Last modified on 6 September 2018, at 10:07

Talk:Fascism

Return to "Fascism" page.

"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)

Madison Square Garden Rally

The Madison Square Garden rally was not an official US government New Deal program, so it doesn't really belong in that section. It should be mentioned perhaps in an article on the Neutrality Act or other articles, or perhaps in a section here with more context about FDR's own isolationist stance prior to the Lend Lease program. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 19:55, 7 April 2018 (EDT)

Fair enough, we'll try that. Besides the Neutrality Act, which other articles does the Madison Square Garden rally apply to? Don't want to place it at the wrong article again. Pokeria1 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2018 (EDT)
In rereading it, it's not that awkward a flow where it is here, but as I said, it should have more context. American Nazis of that era are usually counted as New Deal enemies, but truth be told some were New Deal isolationists as FDR himself was up until the Lend Lease program.
The paragraph probably could also be cut n pasted to the bottom of the Molotov-Ribbentrop section of the Neutrality Act. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:15, 7 April 2018 (EDT)
The main concern is not to confuse or group the American Nazi party with the America First movement. The American Nazi party is more aligned with Father Charles Coughlin or Huey Long as extreme outsiders with anti-British, anti-international banker, socialist, and nationalist views. The America First Committee should not be impugned in any light as fascist. RobSDeep Six the Deep State! 21:42, 7 April 2018 (EDT)
Fair enough. I'll see where I can place them. It will be difficult trying to avoid America First being grouped with them, since the two sources I provided earlier seemed to have strongly worded insinuations that they're one and the same. I do know that Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism book does in fact allude to the Madison Square Garden Rally and implies that was the result of the New Deal, though. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

Fascism vs. Populism

One of the most common tactics that the left uses when attacking right-wing populism is comparing it with Fascism. That comparison is highly flawed, as right-wing populism and Fascism have completely different origins:

  • Right-wing populism is rooted in the centuries-old debates between affirmative action and residency, and between free trade and protectionism. Since the late 18th century, it has repeatedly come and gone in different strains with varying degrees of intolerance for immigration and free trade (the current strain appears to be the most tolerant, ironically). Its fundamental premise is that the elites are straying from the country's cultural traditions, and that this trend needs to be reversed. This premise is compatible with democracy, and is compatible with both the "negative rights"/individualist worldview of Anglo-Saxon conservatives and the "positive rights"/statist worldview of continental European conservatives.
  • Fascism on the other hand was rooted in the extreme economic, political, and social turmoil started by the First World War and exacerbated by the Great Depression. Its fundamental premise is that the country's cultural traditions have become corrupted beyond the possibility of redemption, and that the only thing they have left to offer to the people are Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. Therefore, the elite must be overthrown entirely and replaced with a regime that does away with the old tradition and replaces it with a new one that is hell-bent on putting other countries in their place at all costs, even if it means starting a war with the whole rest of the world. This premise is disturbingly similar to that of Communism. Indeed, many Fascists were former Communists who rejected class warfare in favor of racial warfare after being consumed with raw hatred for other races due to their experiences during both the war and the Depression. They saw the world from a Social Darwinist point of view: the other races are always out to conquer and destroy you, so you must return the favor. Like Communism, Fascism is not compatible with democracy, nor is it compatible with the "negative rights"/individualist worldview of Anglo-Saxon conservatives. As for the "positive rights"/statist worldview of continental European conservatives, there was a love-hate relationship. While Fascism and continental European conservatives shared a common ground over (1) skepticism for capitalism and individualism, and (2) opposition to Communism, they were often at odds over cultural traditions. While conservatives believed the elites were responsible for the degeneration of culture, Fascists believed it was the other way around. While conservatives wanted to preserve tradition, Fascists wanted to destroy it. These tensions on occasion led to violence, as demonstrated by the July 20 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, which was led by a conservative Catholic who initially supported Fascism but later came to despise it on religious principle.

That being said, is Fascism likely to make a serious comeback due to the current wave of right-wing populism? No. The conditions that made the rise of Fascism possible do not exist today. The West is suffering, but not nearly to the same extent that it was during the war and the Depression. Almost nobody on the right-wing populist side of the aisle is ranting about how the elites are responsible for the deaths of millions of their own people, the complete destruction of their countries' economies and infrastructure, and/or the massive displacement caused by forced territorial concessions (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a major exception, although his ideology more closely resembles Fascism than right-wing populism anyway). The only way Fascism will ever make a serious comeback is if the West gets caught up in a war on a scale similar to the First World War, resulting in a whole generation developing a militant mindset that makes it incapable of embracing any ideology that isn't overtly radical and/or homicidal.

Will that happen in the future? I hope not, but right now I'm not optimistic. Tensions are growing between Western Europe and Eastern Europe over the former region's increasingly blatant attempts to subjugate the latter region through the European Union. Tensions are growing in the Balkans due to the rise of Erdoğan's Turkey. Tensions are growing in Eastern Europe due to the crisis in Ukraine. Russia, Germany, France, and Turkey are all presenting blatant challenges to American hegemony over both Europe and the Middle East. Not only is a war between NATO and Russia possible, but now so is an intra-NATO war. More details on the latter here. There is good reason to believe that the West is on its way to repeat the mistakes of 1914. It's not too late to step back from the abyss, but time may be running out. I pray that President Trump does us a favor and prevents such a war. He would essentially go down in history as the man who prevented the return of Fascism, although the left probably will try to find a way to keep that out of the books...--Geopolitician (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2018 (EDT)

I agree with your overall point for the most part. However, I'm not entirely sure Fascism/Communism isn't compatible with Democracy. Technically, it is if we define "democracy" as being the kind practiced by the French Revolutionaries, or even the New Left (they certainly used democracy and similar terms like "participatory democracy", "democracy on the streets", and the like). In fact, both Lenin and Marx specifically indicated that democracy was a key component to socialism/communism at the very least, and is even one and the same with it. Besides, technically, America isn't a democracy, it's a Constitutional Republic. Pokeria1 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2018 (EDT)
You're correct that America is a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. However, I'm not just talking about America. I'm talking about the West in general. Many countries in the West are democracies, and many of the ones that aren't have governments that heavily rely on the democratic process in order to function (America falls in that category). So when I said "democracy," I didn't mean just democracies. I meant countries that heavily rely on the democratic process in order to function, in general. Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Revolutionary France (particularly during the Reign of Terror) cannot be placed in that grouping. All three of those regimes had leaders who either substantially interfered in the democratic process itself or substantially interfered in the legislature's ability to function as a forum controlled by a even a simple majority its members. Although they did have the democratic process used, it did not play anywhere near the role that it does in the West today (even in America).--Geopolitician (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2018 (EDT)