Talk:Fascism/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Clarification needed for the use of "radical"

What does "radical" mean here? Radicalism (historical)? Political radicalism? Both of these almost universally refer to left-wing politics in the world at large (and even in the Anglosphere); I would avoid using the word "radical" here--it has very specific historical connotations. How about using another term? Even fascists themselves might contend with the label "extremist." Although two sources are cited here that use the term "radical," I'm dubious mainly for the following reason (aside from the fact that they are both published in the USA, one of the few cultures that uses the word "radical" so loosely). In the definitions of "fascism" in the following major online dictionaries (which are about as unbiased as we can get), the word "radical" is utterly absent: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism), Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism), Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism; which is based on a variety of other sources, including the American Heritage and Random House Dictionaries), and the Cambridge Dictionaries (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/fascism). Wolfdog (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article begins, "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism." Since this is only one possible definition, it should be attributed in the text, followed by an explanation of what the author meant. TFD (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I haven't looked at the sources, but radical would generally be more neutral than extremist, and is more commonly used with respect to political movements--whereas extremism is applied to more fringe-ish groups. That's just my impression.

One other personal observation would be that fascism originally grew out of more localized syndicalist movements. The values they espoused were "radicalized" and misappropriated at the national level, ascribing a sort of 'localism' to national politics. The problem was that syndicalism was to a substantial degree (if I real correctly) based on regional economic and industrial circumstances, which doesn't (and didn't translate to the national level in any recognizable form. You should read the syndicalism and national syndicalism articles. Syndicalism, in particular, is generally described as being a leftist movement, which was later influenced by nationalists.

In that sense the world view of the fascists--in Italy, at any rate--could be seen to be more delusional than extremist. So radical probably is more appropriate for use in describing their politics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the term "radical" is used to mean they wanted far-reaching change, and is used to describe their authoritarianism and nationalism. It is pretty standard to refer to groups to the right of the mainstream as "radical." See all the books about it.[1] TFD (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

But again, these books come from an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Elsewhere, the term "radical right" is an oxymoron. Also, the first paragraph of "Fascism" talks about how its "right"-ward (i.e. far-right) position is somewhat disputed. As I initially asked (strengthened by our arguing here), why don't we use a more clarifying phrase or word, instead of "radical"? However, TFD, your first comment here also makes sense to me. Wolfdog (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, all the books on the first page of hits are about Europe or Israel. If you are interested in how terminology to describe the Right varies between U.S. and European scholars, I recommend, The emergence of a Euro-American radical right, pp. 10-11.[2] TFD (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant that they appear to come from American authors and publishers. Your link offers a good historical description. Again, for the purposes of clarifying further, why don't we put "radical-right" in the first sentence, or is this due to the fact that the "right" part is still in question? Wolfdog (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Another aspect of how they were 'radical' is that they perceived themselves as unconventional and at the fore of a political movement that was both rooted in tradition but also ahead of the prominent paradigms of capitalism and communism.

Syndicalism has a fair degree of affinity with aspects of socialism applied in a regional scope, while fascism was opposed both to international proletarianism (i.e., communism) and international capitalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of "radical" is fine. Using radical to simply mean advocating large scale change is not a "loose" use of the term, even outside of America, here in Britain that is exactly what radical means. I'll grant the OP it is used more often to refer to left-wing than right-wing movements, but that doesn't mean it has leftism packaged into its definition. I think it's enlightening to consult the dictionaries on the definition of "radical" because while they all mention extreme or far reaching change or view, none specifically tie this to left-wing views. Here is the initial definition from Merriam-Webster:

having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people

actually later on in its "Full Definition" Merriam-Webster even uses the term "the radical right":

d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>

what about dictionary.com? the third definition is:

favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Finally, I have a HarperCollins dictionary here (Collins Shorter Dictionary and Thesaurus ISBN 0 00 470907-1) and its fourth definition is:

person of extreme (political) views

No mention anywhere of any necessary association with any particular political views, it just means views favoring drastic or extreme change, in whatever direction. I think "radical" is the appropriate term to use, and as Ubikwit said, it is more neutral than "extremist". It may be used more often to describe the left than the right but I don't think that is ever inherent to its definition, even outside America.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point in using the term "radical-right". That would seem to simply mean "radical and on the right" which would be redundant since the lede already deals with how Fascism fits on the traditional left-right spectrum.--31.185.216.157 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We use the term because it is generally used and understood. See etymological fallacy. If you want to know the origins of the term, see The New American Right (1955), which contains the article where the term was first used. TFD (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "radical right" is used only once in the article, and in a very specific context, i.e., "By 1909 after the failure of a syndicalist general strike in France, Sorel and his supporters left the radical left and went to the radical right".,/br>

I basically agree with the IP that the use of radical in a general sense is more appropriate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, that is the etymological fallacy. The sources do not say that they were radicals, it says they were radical right. Similarly if a source said the Socialist Party of Italy were conservative socialists, it would be incorrect to call them conservatives. TFD (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've clarified the sentence in question. I would appreciate any improvements. I'm not too sure whether the term 'radical' is NPOV, but I've left it in until further discussion. Thanks.180.158.80.214 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the new version is a step in the right direction, but 'radical' should be omitted.Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the term "radical right" should not be used? TFD (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Right vs Left Wing

Both terms have different meanings in different countries/eras. They are relative terms only. What was right wing by 1934 German standards (e.g. socialism) would be considered left wing on the political spectrum in early 21th century US politics (or 1934 for that matter). Therefore, they serve to obscure rather than elucidate. The subject can be addressed using clear language that explains what fascism/fascists did and said. ProfJustice (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no problem in using descriptive language to present what RS say about the topic. There is a prohibition of using WP:OR to make such characterizations without support from RS. This not an article about the relative use of terminology in different places at different points in time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, in 1934, socialists and Communists were left-wing, while conservatives and fascists were right-wing. The terminology remains the same today. TFD (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So would we be justified in saying "right-radical" as a clearer term than merely "radical"? Wolfdog (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This use is not philosophically rigorous. Due to popular misuse and misunderstanding, these terms have been used to mean everything and nothing. There needs to be a clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.209.14.40 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 January 2014

Yeah, well that was my original concern. Wolfdog (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to not use terms just because some people do not understand them or misrepresent what they mean. Where are you getting your information about what right-wing means? TFD (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be more beneficial to use accurate terms that people can understand, since this is an encyclopaedia for average people, not just political experts.Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any agreement to the recent change here Hendrick, so I think you should self-revert----Snowded ^TALK 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well lets discuss now then. What about it needed to be reverted?Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph asserts that "fascism is usually placed on the far right," but then adds that some people find this problematic. So what do we go with here, for a first sentence: what the majority says or not? Wolfdog (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Before we discuss the lead--which is a summary of the article--where are the sources to support the POV you are trying to push? I have already pointed to a coupe of pertinent issues related to the assertions being made. And the cryptic responses of TFD don't justify your proposed edits. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The phrase together "Radical Right" is admittedly oxymoronic, but since it has been adopted by the academic community to denote certain Right-Wing populist ideologies, it has to be used by Wikipedia. The phrase may be silly, when evaluated objectively, but it's not the job of individual WP editors to "debunk" the academic sources. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing cryptic at all. When expressions are widely used by experts, it is a fallacy to question the individual words that make up the expression. For example "soap operas" are not operas, and aren't soapy. But that is no reason not to use the expression. TFD (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So, are we agreeing on "radical(-)right" then? Wolfdog (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you either drop the left-right elements completely, or you bottle them all up in one section to discuss it explicitly since there are opposing viewpoints offered by experts in the field. IMHO, the left-right spectrum on Wikipedia (and generally) is incoherent anyhow. For example, if you look at the Left-wing politics page, racism is identified as a right wing characteristic. However, if you go to the Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics section, it's filled with left wing enthusiasts like Shaw and Keynes. Also, nationalism was noted to be a feature of left-wing politics in the early French Republic, but otherwise is claimed to be a right wing characteristic; the Italian syndicalists mostly gravitated to nationalism as a means of kick-starting the rise of capitalism and the subsequent inevitable proletarian revolution, i.e. their nationalism was a means to a left-wing end, though it took on a different logic as they embraced it. Noting the remarkable similarities between Lenin's revisionism and Mussolini's, not to mention the sheer number of dyed-in-the-wool Marxists that shaped big "F" Fascism - why isn't Leninism considered right-wing and Mussolinism left? I think this mostly has to do with the collapse of socialism with WWI and Lenin's subsequent claim as Marx' true heir, followed by the Comintern's tendency under Stalin to call everything they didn't control "fascism". Also, I think it would be worthwhile (and experts in the field would probably agree) that the Italian Fascist model was different enough from the German National Socialist model that a separation between these two should be made clear and not run together so badly. Italian Fascism was never nearly as racist, anti-semitic, or bloodthirsty as German National Socialism, and the philosophical pedigrees were mostly separate, e.g. Hegel, Marx, Engels, Michels, Bergson, Sorel, Gentile, and Corrodini on one hand, and Herder, Fichte, Volkism, Gobineau, Chamberlain, Spengler, and van den Bruck on the other. Ehusman (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Heard it all before. If your argument were reasonable then if someone said to you that a party is left-wing, you would have no idea whatsoever what they might happen to advocate. They might even be a party you would vote for. Incidentally the eugenics policy advocated by Fabians but never carried out by them, only by right-wing governments, did not involve race. In fact it was a mainstream view supported across the political spectrum except by Communists, who saw it as bourgeois ideology. TFD (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article on a complex socio-historical phenomena. The question as to whether racism is right or left is not an issue that has a degree of WP:WEIGHT in WP:RS to make it WP:DUE. Moreover, there is ample text (and even more available) that examines the historical development of the political movement with respect to affinities to both left- and right-wing ideologies.

Accordingly, the POV that the political movement or the historical development thereof should be characterized solely as "right-wing" or "radical right" is unsupported.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact the article on left-right politics does not say racism is a right-wing characteristic, and that is not why fascists were considered right-wing. In any case we go by what sources say not by what we believe. TFD (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

it appears several editors agree "right-wing" is controversial. perhaps you should take up the debate in the appropriate forum as including/keeping it here appears problematic. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to waste the time of even more editors. TFD (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Third position", etc

Apparently the abovementioned term is used by post WWII neofascists. For future reference, I found the text for the related edits in a publication by the following scholar, who has published several books on the topic Philip Morgan.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Famously" is POV

I deleted the word "famously" from the following sentence because that adjective is opinion, not a neutral fact.

Maurras famously stated "a socialism liberated from the democratic and cosmopolitan element fits nationalism well as a well :made glove fits a beautiful hand"

The word "famously" is not part of a quote, nor is it presented as one person's opinion, thus it is misleading and does not belong in this article.Spylab (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are either trying to assert that the edit "...famously..." doesn't accurately paraphrase "Maurass's famous pronouncement", or you didn't check the source, as I asked you to. The source states, "Maurass's famous pronouncement "a socialism liberated from...", which can be seen here on p.60, as per the refcite

I don't agree with your removal of other sourced material or refactoring, either. I request that you self revert and discuss each point.

Need I remind you that this article is under a 1RR restriction?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fame is a matter of fact not opinion. TFD (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fame is in the eye of the beholder. Someone or something can be famous worldwide or in one country, culture, field of study etc, at the same time as being totally unknown to others. In this situation, it is highly opinionated to claim that the person "famously" stated that sentence. Famously to whom? I doubt very many people are familiar with that Maurras quote, or even know who he is, outside of specialized academic circles. Spylab (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not in a position to be making such subjective judgments, as per WP:RS. And frankly, I'm not interested in hearing them anymore.

You have deliberately contradicted the directly refcited statement published in RS, and then tried to defend that. You are wasting peoples' time.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Reliable source" does not mean every single word in the source is reliable. That quote is not famous by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't understand the need to pretend that it is.Spylab (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with a number of the edits you've made, so with the exception of the deletion of orphaned ref, correction of refcite, and addition of c/e tags (at least you didn't question the fact that the statements are sourced this time), I'm going to manually restore the page again and we'll discuss each of the questionable edits you've made before you make them again.

For starters, there is already a dedicated article to political economy under fascism, so there is no need to start the article with drab abstractions that don' inform the reader of how and why fascism adopted the ideology it did. That is based on history, and conveying the historical background and progression of the development of ideas, etc. is what the brief section on this page should focus on in order to set the stage for the reader's further exploration. I would agree that the content could be better integrated and copyedited, but the historical progression and factors that motivated developments are what should be presented before an abstract summation of the results.

Once more, unsubstantiated questioning (i.e., assertion of unsourced pov against academically sourced pov) of the fame of Maurass' statement is preposterous, and a violation of WP:RS and WP:DUE. The only thing "dubious" about that text is the tag you added today.

Here, too, he matter is of great importance to the development of the fascist ideology (and one reason that the statement was famous then and is among scholars today), but for some reason you seem to be intent on belittling the significance of that. Furthermore, this is related to the issue of the relation between nationalism and socialism in fascist ideology that many have attempted to obfuscate and mischaracterize over and against what RS say, as the numerous related threads on the Talk page demonstrate.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My edits have not violated any Wikipedia policies. They have all been made in good faith and are within all of Wikipedia's guidelines. I suggest you read the entire WP:RS, because it does not claim that 100% of what appears in a reliable source is reliable. The quote in the disputed sentence doesn't magically become "famous" just because one writer, regardless who that writer is, declares it to be. Please stop mischaracterizing the content and motivations of my edits and I will try to do the same for you. See WP:NPA.Spylab (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Maurras was a major figure, and I don't want to dwell on this at the moment as I don't have time, we'll see what anyone else has to say about calling that statement famous. I did go through the political economy section and the related "main article" to come up with the following proposed revision. Note that the past tense has been adopted uniformly throughout, as is generally the case in the related articles. It too complicated to treat extensively, but starting with Italy and Mussolini, who actually wrote things on the topic that secondary sources specifically address, seems to be what the article calls for. And concepts such as "autarky" should be mentioned. I've simply copied or paraphrased a couple of passages--one also citing Morgan--from two other articles to make the narrative coherent.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty minor point here but I agree with Spylab that, as a matter of editing principle, we have to be careful about judgmental and subjective descriptions such as "famously", whether they originally appear in an "RS" or not. In any event, I'm not sure what it really adds here and the text here would hardly suffer from losing it. N-HH (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be less defensive about the term if there hadn't been so much useless discussion about fascism and socialism here; i.e, that a number of users have attempted to assert that fascists were socialists, collapsing both in a sense.

Another point is the use of metaphor in the statement, along the lines of Marx's much more famous quote "religion is the opiate of the masses". The glove metaphor probably partly accounts for its renown. Here is another academic source that directly quotes it in its entirety. What is most important, I suppose, is that the statement be integrated with respect to the discussion of fascism vis-a-vis socialism and nationalism.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genocide definitions, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide definitions until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Corporations

"Fascism Is Government by Corporations." -Benito Mussolini

When Corporations control a government and overrule the will of the people, that system is Fascism (also Corporate Fascism).

Italy in World War 2 (European War 2) is the primary example given; but few consider that the United States in WW2 was also a corporate state - fascist state. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually ruled in favor of "Corporate Personhood" and subsequent constitutional personhood even before Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - 118 U.S. 394 (1886) and continually up to today. Today, the courts continue to recognize corporations as "persons" to be tried and protected as such. In 2011, Republican (GOP) candidate, Mitt Romney defended the corporate government(fascist) establishment saying, "Corporations are People, My Friend!" When Environmental Responsibility Advocates appeal to the Legislative and Executive Branches of federal government, Oil Corporations simply outspend them, to maintain the ecological chop-shop the corporations want. Limited Liability Corporations (LLC), are a primary example of how corporations take no responsibility for their ecological effects, and keep all their profits. The Citizens take full responsibility under the Constitution and local laws, so if a corporation is a "person," they should be liable for their impacts, the same, but are not. Monsanto, the top Agricultural Gene Modification corporation in United States is a great example of what corporations can get away with in a Fascist system. Monsanto enjoyed favor in the administration of George W. Bush (2000-2008). And, even Barack Obama in 2012 signed legislation that was called the "Monsanto Protection Act" to protect the influence of the corporation amid public outrage. Fascism is not a relic of a past time. It is with us today in United States, perhaps as much or more than in Mussolini's rulership of Italy.

When Money is ruled by the Supreme Court as Speech, and Corporations are ruled as People, this is characteristic of government ruled by Corporations. Corporate government is Fascism. U.S. "Globalization" is an attempt to spread "Industrialism, Corporatism/Fascism, and Debt" to other nations as a means to control them. The current Corporate globalization attempt from U.S. is what George H.W. Bush famously called the "New World Order." If Democracy is called "For the People, by the People," Fascism is "For the Corporations, by the Corporations."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.224.56 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 March 2014

Mussolini was not referring to corporations as the term is normally understood today. See corporatism for an explanation of his meaning. Having the churches run health, welfare and education for example is corporatism. TFD (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The word Corporazione in Italian denotes a professional association, and should be translated as Guild. Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It has that meaning in English too, although it is more often used today to describe limited liability companies. TFD (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know, but in Italian it has only the meaning which I wrote above. Today the word is often used in a pejorative way, to describe powerful professional associations which don't want to open to the free market and fight to keep their privileges and power. Incidentally, one of the major problems of today's Italy. Alex2006 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Proposed text for "Political economy" section

The fascists opposed both international socialism and liberal capitalism, arguing that their views represented a third way. They claimed to provide a realistic economic alternative that was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor communism. They favored corporatism and class collaboration, believing that the existence of inequality and separate social classes was beneficial (contrary to the views of socialists). Fascists argued that the state had a role in mediating relations between these classes (contrary to the views of liberal capitalists).

Early fascist economic policy in Italy pushed the country towards the "corporative state", with the idea of integrating the interests of all parts of the economy into a class-transcending national unity. The trade unions, which were a significant component of Italian fascism from its radical syndicalist roots, were eliminated, and “Syndical Laws” promulgated mandating that each industrial sector could have only one trade union and on employers organization to negotiate agreements, with the government acting as ‘umpire’.

In most cases, fascists discouraged or banned foreign trade; fascists believed that too much international trade would make the national economy dependent on international capital, and therefore vulnerable to international economic sanctions. Economic self-sufficiency, known as autarky, was a major goal of most fascist governments.

In short, fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.

In discussing the spread of fascism beyond Italy, historian Philip Morgan states

Since the Depression was a 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'. As Mussolini typically put it in early 1934, "from 1929...fascism has become a universal phenomenon... The dominant forces of the 19th century, democracy, socialism, liberalism have been exhausted...the new political and economic forms of the twentieth-century are fascist'(Mussolini 1935: 32).

While fascism accepted the importance of material wealth and power, it condemned materialism, which it identified as being present in both communism and capitalism, and criticized materialism for lacking acknowledgement of the role of the spirit. In particular, fascists denounced capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property which fascists supported; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation. Fascism denounced Marxism for its advocacy of materialist internationalist class identity, which fascists regarded as an attack upon the emotional and spiritual bonds of the nation and a threat to the achievement of genuine national solidarity.

Fascists governments advocated resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation in order to secure national solidarity. While fascism was opposed domestic class conflict, it was held that bourgeois-proletarian conflict existed primarily in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations.

Benito Mussolini promised a "social revolution" that would "remake" the Italian people. According to Patricia Knight, this was only achieved in part. The people who primarily benefited from Italian fascist social policies were members of the middle and lower-middle classes, who filled jobs in the vastly expanded government workforce, which grew from about 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs in 1930 alone. Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940.

The Opera Nazionale Dopolavoro (OND) or "National After-work Program" was one major social welfare initiative in Fascist Italy. Created in 1925, it was the state's largest recreational organization for adults. The Dopolavoro was responsible for establishing and maintaining 11,000 sports grounds, over 6,400 libraries, 800 movie houses, 1,200 theatres, and over 2,000 orchestras. Membership of the Dopolavoro was voluntary, but it had high participation because of its nonpolitical nature. It is estimated that, by 1936, the OND had organized 80% of salaried workers and, by 1939, 40% of the industrial workforce. The sports activities proved popular with large numbers of workers. The OND had the largest membership of any of the mass Fascist organizations in Italy.

The enormous success of the Dopolavoro in Fascist Italy was the key factor in Nazi Germany's creation of its own version of the Dopolavoro, the Kraft durch Freude (KdF) or "Strength through Joy" program of the Nazi government's German Labour Front, which became even more successful than the Dopolavoro. KdF provided government-subsidized holidays for German workers. KdF also lent its name to the original Volkswagen ("People's Car"), a state-manufactured automobile that was purportedly meant to be cheap enough to allow all German citizens to be able to own one.

While fascists promoted social welfare to ameliorate economic conditions affecting their nation or race as a whole, they did not support social welfare for egalitarian reasons. Fascists criticized egalitarianism as preserving the weak. They instead promoted social Darwinist views.

Adolf Hitler was opposed to egalitarian and universal social welfare because, in his view, it encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and feeble. While in power, the Nazis created social welfare programs to deal with the large numbers of unemployed. However, those programs were neither egalitarian nor universal, excluding many minority groups and other people whom they felt posed a threat to the future health of the German people.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You should mention how this differs from the existing text. I think the section should be re-written. It reads like it was written based on an individual viewpoint, then sources were found in support. For example the first source used is about the formation of the Spanish Falange in 1934. TFD (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire fist paragraph is copied from Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies, and the reference is not exclusively about the Spanish Falange, but is found in a section called "The fascist International"scroll up one paragraph to beginning of section, which starts with a discussion of Mussolini's writings from the 1920s onward in the context of a discussion of the spread of fascism in Europe, with 1934 Montreux Fascist conference being the conference addressed.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the passage is a beard for the editor's(Ubikwit) POV(ie, fascism isn't a right wing ideology, it's left wing blah blah blah...). One just has to look at his/her other edits and comments to see a total lack of impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.26 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

- The blah blah blah argument doesn't count right? I think you should have to make arguments like "Hitler gave full tenure to all workers, nationalized industry, mandated a living wage, mandated wages, gave assigned work, confiscated property, expanded nationalized medicine, enacted luxury and industry specific taxes" etc.. to make the argument. That would be more useful I think. Everyone is bias if you are being honest.

Berend quote

My addition by Berend was removed with a request to break up the quote. I didn't break it up specifically because it seemed to provide a concise but rather complete overview. I'm not sure either how WP:Weight plays in. In any case, I'll simply paste it below in case other editors want to weigh in regarding reinstating where it was, or in the history section, or adding specific parts back into the article. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Berend provides an overview of Fascism as follows in its emergence in France, Germany, and Italy at the end of the 19th century:

Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged. This ideology relied on extreme national fundamentalism and subordinated both citizens and their individual human rights to the "eternal interests" of the nation. It was hostile to other nations, aggressively demanded the rights of the nation, and rejected the existing, Western-dominated world order and values. It advocated and attempted to create a strong, authoritarian state that was intensely antiliberal and antiparliamentary. It developed a cult of charismatic leadership that drew on irrational sources for its strength and power. Rejecting class differences in the national community, it sought to establish a homogeneous, communal, collective society, which would realize a "national socialism" in its struggle against the West, against international finance, and against the society's alien elements (such as minorities and other races).

It is poor style to have lengthy quotes in articles and best to merely summarize what they say. Could you please tell me what information this passage provides that is not already in the article? TFD (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

perhaps we could summarize as, Parallel with nationalism and communism, as a sort of deformed combination of both, a third robust ideology emerged...which would realize a "national socialism"... Darkstar1st (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? TFD (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(shrug) I'm not overly concerned with how best to shoehorn it in if there is concern. As for poor style, I agree in principle but disagree in this context. I have no doubt that the material in the passage exists throughout the article. But this provides an excellent summary of the main ideas of fascism from a reliable source. This, combined with a few other sentences, could provide a reader with an overview of what fascism is without having to rummage through the entire article. That's why I put it where it was. However, the lede does provide an overview (although perhaps not complete).

As an alternative suggestion, perhaps this could be used as a note at the bottom of the article instead of including it in the text itself? Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly noteworthy in that passage, frankly, as everything said in it is presented better in the article. Adding it would serve only to dumb down the article from its present state.

If you find anything noteworthy in the book, please find the proper context and appropriate language with which to include it.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"and it asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[11]"

Just because Cyprian P. Blamires says so? How is Cyprian P. Blamires' word is the gospel of what fascism is? He doesnt even have a Wiki entry. Basically you are just cherrypicking quotes about what you want fascism to be. Thats very subjective.KevinFrom (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The way that the policy of reliable sources work is that well-respected texts such as the World Fascism Encyclopedia that was contributed to by 500 of the world's leading fascism experts are considered reliable for facts unless better or more recent sources are found that contradict them. In this case however it's not clear whether the statement was made by Blamires or a contributor or whether it is a generally agreed fact or merely an opinion. Considering that it is sourced to p. 331 of Volumne II of the encyclopedia it could be cherry-picked. Whether true or not the degree of attention paid to it may not justify its inclusion, particularly in the lead.

If you want other editors to work with you, you should be less confrontational. I did not add the material and am no more responsible for its inclusion than you are. Let's wait and see if there are any comments supporting or opposing its inclusion.

TFD (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I would suggest this section is misleading as written: although the ultimate origin is Latin fasces, it suggests that the National Fascist Party named itself in order to be associated with the authority of the ancient Roman office of the Lictor when the immediate origin of the name was Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The association with Roman imperial power came later. Paul S (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source to cite in reference to that point, please integrate it into the section, etc.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism, however, Led's view on this matter is 100% correct.[24]" That last part is rather odd, particularly because none of the cited sources are written by Led. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.252.31 (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It was vandalism, that has now been corrected. TFD (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian fascism

Bulgaria in the past to the present, the Bulgarian non-Turks and novel peoples have made printing exploitation assimilation and exile, Religious cultural political bans everything Bulgaria large population reduction migration as a result of application b of the Attack party recently gained continuity and rising fascist movements, increasing the pressure on the Turks and novels..1989 exile Turks,Attack party — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)