Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fascism"

Revision as of 01:30, February 17, 2012

"They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries." This is a debateable poimnt. In most Facist countries conservative forces rallied to a militant conservatism when they were under threat. The proclaimed ideals of Fascism; patriotism, loyalty, family, are those proclaimed by conservatives. The militancy was a product of circumstance user:stevendavy

Is anybody paying attention to this article? A liberal recently posted information which labels Conservapedia as fascist! We need to keep an eye on articles such as this. Scorpionman 11:09, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Using "far-right" and "far-left" in reference to "state" in the first paragraph is not needed. And "far-left" makes no sense, since in the second paragraph Fascism is called the opposite of Communism, which is as far-left as you can get.--Dave3172 23:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

It should be noted that Nazism is different from Fascism. This article treats both terms as if they're synonymous. - Thjazi

Since when was the swastika used for "mind control"? Also Mussolini hated Nazism, and Hitler made it clear that Nazism was not fascism. Therefore discussion of Nazism belongs in a seperate article, not one on fascism. Also most government types "impose social and economic regimentation". This isn't unique to fascism, or any ideology. America's Bill of Rights is a form of social regimentation. Also, this article treats fascism as just a type of government without fully explaining the ideology itself. This article talks more of Nazism and Communism than it does fascism. - mckennesaw

If taken as stated, facism is only different from structure oriented conservatism (citation: They did not wish to preserve the existing order), but not from what could also be claimed of value oriented conservatism (They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism.) -- SchiFra

"structure oriented conservatism"? Nice try. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to define the "left" as anything other than "for change". Hitler was for change. RobS 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The last sentence (The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries) is not a well-supported or proven fact. Too close to an impression or an opinion. It should be deleted. -- SchiFra

Direct quote from Prof. Schlesinger. RobS 14:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Which European nations have significant Fascist influence? There are none which have fascist parties or fascist ideologies that are legal or bona fide.

There should definitely be a section on this page that explains some of fascism's key characteristics like collectivism, nationalism and the like. Conservawesome 12:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Political spectrum

Cut from article:

Though fascism is generally considered to be an ideology of the extreme right, it has important differences from conventional conservatism: for example, fascists favor state-sponsored corporatism over the free market (though they are vehemently opposed to socialism). Fascists and conservatives have co-operated in many countries, but conservatives have clamped down on fascist movements in others (witness, for example, the fate of the Iron Guard in Romania). Mussolini himself started out on the political Left.

Calling fascism and conservatism "right-wing" adds nothing to the article. We need better definitinos of all three terms, before we can do anything like that.

We also need to be sure whether Fascism includes Nazism. --Ed Poor 14:57, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the addition how nazism puts an emphasis on race is very good. The etymology of the word, as defined in the mainspace however, I'm not certain is accurate. The term "faces", I've always understood to refer to the weapon a "fascist" weilded, and it was a symbol of "defence", or "defence of the (Roman Empire) realm". Hence a "fascist" is literally a "defender", or "defender of the realm". The term also is very much more akin or synonomous with French "Chauvinism". RobS 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

See also Fascism_Talk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] [[User talk:{{{1}}}|(talk)]]

This does not belong in a mainspace. RobS 16:58, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the sentence which overtly attempted to create a tenuous connection with socialism. The truth is, most of the central tenets of fascism (including militarism, nationalism, authoritarianism, and anti-communism) as well as the racism, homophobia, and antisemitism inherent in the related ideology of Nazism are more traditionally linked with the right. I also changed the bizarre statement that fascism as an ideology was discredited because of the military defeat of the axis powers. It may have declined as a movement as a result of the defeat of the axis as well as widespread opposition to fascism during and after the war, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is a reasonable ideology (of course to realize that it's not, all you have to do is read about it). I'd actually like to change that entire paragraph. It's a horribly written hodge-podge of completely unrelated statements, and it ends with inaccurate and pseudo-racist nonsense (which I removed). Arthur Schlesinger's quote at the end is an obvious attempt to build upon the earlier connection between socialism and fascism, and to distance it from conservatives. Of course, the quote (aside from being derived from a misunderstanding of the different manifestations and definitions of the term conservative) makes an important point and should be included in the article, so I did not remove it. It desperately needs some context and analysis however, which I don't feel suited to do, particularly since I don't actually agree with the likely intentions of whoever put up the quote. ~~

The first edit I made was immediately removed, although my edit was completely even-handed and a much better representation of scholarly opinion. Pierre Laval was hardly a fascist, and Quisling was hardly a socialist. Hayek's comment is at best controversial, and even fascists themselves dispute the connection. It is hardly significant that a young politically engaged person who is dissatisfied with the current order who jump from one radical revolutionary ideology to another completely different one. My edit preserved the fact that many fascists began their lives as socialists, while removing the unstated implication that fascism is a movement of the left, which MOST SERIOUS SCHOLARS know acknowledge is incorrect. I'm going to try editing again with a compromise, but I suspect it will be reverted again. ~~

Swearing again will result in a block. Bohdan

Edit proposal

As this is a controversial subject, I thought I'd post my edit proposal on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. Claims have been made that not all fascisms were against Christianity, citing Francisco Franco's Fascism as an example. A change to the page has been made, but it has been reverted without answering the matter in depth. A good way to address that issue and at the same time deny it would be making this change:

"Although some Fascist regimes in the past, such as Francoism, have claimed to embrace religion, they have done so only for a matter of political expediency. Every form of totalitarianism is in fact, by its own nature, anti-religious. Totalitarian regimes demand, in fact, the complete submission and devotion of the citizen to the state, and any religion present in the state means a divided allegiance in the believers. In addition, the moral values promoted by religions are clearly at odds with most of the methods employed by totalitarian states. Religion and totalitarianism are therefore to be considered completely incompatible."

What do you think of it? --Maquissar

1. Your proposal would meet with better acceptance if you signed it. Try using ~~~~ at the end of your post; the website will add your signature automatically, along with a timestamp.
2. I don't know who reverted such a change in the past.
3. It sounds like a good addition, and I hope you can provide reference for it. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:23, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Sorry, I signed now. What sort of reference are you talking about? There are some interesting studies by certain Yale professors about the relationship between religion and totalitarianism, I could find a quote if needed. --Maquissar 21:33, 23 February 2010 (EST)

I clarified the statement on religion and Franco according to SilvioB's notes. -danq 21:36, 23 February 2010 (EST)

Dang! That was good. Bohdan, please don't block me for swearing ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:42, 23 February 2010 (EST)