Talk:Fascism and ideology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Philosophy | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived. |
Contents |
[edit] Lead
WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Part about Godwin law is better suited for Fascism article, than for this one. Also, I find part which states: "For the reasons outlined above, claims of a relationship between fascism and certain other ideologies (including those cited in this article) must be treated with caution." specially concerning because it practically says that the reader must assume bad faith while reading this article. That's unacceptable. -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- WP:LEAD is a guideline, not an actual policy. I do not believe this particular guideline should be applied to this article. The reason is as follows: Virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism. No other ideology finds itself in this situation (that of being discussed exclusively by its enemies). There are no fascist replies to any of the views presented in this article. This situation creates an inherent bias that we simply cannot avoid. The best we can do is warn the reader about it. -- Nikodemos 04:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- To state the problem again: There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. That is a period of over 60 years when the world moved on and supporters of other ideologies published their views about fascism, to which there was no reply from the fascist side. Who claims to speak for fascism today? No one. Even people who agree with Hitler and Mussolini prefer to use other labels for themselves, such as White nationalism. This is a problem because scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe (the way you can ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative). There is no dialogue with fascists, no arguments back and forth between fascists and anti-fascists (except on the relatively narrow issue of the Holocaust, where there are some Holocaust deniers).
- Since all the scholarship on fascism comes from an anti-fascist (or at least non-fascist) perspective, there is bound to be some inherent bias. The bias is made worse by the fact that the word "fascism" has acquired such a negative connotation. No matter what your political views are, you probably believe that at least some scholars are giving a biased view of fascism for the purpose of slinging mud at their own political opponents. Libertarians believe that socialist scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with capitalism, and socialists believe that libertarian scholars are intentionally trying to associate fascism with socialism. The one thing everyone agrees on is that someone, somewhere, is giving a biased view of fascism. So let's mention that in the lead.
- You may notice that this page has carried a POV warning for most of its existence. That alone should tell you something about the extreme controversial nature of the subject matter. You are right that we should not suggest to the readers to assume bad faith, but we should inform them of the fact that this is a highly controversial topic. -- Nikodemos 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I know it's a guideline. However, even so it represents "the consensus of many editors" and "Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines". Such text, if necessary, is only appropriate for the main article where there is a section which deals with that subject. I will move your text, except for the last sentence which is wrong and OR, there. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article without intent to edit but to read and learn. It would be nice to have a lead that briefly summarized the most important points but I can see the difficulty in doing that when the content is in such turmoil. Currently the lead says simply this is a controversial topic. I think that is sufficient for the moment, but I think the point made by Nikodemos that "virtually all scholarly arguments regarding the nature of fascism are carried out by people opposed to fascism" is very important and should be made early in the article.
The thrid paragraph begins, "These difficulties [of definition] arise because there have been few self-identified fascists." I was going to suggest that difficulties of definition have more to do with the "negative connotations" of fascism than a too small sample size. Your argument has caused me to see this statement in a new light, not in terms of sample size but in terms of authority to define. This was not clear to me as a casual reader. I propose adding text from Nikodemos' commentary above to this paragraph so that it reads:
These difficulties arise because there have been few self-identified fascists. There have been no scholarly works published by fascists or nazis since the end of World War II. Even people who might agree with fascism prefer to use other labels for themselves. Scholars who wish to study the ideological nature of fascism cannot simply ask fascists what they believe as one might ask a communist, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or a conservative.
Originally... & etc.
What do you think? Baon 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation
<-------------I have filed for mediation concerning the longstanding disputes over the relationships among Nazism, National Socialism, National Socialism (disambiguation), Socialism, Collectivism, Fascism, Fascism and Ideology, Economics of fascism, New Deal, The New Deal and corporatism, Fascism_as_an_international_phenomenon#United_States. Please visit and consider joining the discussion concerning the appropriateness of mediation.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/National_Socialism--Cberlet 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Totalitarianism
What is the problem with a standard link to Totalitarianism main pages or even the template?--Cberlet 20:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Main article for section "Fascism and totalitarianism" would be Fascism and totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is not subarticle of this article. For more information see WP:SS. -- Vision Thing -- 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Wrong. Totalitarianism is an article which covers... totalitarianism. What is "totalitarianism"? A concept used to qualify certain political regimes, mainly Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinism (with some disagreements between those who use this suspect). "Fascism and totalitarianism" is an un-needed article when you see the poor state in which "Totalitarianism" is. And, concerning Foucault, you will still have to justify the inclusion of a lame sentence which conveys fairly badly Foucault's thought on the matter (in two words, Foucault has described Stalinism & Nazism as REVERSE operations, which directly opposes this tentative to equates them). Tazmaniacs 23:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Agree with Tazmaniacs. Please stop this petty disruption, -- Vision Thing --.--Cberlet 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don't know if any of you two had actually read Totalitarianism, but there is very little overlap between that article and Fascism and totalitarianism section here. I will ask you again direct you to Wikipedia's guideline on this matter which in a nutshell states: When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title. Totalitarianism can't be considered a spin off of Fascism and totalitarianism section in any possible arrangement. As for Foucault, I don't need to justify anything (although I did); for inclusion of content it's enough that it's sourced and on topic. -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The tangential stuff on Foucault is ridiculous--it has nothing to do with this page. Just more POV left-bashing. The issue of fascism and totalitarianism is one of the central issues in scholarship in this arena. The template is appropriate and helps users.--Cberlet 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Foucault's views have everything to do with this page, and they are connected with Levi's arguments. The template is inappropriate, and in "my" version link to Totalitarianism article is the first thing that user encounters when he is reading the section, so your comment is ridiculous. In both cases you are acting against Wikipedia's polices. -- Vision Thing -- 12:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The continuous removal of the link by User:Vision Thing|-- Vision Thing --]] is not appropriate. I have restored it, and will add it to the ongoing mediation.--Cberlet 15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Needs sections added on: Relationship of Fascism to 1. Nationalism 2. Rascism 3. Militarism
02 June 2007
This article is incomplete without sections on each of the three topics above. Nationalism is the most important omission which is a major part of fascist ideology.
On the subject of rascism, this article asserts that this was an addition of the Nazis, which the Italian fascists were not interested in. Regardless, it formed such a major part of Nazi ideology and the devoted so much energy to attempts to justify it, and idealise certain races over others, that this such be included in any discussion of fascist ideology. The belief that group A were superior to group B was the ideology behind much of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.180.242 (talk • contribs)
- Feel free to add some content on those subjects. -- Vision Thing -- 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the word "Fascism" in itself, and the basic policy and perspective of it being classified as a "civil religion" more than a political party or movement certainly covers the 3 topics you've listed. At least, #1.) Nationalism, and #3.) Militarism are almost always equated with Fascism. It's hard to find Fascist literature that doesn't mention at least partial characteristics belonging to both categories (Read Oswald Mosley or Achille Starace). As far as Rascism goes, it belongs more to the Neo-Fascist movement where specific races are targeted. Even then, extermination of Jews wasn't on Mussolini's list of things to do. By that token, "Jews" aren't necessarily a race, which can be quite and ironic and comical that Hitler wanted to exterminate those that belonged to a certain belief system and way of life (such as gay, gypsy, or Jew) in order to form a "pure race." In the end, the two spectrums don't match up.
At any rate, just a few thoughts. Nothing to be taken too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.157.226 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fascism and the Political Spectrum
All sources should be people who have some understanding or knowledge of the subject, and some of the sources have no credibility. Also, the article states that Hayek and Mises saw fascism as "left-wing", but no source is given for that. Please provide any reference that either writer ever said this or delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I see the mention of "left-wing" has been deleted. Thank you. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- This section begins: "There is no agreement on the position of generic fascism on the political spectrum, as has been described as left, right, and center." Then it references two sources. But looking at these sources, the first source (footnote 3) draws its source from an article by Seymour Lipset. What Lipset actually said is mentioned later in this section: "Seymour Martin Lipset sees fascism as "extremism of the center". (For some reason this quote is sourced to the book Russian Fascism.(footnote 12))
- Suggest that the opening sentence begin something like: "While fascism is generally considered to be on the right of the political spectrum..." and then note that opposing views come from some academics (like Lipset), a few non-academic sources and some fascists themselves (like Mosely). (Incidentally, it is inconsistent to use Mosely's honorific "Sir", when honorifics are not used for other individuals, e.g., Mr., Ms.)
- The mention of "left-wing influences on fascism" should be explained. What were they? The reference to the Socialist background of some fascists is irrelevant unless there is a connection with their previous allegiance. (Hilary Clinton used to be a Goldwater conservative, Ronald Reagan was a New Deal liberal.) I could not find any published writers who put fascism on the left.
- Also, Lipset's reasoning should be explained.
- The Four Deuces (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
