Talk:Fascism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sooner or later most of us fail to resist the temptation to putthings on talk pages that do nothing to further the article. I assume 172 doesn't often say "Blah blah blah" when s/he is teaching, but I guess that is neither here nor there. I've gone over the recent history of this page, and it seems to me that some contributions have one (or both) of two problems: (1) overgeneralization, e.g. "Fascism is ..." Encyclopedias need sentences like this, but most social and political movements are too heterogeneous and have changed too much over time to be summed up in one sentence or phrase. (2) excessive quoting without context. In my experience, this happens when two contributors are arguing and trying to prove points. That actually could be very constructive on the talk page, but it is poor style in the article. But the problem with excessive quoting is not just that it is argumentative, it is that they quotes are often taken out of context. ONE part of the context is "who said this" -- but that is not enough to ensure POV. One person may say very different things to two different audiences; one person may say different things over time -- this is important context too. It is especially important to provide this context in an encyclopedia article because of our educational mission. It is not enough to translate Italian into English. Words really do mean different things to different people at different times. What the word "collective" means to the average American in the 1990s or now is very different from what it meant to someone attending a Fascist rally in Italy in the 1930s, which will mean something different than what it means at a Communist rally in Russia in the 1920s. I hope I am not stating the obvious or being long winded but from my cursory look at the history of the article, I think more people might be able to work together than some think, if they can keep these points in mind ... Slrubenstein

Excellent comments, Slrubenstein. (But I bet User:WHEELER's going to say that you're rewriting history to serve Marxists.) 172 21:03, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, 172. But if you don't mind, perhaps if you refrain from trying to provoke Wheeler, he will be less provoked. :) Slrubenstein

Good heavens, let's stop fighting over the silly link to suggested readings. Sam, no one is very likely to go there and take all 172's suggestions at face value and become a Marxist. 172, no one is very likely to go there and take all WHEELER's suggestions at face value and become a right-winger. Calling a link to anything "bs" in an edit summary is probably not going to help this page. I know I'm not the best neutral party to ask you to call this dispute off, but goodness let's try to be civil. I know I'm irritating WHEELER and WHEELER is frustrating me, but we haven't resorted to edit wars and calling each other's contributions "bs" -- let's all be polite about this, shall we? Jwrosenzweig 21:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who said anything about Marxism? For crying out loud I have Ian Kershaw and Juan Linz in that list. These tend to be among the most commonly used texts used in undergrad level courses on the subject. 172 21:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Argh, 172, I was trying to semi-humorously point out your and Sam's worst fears. Look, I have no idea what books should go on there, or what books are most commonly used. More to the point, I think fighting about them right now is exceedingly pointless. If we can't discuss it rationally, let's leave that subpage alone in the belief that the only people looking at it right now are the people who are already here. That's my stance. Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, okay. 172 22:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The History here is that I included Books from which I got my information from. 172 came in moved them from this page and put it on his own page, at the bottom with the quote next to them saying "This is a polemical work". Just above, he says he is a Marxist and gloats of it. See, how the man wants to slander the references I give and wants to obscure the references I produce. He was quick also to remove my points.WHEELER 14:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Response to User:WHEELER: Wouldn't you gloat if you were a part of the glorious revolutionary vanguard of the fighting proletariat???? Guided by the compass of Marxism-Leninism, the revolutionary struggle against imperialism and reaction - the great objective of liberating the oppressed classes - is invincible! The masses are flocking to us, and will be raising the invincible flags of Marx. International capitalism cannot postpone its demise much longer. From the forging of Marxism, the working class, oppressed peoples, and all humanity have an objective and hope: to construct the new communist society. Vanguard fighters will march with a vehement and active faith. 172 18:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, just in case this isn't obvious, this was an unserious response to unserious comments. 172 06:53, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And Hayek's thoughts are irrelevant?TDC 21:56, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have read sl's comments, but I still do not see what wrong with the following addition.

==Fascism's roots in Marxism==

It can be argued that the development of fascist and National Socialist ideology has its origins in the socialist and Marxist tradition. Mussolini was a prominent socialist intellectual and publicist for most of his early political and professional career. His conversion to fascism was more an alteration of his political beliefs rather than an outright rejection of them. Mussolini saw solidarity with a nation rather than a class as the key to the destruction of "liberal capitalism". This case is made in The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek .

Mussolini as well as other early 20th century Fascists came to reject capitalism for the same reason they rejected communism: its internationalism and tendency to dilute the concepts of nation and race.

I should note that I would have expanded on this if given the opportunity.

172, provide me a good reason why I should not include this, as well as more to come. TDC 22:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

TDC, the definition given in the article says that fascism is anti-communist. john 23:06, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From the article: Fascism, in many respects, is an ideology of negativism: anti-liberal, anti-Communist, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian, etc. As a political and economic system in Italy, it combined elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, nationalism, and anti-communism.

True, it does say that fascism is anti communist, but two things:

1. The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual,

Which the Soviets did.

I thought they exalted class over nation and race? Certainly nation was not very important to communism, except for a brief period during the Great Patriotic War, when it was used essentially opportunistically. john 23:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,

Which the Soviets did.

Sure, but that's not sufficient to have fascism. john 23:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

engages in severe economic and social regimentation

Which the Soviets did.

Regimentation? Not sure about that. john 23:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).' '

All one has to do is see how the Soviets used forced Russian immigration into satelite states like Georgia, to control them, to see this.

Yeah, but the Soviets didn't espouse nationalism or racism. They officially condemned both. In practice, they often supported a certain kind of Russian nationalism, but that's very different from the fascist official exaltation of the nation. john 23:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2. I hear communists all the time tell me that the USSR was not a 'real' communist state. TDC 23:10, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it was state monopoly capitalism, of course ;-). But so what? It wasn't fascist, and certainly any self-respecting fascist in the 1920s, 30s, or 40s would have been very upset to have anyone accuse the Soviet Union of being such. john 23:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Basically, if we say the Soviet Union is fascist, then you're just using fascist to mean "totalitarian" by another name. It makes the entire term "fascist" meaningless. john 23:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're happy. The page is protected. john 23:27, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The comments regarding the suggested readings page have been moved to Talk:Fascism/suggested readings, where they belong. Grow up. This is a talk page, not an article. 172 06:27, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's resume our focus of the constructive discussion found between the beginning of John Kenney's Talk:Fascism#Various thoughts on the article in general and the end of talk concerning creating an article series. Let's stick with the non-fiction genre and get something accomplished. It's sad that the discussion had to become a breeding ground for trolling again. 172 06:37, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Sam Spade: Stop using Talk:Fascism/suggested readings as an excuse for trolling. Others can add academic sources. I asked John Kenney to do so. Users have subpages connected to user pages, not to articles. 172 06:41, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)