Talk:Fascism/ archive2

Great edit

User:WHEELER made a particularly fine edit just now, and his citations and insight do a great service to us all. Edits like his are the light at the end of the wiki-tunnel ;) Sam Spade 23:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I wholeheartedly disagree. I am glad you agree with Wheeler's political perspective....at least, I have to assume you must because it is the only truly admirable thing I see in that edit. There are numerous spelling and grammar mistakes throughout, and the edit has only serve to overbias this article in the opposite direction. What needs to be explained in this article is that fascism has been seen as both right and left depending on who is talking about it and what they are focusing on. In short, while this isn't vandalism, I believe it has done at least as much harm to this article as good. I respect you, Sam, and wish you'd taken a little more time to consider the entirety of this edit and what it means for this article. Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edit it looks like it was done by someone strongly exposed to right/libertarian ideology with a rather American slant against socialism. This to me means bias, so I agree with Jwrosenzweig. As I've heard it said, the politicals spectrum is a circle and the extreme left and extreme right meet each other in totalitarianism. I think there is a valid perspective in seeing fascism as a form of right-wing conservatism as it often harks back to a supposedly noble past when people were braver and blood was purer. Of course seeing fascism as a left-wing style of total state dominance is also a valid perspective. As usual politics doesn't let itself be captured in simple left/right dimensions. Also I concur that the recent edit introduced many spelling and grammatical errors. --Martijn faassen 00:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is so hard to see that some people cannot see the truth. Mussoline defines himself on the Left. Hitler did to. Yet people want to claim that "there is a valid perspective in seeing fascism as a form of right-wing conservatism". As I said below, to say "Far-right neo-nazi" is an oxymoron. Let us extrapolate, "Far-right neo-national socialist workers party". This is completely nonsensical! Martihjn also has a bias of protecting his ideology. Communism sought purity of thought!!!. It killed many Christians because of that. Purity is also sought in the Truth logic. Every premise must be true for the conclusion to be true. Same in Mathematics. Every number and formula in a mathematical equation must be right, done right and executed right. Purityis a necessity in food production. Purity is NOT the definition of what is right/left. WHEELER 23 Mar 04

Spelling edits don't need to be reverted, and my politics are both a non-issue (or should be here) and likely quite dissimilar from what you would expect. Feel free to discuss them with me elsewhere, maybe you can help me figure out who to vote for ;) I reverted because I disagree strongly with removing valid content, which is what you did. He cited what he placed here, presented a view point entirely lacking, and all in all made a tremendous improvement on an otherwise poor article. If you dislike the POV he cited, I reccomend you cite sources which agree with you, rather than reverting his "biased" (and cited) edits, nor attempting to trivialize my quality control standards or judge my politics. Sam Spade 01:15, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To call something the Far-right neo-nazi is an oxymoron. It goes against the principle of Paramenides; the principle of non-contradiction. One can not be Far right and a socialist and a workers Party. That is non-sensical. It is a contradiction of terms. Socialists are anti-monarchical and anti-clerical. Read the Book, Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. The text is 284 pages long and has over 900 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 2004

Furthermore, in Aristotlean logic there is always genus/species. The genus is Socialism and one species of the genus Socialism is Communism and the other species of the genus Socialism is Fascism. They are brothers. One was nationalistic and the other International. One was a synthesis and the other was the antithesis. Need to check out the Truth paradigm of logic. T=T+T+T if one false is there i.e. F+T+T+T=F; the whole become false. It doesn't happen the other way around. Capitalism exists in its purity; any mix of socialism and the whole thing is socialistic.

Hitler said, "We are the executors of Marxism stripped of its Judaic Talmudic influences." I am sorry I do not have the reference for this, most of my books are in storage but it is found in Leftism Revisited by von Kuehnhelt-Leddhin with 1044 footnotes.WHEELER 22 Mar 04

Okay, here's the explanation for what I did. I believe that WHEELER's edits all pushed one POV -- the point of view that fascism is fundamentally left-wing. This is not a neutral stance, even if WHEELER believes it to be the truth. Because something is well-cited does not make it relevant to the article, or well-placed. Quoting Mussolini on the definition of fascism is a good idea, but the words need to be carefully selected. My recollections of Mussolini's writing on fascism suggested that WHEELER had been very selective in choosing language that would defend his position -- I may be incorrect in that point. What is clear, however, is that we cannot open a section on defining fascism with paragraph after paragraph of Mussolini. It leaves the reader stranded. We have to begin with the relatively clear explanation that already exists in this article. Furthermore, what Mussolini said fascism was is less important to an encyclopedia than how fascism actually operated in the real world. Not that the two are necessarily incongruous. But I think focusing on historical fact rather than the rhetoric of the original Fascist might help the article remain well-balanced.

Other comments were simply blatant in insisting again and again that fascism was far-left, leftist, socialist, etc. This is a distortion because it ignores the elements of fascism that do not look very left or very socialist at all. To refer to fascism as a "species of socialism" is to misappropriate a biological term to a political discussion -- no offense intended to the great Aristotle, but we no longer talk of political ideologies as though they biologically relate to each other. Fascism has socialist genetic material, yes, but it is a mutt, a hybrid, that borrows genetic material from other elements of the political specturm also.

Sam, I apologize for mischaracterizing your politics. When I looked at the edit, I saw alterations that damaged the fundamental structure of the article, biased it significantly in one direction, and that were poorly formatted and spelled. The only thing I saw that I thought was a genuinely important addition to the article is that many on the right see fascism as leftist. That's an important point. But WHEELER is a new user who has been exceedingly rude concerning his edits, and when I saw you referring to WHEELER as the light at the end of the tunnel, I felt I needed to correct that instantly. WHEELER may become a productive contributor here, but so far I have to say that his edits are not up to our usual standards (I have hopes they will improve) and that his rudeness and personal attacks, as yet unapologized for (to my knowledge -- I hope he will point me to an apology if he has offered one), are absolutely unacceptable. Whatever we decide concerning this article, WHEELER has to accept that some changes need to take place in his behavior here.

Sure we can quote Mussolini, but let's not put it at the top of the article. Sure, we can talk about fascism having leftist elements, but we need to explain who thinks so and why, rather than simply telling the reader that fascism is leftist. The reason that I cut what I did and rephrased what I did was an attempt to return a workable structure to the article while representing the ideas of WHEELER. Perhaps we can use the talk page to discuss and work out a good compromise addition to the page? I have hopes. Let me know what you think will be best. Jwrosenzweig 16:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let me first say that I have no particular experience with Wheeler outside of this one edit, and that the reason I liked it so much is that I felt it expressed a POV entirely lacking, and with a citation no less. I do see fascism as Leftist, and I am not right wing by the definition of anyone who knows me well and has taken time to understand my extremely unconventional politics. I will admit however that my politics are so confusing that I don't personally understand how they are compatable with the false dicotomy of "left/right" wing (this (http://www.politicalcompass.org/)] test is alot of fun if anybody is interested). In any case lets at least pretend that our personal politics and social intruiges are not the issue here, and rather focus our attentions on the quality of the article. IMO an article on fascism is nearly useless without some quote or other clear expression of the actual opinions of actual fascists. I also feel that fascism is clearly left wing, by any basic description of what that means (strong central govt., well financed social programs, lack of freedom, etc...) but I am fine with presenting alternate POV's, (w citations preferably). Anyhow we all seem to be on the same page about seeking concensus, and as I have always said, the perfect article is one that no reasonable, informed person can disagree with. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Update: I see that WHEELER did apologize to Kim Bruning -- I am very glad. This gives me excellent hope that we can compromise here. All right, I've done a little looking around -- it turns out that WHEELER, your quotations from Mussolini are indeed very selective. If you refer to this document [1] (http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Mussolini_Doctrines.html), which in fact appears to be the source of your quotation that leads the article. You will note that Mussolini explicitly rejects the idea that Fascism is socialist, and even explains why it is not. You quote none of this. If we are to be balanced and neutral, we have to present some decent approximation of the totality of his views, not just those that show Fascism as though it is leftist. Of greater concern to me is that the sentence you quote from Hoover as "Granted that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy…it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the left, a century of Fascism" reads as "Given that the nineteenth century was the 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 Fascism" in the translation I have found here. This is troubling to me. I do not think you have unfaithfully transcribed your source (I am at least assuming you have not done so), but it may be that one or both of our sources are incorrect. It occurs to me that Hoover, your source's author, might have a vested insterest in portraying Fascism as leftist (perhaps this is so, at least). I have no idea if there is an agenda behind the internet source I point to, or how to characterize its bias. This bears further investigation, but until it is complete, I do not think we can continue with the quotation in its current state. Are you amenable to cutting the quotation and discussing it here instead? Once we have found a balanced quotation that represents Mussolini to our mutual satisfaction, we can repost it. I hope this is agreeable to you. Jwrosenzweig 17:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To be clear, what I just did in an edit was to fix some spelling errors and formatting, and make two more important changes. One was to remove bolding from the opening quotation that emphasized anywhere that Mussolini characterized fascism as leftist -- we don't do that here. We give people the words and let them derive their own emphasis. Also (and most controversially, I assume), I cut the sentence "Fascism is a species of socialism" and the word "socialism" that was placed into a definition of fascism because, at the very least, such things would need to be attributed before being said. Furthermore, as I noted above, I think species is the wrong word to use here. If you disagree and reinsert the sentences, _please_, don't revert my edit, but add them back, so that I don't have to fix the spelling errors and formatting again. I appreciate it. And I hope you can leave the sentence and word out because I think we can convey that perspective neutrally without simply telling people "fascism is socialist" -- what is obvious from Mussolini's words, at least, is that the fascists set out to be anti-Socialist. We can hash over how successful they were, of course, but that will take time and careful wording. Jwrosenzweig 17:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Naturally, Hitler knew all too well that the Nazi Revolution was "the exact counterpart of the French Revolution"; and he thought of himself not only as "the conqueror but also the executor of Marxism-of that part that is essential and justified, stripped of its Jewish-Talmudic dogma" .

"He was particularly proud of the extent to which he had learned from the political methods of the Social Democrats” "National socialism is socialism in evolution," Hitler insisted, "socialism in everlasting change." And, he went on to admit, "There is more that unites us with than divides us from bolshevism... above all the genuine revolutionary mentality. I was aware of this and I have given the order that former Communists should be admitted to the party immediately". (All of the above quotes come from the book Leftism Revisited, Erik von Kuenhelt-Leddihn, l990 pg158)WHEELER 23 Mar o4

Progress

I think its clear that we are making progress, but I have to tell you this is a debate not contained within this one page. Actually every political page I have delt with has had the nazi/socialist debate, often matched by the anarchist/communist debate. The debate in the preceeding being if it is appropriate to view the paired concepts as compatable or no. Editorial opinions here seen to be a condenced version of the extremes on both sides, and interest in NPOV on these subjects appears to be minimal ;). I think it would be great if we could provide our readers with a reasonable enough definion of terms that they could intellegently discuss and comprhend these concepts, but IMO we have clearly failed thus far. The main reason why we have failed (IMO) is because of a excessive focus on our own editorial biases, and not enough (or often no) focus on NPOV and making the article choherant and useful to our fearless readers. Keep up the good work, but we have got alot more digging to do if were going to get to China ;) Sam Spade 17:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Sam, but is there a bias you're detecting in me that is damaging this? I'm usually the guy in the middle on the fascist argument -- I definitely understand both sides, and it drives me nuts when somebody tries to show that Fascism=the people on the other side of the spectrum. Fascism is a bizarre aberration that traces itself to multiple currents in political thought, and we need a complicated but honest and neutral discussion of that. I hope I'm not biasing anything and will try to be clear in communicating. One thing we have to clear up soon, though, is the issue of Fascism versus National Socialism versus Socialism. This article is about Fascism, not National Socialism. The quotes WHEELER uses above in his most recent edit are focused on Nazism....that's not this page. Furthermore, we have to be clear that Mussolini and Hitler mean something different by "socialism" than most modern observers do -- most modern socialists would find themselves imprisoned by the Fascist regimes. So when they talk about socialism, we have to be clear that they are embracing a number of key elements to socialism, but repudiating completely any identification with socialism as it had previously existed in Europe (and has existed in the post-Fascist era). Simply listing a quote that shows Mussolini talking about socialism will be misleading without some effort to explain the historical context. How can we do this effectively? I don't feel as though WHEELER is discussing things, but rather just quoting sources at me to prove his point. That's not the issue. The issue is, we have an issue with at least two sides to it, and we need to talk about how to portray the sides effectively and fairly. Let's stop arguing and start working together. Jwrosenzweig 18:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that’s what were going to do. Yes, I do detect a bias in you, but I assume bias in everyone ;) "bizarre aberration" and "Mussolini and Hitler mean something different by "socialism" " both help to encapsulate your own particular biases, as I see them. You appear to be saying that fascism or Nazism is incompatible w modern socialism, whereas I, and many others see them as variations of an identical core philosophy. I see China, N Korea, Cuba, USSR, etc... as being prime examples of totalitarian states, which is what I see as the end game of all of the above philosophies. That’s my POV. I don't expect the article to state my POV, just the facts :). When wheeler gives citations, that is a good thing. My wiki-politic is aggressively pro-citation and verifiability. Nothing else is more important when it comes to an encyclopedia. Anyhow, I would honestly love to discuss/debate/discover our own political intricacies somewhere other than here, but lets try hard to keep discussion in this talk page focused on the subject at hand, rather than each other ;) Sam Spade 18:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I should have stopped and explained that I know everyone is biased. :-) I just wondered if you thought my bias was likely to be damaging to compromise. I'll admit, I see fascism as something more unusual because of its combination of an appeal to the conservative, "old ways" of doing things, and to the liberal progress to a new world, and to the socialist "worker's party" ideal. At its core it is both a cult of the collective and yet strangely fixated on the individual who embodies the ideal of the state. It is an unusual political ideology. You do make a good point -- many see a close connection between Fascism and Socialism. My point stands, though -- Hitler and Mussolini, I think, would find little in common between themselves and a meeting of Socialists in Wisconsin. They would find closer ground between themselves and the communist dictatorships, I suppose, but clear differences also. I think I'm being reasonable? And I'm open to discussion. :-) But you're right, we'll try to avoid discussing out personal politics (and I'm realizing the above is a mix of perspectives and opinions of mine -- my apologies, but I think I should clarify what I meant by earlier statements). I hope I succeed in doing so. And citations are excellent, but as I noted above, in fact I think they're misleading here -- despite the use of a citation, I believe the quote actually distorts and misrepresents Mussolini's ideas concerning Fascism. We can't let the use of a footnote blind us to the fact that such things can still be biased. :-) Again, I ask, can we take the quote down until we've discussed it and found a compromise quotation? Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jwronsenzweig assumes that Love of country and of one's own race is evil. I believe that Mr. Jwronsenzweig judges Mussolini on the fact that Mussolini refuses to adhere to the marxist ideology of "world unity". Mr. Jwronsenzweig judges Mussolini "evil" because Mussolini does not subscribe to this world unity but to the love of one's people and tribe.

Did I ever call him evil? I don't recall that. Your characterization of my assumption is invalid. I made no such assumption. Jwrosenzweig

Is this is morally wrong, then Mr. Jwronsenzweig, where are your quotes from any religious authority about the evilness of race? I cannot find it in the Bible or in the Classics. God commands even among brother tribes, no intermarriage. St. Thomas Aquainas states that the love of one for God leads to a deep love of nation. Mr. Jwronsezweig wants to impose his opinion as fact that what Mussolini did in this regard is wrong. Mr. Jwronsezweig I believe you want to classify Mussolini as a rightist because he doesn't subscribe to the marxist ideology of world unity.

You believe incorrectly. I do not want to classify him as either -- I think fascism more complex. Have you read what I have been writing? I have tried very hard to be clear on this point. I said nothing about moral wrong, and frankly the idea that we should go to a religious authority about the evilness of race seems like a blatant red herring in a discussion about Fascism. Race was not brought up until this comment, I believe. And what does religious authority have to do with it? Jwrosenzweig

Another glaring fault is this "That Fascism is a SYNTHESIS". Communism is readily seen as socialistic because it is extreme. Fascism is a synthesis. It is a MIX of everything. So it is hard to classify but in the reference you supplied Mr. Jwronsenzweig [4] that Mussolini

" to accustom the working-class to real and effectual leadership" Socialism "considers and observes the future and the development of humanity" which is dawnist and hence socialist

"Absolute monarchy has been and can never return" which is anti-monarchical which is socialist "any more than blind acceptance of ecclesiastical authority" which is anti-clericalism which is socialist "the priveleges of the feudal system 'have been', and the division of society into castes impenetrable form the outside." which is "leveler" anti-heirarchiacal, anti-aristocracy which is socialism.

Mussolini hated "scientific Marxism". Marxism preaches world unity. If Mussolini and Adolf Hitler opposed this marxist ideology does not make them rightist in the least sense of the word.

In the site's definition, I set out clearly that the economics of Fascism was also a synthesis. Both ideologically and economically, Fascism is socialist.WHEELER 23 Mar 04

I have been arguing that Fascism is, in fact, a mix of ideologies. Why do you say "It is a MIX of everything" as though I disagreed? Furthermore, saying that absolute monarchy will never return is not the same as being anti-monarch. Nor is being anti-monarchy synonymous with socialism (I think it fair to say that all socialists are anti-monarchists, but not all anti-monarchists are socialist). The same goes for your subsequent points, which frankly are making a ridiculous and sweeping over-generalization about what constitutes socialism. Your final point also confuses me. If Mussolini and Hitler hated Marxism, which is almost universally seen as leftist, then how does their anti-Marxism not make them at least somewhat rightist? You seem to be acting on numerous assumptions that I do not share and which are not apparent to me. I will not try to guess what they are. Please be calm so that we can discuss fascism reasonably....unless I am horribly confused, it looks as though we agree on numerous points. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Thus in Italy the rupture between the dictatorship of the Fascist party and the monarchy had to come sooner or later--when Mussoline established his "Repubblica Sociale Italiana"... Liberty or Equality, pg 124

there is only T and F T=T+T+T F=F+F+F if one single F appears in the T program, the whole becomes F. T+T+T+F+T=F. The whole is converted to F.

The same with R and L. R=R+R+R+R L=L+L+L if one single L appears in the R the whole thing is L. R+R+R+L+R=L. Rightism is only in its purity right. Graduations in Socialism still remains socialist. Rightist elements in Socialism does not convert Socialism to accomplish rightist culture. Socialism still advances. Socialism is about destroying and replacing classical cultureWHEELER 2:40pm 23 Mar 04

"Loving" ones own people is not an ideology. Rightism is not ideology. We "conserve" the "ancien regime". Only Socialists are ideologists. Rightists seek nothing but to do the same thing we have been doing for 4000 years. Remain the same. There is no "Rightist" ideology because we do not seek to change culture or people. We accept the status quo. Love of country and people is natural to all. God seperated the people at the Tower of Babel and placed within man a feeling not to cooperate with each other.

Socrates and Aristotle and the Scriptures say Birds of a Feather Flock together. Socialists want to undermine what God has done. They want to change reality. Rightists seek to obey reality. That is all.Wheeler

Let me see if I understand. You believe, based on religious conviction, that socialism and the left are false and the right is true. Therefore, any hint of leftist ideology makes something leftist and false by association. You believe that right wing politics is in fact, not ideology, but simply truth and natural. Have I characterized your position correctly? Jwrosenzweig 19:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Almost correctly. Not only based on religion but also philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle did not like the leftists of their time. Neither did Cicero. I fall under these gentlemen.

In the book Elements of Socialism; a Textbook by Fargo (1925) he writes that "All Socialists by nature are idealists".

I on the other hand am like Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, realists and rationalists not idealists. Wheeler 3:00 pm 23 Mar 04

All right. Now, do you believe that you can work acceptably under the policy of Neutral point of view? So far, I have to say that the bias you are describing has seriously impaired your ability to compromise. To be honest, you do not appear to desire compromise. Perhaps another project...www.internet-encyclopedia.com, for example....that is more welcoming of personal bias and defending one's own beliefs would be a better fit for you? Do you believe that you can set aside your beliefs and work to write an article that neutrally describes fascism from all viewpoints, without favoring any individual one? Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)