Talk:Fascism/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Fascism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Debate over terms

As far as I can tell, no one is rejecting examining "socialist aspects of fascism." What they (we) are objecting to is larding the article every point of coincidence between the two ideologies, for the same reasons that I (at least) would object to larding the article with every point of coincidence between fascism and U.S. government policies. -- Jmabel 22:55, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Coincidence has nothing to do w anything that should be in the article. We are talking about BIG, obvious stuff, like this [1]. Sam Spade 23:08, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

You sure know how to pick 'em, Sam. Once again, I'll ask why you insist on contributing on this subject when you clearly know very little about it, and have, in the month I've been arguing with you about it, made absolutely no effort to find out anything beyond whatever right wing rant sites a google search brings up. john 23:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the info on that link? Your insults are uncalled for, and I will stop responding to you entirely if you persist with them. This portion is particularly telling, BTW. [2] Sam Spade 23:28, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I've certainly read the NSDAP's 25 Points before. What is notable about the more quasi-socialistic ones is that they were completely ignored in practice. Further: the comments of Time magazine in 1939 are hardly authoritative. And anyone who says that the Labour Front, which replaced labor unions with an organization dominated by employers, was a socialistic measure deserves to be laughed out of the building. Once again, you're assuming that state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic, despite the number of times it's been explained to you that this is not the case. john 09:54, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

You are right that I think "state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic". So do these [3] [4] references. As I have been telling you all along, until we settle on one definition, its useless to discuss anything w words you have redefined to fit your ideosyncratic idealism. Sam Spade 18:20, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what the "means of production" are, Sam? The government did not own the means of production in Nazi Germany, nor did it do so in New Deal America. The government owning the means of production is not the same thing as any government intervention in the economy. john 18:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what a Volkswagon is? How about War economy or John Maynard Keynes? Sam Spade 19:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I know what a Volkswagen is. But one company does not ownership of the means of production make. John Maynard Keynes's economic theories have very little to do with socialism. And Germany's war economy was no more socialistic than that of any other country. At any rate, you're changing the terms of debate. You said that the dictionary.com and encyclopedia.com definitions support your view that "state control or direction of the economy is inherently socialistic." But they do not - they say that state ownership of the means of production is socialistic. That is not the same thing. It certainly has nothing to do with either Keynes or the welfare state, which seem to be the main basis for your arguments. john 19:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Perspectives

I don't think that there's anything particularly problematic in claiming that the revolutionary nationalism and the ideological ferment of the late 19th century are at the roots of socialism and fascism. The thing is, that same context is at the roots of radical libertarianism, anarchism, Christian fundamentalism, and encompasses the intellectual ancestors of neoliberalism. The problem is investigating it in a way that doesn't require a full PhD thesis to explain properly. If we are to link the roots of fascism and socialism, we need to point out that the same kinds of links tie capitalism to fascism and socialism.

As for the "socialist aspects of fascism", I object to any effort to highlight them above the "capitalist aspects of socialism" - e.g., its links to German industry, to Taylorism, to financiers and industrialists like Ford and the Junkers clan, to the market nationalism of the old Prussians. Gregor used to claim that fascism was a synthesis of all the poltical doctrines of the 19th century. He considered that a good thing and I don't, but as far as it goes it might have some truth to it. But if that is the direction this article is going to take, it needs to show how fascism drew on many - by all appearances more - right wing doctrines than left wing ones.

Diderot 12:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I second Diderot. There are plenty of aspects of the roots of fascism which could well be examined. The goal is not to prove Fascism left or right, socialist or non, but rather to provide the reader w an informative article. Examining these various aspects would serve the reader well, I should say. Sam Spade 20:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

To the question Fascism has its roots in Proudhon. It is Proudhonian philosophy that has guided it. Fascism is a revision of marxism. It has no reactionary philosophy in it to make it "right wing". Mussolini himself says, Fascism is revolutionary not reactionary and they are futurist. When are the words, revisionist marxism, futurist, or revolutionary going to appear in the definition of Fascism. My guess is never.WHEELER 16:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, you're simply restating your original claim and ignoring everything everyone has said. Please read the comments people have made and address them. AndyL 19:54, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Address to Sam's Last in "Spinoffs"

I'm sorry, but I must agree with Jmabel. I think it's a fairly common historical fact that the "national socialist" agenda really has little to do with actual socialism; what's more, the website you linked can hardly be considered either a credible or a professional, nonbiased source. It is blatantly propagandistic in nature, and whoever wrote it has an obvious agenda outside the truth.

Do socialism and Hitlerian, Mussolinian fascism have some common threads? Sure. If anything, it's because socialism sounds really good. No matter what you think of the doctrines therein, to most people, it just does. Before the word became demonized in American press, and people had attention spans such that they'd read deeply into the subject, it's a very appealing idea, especially to a desperately poor, unenfranchised people. It promises the stars; free this, free that, we can help you. Whether fascism erupts out of that, obviously, depends upon the leader. It seems clear to me that what Hitler and Mussolini did was, essentially, piggyback socialism into office and then proceed with their higher agenda, by which time people were so enamored with them that they didn't see a need, nor possess a desire, to object to their action. Hence why Hitler KILLED all the Leftists (first part banned was the Social Democrats, you know).

In any case, the idea that they're inextricably linked at their very core is foolhardy and an injustice to the productive, harmonious, free and safe socialist societies out there (Sweden was mentioned, Norway also, Denmark, Britain, France, Spain and Italy in major ways...). There are ties, but not ones that are particularly significant today or, for that matter, then - only a matter of political expediency to those with an agenda, like blaring about despising taxes in an election year. Everyone despises taxes - until they're the ones spending the money. Wally 03:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps s/socialist/social democratic/ . Due to the fact that there are americans editing wikipedia, both socialism and fascism articles are as confusing as can possibly be. Hmm, I'd speculate that this might be because folks from the US have little practical experience with either, but still make up the majority of editors. see also : Talk:Socialism#Interlanguage

Actually, Hitler did not kill all the leftists, and the Communists were the first party banned. I have no idea what this comment directly above mine means. john 09:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

democratic socialism/social democracy

~~WHY DO YOU DISCUSS THESE TOPICS HERE?? IT IS NOT THE PLACE HERE TO DEFINE THESE TERMS.~~

Sorry, a regexp slipped in there. In Wallys comment, perhaps he meant to say social democratic instead of socialist, else his statement might appear ambiguous or misleading to people from the USA. Hmph, this place is confusing enough as it is. Kim Bruning 11:47, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Although an American, my impression of social democracy is that it's simply a watered down version of democratic socialism. When I think of socialism, generally it's Nordic-style democratic socialism that pops into my head, not revolutionary socialism a la...well, not so much Russia, but I guess that's close enough (when I think of revolutionary socialism, that gets tagged as communism in my mind, perhaps erroneously). Sorry if that lends confusion, but I don't think social democracy is necessarily something that can simply be subbed in there - there seem to be major divergences to me.

Of course, I could just be crazy, too. Could someone correct me if my terminology's wrong? Wally 16:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Looked 'em both up on wikipedia itself. As the names already suggest, there's not terribly much difference in practice between social democracy or democratic socialism I think. Either is ok for EU membership, so there you have it. :) Kim Bruning 17:43, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Surely the big difference is that private property is still considered legitimate in Social Democracy, whereas in democratic socialism most things would be publicly owned. Social Democracy is essentially capitalist. Cadr

The countries which are given as examples of democratic socialism on wikipedia also recognize private property. I'm beginning to doubt if there is a significant amount of difference between the 2, especially not if applied by a coalition government. Kim Bruning 12:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a fairly clear instance of Wikipedia being wrong. If there's private ownership of the means of production on any large scale, it's not democratic socialism in the usual sense of the word. Refering to countries such as Sweden as socialist seems to be mostly an American thing, perhaps because the political spectrum there is shifted to the right so much that there's not much point making fine distinctions between opinions on the left. Cadr

The terms were largely interchangable in the past and prior to WWI everyone from Eduard Bernstein to Vladimir Lenin called themselves social democrats. In practice today people who call themselves democratic socialists tend to be on the left wing of social democratic or labour parties and believe that a transformation to a socialist society is possible. People who call themselves social democrats tend to be on the right of these parties and don't in practice believe a socialist transformation is possible and believe that all that is possible (or even desirable) is to make capitalism more humane. Those who remain Marxists (but not necessarily Leninist) would be more likely to call themselves Democratic Socialists though not all democratic socialists are Marxists. I don't think you can really speak of "social democratic" countries versus "democratic socialist" countires, at least not at present. AndyL 13:12, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

ADDING: I don't think there are any "democratic socialist" countries at present either (nor do I think there are any socialist countries but others on the left would contest that). You can argue that states with a highly developed welfare state and income redistribution are "social democratic" as long as that doesn't mean the aren't also capitalist. AndyL 21:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

While not claiming expertise, everything AndyL says here sounds about right to me in terms of how I've heard the words used by people in roughly that part of the political spectrum. But why are we discussing these nuances in a page about fascism? -- Jmabel 23:35, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Topic drift, I guess.

So does anyone object to deleting the Nazism vs. socialism section, then? Haven't heard any nay votes yet, if I recall, and that could at least be a start at chopping this mother down a bit. Wally 23:54, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Proudhon was a socialist. an anarchist. He advocated private property and the keeping of it. (That is just how much you people know.)

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises, Indianapolis, 1981. "Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships." "Guild socialism". "Communists and Fellow travellers stigmatize Nazism and Fascism as the last and most depraved stage of capitalism." "Fascism was a variety of Italian socialism." Communists label "all non-communist countries and parties are essentially undemocratic and Fascist." pg 523.WHEELER 00:06, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler, I'm fully aware of who Proudhon was, I'm just saying that his influence on fascism is relatively indirect, mainly via the anarcho-syndicalists, most of whom did not become fascists or anything like. I really don't like it when people presume me to be ignorant, and choose to be nasty about it, to boot. I didn't spell out everything I know about Proudhon (which would take quite a while) in the discussion above because this is an article about fascism, not about 19th century anarchism.-- Jmabel 00:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I've just reread the "Fascism vs. socialism" section. It could certainly use some good editing, and maybe a new title, and maybe it doesn't even all belong in one section, but I have to say, most of the content there belongs in an encyclopedia. The long Mussolini quote is apt (though Gentile's presumed role as ghostwriter should be mentioned). The views of Arendt & Hayek on totalitarianism are relevant, as are those of their critics (some of whom should be named and possibly quoted). The rest is less crucial, but if someone wants to remove them outright from the article, I think they need to be taken up one by one. -- Jmabel 00:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Jmabel, Lagradelle was also a syndicalist. Most of the anarchosyndicalists moved into Italian socialism. Look up all the names at the syndicalism site here. Two of the Italians were with Mussolini in l919 and created it with him. Proudhon developed out the France and the dialectic made by the French Revolution. It is his spirit that moves Fascism. WHEELER 14:44, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, the fact that some anarchists became fascist does not make fascism and anarchism (or fascism and syndicalism) the same thing. You're being very crudely determinist in your analysis. A lot of western missionaries who went to China became Maoists (quite a lot actually) and, indeed, quite a number of Christian ministers became socialists and Marxists in the late 19th and early to mid 20th century. By your logic this means that Marxism is Christian. Do you not understand that fascism is the product of a number of influences? It amazes me how the dozens of writers who point out how fascism is a reaction to the French Revolution and the industrial revolution completely fail to make an impact on you. It seems to me that you're approaching this whole question with tunnel vision. You hunt and peck for small grains that support your viewpoint while ignoring grainaries full of evidence that do not support your thesis and then you isolate the one or two grains you like and say THIS IS THE TRUTH! IT'S SO SIMPLE, A LEADS TO B THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION. To say that fascism *is* Proudhonism is absurd beyond belief. An influence in fascist rhetoric, ok, the alpha and omega of fascism? Don't be ridiculous. AndyL

Category:Anti-Semitism

have removed Category:Anti-Semitism. the fascist government both protected and attacked jews; and some jews were members of the party. Badanedwa 00:51, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've restored Category:Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism was a key component of fascism in Germany, France and the UK, as well as a number of other countries. In Italy, anti-Semitism was a less important factor, but still a factor.

It's true that there were Jews in the party, and Jews who supported the party without joining; that Mussolini, first and foremost an opportunist, courted the Jewish population when he thought they had something to offer, even supporting the Zionist platform; and that there were no legal provisions against Jews until 1938, and that some individual members of the party protected Jewish friends and acquaintances against the party line (I'm not aware of the party itself ever passing leigslation that protected Jews). Italy didn't have an existing anti-Semitic culture to exploit, as most countries in northern Europe did, so anti-Semitism was not as important in the Fascisti as in other fascist movements - but it was there.

There was a strong under-current throughout the history of the Fascist party, which bought into notions, popular in Germany and other countries in the north of Europe, of damaging miscegenation among the people of southern Europe; this was subsumed by the nationalist impulse which saw the Italian people as special and having a manifest destiny, but there was a clear drive to prevent further "miscegenation". Most importantly, there was active discrimination against Jews in Italy from at least 1930 - it wasn't written into law, but Jews (including Jewish members of the party) were purged from employment in government institutions. I believe the Fascists' stated reason was that Jews had mixed loyalites.

-- Gregg 14:05, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This proves, once again, that we need separate articles on Italian Fascism, and Fascism in general. Sigh. john k 17:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel 18:39, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

To my mind it'd be better to split it up (probably same with communism) into a page on the doctrine and then a page on the movements. On the doctrine pages purity of thought and scholarship within the movement can be discussed, and on the movements page the real world effects can be detailed. That way, we can do a sort of umbrella thing instead of having a page for Italian fascism and a page for everything else, which would rather be like having a page for the UN Security Council and a seperate one for the US Ambassador. Wally 02:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Italian Fascism, and the Italian Fascist Party, were a specific political movement, and ought to have their own page (or pages) just as we have Nazism and National Socialist German Workers Party. Fascism, more broadly, is a concept which might be said to include a system of government, a type of political movement, and a doctrine (or whatever). Conflating the two can only be confusing. Beyond that, I don't think splitting up discussion of the movement and discussion of the "doctrine" is very valuable. Unlike, say, Marxism, where doctrine was important and relatively consistent, I don't think it can really even be said that there is such a thing as a Fascist "doctrine" or "purity of thought", or whatever. Fascist movements in different countries have been so widely varied in ideology, that such discussion is probably not very worthwhile. What unites fascist movements is not ideology, but method - it is as political movements that they show themselves to be similar, not as ideologies. john k 02:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There should definitely be an article on the FIC/PNF, and some of this page's content could be moved there. But I think a separate article on Italian fascism would be misleading and would simply duplicate information which would need to remain on this page to detail the history of fascism. All political systems are manifested with different characteristics in different countries, but these are united by core ideology (and the core ideology of Italian fascism is the same as the core ideology of British fascism, Spanish fascism, etc.). It would be profoundly wrong to treat Italian fascism as a different system. I'd say the only manifestation of fascism that really merits separate consideration is Nazism, because of its historical impact and because its individual doctrine was very particular and complex. (Incidentally, fascist movements haven't been that widely divergent in ideology. There is a core ideology common to all of them, and the variations in doctrine are down to the spin, if you like, put on this ideology by the over-riding cultural factors and political situations of each different nation.) -- Gregg 04:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It should not be under the category of Anti-Semitism. In fact, Jabotinsky admired Italian fascism and modelled his own movement on it. Danny 02:41, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jabotinsky was another opportunist and several times proved himself happy to over-look anti-Semitism if he thought the anti-Semite in question could be of use, particularly when it came to fighting the British. I doubt he had any genuine admiration for Mussolini, even if he publicly declared otherwise, and I presume he ended this public support in or before 1938. This article should be listed under the category of anti-Semitism because every fascist movement was anti-Semitic to some degree, and that includes the movement in Italy (and a seperate article on the PNF should be included in this category as much as Vichy France). -- Gregg 04:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, many individual fascist movements, (the Nazis most spectacularly) were certainly anti-semitic. Italian Fascism was not particularly so. This article is consistently unclear as to whether it is about fascism generally or Italian Fascism. Which is why we need to split it up first. I'd add that I'm not sure a Category:Anti-Semitism is appropriate to begin with. john k 02:51, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i was to restore it, but user gregg did. it is appropriate if the party was ever misojudaic. (the term "anti-semitism" is incorrect and should be changed.) User talk:Badanedwa 04:49, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why on earth should anybody take anything seriously coming from somebody who says that we should be using the term "Misojudaic?" Seriously. john k 04:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem. the definitions of "semite" and "judaic" support such usage. only slang opposes it. Badanedwa 21:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that "misojudaic" has a better etymology than "antisemitic", but "antisemitic" is a common English-language word, and "misojudaic" is not. -- Jmabel 22:15, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - obviously. hence i will not strongly oppose its usage. Badanedwa 04:44, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

English language usage is not "slang". "Anti-semitic" is an English word which means "person who hates Jews", whatever its etymology. "Misojudaic" is not a word - it's in neither the OED nor dictionary.com. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing words. The suggestion that we should be making up words when there is a perfectly good word that already means what you want to invent a new word is silly. The fact that you want to use this made up word in an encyclopedia is absolutely ridiculous. john k 22:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

more ad hominem. "misojudaic" is in less-common usage, and was not my invention. "perfectly good" requires existence of another term for "dislike of semites". Badanedwa 04:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem? I never said you invented the word. I said it is a made up word. Which it is. It is not to be found in dictionaries, and it comes up with all of 20 google hits. And "anti-semitism" is never going to mean "dislike of semites," so that's a red herring. If "Misojudaic" ever becomes a well used term, to be found in dictionaries and common usage, then it would be fine to use it. But it's ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia should start using a term nobody's heard of before that comes up with 20 hits on google just because its etymology is better than the word that is actually used to mean the same thing. john k 05:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

i suggest users not base factual decisions on this kind of hyperbolic emotional commentary. Badanedwa 04:52, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Emotional? john k 04:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

and: "And "anti-semitism" is never going to mean "dislike of semites," so that's a red herring." is wrong, as that is what the word means, ipso facto. Badanedwa 04:58, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not. The word means "hatred of Jews." It has always meant this, was coined to mean that, and shows no signs of stopping meaning that. john k 04:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"anti-semitism" was created as a self-description for opposition to the "danger" of "semites" mixing nation and race, and to political "semitism". Badanedwa 22:56, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

social composition of Fascist movements

The following paragraph has been removed.

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats of all stripes and the middle classes. Also with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. Meanwhile, fascist leadership invariably comes to power through the sponsorship and funding of big capitalists. A key feature of fascism is that it uses it's mass movement to attack the organisations of the working class - parties of the left and trades unions.

May I ask if it's considered factually false, or if it's just the wording that motivates its removal?
--Ruhrjung 17:36, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

as the edit comment stated, it is phrased as marxist propaganda. i am unfamiliar with the relavent composition stats. Badanedwa 04:31, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak to it, but it seems factually accurate to me from where I am; I'm not intimately familiar with the movements themselves, however, rather more with fascists in government and post-revolution. Wally 06:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think it could be phrased better. It seems a bit gratingly marxist as it stands. But I don't think it's essentially wrong, and I think it could probably be salvaged. Of course, the article as a whole is kind of a mess, so perhaps it's not worth it. Among other things, we need to separate out a discussion of "Fascism" as general phenomenon from a discussion of Italian fascism and the Italian Fascist Party of Mussolini. john k 06:30, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Social composition of fascist movements

I have reworded my previous, clumsy, contribution:

The social composition of Fascist movements have historically been small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats and the middle classes. Fascism also with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, slum workers. A key feature of fascism is that it uses it's mass movement to attack the organisations of the working class - parties of the left and trades unions.

Now, this may be Marxist. It MAY be used as propaganda. It is accurate, however. There has been research done on the social composition of fascist movements which supports this. As for the attack on the left and unions, well...could anyone argue the accuracy of that? John Ball

I certainly wouldn't. I would say that Nazism, at least, was quite successful with the non-unionized working classes, as well. Don't know if this was the case in Italy. john k 16:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only part I can envision as not being totally accurate - without, mind you, having any concrete information either way upon which to call - is the bit about the bureaucrats. Middle classes, smaller capitalists make sense, and it's beyond dispute that the working poor took to fascism under promise of stronger government and jobs. But I've not ever heard of bureaucrats being a force in any fascism - take it with a grain of salt, however, I'm shooting from the hip.

Also, "Fascism also with great success in rural areas" should probably be fixed to something that makes sense. That, and what are "slum workers", exactly? Wally 22:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "slum workers" sounds clumsy. I mean what Marx would have referred to as "lumpen proletariat" but such a term sounds terribly dated. "Disposessed", "socially marginalised" I guess would be more modern sounding terms. And the "making sense" bit.....makes sense. By "bureaucrats" I mean the lower managers, civil servants, supervisors and foremen...perhaps I should say that? John Ball 14.20 22/6/04.

I don't see a reason not to use lumpenproletariat, since we have an article for it to explain what exactly it qualifies (which is how I learned what it was); otherwise, to an "intelligent layman" (if you like) it's going to seem like groups of the poor fighting for fascists against communists or socialists is inherently... contradictory.

And as long as "bureaucrats" is accurate, I see no reason not to use that... I was just unsure as to the veracity of it, but I definitely defer to you on it - I'm here to contribute general advice, not specific doctrinal/historical critique. Wally 16:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay, lumpenproletariat it is. I've also trawled through the Marxist Internet Archive: http://www.marxists.org and that helped clarify. John Ball

Lumpenproletariat is accurate, but a little... unwieldy. If I understand the meaning of lumpenproletariat correctly (and I've never been sure), the current equivalent term (in the UK at least) is "underclass". -- Gregg 14:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

According to what we have here at Wikipedia, "lumpy proles" (as I'll call them in lieu of writing the whole god-awful word) are the underclass, yes, but remember that regular proles are also the underclass. Realistically, lumpy proles are a seperate and distinct underclass, those engaged in sociologically non-productive labor who are unwilling to take coordinated action even to support themselves and are often supported by the largesse of the upper classes, whom they will then have a vested interest in preserving and thus function as a counter-revolutionary force (albeit not a terribly effective one). Wally 16:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lumpenproletariat is fine with me, but it should be in scare quotes. john k 02:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Wally 03:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If Fascism attacks trade unions why did it evolve out of the Anrch-syndicalist movement??? It didn't attack trade unions. It came from the syndicalist movement.WHEELER 13:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You're saying that fascism, which attacked trade unions, didn't attack trade unions? You're saying that fascism, a conservative and reactionary system, evolved out of anarcho-syndicalism, the very picture of progressive and revolutionary ideology? (In reaction to, yes, in part; but not "out of".) I'm sorry, but you are inverting historical facts. -- Gregg 14:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fascism did not really evolve out of anarcho-syndicalism or come from syndicalism, the relationship between the two seems superficial. Trades unions were suppressed under Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. John Ball

Fascism certainly did not "evolve out of" anarcho-syndicalism. Mussolini himself was never an anarcho-syndicalist, and in most countries there is little overlap between people who ever adhered to the two ideologies. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that a significant number of Italian anarcho-syndicalists did become fascists, and there is little doubt that anarcho-syndicalist "direct action" influenced fascists tactics. -- Jmabel 18:52, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Look at a fairly successful social movement that preceded you, take what works, leave the rest. Fairly common prescription for power in the last century. Wally 01:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hate to throw cold water on you people but Mussolini did not coin the term Fascism nor start the core party. From Zeev Sternhell; pg 140 Birth of Fascist Ideology:

a number of revolutionary syndicalists not left the USI and at the beginning of October 1914, founded the Fascio rivoluzionario D'azione internazionalista. Mussolini joined this movement.WHEELER 17:00, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere either in the article or the talk page where someone has said that Mussolini coined the term Fascism or started the core party. On the other hand, the article should probably make it clearer that he didn't. Someone should edit accordingly. -- Jmabel 21:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, yes the that first fascist party I stated was made by anarchosyndicalists. Read the ideological section.WHEELER 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On preventing duplication of effort (it)

Hi, I've just noticed the request posted by Kim Bruning on it:Discussioni:Fascismo, for a coordination of the articles in en: it: and de:. Itlaian wikipedia is still relatively small, and this is a subject on which we are starting to discuss. As you can imagine this is a hot topic in Italy, as we have some problem to discuss it in an NPOV fashion. I still haven't read the english article, but I would like to tell that, afaik, the term fascism in english has a broader meaning than in italian. In Italy, Fascismo is bound to italian fascism, the extension to other similar forms of regime (especially nazism), is always debated by the right, while the left tends to make no distinction of the two. Aniway seems we are starting to discuss on it, if the thing evolves, we will let you know what we will come up with. Regards, Snowdog 07:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the extraneous/non-fascist sections will have to be removed first. after that, i'll assist. Badanedwa 04:57, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

english/american spelling

My impression was that more often than not, British English spellings were used over American English spellings in this article, but that the article wasn't sticking to either dialect exclusively. This is a problem, as we should stay consistent in each article, either using American English exclusively or British English exclusively. Since my impression was that the article leaned toward the latter, I changed the spellings changed some spellings so that the words are compatible with American English. 172 19:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wait, but if it was leaning towards British English, why did you change it to American? My opinion is (and I am American, mind you) that we ought to default to British English when there's a conflict, as it's more likely to be internationally-recognized. Wally 00:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When I regularise the spelling of an article, I opt for the variety that happens to predominate within the text. In this case, if British was dominant, I feel that the US forms should have been changed to British. Also, I regularise the entire article, not just "some spellings". Ditto for punctuation (the use or otherwise of the "Oxford comma") and other stylistic matters.

I agree that the British forms, being international, should be preferred. Shorne 06:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can be inconsistent and call it Canadian spelling ;) AndyL 20:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Most articles of any length have inconsistent speelings on Wikipedia, since most people are confortable spelling things the way they were taught. Kingal86 17:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC) (from South England)

This discussion provides an excellent example of regional variations in English: here in Canada, we write the plural noun form as 'spellings' instead of 'speelings'. ;-) Kevintoronto 19:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tiny error

In the part about either the origins of fascism or the history of fascism and the church, the article previously and wrongly stated that RerumNovarum was authored and propounded by Pope Leo XII. Its from 1891, not 1820's, and it was authored by Pope Leo XIII. But its meaning and content was otherwise dead on. Hey whats up Jmabel!!? Its meeee. Capone 12 Jul 2004 (WTF)