.--Cberlet 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary. You're simply wrong. And you're vandalizing articles when you delete cited text with your self-righteous claim that views that you don't subscribe to are "marginal." Billy Ego 02:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on the person adding content, not removing content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your source talks about opposition to laissez faire (or opposition to the theory of no or very little government involvement in the economy). It says nothing about opposition to laissez faire capitalism/ free market capitalism. Your source does not say what you are trying to make it say. fascism does not oppose free market capitalism and it is false to state that when under fascism, both coexisted. Fascist states did have free market capitalist economies that were made to serve the state. It did not oppose free market capitalism, it controlled free market capitalism to make it a servant to the state. There was a functioning free market capitalism system in place. --Jfrascencio 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascist economy centers on war production. Since it has no interest in the welfare of the masses of people and prefers to depress wages of workers and farmers and lower their standard of living, goods for popular consumption are of secondary importance

– Facts and Fascism by George Seldes , http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/George_Seldes/Facts_and_Fascism.html

--Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is Hoover: "Nevertheless the essence of both national socialism and Italian fascism is opposed to laissez faire. Italian fascism insists that the interests of the nation must be placed before those of the individual or his property. Thus an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labor than he would find profitable. It may well be that the limitations upon the laborers are more onerous than those upon property owners. But the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group."
What do you mean with "regulated laissez faire." Hoover writes himself that laissez faire had been abandonded in both principle and practice in Germany and Italy. Intangible2.0 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that "regulated laissez-faire" is meaningless. Either it's laissez-faire or it's not. Fascists are for a state directed economy to serve the common good. Billy Ego 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence is just false and is not supported by any reputable source. Fascism is not socialism or communism, and you will just fail trying to spin things to make it something it is not. --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? The last sentence is supported by the source we're talking about. It says "the fact remains that property rights of the individuals and the right of the capitalist to do whatever he likes with his enterprise are restricted in the interest of a group." Fascism is opposed to allowing the capitalist to do whatever he wants with his property. Property rights are contingent upon using it for the benefit of the group, that group being the society. Billy Ego 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: "Fascists are for state directed economy to serve the common good". You are twisting people's words, while ignoring that the source talks about the nation being the group. In fascism the state or nation is an organism working to serve something beyond or greater than any single individual or any group of which this organic state is made out of. --Jfrascencio 22:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "twisting" anything. I'm saying the same thing you are saying. You just don't realize what "common good" means. It means the public good, as opposed to the individual good. We fascists believe that the common good is more important than the individual good. It is right that the individual sacrifice all for the survival of the people even if that sacrifice is his life itself. The individual should live to serve not himself but the group. The same principle applies to businesses. They must be controlled by the state to make sure they are serving the public good instead of functioning in their own interests by exploiting the people for maximum profit and interest. It is not capitalism because in capitalism the capitalist has control over the means of production. It is not Marxian socialism because there is private property. But it something in between. It is a "third way." Billy Ego 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "regulated laissez faire" (without the word capitalism) means regulation of what is not or should not be controlled. "Laissez faire" is French for "let it be". However, you could "let it be", and then regulate when it gets out of line (like not acting in the intrests of the state). There can be a free market capitalist economy that is regulated (e.g. the United States: Is it a free market economy? yes. Is it regulated? yes). --Jfrascencio 19:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That still does not mean that fascist actually opposed free market capitalism. This excerpts showed that there was a coexistence between free market capitalism and fascism as long as the free market was the servant to the state. Note the "Nevertheless", meaning there were things to the contrary of that sentence. Meaning that fascists did not oppose the exploitation or oppose free market capitalism itself just that the capitalist is now the state and the free market capitalist owner of the means of production must obey the state. It also describes the inequality, with the condition on the laborers being "onerous" (very difficult), this goes against what socialism or communism is trying to accomplish egalitarianism and common ownership of the means of production by the people. Communism tries to abolish private property and the state. Socialism is a transition to that end. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is Morgan: "Since the Depression was the general crisis of laissez-faire capitalism and its political counterpart, parliamentary democracy, fascism could pose as the 'third way' alternative between capitalism and Bolshevism, the model of a new European 'civilization'."
Fascism is known for economic output that exceeds even free market capitalism. While socialism/communism is known for weak economic productivity. Fascism is the reason that fascist states recovered from the great depression so quickly compared to free market capitalist states. Nazi Germany was second in recovering from the great depression if IRC. All that above means is that fascism has become an alternative to both communism/socialism and free market capitalism. Not necessarily where it falls compared to these systems. --Jfrascencio 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fascist/Nazi governments did regulate the economy and have a welfare state, but so did capitalist democratic governments. Most governments in so-called capitalist countries have placed restrictions on the economy, have used government spending to boost certain sectors of the economy, have expected some sacrifices from its citizens for the common good, and have set up programs to help the needy. This is especially true during wartime or economic downturns. If that translated into anti-capitalism, then I guess that means the US, the UK and similar non-fascist/non-communist countries are anti-capitalist too. I have seen no evidence that fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were any more opposed to laissez fair capitalism than those two Western capitalist democracies and other similar countries. There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term.Spylab 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it were true that "There have been very few countries that have been laissez faire capitalist in the true sense of the term," what is the relevancy of that? Opposition to laissez-faire comes from fascism. Fascism is the inspiration and model for economic planning, welfare systems, social security, minimum wage, etc. There are economies in the world today that fascists would be pleased with. But they would not be pleased with something like the U.S. because there is not enough state control over the means of production. Capitalists are allowed to run wild in the U.S. and the people suffer. Maybe the better term is opposition to "liberal capitalism" because it's not just "absolute" laissez-faire that fascists oppose. Billy Ego 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are wrong about that. Opposition to laissez-faire capitalism does not come from fascism. There was opposition to laissez-faire capitalism long before the development of fascist ideology. This opposition cam from various sectors of the economy and various factions within the political spectrum. Fascism is not the inspiration for concepts such as economic planning, welfare systems, social security and minimum wage. Again, many of those ideas were around long before the development of fascist ideology. Also, the development of the modern welfare state was partially a response to economic downturns and partially a reward for the sacrifice of working class citizens during wartime. It was also partially a reaction to the rising support for socialism among the working class. Those in power proposed the development of the welfare state as a way to address some of the needs of the working class, in order to quench their thirst for revolution. Spylab 15:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Fascism is the same capitalism based on nazism and totalitarism. Communism is the fight for freedom and against the slavery imposed by capitalists (opposite to capitalism). Socialism is the middle way ideology, that is it combines the best qualities of both (no monopoly and no private big corporations). Liberalism is the same capitalism based on free exploitation without government involvment (or some rules against free exploitation). Capitalism is the base of all evel on our earth. All wars before communism was caused by this ideology when a small group of individuals takes all profit of work and the vaste majority are sheer slaves. Monarchy is the same capitalism ruled by dynasties.

[edit] "Extremism of the Center"

This is given:

Albert Breton. Political Extremism and Rationality. Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 79

As a reference to this:

However, some scholars say it is an "extremism of the center."

Many illustrations of this mechanism come to mind. One is the fact that Hitler found electoral support among voters who normally voted for parties of the center, and more generally the fact that fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" (see, for examaple, Kershaw 1992, Sternhell 1978). In that case, what could motivate the middle classes is their fear of the consequences of the adoption of some economic policies reflected in the move from mainstream position from R to R'.

– Political Extemism and Rationality By Albert Breton , Page 79 Excerpt

Clearly, Albert Breton does not outright say or argue that "fascism is an extremism of the center". You can't just write "fascism is an extremism of the center" because this is not generally accepted and it won't stand on its own. "Some" is being used to throw this out there without naming the proponents of this claim or where their argument can be found. --Jfrascencio 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He says it can plausibly considered exteremism of the center. And He's giving the names of people who say that is "extremism of the center." (Kershaw and Sternhell). Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No he says that it can be interpreted with SOME DEGREE of plausibility. Plausibility = apparent validity = validity appearing as such but not necessarily being valid. The two names given are authors of two books that give examples of how fascism can be interpreted with some degree of plausibility as "an extremism of the center" --Jfrascencio 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the authors he lists are those who say it is extremism of the center. Hold on I'll give you direct sources. Billy Ego 18:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For "extremism of the center" also see Lipset's Political Man where he talks about fascism as extremism of the middle class. -- Vision Thing -- 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also "The classic fascist movements have represented the extremism of the center." ---Aristotle Kallis, Routlege 2003, page 113 Billy Ego 16:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Productive industrial capitalism"?

Someone wrote in the introduction that the sources says that Nazis "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Where in these sources does it say that? I don't see it. I'm challenging this. If it can't be verified that the sources say this then it needs to be removed. Billy Ego 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, Billy Ego, let me know what you could not find in the cite: Moishe Postone. 1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier There is a detailed discussion of the artifical and antisemitic division of capitalism into productive industrial capitalism v. parasitic finance capitalism. The Nazis did not invent the consept, but they built their ideology around it. Do you think this cite is just a dollop of chopped liver? I think it is a full meal!--Cberlet 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it in there. Where does it say that they supported "what they considered productive industrial capitalism."? YOu are saying that they called it "industrial capitalism." On what page number of the book does it say this? If you don't come up with a more specific cite then it has to be deleted. Billy Ego 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
My summary of a brilliant article by Moishe. Go to a library and go look for yourself and tell me when you have done that and why you disagree. Thanks.--Cberlet 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If the 1986 book is anything like the same 1980 essay from Moishe, I think there are some problems. It reeks of New Leftish critical theory, in the standard framework of Marxist ideas on "big capitalist." Intangible2.0 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have the article and yes it is very strange. But I don't see it saying anywhere that Nazi's "embraced a structured role for what they considered productive industrial capitalism." Postone talks about "industrial capitalism" in his theorizing but I don't see him say that the Nazi's considered what they embraced to be "industrial capitalism." Cberlet won't give any page number and he won't give any quotes so we can check up on his claim. I think we should delete it. Billy Ego 01:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "National Socialism"

There was a party in Germany called German Workers' Party in 1919 of about 50 members. Hitler, a corporal, was sent by German intelligence to investigate the party. He got into an argument with party members, where they asked him to join after impressing them with his speaking ability. He later joined the party

The party became National Socialist German Workers' Party in 1920 against what Hitler wanted it to be renamed to "Social Revolutionary Party." Hitler accepted the new party name with the "National Socialist" part because it appealed to the working class and it inspired patriotism and nationalism, and also because there was no clear interpretation of the phrase.

Hitler defined the terms nationalism and socialism in an unusual way. Hitler defined nationalism as the devotion of the individual to the nation. He defined socialism as responsibility of others for each individual.

The fact remains that there was rising support of the working class for socialism and communism at the time. Politicians tend to say anything in public speeches to gain support. So using what Hitler said to the public during his rise to power should be done in a skeptical questioning way. What should be examined is the actual system that Hitler had in place when he was in power. --Jfrascencio 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Socialism" has always been a vague term. But basically, if you're opposed to capitalism you're a socialist of some color. Billy Ego 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you're anti-Capitalist. Fascism has shown that you can be anti-Capitalist and not Socialist. Tazmaniacs
That "actual system" that Hitler had in place was definitely not laissez-faire capitalism or anything close to that. There was private ownership of the means of production but that alone does not make capitalism. The means of production were strongly regulated to serve the public good. Billy Ego 19:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware that some refer to Communist states' economic policies as "state capitalism"? Just passing by... Tazmaniacs
I think something along "opposition to economic and political liberalism" in the intro will do just fine. Intangible2.0 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation, there was national walfare, but the economic system was capitalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and racism (moved controversial statement)

I moved this here. It should not be included in the introduction because it is only one view on the matter. Others historians have argued the importance of anti-Semitism in Fascism, as well as of racism (see the review Difesa della Razza, for example). To claim Fascism had nothing to do with racism is overlooking the fascist project of creating a "new man;" it prevents understanding the use of sports and the condemnation of so-called "degenerate art" which perverted the "race". If you want to reintroduce that statement, do so in a subsection concerning "Fascism and Racism."

Though a number of fascist movements expressed racist beliefs, racism is not a constitutive element of fascism.
<ref>Herbert Kitschelt, Anthony J. McGann. The Radical Right in Western Europe: a comparative analysis. 1996 
 University of Michigan Press. p. 30</ref>

Tazmaniacs 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So your justification of removing it is just your personal opinion that fascism is a constitutive element of fascism? Do you have a source that says it is? That source says it is not, so why aren't you respecting that and deleting out of the article? One don't have to be a racist to be a fascist. Billy Ego 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be a section on fascism and race, but this a complex issue, even more so if one allows for generic fascism. It would be good to make this point clear though in the introduction, to say it is not a defining characteristic (at least not in the early "stage"). There were certainly prominent Jews (e.g. Sarfatti, Finzi) who worked together with Mussolini; anti-Semitism only became part of the fascistic discourse in the 1930s. Intangible2.0 21:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
they are also Jews and Blacks in the Front National. So what? Your claim concerning anti-Semitism and Fascism is, however, more to the point. But Fascism has always had to do with claims of "regenerating the nation" and creating a "new man". And how can you "regenerate" if there has not been (racial) "degeneration" before? Tazmaniacs 21:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You could also say that the 1938 racial laws were passed as a pragmatic response to the demands of Nazi Germany, and so not really part of fascist ideology per se. Intangible2.0 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Didnt Musso join Hitler because it "looked like" the Nazis where winning the war. He would then have had to have implemented a Nazi-esque racial policy to not "let the side down". Having the most powerful land army in Europe on his doorstep at the time probably helped "convince" him. I would say that Fascism doesnt HAVE to be racist though. As, at it's core, it is simply placing the nation/state above the individual, it could be argued that the race of the individual within the nation doesnt count, as long as they 'give themselves' to the state. To answer an above user i'd say that the cult of "Chavs" in Britian was a degeneration of the state, though the chavs themselves can be any race. Though the white ones are normally racist though they talk in ebonics. Thinking isn't thier strong point anyway, hence the degenerationFelneymike (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And why did you delete the Mussolini opposed Marxian socialism when it says in the essay referenced "Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism."? Billy Ego 20:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And why are you deleting that Mussolini opposed both political and economic liberalism when it says in the source referenced "Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere."? Billy Ego 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Billy, start reading WP:Talk and not confusing subjects. This section is adressed on "Fascism & race," hence I will respond to this claim. Yes, I have sources to back what I say, and Intangible's comments have more validity than yours. What I argued is that this is a complex topic, and as such, should be asserted in such an unilateral way in the intro. As much Intangible's POV can be argued (that it is not inherent to Fascism), as much the other can be argued. So there is a debate. Or do you want to claim that there is no debate? Tazmaniacs 21:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why do say Intangible's comments have more validity than mine? And yes I do want to claim there is no debate except possibly in marginal circles who don't know too much about fascism around the world. You say you have sources, so let's see them instead of you just giving your personal opinion here. Billy Ego 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Sic. Tazmaniacs 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any sources to back up what you are saying or not? Billy Ego 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism in its purest form like communism is an economic system that is a tool meant to keep a stable government, there has never been a pure fascist ruler, Hitler was a nationalist who used fascism as his economic plan and Mussolini was a socialist that used some fascist idea as his own. And to say racism or hate towards Jews being a major principle in fascism, would be a lie because nationalism promotes racism and Hitler was just racist so he shouldn't be your judge of fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.134.192 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism

It is meaningless to say "Fascists opposed laissez-faire capitalism & finance capitalism." Finance capitalism is a specific mode of capitalism (which deals with finance). Laissez-faire is an economic policy related to classical liberalism, which advocates to not put any rules or state intervention on the market. Despite explicit ideologies, no state on Earth is faithfull to such classical liberalism theories, and the US least of all (with all the funds given to research and others stuff). It simply is senseless to include the two concepts in the same sentence as if they both designated rival types of capitalism. Furthermore, this article is about Fascists in general, and Italian Fascism and Nazism are the archetypes of such movements. There is thus no need to explicitly quote Nazism in the intro. If you do, use the term Nazism, not "National Socialist" (per discussion above). Finally, part on anti-Semitism related to capitalism is not needed in intro. Here is the controversed passage (which I have not removed myself for the time being (see diff):

Fascists also opposed laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. Many, particularly 
National Socialists,  considered the latter parasitic and associated it with Jews.<ref>Postone, Moishe.
  1986. "Anti-Semitism and National Socialism." Germans & Jews Since the Holocaust: The Changing Situation in West 
 Germany, ed. Anson Rabinbach and Jack Zipes. New York: Homes & Meier.</ref><ref>Calvin B. Hoover, ''The Paths of
  Economic Change: Contrasting Tendencies in the Modern World'', The American Economic Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, *
 Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. 
 (Mar., 1935), pp. 13-20; Philip Morgan, ''Fascism in Europe, 1919-1945, New York Tayolor & Francis 2003, p. 168</ref>

Tazmaniacs 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They are seen as diffrent types of capitalism. See laissez-faire capitalism and finance capitalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Finance capitalism is Marxist theory, it's not an ideology one can oppose, it's not even analytical, and reeks of historicism. Again, I think the intro should just state that fascism is opposed to economic and political liberalism. Intangible2.0 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree and it is two different criticisms to go with it. Billy Ego 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fascism revolted against laissez-faire capitalism. Laissez-faire capitalism was seen as the cause of the Great Depression. Laissez-faire capitalism did indeed exist, and no this doesn't have to mean "absolutely" no intervention. It is a relative term. Economic planning, full employment policy, etc came from fascism. Fascist economics was sweeping the world. The idea was not to let the market take charge but to take charge of the market by controlling it for the public good. If "classical liberal" capitalism doesn't exist now it's to the credit of the fascists. Billy Ego 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The concepts of economic planning, full employment and restrictions on the free-market capitalism did not come from fascism. I'm not sure how anyone could seriously make that claim.Spylab 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority). ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64 Billy Ego 16:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That quote doesn't support your claim that fascism is the origin of ideas such as economic planning, restrictions on the market and social welfare. Those concepts were around long before fascist ideology was developed. Besides, that quote is just one person's opinion and is not historically accurate. Fascism borrowed ideas from lots of different sources. Fascists did not invent all the concepts that you're claiming they invented.Spylab 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if they were the first to "invent" economic planning but they were the first ones to at least put the ideas together and actually put them to practical use, so the world looked with reverence upon the fascist model. Billy Ego 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fascists were not the first to implement economic planning. Governments had been planning and regulating their economies since markets first existed. In more recent history, Communist countries implemented economic planning before the fascists came to power. Spylab 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's the TYPE of economic planning we're talking about. In communist countries, the means of production are owned by the state so of course they controlled those. In fascist countries, though there were nationalizations, most of the means of production were privately owned. Fascist economic planning allows private ownership but strong state control over those means of production. It's neither liberal capitalism such as we see in the USA (though the USA has some mild shades of it) nor communism, but something in between. Billy Ego 17:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but I'd want to see reliable sources to back up those historical claims. And if it is true, then from now on you should be more specific about the type of economic planning your are talking about, instead of making generalizations that aren't backed up by historical fact. Also, despite the USA's claims of being a free market economy, there are controls over the economy and other interferences in the market such as subsidies and tax breaks for certain industries. The US economy also has social welfare programs. I'm still not convinced that fascist economics are that much different than the economics in other countries, other than outlawing independent democratically-run trade unions and cracking down on labour activists.Spylab 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The type of planning is economic planning of a private ownership economy. I gave you source. "Indeed, the Fascist policies foreshadowed most of the fundamental features of the economic systm of Western European countries today: the radical extension of government control over the economy without a wholesale expropriation of the capitalists but with a good dose of nationalisation, price control, incomes policy, managed currency, massive state investment, attemps at overall planning (less effectual than the Fascist because of the weakness of authority)." ---Stanislav Andreski, Wars, Revolutions, Dictatorships, Routledge 1992, page 64. The USA is a generally free-market economy. Nothing is ideal this or that. It's not absolute laissez-faire at all. But it's not controlled to the degree that fascists prefer, which would be something closer to social democratic countries. FDR however did attempt to implement the fascist model though with the New Deal. Mussolini even said ""Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." Billy Ego 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your mentions of social democratic countries and the New Deal show that those economic policies are not unique to fascism, and you have not proven that fascists were the originators of those policies. Also, your quote of one person's opinion does not prove that fascists were the first to introduce those types of economic policies. The quote does not compare specific policies in different countries and what dates they were introduced. Historical claims have to be backed up by hostorical facts. And we haven't even discussed the economic planning that was in place in pre-capitalist markets... Spylab 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not claimed that a planned private ownership economy is unique to fascism. I am claiming that we first saw it from from the fascists. It did not exist prior to the Great Depression. Mussolini was the first to implement it. From there, it spread around the world in varying degrees. But, I'm not claiming this in the article so I don't need "proof" of it. What I am claiming in the article is simply what is cited, which is that fascist economic planning foreshadowed what we've seen later in non-fascist countries. Billy Ego 18:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Billy, please review WP:Talk page. This is not a political forum, but a page to discuss the article. Furthermore, your outlandish claims concerning fascism testify to a striking ignorance of history. One must not need be an historian of economics to know that all states involved in World War I implemented state control of economy and planified it (it's called war economy), and that was the first, massive use of such planified economy. Finally, concerning Vision Thing's claim, of course "financial capitalism" is not a synonym of "laissez-faire capitalism," I never pretended that. I said that one refers to an economic policy and ideology (classical liberalism) whereas another one refers to a special part of capitalism, the one concerned with finance economics (what we call the tertiary sector.) If you need references, have a passing look at the table of contents of Das Kapital, it might be more reliable than Wikipedia on that matter. Tazmaniacs 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Fascism was first to do away the laissez-faire economy and institute economic planning. Other countries, such as the U.S. took Mussolini's lead. "War economy" came from the fascists. The U.S. today is in a war. So where is all the economic planning? Billy Ego 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postone and Critical Theory

I am delighted that the libertarians and the fascist all dislike the work of Postone. It confirms my respect for Postone's work. Postone has published a serious analytical work. When Billy Ego, Intangible2.0, and -- Vision Thing -- publish their studies on fascism and capitalism, I am sure they will alert us so we can consider citing them. In the meantime their views remain marginal minority positions peddled in an aggressive and disruptive manor. POV pushing is a form of tendentious editing. This has gone on long enough. The minority position has had its say. It is time to move forward.--Cberlet 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I never said I disliked Postone's essay. I've just been asking for something specific like a page number or quote so we can verify what you claim it to say because I don't see it. Why won't you cooperate? Billy Ego 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Marginal views should not dominate this discussion or entry. See WP:UW.--Cberlet 02:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What "maginal views" are you talking about? Can you stop being so vague? And prove they are marginal. Billy Ego 02:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume that a work that has more than 800+ academic cites is not marginal? Maybe I do need to start quoting Hayek. At least he will be using an analytical concept of capitalism. Intangible2.0 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laissez faire/ free market and capitalism

Capitalism = supply and demand market economy with mostly private property. Regulation or planning in a capitalist economy does not make someone anti-capitalist. Opposition to laissez faire capitalism is not note worthy, because it is practically dead.

This is nonsence because do not exist such kind of market (cannot be free market at all, this is logic). Any economic system relies on supply-demand market, that is why all these countries develop. Everywhere is planning and regulations it is inevitable, chaos do not allow us to progress.


Laissez faire capitalism was a reaction to Mercantilism. Does government intervention = socialism? Then Mercantilism is a form of socialism if that is the case, but it is not.

Socialism/Communism was a reaction to free market capitalism (or laissez faire capitalism) by the lower or working class. Fascism was a reaction to the rising power of the lower and working class. It was a reaction to maintain the existing order.


That is true. Moreover fascism must contain nazism elements or some superiority against others. And not only to free market but any kind of capitalism. Socialism and mercantilism is two completely different ideologies cause in mercantilism can only exist private economy with some restrictions.


Take the capitalist economy of the U.S. for example: market economy, supply and demand, mostly private property. However there is regulation and government intervention or opposition to laissez faire (i.e. no government intervention).

Is laissez faire communism possible? In theory yes. That is a system with no government intervention, but no private property, property is shared, and a classless society. --Jfrascencio 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is? You cannot have an advanced economy without private property. Intangible2.0 22:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
His point was that opposition to laissez-faire does not equal opposition to capitalism. I'm sure you would agree that the vast majority of economies in the world today are not laissez-faire. Does that mean that the vast majority of economies in the world today are anti-capitalist? On another note, I'm not sure what you define as an "advanced economy", but economic systems without private property certainly have existed and continue to exist. -- Nikodemos 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I already stated that I would be happy to change that bit to refer to economic liberalism. Intangible2.0 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I agree with you. -- Nikodemos 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


I believe the problem lies in how different people define capitalism and socialism. Most people consider the US mostly capitalist, but Milton Friedman considered it only about half capitalist; the government controls 40% of the economy directly and government mandates and regulations bring it up to ~50%. His argument was that ownership of capital is essentially equivalent to being entitled to the product of that capital. Government entitlement to x% of profits is equivalent to x% ownership. By his definitions, most Western nations are more socialist than capitalist.JoeCarson 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collectivism

These last changes were incorrect. Collectivism in this case does not only refer to economic planning. It also means anti-individualism, as in being subordinate to the state, which is a form of social planning. It needs to be changed back. Intangible2.0 22:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Nikodemos 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible OR

Fascism portrayed itself as seeking a transformative rebirth of the society, it opposed both liberal and conservative solutions to societal problems and it claimed to represent a Third Way between liberal capitalism and Marxist socialism.

This does not cite it's sources and it goes counter to what is generally accepted. Fascism is a conservative, right-wing movement and it is unfortunate that conservative/right wing individuals want to twist the truth because they refuse to accept it.

Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; ...its [fascism's] protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems.

– Fascism , Encyclopedia Britannica

--Jfrascencio 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote in the article is correct and is the most dominant view in scholarly research. Richard Griffiths in "Fascism" (2005) gives a large account about it on pgs. 15-16 (too much to type right now). Passmore in "Fascism: A Very Short Introduction" talks about this in Ch. 2 (see Definition of fascism for a quote). There are certainly more sources but these two are the only two I have handy right now. The "transformative rebirth" part might be a bit harder to source but the opposition to "liberal and conservative solutions" is pretty well documented. - DNewhall 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Several scholars talk about Fascism as calling for the "transformative rebirth of the society," primarily Gentile's concept of "sacralization of politics;" and Griffin's concept of "palengenesis."--Cberlet 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This debate suffers from the same problems arising with Martin Heidegger's relationship with Nazism. Supporters of Heidegger claim he was not a Nazi, on grounds that some Nazis have opposed him. However, this is fallacious reasoning - and we are here confronted before the same fallacy: assuming that Fascism (or Nazism) represent a monolithic, coherent, ideology & movement. However, historians have demonstrated that:
  • Fascism (I use the term "Fascism" in the sense of "historical Fascism": I think it better to use neo-Fascism for posterior movements, as Fascism, as the Encyclopedia Britannica's quote show, arose in a specific European context, immediately after WWI and the October Revolution) has got various historical stages: before taking power - taking power - state fascism - and what several historians have called the ultimate stage of fascism, "fascism in war" (some historians actually have stated that fascism follows a sort of teleology which culminated in war annihilation ; by the way, this concords with Foucault's statement in the Will to knowledge - see Talk:Fascism and ideology#Economic policy again). Thus, there is a diachronic distinction of fascism to make, which is very important to understand its "revolutionary" aspects.
  • Fascism is not a monolithic movement, neither is Nazism. They agglomerate many, competiting people, groups and ideologies. It does not make a coherent ideology, as has been orthodox Marxism (that is, Marxist philosophy codified by the Komintern in some clearly defined thesis, easy to learn and to repeat). It is not supported by people who agree with themselves: hence the conflict between SA and SS, support by Futurists revolutionaries and by wealthy Italian bourgeoisie, etc.
I think we must make this clear in order to solve this controverse. Tazmaniacs 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bideleux and Jeffries

Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998 (ISBN 0-415-1611-8) provides some rather good discussion of various views of fascism. Someone may want to draw on some of this for the article.

  • "During the 1930s almost all the ruling oligarchies in Eastern Europe sought authoritarian nationalist and quasi-fascist means of resolving or containing the acute tensions, political pressures and military challenges engendered by the 1930s Depression and the growing power and territorial/hegemonic ambitions of Fascist Italy and (after 1933) Nazi Germany." (p. 467)
  • "The ruling oligarchies also often resorted to the creation of fascist or quasi-fascist states in the hope of heading off, undercutting or politically 'neutralizing' potential threats and challenges from the more wayward, anarchic and violent fascist and quasi-fascist movements that were emerging…" (p. 467–8)
  • "However, it is often argued that the fascist or quasi-fascist parties, institutions and organizations created 'from above' by more traditional authoritarian rulers… were fundamentally different from the more autonomous, radical, mobilizatory fascist movements that 'conquered power' for their leaders and active supporters." (p. 468–469; they go on to quote several authors to this effect, including J. Linz, Hugh Seton-Watson)
  • Hence, they conclude "Either we can adhere to a narrow, uniform, 'purist' conception of fascism, which would carry the very misleading implication that fascism as such was a relatively marginal, extraneous, peripheral phenomenon in inter-war Eastern Europe. Or we can uphold a broader, more variegated conception of fascism… This would make possible a greater appreciation of the multifaceted nature of European fascism…" (p. 469)
  • They then discuss what they see as the limitations of a purist approach that sees Italian fascism and German Nazism each as a unique and ungeneralizable phenomenon. They quote and paraphrase from M. Kitchen, expressing this view that "fascism was essentially an extraneous, skin-deep phenomenon in Eastern Europe… 'imported' or even 'imposed'…" but call this "misleading and unsound". (p. 470) Kitchen apparently believes that proper fascism can only occur in a country that is already in a state of advanced capitalism: "Fascism is phenomenon of developed industrial states," a view they characterize as "quasi-Marxist", and also particularly problematic with reference to Italy. (p. 471)
  • They go on to assert (p. 473–4) "…Italian Fascism had more in common with kindred movements in southern and eastern Europe than it did with German National Socialism" and quote Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1966, p. 308–9). They quote more extensively than this but, in part, "…even Mussolini, who was so fond of the term 'totalitarian state', did not attempt to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contented himself with dictatorship and one-party rule. Similar non-totalitarian dictatorships sprang up in pre-war Romania, Poland, the Baltic States, Hungary, Portugal and Franco's Spain." They then go on to discuss the forces in Italy and elsewhere that frustrated totalitarian ambitions. (p. 474 et. seq.)

Their discussion continues for another 20 pages and resumes later in the book, where they look also at the strengths and weaknesses of Marxist views of fascism (basically, they think the Marxists — and others — have some good points on economic matters, non-Marxists have good points on nationalism, and both tend to ignore the strengths of each other's views). I'm not going to try to summarize it all here; someone working on the article may want to get hold of the book, though. I think the discussion is excellent. Just a few more quotations:

  • "…there is no generally accepted threshold beyond which authoritarian nationalist movements or regimes can clearly be said to have become fascist. The former 'shade off' into the latter." (p. 483)
  • "Unlike Stalinism, fascism was not a monolithic phenomenon." (p. 483)
  • "…one of the crucial tasks of any effective fascist leader was to hold the disparate elements together by creating and sustaining the illusion that the 'ideas' he put forward and the movement he led were coherent. He did so mainly by embodying and drawing together all the potentially conflicting strands in his own person and by concentrating fascist phobias and hatreds on a single 'arch-enemy'…"
  • "The fascist movements were relative 'latecomers' on the party political scene… This… helps explain why fascism was to such a large extent defined by the things it opposed…" (p. 489)
  • "It is … striking that fascism mainly developed in 'nations' which had attained 'national' unity and statehood relatively recently…" (p. 492)
  • "Marxists were quite correct to emphasize that 'prole-bashing' ant-Bolshevism was a much more pronounced, pervasive and persistent feature of fascist ideology than its superficial and ephemeral anti-capitalism." (p. 514)
  • Finally, they quote P. Togliatti, Lectures on Fascism: "…fascism must not be viewed as something which is definitively characterized: that it must be seen in its development, never as something set, never as a scheme or a model, but as the consequence of a series of real ecomonic and political relations resulting from real factors…" (They only date the quotation to a 1976 book, but this would have been written some time in the mid-1930s.)

- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The second part of your quotes is particularly relevant for our problem: Fascism is not monolithic. Something which Marxists, such as Togliatti, quickly understood, because of their own peculiar doctrinal habits of theorization. Togliatti, if my memory does not failed me, was one of the first to say that Fascism had to be understood historically in its development, and not as a "pure, ideal, ideology" (as if any ideology or political movement could be described in such a way, when even philosophy can not be described in such a way, without some reference to the political & historical context). The distinction between Fascism & quasi-Fascism, strict sense & broad sense is also a clear way of putting the problem, and allows for varying perspectives (hence avoiding any dogmatism). However, it is contrasted by the allusion that Fascism became to power in recent nation-states. Even more important than that, Arendt recalled that both Italy & Germany were revisionist states after WWI, and Fascism can not be understood without WWI (territorial disputes, but also plain awe before violence & war - see futurism movement & various veterans' association). This leads to an important problem: extending the definition of Fascism to make it a full-fledged European-wide movement (with influences even in North & South America) might lead to missing the important point that Fascism came to power only in Italy & Germany (if you accept that Nazism & Fascism are not as different as some claim they are). This reminds two historical discussions:
  • one on "French fascism", initiated by Zeev Sternhell. French historians have defended their country's prestige by claiming that one could not assert the existence of "French fascism" because it remained a ultra-minoritary movement. Sternhell never really claimed the reverse, as his main argument was that the intellectual matrix of Fascism was to be found in France. In any cases, the degree of this "ultra-minority" is subject to caution and it would be nice to have foreign historians investigate the matter closely (as did Robert Paxton for Vichy). But the main point remains: Fascism did not gain power in France, and one of the main reason might be found in the absence of "revanchism" and irredentism after WWI. Quite to the contrary, French population feared war, in a diametrical opposition to Italy & Germany.
  • the other on the appearance of capitalism in Europe, and not, as Fernand Braudel investigated, in China. Transposing the question here: why did Fascism become such a mass movement, which managed to take power, in Italy and, in the case of Nazism, in Germany, so early, while other countries had to wait WWII, at minima, to have fascists in power (showing that they did not have support of the majority of the population)? This answer, again, can only be resolved by the issues of WWI. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twisting of references

Nonetheless, much of fascism's bid for greatness depended on a battle of ideas, not only with Communism but with liberal democracy as well. This was especially evident in the claim that fascist movements represented a 'Third Way' between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism.

– Peter Davies and Dereck Lynch , Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge 2003, p. 101

Text in Wikipedia Fascism article: "Fascist movements have often claimed to represent a "Third Way between left and right, between Marxian socialism and capitalism." (reference above given)

1. Reference talks about a claim, but makes no mention of who makes the claim.
2. The word "often" is not used in the reference.
3. The reference uses the word "Nonetheless" (meaning there were mentioned things to the contrary).
4. The reference appears to be taken out of context.

--Jfrascencio 07:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure a specific section on this topic would be more than appropriate. It could discuss claims of representing a "Third Way" (without, please, linking that to that other claim, Third Way (centrism)), explain fascism relation's to revolutionary movements (beginning with anarcho-syndicalism), underline that this purported "revolutionary" aspect of fascism is related to its first, historical stage (before taking power) and that it is considered by the vast majority of historians to be in fact "counter-revolutionary" (also called "revolutionary right" by Sternhell). It could continue on by showing how fascism in power has favorized and supported various members of the upper classes; how fascism before taking power in Italy struck down workers' strikes and presented itself to the bourgeoisie as the sole way of retaining control of an insurrectionary context, etc. There is plenty to do, and a whole article by itself would not be enough. Finally, it could point out that the so-called "Third Position" is today used by the Strasserist movement or people who claim to follow it — and also that such movements have often hesitated between "alliance of the extremes" vs. simple alliance with the far-right, be it more reactionary (see Nouvelle Résistance's slogan: "Less leftism! More fascism!"). Tazmaniacs 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
These examples are always of those who received their definitions of "fascism" from sources which were detractors of the construction of the term. Mussolini in 1927 considered it a progressive, and thus "leftist" movement in 1927 when stating; "It may be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism." [1] [2] He similarly stated while being a forward looking movement, it sought to perserve national tradition, and didn't yet fall into traditional categories of politics like "right" or "left" and was thusly outside political tradition. The 'corporativst' model advocated by Mussolini and other Italians was never put into practice. [3], so like many who argue about "true Communism", "true Fascism" has never seen historical realization. That is, the Corporative Syndicalist model branded "fascism" as laid out by the literal historic Italian 'Fascist' movement. Nagelfar 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I think starting a major entry with a quote from a single scholar is a very bad idea.

  • Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation (defined in exclusive biological, cultural, or historical terms) above all other loyalties.<ref name="Passmore">Kevin Passmore, ''Fascism: A Very Short Introduction'', pages 25-31. Oxford University Press, 2002</ref>

In any case, the lead quote and cite are simply butchered and need correction. If it is a "direct quote" as Nickodemos states, where are the quote marks? And the cite is missing information. What is the name of the book? A one sentence quote cannot run from pages 25-31. Either the quote is wrongly cited, or this is a chapter, or what?--Cberlet 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the book ("Fascism: A Very Short Introduction"), so I went to check. The sentence appears on page 31 (I have no idea why it was sourced to pages 25-31). What we have in the intro right now is not exactly a direct quote, but it's pretty close. In the book, this is the opening sentence of a lengthy definition of fascism, which goes as follows:
  • "Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism."
I strongly suggest using sourced statements in the introduction, because, as the history of this article shows, it is utterly impossible for wikipedians to arrive at any sort of consensus about fascism. -- Nikodemos 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that WP:LEAD says that no source are even needed in the intro (my mistake: this policy has been changed it seems), as they should be provided in the body of the article. This means that we should be able, maybe through a draft here on talk page, to agree on a stable, consensual version (which means: excluding fringe views per WP:UNDUE). If we manage this incredible feat, we should be able to submit this draft intro to a poll, establish it, and keep it there in a stable manner. If someone's up to it... It should present, in a quick way, the mainstream view on Fascism, the various aspects of it, and the main points lifted by the article. Any controverse should be at most mentioned, but certainly not solved there. Further on, I think it should concentrate on historical Fascism: fascism is, after all, a political and social movement closely related to the inter-war period, and posterior movements are best called "neo-fascism". All in all, I think we have enough people here knowledgeable on Fascism who could easily make such a consensual draft (consensus does not mean including all extremist POV, but giving the state of knowledge of modern, mainstream research on the matter). Taz