Changes

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go.  [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go.  [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading.  What we know is that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim was that socialist utopia called communism.  The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraced socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road t o the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading.  What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'.  The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism.  I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism."  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism.  I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism."  [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)