Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This is the archive of the discussions of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fascism from Sept. 8th to Nov. 23rd, 2005.

General talk

I think someone is really paranoid. Accusing any parties fascist need some solid proofs. I object the idea someone can run around and add this tag on whatever page he wishes. Bobbybuilder 11:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus

Hello? What evidence do people have to call the Posse Comitatus "Fascist?" It is an anarchical movement. There were undoubtedly some neofascists in it, but let's not toss every ultra-right group into the Fascist bucket.--Cberlet 13:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

see discussion on Talk:Posse Comitatus (U.S. movement). It was agreed that Posse Comitatus has some connections to American fascism, but does not meet the criteria for a fascist movement. Stlemur 14:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Syndicalism

The question has been raised as to what exactly the "syndicalist" in "syndicalist corporatist" means. Based on Fascism and Talk:Fascism, I propose the following draft definition:

Syndicalist corporatism', in the fascist sense, means "corporatism which divides the economy vertically"

That is, a syndicalist corporate state would have a government-guided but private automotive sector (possibly but not necessarily a monopoly), separate from an agricultural sector, separate from a telecommunications sector, and so on.

This is how industry was divided in Nazi Germany, although I'm less certain about Italy.

Finally, I note that the fascism article has dropped "syndicalist" from its short definition of fascism entirely.

Thoughts? Stlemur 21:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds about right and I believe that Italy's system was organized the same as well although I can't remember any specific sources. - DNewhall

Useful books

Anyone know where I can find The Reappearance of the Swastika: Neo-Nazism and Fascist International: A Comprehensive Survey of All Organizations, Leaders, Cross-Connexions, and Their Ideological Background. London: Gamma Publications, 1960.?

Definition of Fascism

Could someone please provide a scholarly source which supports this wikiproject's definition of fascism? Such key aspects of fascism as anti-marxism/social democracy (I would say anti-socialism, save that this would bring out the right-wing kooks who will say that fascism was socialist) and anti-liberalism are not mentioned. using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition seems to me a pointlessly broad criteria - practically any non-democratic regime will do this. stressing loyalty to a single leader also seems dubiously broad, but probably could be saved by strengthening. On the other hand, the points about syndicalist corporatism seem to me to be way too narrow - many fascist regimes have not advocated syndicalism in any notable way. The use of "totalitarianism" as a factor possibly defining fascism seems equally dubious, in that the meaning of totalitarianism is at least as disputed as the meaning of fascism. Furthermore, I think most would argue that Mussolini's Italy does not fit the characteristics of totalitarianism. If we are to try and define Fascist movements, I would suggest we do so in a more explicitly grounded way, by looking at definitions and criteria that have been proposed by actual scholars of fascism.

For instance, Ernst Nolte gives us:

1. the principle of hierarchy
2. a shared desire to create a "new world"
3. a craving for violence and the worship of youth
4. a broad mass appeal
5. a mixture of revolutionary fervour and "veneration of tradition."

Nolte's book, of course, is rather old, and a bit weird, too. But he's one of the major theorists. Paxton's definition of fascism would probably also be useful, as also Paul Preston. But the important thing is to look at the way scholars of fascism define it, not coming up with our own definition. I would suggest that any movement or regime which can fit into any of several major scholars' definitions of fascism could be included in the project, to keep us from being POV and asserting one definition as the basic standard. But I think something along these lines is absolutely necessary. john k 23:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My first inclination, unsatisfying as it may be, to let the current definition stand for the pragmatic reason that, having read through Talk:Fascism's 15 pages, this is the best Wikipedia's been able to to.

Unfortunately all my good texts are packed right now, but which regimes would you classify as fascist but non-syndicalist? I'm wary about casting too wide a net (believe it or not); if you turn "syndicalist corporatist" into "corporatist" and "totalitarian" into "statist", I think you end up drawing in the bulk of modern conservatism.

Anticommunism sounds on the face of it like a good determinor; however, it's not absolute. The first counterexample that comes to mind is the Mouvement Ouvrier Social-National Breton; plus what do we do with National Bolshevism?

I agree with you in principle that the definition as it stands could use tweaking, although I'm not comfortable with asserting one without consensus.

Sorry this isn't so substantive. Like I said, I don't have access to my really good books until at least the 23rd. Stlemur 00:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In terms of corporatism, I'm not sure the issue is so much whether or not they advocated corporatism, as whether or not this is a sufficiently important part of a fascist system to be considered a defining characteristic. An issue, though, is that the only two undisputedly fascist regimes to exist, outside of a number of Quisling regimes during World War II, were Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. Thus, comparisons on the basis of regime are bound to not work terribly well. In terms of Fascist movements, I don't recall corporatism being an especially important aspect of the Iron Guard in Romania or the Arrow Cross in Hungary, which were the two fascist movements other than those in Italy and Germany which a) had the most popular support; and b) were the two explicitly fascist movements which were most independent of Italian and German influence. And, to be honest, syndicalism was not a terribly important part of Nazism, if it can be considered an element of Nazism at all. Corporatism was certainly involved in Nazism, but even that is not one of the most terribly decisive elements. At any rate, I'd suggest that we look into the various definitions of fascism supplied by major theorists, that we look at the cases which are considered fascist by said theorists, and work from there. I would add that, in the meanwhile, a definite addition to the criteria for fascist regimes would have to be the existence of a fascist movement in positions of power within the government. I would also add that point 7 on the fascist movement scale should be sufficient, in and of itself, for a movement to be considered a fascist one. Or are you saying that, say a hypothetical Swedish National Socialist Fascist Party, which fails to advocate syndicalist corporatism and which does not precisely advocate "totalitarian" systems is not a fascist party? john k 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Insightful as always, Mr. K. I'm particularly wary of saying that fascism is necessarily totalitarian.

Probably one of the biggest services this project could do for Wikipedia would be a good survey of the academic literature on the definition of fascism.

It also may be that the project name is going to make this all much more contentious than it needs to be. The fact is, "fascism" nowadays is almost always used as a pejorative. Unless the scope of this project largely ends with World War II, the name is going to cause more difficulty than not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My personal primary area of interest ends with 1945 anyway; "Neo"-fascism, especially post-WWII white supremacist groups (another task -- weed out the actual Neo-Nazis from the groups like, Posse Comitatus), can easily be spun off into a subproject, although fascisms arising post-WWII in nonbelligerents (e.g. Argentina, Panama, Guatemala) and inheritor parties like Alleanza Nationale and the Ustaše-in-exile movement that Ante Pavelic set up in South America might still be usefully under our scope.

I agree that a party holding itself out to be fascist is important (I've included it on {{FascismTalk2}} as condition 7); I certainly can't think of any counterexamples calling themselves "fascist", although there are a few "national socialist" parties that took that name before the Nazis gave it its current meaning.

As far as syndicalism goes, Kershaw definitely sees it in Germany, although as the politics of the Nazi state developed this began to blur. Certainly the way heavy industry was aligned was, initially, quite vertical, with considerable amounts of government planning and with leaders of German industry in high positions in the government.

I think this leads into the question of how to classify Falangism; as far as I can tell falangism always includes the syndicalist corporatist element, and I have to admit I don't see why so many historians don't call falangism an intrinsically fascistic movement. Stlemur 02:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well this is Fascism as Mussolini gave a definition for, and since he created it, his definition may help you find your definition.

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....

...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...

...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....

...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....

...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it." The Fascist Chicken 14:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Now this is coming all from memory so I might be wrong but I think that Philip Rees uses corporatism/syndicalism in his definition and he's one of the foremost scholars on fascism and far-right politics. From what I remember most definitions use:

• Totalitarianism
• Corporatism/syndicalism
• Anti-communism
• Veneration of a single leader
• Some degree of revolutionary action or thought

However, if we are to include self-avowed "neo-/post-fascists" in our definition they typically reject or lessen the ideas of corporatism and/or veneration of a single leader such as the former MSI in the late '80s/early '90s, the Alleanza Nationale, and the Alternativa Sociale coalition. - DNewhall

So I think there's a huge difference between "neo" and "post". A "neoliberal" is a kind of liberal; a "postmodernist" is definitely not a modernist.

The "postfascist" label was, I believe, coined by Fini in a news conference. It was a brilliant stroke by Italy's cleverest contemporary politician, because it gets the unreconstructed nostalgici to vote for him, while appearing to others as a denial that he's still fascist. Of course it could work the other direction for both camps, as well, but on balance I bet it won a lot of votes for AN. The Fascism project should certainly not use the term "postfascist" uncritically without figuring out what, if anything, it really means. --Trovatore 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions to this topic after Nov. 23rd, 2005 are still on the main Talk page.

Universal Fascist Party

The Universal Fascist Party seems to be another self-described "party" with no evident existence outside cyberspace. I've marked most of the article as copyvio because it's taken straight from the website. Maybe someone here knows something about it? --Trovatore 17:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon being very bold at Greek fascism

Hi. I thought that I would attempt to get the attention of someone who is knowledgeable about the subject to take a look at the edits of 138.88.243.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to Greek fascism. I have already reverted two of the anon's edits for removing large chunks of text, some of which was properly refernced, without any discussion, and left a message at their talk page. I'd very much appreciate a second opinion before I revert again. Jkelly 22:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Juan Peron wasn't fascist

I found this page because of the page on Juan Peron. Though he has often been referred to as having been fascist, because he had expressed admiration for Mussolini, Juan Peron was not actually a fascist. There were elements of fascism to his regime, but most scholars agree that Peronism was not fascism.

Sources:

¶ "(Eva Peron) was not a fascist--ignorant, perhaps, of what that ideology meant. . . . She was far from being a saint, despite the veneration of millions of Argentines, but she was not a villain either." ~ Tomas Eloy Martinez, author of 'Santa Evita (Biblioteca del sur)', as quoted in Time magazine.¹

¶ "Peronism was not fascism... Peronism was not nazism. . . . Peronism, then, may be roughly defined as an authoritarian populist movement,strongly colored by Catholic social thought, by nationalism, by organic principles of Mediterranean corporatism,and by the 'caudillo' [military leader] traditions of the Argentine Creole civilization (pp. 220-223)." ~ 'Peron and the Enigmas of Argentina' Robert D. Crassweller

¶ "The American government demonstrated no knowledge of Perón's deep admiration for Italy (and his distaste for Germany, whose culture he found too rigid). Nor did they appreciate that although anti-Semitism existed in Argentina, Perón's own views and his political associations were not anti-Semitic. They paid no attention to the fact that Perón sought out the Jewish community in Argentina to assist in developing his policies and that one of his most important allies in organizing the industrial sector was Jose Ber Gerbald, a Jewish immigrant from Poland. (page 23)." ~ 'Inside Argentina from Peron to Menem: 1950-2000 From an American Point of View' by Lawrence Levine

¶ "The most persistent error of those who have written about him has been the tendency to see Perón consistently as a dictator. Even if there is such a thing as a 'quintessential Latin American dictator' - which is doubtful - his ambiguous record shows him not to conform to this type. For someone supposedly ruthless, his behavior was often surprisingly mild. He did accumulate great power, but his use of it was erratic rather than consistently authoritarian and when the time came he was eager to renounce his position of power to avoid bloodshed. In this he can be contrasted with some of his successors (p. 35)." ~ 'Evita: The Real Life of Eva Peron' by Fraser and Navarro

¶ "[Juan Peron] was at heart a pacifist. He steadfastly rejected violence as an open instrument of policy.... His record, while far from perfect, stands in sharp contrast to the torture and killing that traumatized Argentina in the late 1970s. Moreover, it is undeniable that the man once reviled as a South American Hitler would have never plunged or plundered his country into war (P. 502)." ~ 'Peron : A BIOGRAPHY' by Joseph Page

¹ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1997/int/970120/cinema.the_woman.html

-- Andrew Parodi 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly that Peronism can't be equated or considered a type of facism, and I object to its inclusion in this project. EdwinHJ | Talk 12:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree as well. I'm not that familiar with Peron's time in office or his policies but from what I can tell Peron wasn't a fascist. There is some overlap (declaration of a "third way", nationally organized buisnesses) but for the most part it seems that Peron was not fascist. Unless anyone has a good reason why Peron was fascist/should be part of the project I think he should be removed. - DNewhall

Most of the above points do not bear on whether Peron was fascist. Anti-Semitism isn't part of the definition of fascism. Mussolini wasn't personally anti-Semitic as far as I know (though obviously not sufficiently opposed to anti-Semitism to keep him from allying with Hitler). Militarism is part of some definitions but not the one used in this project. --Trovatore 15:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rhodesian Front?

Struggling to see the connection between the Rhodesian Front party and the WikiProject Fascism tag added to Talk:Rhodesian Front. The Rhodesian Front government was certainly racist and was not democratically elected, but it would be helpful if someone could identify any specific aspects of RF political ideology that might be identified as fascist. Humansdorpie 22:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any connection either. If no one can give a reason why the RF was fascist (and add those points to the article) then the project tag should be removed. - DNewhall

Bullet points

Violence and propaganda are two separate things. Plus the bullet point says "or" anyway, so why would you object to two separate bullet points? Thanks. Icemountain 01:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

This is true. However, the full line is "advocating violence or using modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition". This means using violence and/or propoganda to suppress political opposition (1 statement) not advocate violence and then using modern propaganda techniques to suppress political opposition (2 statements). This changes the meaning of the line(s). If your intent was to make those two separate statements to the definition then OK, but we'd rather discuss any changes to the definition here first before the changes are made. - DNewhall

I see what you mean: "Suppressing political opposition via violence or propaganda". That might help make it clearer and put the correct emphasis upfront? Icemountain 03:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade and Hogeye and Hayek

I would like to call project-members attention to a recent series of edits by User:Sam Spade (and a few by User:Hogeye at Fascism, Far-right, Nazism in relation to other concepts, Fascism and ideology and, for all I know, perhaps elsewhere. Basically, at the core of these seems to be that Sam is using Friedrich Hayek as an authority and waging a campaign to say that Fascism and Nazism are socialist (which I believe Hayek did say, though very few other important writers on the subject agree with him) and leftist (which I believe not even Hayek said). This has taken such forms as Sam removing references to the waning influence of left ideologies in Fascism and Nazism over time, and Hogeye removing qualifications on the degree to which FDR's policies resembled corporatism.

The discussion has been difficult, because they seem to be holding others to a standard of citation that I do not see them abiding by themselves. Also, Sam has been questioning Chip Berlet's ability to be neutral on the topic; I certainly see no evidence that Sam is approaching the topic with more neutrality than Chip, although he is sometimes better at keeping his temper.

Anyway, all of these articles could currently use knowledgable attention. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Massive editing just happened. Please review. Jkelly 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)