Jump to content

Talk:Fascism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Finding similar cases: force of habit from Wiktionary, lol
Sotavento (talk | contribs)
147 edits
Line 36: Line 36:


Now that President Trump has declared that the US is under siege from "far-left fascism", we should be prepared for a brand-new round of edit requests seeking to remove the description of fascism as a right-wing ideology. We should remind drive-by editors who make these requests that Wikipedia follows what [[WP:reliable sources]] say, and that no reliable source, either academic or from the media, describes fascism as left-wing. Politicians say many things in the course of their attempts to be elected or re-elected, and their statements are not considered to be reliable sources of information. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Now that President Trump has declared that the US is under siege from "far-left fascism", we should be prepared for a brand-new round of edit requests seeking to remove the description of fascism as a right-wing ideology. We should remind drive-by editors who make these requests that Wikipedia follows what [[WP:reliable sources]] say, and that no reliable source, either academic or from the media, describes fascism as left-wing. Politicians say many things in the course of their attempts to be elected or re-elected, and their statements are not considered to be reliable sources of information. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fascism as all other anti-democratic ideologies doesn't fall on the same left-right scale as democratic movements.
Theres LEFT wing extremists who went from far-left to fundamentalist far-left and then theres the EXTREMISTS that renegated the "moderate" far-left and shifted to opose that same far left (thats whar RIGHT WING extremists are). But there are no RIGHT wing involved in any of these ideologies since they all continued to be anti- "all-things-right". [[User:Sotavento|Sotavento]] ([[User talk:Sotavento|talk]]) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


== Long section of material commented out ==
== Long section of material commented out ==

Revision as of 22:02, 18 October 2020

Template:Vital article


"Far-left fascism"

Now that President Trump has declared that the US is under siege from "far-left fascism", we should be prepared for a brand-new round of edit requests seeking to remove the description of fascism as a right-wing ideology. We should remind drive-by editors who make these requests that Wikipedia follows what WP:reliable sources say, and that no reliable source, either academic or from the media, describes fascism as left-wing. Politicians say many things in the course of their attempts to be elected or re-elected, and their statements are not considered to be reliable sources of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Fascism as all other anti-democratic ideologies doesn't fall on the same left-right scale as democratic movements. Theres LEFT wing extremists who went from far-left to fundamentalist far-left and then theres the EXTREMISTS that renegated the "moderate" far-left and shifted to opose that same far left (thats whar RIGHT WING extremists are). But there are no RIGHT wing involved in any of these ideologies since they all continued to be anti- "all-things-right". Sotavento (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long section of material commented out

I don't know how long it has been the case, but the following long section on Fascist economy was commented out of the article. It needs to be checked to see if everything in it has been re-inserted elsewhere, or if some parts of it should be added.

Economic policies

Further information: Economics of fascism

According to Bruce Pauley, Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalize it.[1] According to Patricia Knight, they did, with the Italian Fascist government coming to own the highest percentage of industries outside the Soviet Union.[2] The Nazis also nationalized some business.[3] In fact, the "Twenty-Five Point Programme" of the Nazi party, adopted in 1920, demanded "the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations."[4] Other scholars noted that big business developed an increasingly close partnership with the Nazi and Fascist governments as it became increasingly organized. Business leaders supported the government's political and military goals, and in exchange, the government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies.[5] Nazi Germany transferred public ownership and public services into the private sector, while other Western capitalist countries strove for increased state ownership of industry.[6] In his book, Big Business in the Third Reich, Arthur Schweitzer notes that, "Monopolistic price fixing became the rule in most industries, and cartels were no longer confined to the heavy or large-scale industries. ... Cartels and quasi-cartels (whether of big business or small) set prices, engaged in limiting production, and agreed to divide markets and classify consumers in order to realize a monopoly profit.[7]

Fascists pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions and putting them under state or party control.[8] Attempts were made by both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to establish "autarky" (self-sufficiency) through significant economic planning, but neither achieved economic self-sufficiency.[9]

National corporatism, statism and national syndicalism

Italian Fascism's economy was based on corporatism, and a number of other fascist movements similarly promoted corporatism. Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists, describing fascist corporatism, said that "it means a nation organized as the human body, with each organ performing its individual function but working in harmony with the whole".[10] Fascists were not hostile to the petit-bourgeoisie or to small businesses, and they promised these groups, alongside the proletariat, protection from the upper-class bourgeoisie, big business, and Marxism. The promotion of these groups is the source of the term "extremism of the centre" to describe fascism.[11]

Fascism blamed capitalist liberal democracies for creating class conflict and communists for exploiting it.[12] In Italy, the Fascist period presided over the creation of the largest number of state-owned enterprises in Western Europe, such as the nationalisation of petroleum companies into a single state enterprise called the Italian General Agency for Petroleum (Azienda Generale Italiani Petroli, AGIP).[13] Fascists made populist appeals to the middle class, especially the lower middle class, by promising to protect small businesses and property owners from communism, and by promising an economy based on competition and profit while pledging to oppose big business.[11]

In 1933, Benito Mussolini declared Italian Fascism's opposition to the "decadent capitalism" that he claimed prevailed in the world at the time, but he did not denounce capitalism entirely. Mussolini claimed that capitalism had degenerated in three stages, starting with dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870), followed by static capitalism (1870–1914), and reaching its final form of decadent capitalism or "supercapitalism" beginning in 1914.[14] Mussolini said that Italian Fascism acknowledged the positive achievements of dynamic and heroic capitalism for its contribution to industrialism and its technical developments, but that it did not favor supercapitalism, which he claimed was incompatible with Italy's agricultural sector.[14]

Thus Mussolini claimed that Italy under Fascist rule was not capitalist in the contemporary use of the term, which referred to supercapitalism.[14] Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption.[15] Mussolini claimed that at the stage of supercapitalism, "a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously."[16] He saw Fascism as the next logical step to solve the problems of supercapitalism and claimed that "our path would lead inexorably into state capitalism, which is nothing more nor less than state socialism turned on its head. In either event, the result is the bureaucratization of the economic activities of the nation."[17] Mussolini claimed that dynamic or heroic capitalism and the bourgeoisie could be prevented from degenerating into static capitalism and then supercapitalism if the concept of economic individualism were abandoned and if state supervision of the economy was introduced.[18] Private enterprise would control production but it would be supervised by the state.[19] By the late 1930s and the 1940s, Italian Fascism completely denounced capitalism as an obsolete and oppressive system, Mussolini in 1940 at the entry of Italy into World War II, said:

This conflict must not be allowed to cancel out all our achievements of the past eighteen years, nor, more importantly, extinguish the hope of a Third Alternative held out by Fascism to mankind fettered between the pillar of capitalist slavery and the post of Marxist chaos. The proponents of these obsolete doctrines must understand that the Fascist sword has been unsheathed twice before, in Ethiopia and in Spain, with known results.

— Benito Mussolini, 1940.[20]

Italian Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private enterprise and property while allowing the state to intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed.[19]

Other fascist regimes were indifferent or hostile to corporatism. The Nazis initially attempted to form a corporatist economic system like that of Fascist Italy, creating the National Socialist Institute for Corporatism in May 1933, which included many major economists who said that corporatism was consistent with National Socialism.[21][22] In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke enthusiastically about the "National Socialist corporative idea" as one that eventually would "take the place of ruinous class warfare".[23] The Nazis later came to view corporatism as detrimental to Germany and institutionalizing and legitimizing social differences within the German nation. Instead, the Nazis began to promote economic organization that emphasized the biological unity of the German national community.[24]

Hitler continued to refer to corporatism in propaganda, but it was not put into place, even though a number of Nazi officials such as Walther Darré, Gottfried Feder, Alfred Rosenburg, and Gregor Strasser were in favor of a neo-medievalist form of corporatism, since corporations had been influential in German history in the medieval era.[25]

Spanish Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera did not believe that corporatism was effective and denounced it as a propaganda ploy, saying "this stuff about the corporative state is another piece of windbaggery".[26]

Economic planning

Fascists opposed the laissez-faire economic policies that were dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.[27] After the Great Depression began, many people from across the political spectrum blamed laissez-faire capitalism, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and communism.[28]

Fascists declared their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering.[29] Nazis and other antisemitic fascists considered finance capitalism a "parasitic" "Jewish conspiracy".[30] Fascist governments introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic interventionist measures.[31]

Fascists thought that private property should be regulated to ensure that "benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual."[32] Private property rights were supported but were contingent upon service to the state.[33] For example, "an owner of agricultural land may be compelled to raise wheat instead of sheep and employ more labour than he would find profitable."[34] They promoted the interests of successful small businesses.[35] Mussolini wrote approvingly of the notion that profits should not be taken away from those who produced them by their own labour, saying "I do not respect—I even hate—those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others".[36]

According to historian Tibor Ivan Berend, "dirigisme" was an inherent aspect of fascist economies.[37] The Labour Charter of 1927, promulgated by the Grand Council of Fascism, stated in article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", then continued in article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."[38]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference pauley83 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference mussolini84 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference guillebaud was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference heinemann was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference bloomington was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference www was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference bloomington85 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference pauley86 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference pauley87 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference re208 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference gr101 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference books.google.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference publishing88 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference fz136 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference aesthetics89 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference establishing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference mb158-159 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference salvemini was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Salvemini. p. 134 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference mediterranean was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference minneapolis90 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference routledge91 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Cite error: The named reference aristotle92 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  24. ^ Cite error: The named reference minneapolis93 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference ideologies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference ideologies94 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference political was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Cite error: The named reference pm168 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  29. ^ Cite error: The named reference university95 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference socialism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference Andreski-p64 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Cite error: The named reference reconciling was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  33. ^ Cite error: The named reference neofascism was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference comparative96 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference fascist was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Cite error: The named reference mussolini97 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  37. ^ Cite error: The named reference university98 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  38. ^ Cite error: The named reference corporativo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Discussion about the material

This is interesting. I checked several stable versions of the article for the past five years and noticed that it was commented out in all of those, too (here's an example from 2015). Then I skipped to December 2012 and it was commented out even then (!!!). I didn't go back further than that. So this is a block of text that was, for all intents and purposes, removed from the article more than 7-8 years ago (who knows how long ago exactly). It's going to be hard to figure out which parts of it were already reworked into the article long ago and which were not, after 8+ years of edits. So if any of it is to be re-inserted, it should be treated as new material, with the sources checked to see if they really say what they are cited as saying. I'm suspicious about the excessive reliance on direct quotes and paraphrases from fascist leaders (especially Mussolini - I see two whole paragraphs that simply list things that Mussolini said, with another blockquote from Mussolini after them). I doubt the secondary sources just report those statements uncritically. Ohff (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally had some time to do some investigating. The material was commented out on 13 October 2012 with this edit, with the edit summary "Commented out economics section, removing the incoherent religion section that has no coherent topic and makes no sense." The edit was made by User:R-41, one of the primary authors of the article, [1] who was, however, indefinitely blocked by his own request in April 2013. [2][3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone planning to re-insert any of this, the version of the article to use to get the references is this one. I'd suggest that if material is checked out and re-inserted, it be struckout in the text above, so there's no deplication of effort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the removed material is that although it is probably well sourced, it doesn't follow the way these facts would be arranged in reliable sources about each of these issues. For example, most sources say that Nazism had no economic ideology, but followed popular opinion, the interests of their donors and the necessities of the war. That needs to be explained before we say that the 1925 program called for the nationalization of some industries, the Nazis nonetheless privatized industry and they exerted control in order to meet war production goals. TFD (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neverthesless, the article now has a firm structure in place for discussion of fascist economics, and I find it difficult to believe that anything in the commented-out material which is not already covered can't be included within that structure, as long as it's properly sourced.
Further, we are not reliant on reliable sources for the structure of our articles, only for the factual material which is included in them. It is -- or should be -- irrelevant to us that Author A approaches the material from one pathway, and Academic B from another, while Writer C takes a totally different over-arching viewpoint. None of these sources determine for us how the material is to be approached in our article, it could be A's, it could be B's, or C's, or it could be whatever grows up organically as the article matures. There is no one "right" way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is about fascist ideology, the implication when you mention their ever changing policies following WW1, the roaring twenties, the Depression and the war is that somehow they are part of fascist ideology rather than pragmatic responses to circumstances. You need to explain the relation of policy to ideology. You also need to explain how their policies contrasted with others faced with the same problems. For example, during WW2, did the U.S. and UK also command businesses to produce armaments, or was that a specifically fascist approach? It should be clear from the Great Recession and the corona virus pandemic that ideology is not the sole factor determining government policy.
Incidentally we had a similar discussion about Jews and money. The article while reliably sourced had been modeled on an article in a far right source. The conclusion was that the arrangement of facts was misleading.
TFD (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the first sentence, "According to Bruce Pauley, Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalize it." Pauley wrote, "Compared with the massive and truly totalitarian intervention of the Soviet state in the Russian economy, the role of the state in the economic affairs of both Italy and Germany seems almost trivial." (Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini, ed. 4 (2014).) So the text cherry-picks facts to present a thesis in conflict with the actual source. It presents a view very close to fascist apologetics.
TFD (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the discussion above, I'd like to offer my opinion on the commented-out material. I think that there is definitely useful information about fascist economic views in it, information which may or may not already be present in the article. But if anyone wants to work on this (I would want to at some point, but I just got back after a long hiatus and I can't commit to anything beyond gnome-mode for now), I think it would be more fruitful to simply read the sources cited here and write new text based on them, rather than attempting to use the old text as-is.

I say this for a couple of reasons. For one thing, as I mentioned before, I think too much of this material is simply reporting statements from fascist leaders (the Nazi 25-point program, a quote from Oswald Mosley, three whole paragraphs on Mussolini's statements, lines from Mein Kampf and Primo de Rivera, more Mussolini, etc.). If we had all those in the article right now, I'd say we should trim them, and definitely include the secondary-source commentary on them, rather than just going with "Mussolini said...".

Secondly, too many sentences simply say that "fascists" supported something or took a certain stance, as if there was a fascist consensus on the idea or policy in question, when there usually wasn't. I have not checked the specific cited pages in the sources, but some of those authors are familiar to me and I am quite certain that they are speaking of the views of specific fascists at specific times, not making pronouncements about fascism in general. That would have to be checked and fixed.

So basically, I think this material has potential, and the sources are good, but I would be very apprehensive about just copying text directly back into the article. Ohff (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding its structure, I have no opinion at this time. Ohff (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding similar cases

Props to Beyond My Ken for the discovery above, which (FYI) prompted me to suggest in the Village pump for miscellany (absent knowing a better place to suggest it) that someone with the technical know-how should look for any other such very long HTML comments in article-space. -sche (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up to say that a discussion at WP:RAQ has resulted in a partial (soon, perhaps, to be complete) list of other articles with long hidden sections or comments like this, of which there are a surprising number, including a staggering 58,000-byte hidden section in James Lick. -sche (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fascism&oldid=984217573"