Talk:Fascism

Fascism as inherently anti-clerical? What about the Falange, Iron Guard, and Ustase?

The intro sentence that says that fascism is regularly anti-clerical seems really inaccurate to me. There were major fascist movements that were pro-clerical, including the Falange, the Ustase, and the Iron Guard. Italian Fascism was originally anti-clerical, but became pro-Church to solidify support for Fascism, and there were pro-clerical Italian Fascists.--R-41 (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The source (which came up in the last section) says, "Anti-clericalism, perhaps with the exception of the Iron Guard, the Ustacha, and Brazilian Integralismo, is a more or less central component...." TFD (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Falange and the Slovak People's Party other examples. The problem I have with this is, as the source itself mentions, there are multiple exceptions. The Falange, Iron Guard, Ustase, the Slovak People's Party, and Brazilean Integralism are a big list of major fascist movements, four of which took part in government. Plus after attaining power, the Italian Fascists openly courted the Catholic Church, and spoke of Italian Fascism as promoting "Christian civilization". Anti-clericalism was initially a component of Italian Fascism, but I doubt that other fascist movements, especially in Catholic countries (aside from the Redshirts in Mexico) or strongly religious countries, had a substantial anti-clerical component.--R-41 (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then find another source. Bear in mind that we are discussing fascist ideology, not government. TFD (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that we are discussing fascist ideology. And the ideologies of the movements that I mentioned all involved support of clerical authority.--R-41 (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the "consensus" view, anti-clericalism was part of Fascist ideology, while support for the church represented pragmatism. Also, in order of importance, the main fascist parties were the Italian and German ones. TFD (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There were clerical Italian Fascists and there were Nazis who promoted "Positive Christianity" and had their own religious organization, the "German Christians". Also, do not ignore the importance of the Falange, a pro-clerical fascist movement, it was influential like Italian Fascism and Nazism. Falangism held substantial influence in Latin America. Anti-clericalism is too idiosyncratic to describe generic fascism as a whole.--R-41 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide sources to support your statements about the definition of fascism, rather than argue from evidence, which is original research, TFD (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source of Mussolini denouncing anti-clericalism: “All creations of the spirit—beginning from the religious ones—come forward as superior; and no one dares to dwell anymore in the position of that anti-clericalism which for many decades has been the favourite occupation of democracy in the western world” Benito Mussolini, February 25, 1922. (Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi. Fascist spectacle: the aesthetics of power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press, 1997. Pp. 245.)--R-41 (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You still need sources that draw these conclusions. And since anti-clericalism is opposition to the Catholic priesthood, your example of Protestant Nazis does not support your reasoning. TFD (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source for Mussolini's quote on anti-clericalism: Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi. Fascist spectacle: the aesthetics of power in Mussolini's Italy. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA: University of California Press, 1997. Pp. 245. Plus, if it is just about opposition to Catholic priests, how can anti-clericalism apply to fascist movements outside of Catholic countries? Nonetheless, the quote I provided shows Mussolini condemning anti-clericalism as being associated with democracy which fascism opposes.--R-41 (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And this source says on page 10 that anti-clericalism in Fascism declined.[1] The point is we must rely on what secondary sources say about fascism (even if it is wrong), not what fascists themselves say, because that would be original research. TFD (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The newly added reference for the claim of anti-clericalism (Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism: 1914–45, pp. 490, 518, 1995 University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 299148742) on page 490 claims that fascism benefited from secularization, but does not specifically say it was anti-clerical. I'm using a free-copy of Google Books, so page 518 does not appear for copyright purposes. Another example to add to the list of pro-clerical fascists, including the Falange, Iron Guard, Slovak People's Party, the Ustase, and the Brazilian Integralists; are French fascists, who condemned the "enormous trickery of anticlericalism". (Zeev Sternhell. Neither right nor left: fascist ideology in France. First Princeton Paperback Edition. Princeton, New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press, 1983 and 1996. Pp. 64) And I've found another quote from Mussolini from an earlier year (1921) rejecting anti-clericalism: "Fascism neither practices nor preaches anti-clericalism" (Martin Blinkhorn. Fascists and Conservatives. 2nd edition. Oxon, England, UK: Routledge, 2001. Pp. 41.). It also rightly points out that there were indeed many anti-clerical Italian Fascists. I do not think it is original research if the context of the quote's use as in the book is described in the article. The same reference describes the existence of "Clerico-Fascists" in Italy. Historian Roger Griffin states that Italian Fascism abandoned anti-clericalism in 1921 but briefly returned to it from 1943 to 1945 under the Nazi puppet Salo regime. (Roger Griffin. The nature of fascism. New York, New York, USA: St. Martin's Press, 1991. Pp. 75.)--R-41 (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"The newly added reference for the claim of anti-clericalism (Payne, Stanley, A History of Fascism: 1914–45, pp. 490, 518, 1995 University of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 299148742) on page 490 claims that fascism benefited from secularization, but does not specifically say it was anti-clerical." You need to work on your reading comprehension. Payne at 490 says "The core fascist movements were anticlerical and even fundamentally antireligious". Griffin's comment is consistent with the opinion that core fascism is anticlerical. Mussolini was forced to compromise and anticlerical practices of his government waned, later to be reintroduced. Lacquer even says that political realities lead Nazis and Italian Fascists to sometimes keep their anticlericalism in check, puting off their Kulturkampf while they dealt with other enemies (Jews, allied forces, etc.). See Laqueur, Walter, Fascism: Past, Present, Future pp. 31, 42, 1996 Oxford University Press. Payne also says fundamental to fascism was the foundation of a purely materialistic "civic religion" that would "displace preceding structures of belief and relegate supernatural religion to a secondary role, or to none at all", and that "though there were specific examples of religious or would-be 'Christian fascists,' fascism presupposed a post-Christian, post-religious, secular, and immanent frame of reference." Mamalujo (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've weirdly got sympathy for both sides of this. What I would say, though, is that "this article is about ideology not governments" may lead into a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. In any case, where do we derive an understanding of ideological fascism (as opposed to Italian Fascism, which has its own article) except from the behaviour of fascist governments?

I'd say that, since it is obvious that fascism is only loosely definable, to say it is anything "inherently" (even if a source offers that opinion) may mislead the reader as to the fundamental character of the subject they are reading about, particularly if there are clear exceptions to the supposed rule. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of Police Power

Malum prohibitum legislation is in my opinion a central core element of any fascist or other authoritarian system, as it allows more and greater controls over the both the physical and financial activities of the Citizens. Through the use of taxation and malum prohibitum regulations, central planners (oligarchs) can increase the amount of money, using police power, collected by the government through direct and indirect taxation as well as fines, penalties and approvals such as permitting. When every activity, such as fishing from the river bank, requires a license/permit, the government coffers grow gaining more power to the politicians as they redistribute the money to their favored interests, seldom benefitisn the majority. Fascism, in my opinion, is the use of taxation and regulation to control the means of production, as Karl Marx might have put it. It is also very similar to communism, as the government grows, it must seek greater and greater levels of revenue to maintain the ever expanding expenditures that power promotes. Add in a Central Bank, the 5th platform of communism, and now the Citizen is but a target/victim for the police state to do with them as they please. We erroneously believe that democracy will eventually counter act against such intrusive policies, but history has not shown that to be the case as people generally vote for what is in their own best interest, rather than what is in the best interest of the majority, as city hall becomes tyranical in its actualy working. The only thing, in my opinion, that makes fascism any different from communism is actually the level of ownership of property by the government as both systems eventually create extremely oppressive policies to maintain their power. Controlling a business by taxation and regulation can be just as influential on its operations as government ownership. A government can literally tax all the profits that a business can generate, leaving it no money to recapitalize if or when necessary, eventuially bankrupting it or forcing it out of that juresdiction as the U.S. has done to many American companies.

Hence, in my opinion the real definition of fascism is the use of taxation and regulation by an oligarchy to control the means of production and actually most countries in the world today are fascist oligarchies and why the world is suffering from the vast array of poor economic conditions. The size of the oligarchy of course varies as does the levels of malum prohibitum laws. A dictatorship for instance is really never just one person. It may have a central spokesperson such as a Hitler or Mussolini, but there are surely others behind the scenes that are playing their role in protecting and enforcing the policies of the leadership group.

Trying to explain what various ideologies fascist believe in is playing into the promotions that oligarchs use to get the Citizens to except their fascist policies. The underlying reasons are just to steal from the majority and redistribute that money to their interests. Don't get bogged down in th3e various methods used to accomplish this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iapetus68 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The most important part of your statement was the phrase, "in my opinion." Wikipedia is not about your "opinions," or what we call "original research," (WP:NOR which describes the above comments perfectly. Here is how the Oxford Dictionary describes Fascism: "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization;(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices." [2] Trying to equate Communism and Fascism and what-not, is original research, and has no business being on a Wikipedia article. The End. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

recent edits by PhilLiberty

Do these recent edits give undue weight to the idea hat fascism is a creature of the left? I think so, but I would like to hear other opinions before I revert these additions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in accordance with WP:BRD I have reverted it for now, it seems we have had these discussions above actually. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Goldberg is not RS. He is a journalist, and experts in history and the history of fascism have debunked him. He is no more RS than Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I figured as much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian Fascists called themselves right-wing, from the Doctrine of Fascism it states: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century." There is NO room for debate about this anymore, it is stated in the original fascist movement's political programme. Only ignorant or deceitful revisionists claim that fascism is wholly left-wing, It indeed had leftist elements and origins, but became mostly right-wing.--R-41 (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, all forms of political extremism have similarities: political extremists have fanatic zeal in their beliefs, are dogmatic, and are militant and intolerant towards those who do not share their views.--R-41 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to the mainstream Left. Since Socialist parties have proven to be the world's most successful model, it is obvious why others would copy their tactics. TFD (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

When did Switzerland become Socialist? And when did Zimbabwe turn successful? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Social Democratic Party of Switzerland is part of the governing coaltion. The Zimbabwe Socialist party, which is called Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai, only came to power in 2008. By "successful" I mean by the way electoral success. Socialist parties form one of two major parties in most countries in the world that hold free elections, the U.S. and Japan and (until recently Canada) being major exceptions. TFD (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Swiss "governing coalition" is exceedingly inclusive - and the Social Democrats are not the key members. Nor even one of the top two groups in the government. And the Zimbabwe case is more interesting than you might dream ... [3] President Robert Mugabe announced yesterday that he wanted Zimbabwe to become a hardline socialist economy and warned that he would seize commercial businesses being forced to shut by tough new price controls. making Mugabe clearly a "Socialist." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote, I was referring to the mainstream Left, which is represented by "Socialist" parties. They are in fact the most successful form of party. I was not including parties which elsewhere you describe as "far left", which are organized differently, but if you include them then the party family would be even more successful. The Swiss party btw is the second largest in the country. TFD (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland groups parties (6 major groups, IIRC). Sorry - but your argument would be quite akin to saying the Minnesota DFL party is not part of the Democratic Party in the US. Each "group" is fairly treatable as a single party. The two most successful party groups historically are "centre-left" and "centre-right" - mainly due to both being close to the centre of an ill-defined "political spectrum." I am curious as to the "parties which elsewhere (I) describe as 'far left.'" Might you show me where I make such an enumeration? Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing extremism typically has similarities with the Left. The most recent example is the Tea Party's use of protests. That does not mean that the Tea Party or fascism are left-wing, merely that they copy elements of the Left. TFD (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Need's revision.

Parts of the introduction read like anti-fascism propaganda and not non-biased objective fact. I believe a rewrite or removal of those paragraphs is necessary, or moving these comment's to another section of the article.

"Fascism promotes violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[10] It views conflict as a fact of life that is responsible for all human progress.[11] It exalts militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[12] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents, or to overthrow a political system.[13]"

Date: 4th October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.250.62 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Above all, Fascism...believes neither in the possibility nor in the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism – born of the renunciation of the struggle as an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies, and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it." - quote from the Doctrine of Fascism, as noted and commented on in this book: Hawkins, Mike. Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p. 286. ([4]) This quote from an official Italian Fascist document reflects what the referenced material by secondary sources is saying.--R-41 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks Like Another POV Warrior Lookin' To Start A Fight

It certainly appears that User:Local Panel is itchin' to start up the whole, "But the Nazis were really Liberals!" nonsense proposed by NON-historians and talk show hosts with nothing but high school diplomas, and roundly condemned as utter nonsense by every person who ever got his/her PhD in History. I've reverted his off-topic, and non-Wiki style edits TWICE, so someone else is gonna need to put the kibosh on him if he attempts to make that same ludicrous edit a third time.

Dear User:Local Panel: Just because Hitler used the word "Socialist" a few times, doesn't mean anything. He never called himself a "Leftist," or said anything about Nazism being of the "Left." THAT'S why your attempt at a counter-quote fails miserably. Also, you can't use ALL CAPS in a Wikipedia article, or poorly-worded sentences like the one you keep trying to ram into the article. Your clear, blazing POV is quote obvious to anyone who ever took History 101. Furthermore, one can be a Right-Winger and be against Capitalism, just as one can be a hardcore Capitalist and be a Left-Winger...and in fact many of the world's greatest Capitalists have indeed been Liberals, like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, just off the top of my head. Your criteria for defining Left and Right is not accurate, nor is it acceptable in scholarly discourse, and also goes against the definitions which can be found on Wikipedia itself. I suggest you start by reading Left–right politics...if it hasn't been defaced by uneducated vandals recently, of course. Now please, stick to topics to which your knowledge is more than simply "what you heard on the radio." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Socialism is always on the left. No source will tell you that socialism is right wing. Putting NAZI in all caps is not incorrect, as it's an acronym. Local Panel (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you HIGH? Nazi is most assuredly NOT an "acronym." It's short for "Nationalsozialist." If you say the word in German, the first two syllables sound like "Nazi," just as the Socialists in Germany at the time were called "Sozis." You really need to read a book, 'cause obviously you don't know what the heck you're talking about. That has to be the single most ignorant thing I've seen posted on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. And oh yeah, there's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to Right-wing socialism...and it's filled with plenty of academic sources. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"A word formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term" is by definition an acronym, loser. Consult the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acronym Local Panel (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi" is not an acronym, and it is never standard to write it in ALL CAPS, particularly on Wikipedia. The word "Nazi" is not formed by using the initial letters of two different words. It's a nickname, created by the phonetic sounds of the the first two SYLLABLES of a single word. That's like saying that using the word "Dems" to refer to "Democrats" is an "acronym." Grow up. You typed something stupid, and you got called on it. Have some personal responsibility, and stop trying to pretend you didn't. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Nazi, acronym formed from NAtionalsoZIalist, the first word of the official title of Hitler's party, the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers' Party), which was founded in 1919.." The Oxford companion to World War II, p. 607. "...in fact, the word NAZI, an acronym formed from..." (CAPS the writers original) NAZI Germany: A New History. University of Michigan. p 142. Local Panel (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, it appears that other editors disagree with your edits and therefore I will revert them. Please discuss and work toward concensus before reinserting. TFD (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not following closely enough. You didn't revert any of the edits that were in dispute. I was waiting on putting them back until this was resolved. You took something ELSE out. Local Panel (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, do you know the history of right-wing groups declaring themselves to be socialists, there have been many such right-wing socialists. First of all there was Klemens von Metternich who coined the term "conservative socialism", there was French monarchist Charles Maurras who supported a "national syndicalism", there was Nazi-predacessor German monarchist and member of the Conservative Revolutionary movement Oswald Spengler's Preussentum und Sozialismus that claimed that the Prussian monarchy and Prussian society were connected to a hierarchical type of socialism. Almost every single RS labels the Nazis as far right, such as major scholars on the subject such as Stanley Payne and Roger Griffin - these are respected scholars who have debated, tested their hypotheses, retracted earlier hypotheses and presented new ones to become theory on the subject, if you are accusing them of POV you need very strong evidence to back up your very strong claim. Local Panel are you insisting that we form our evaluation based on a name? By that convention we would be interpreting the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) as a democracy based on the popular will of the people, by saying "well it said it was a democracy and a government of the people in its name".--R-41 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comments don't address my views. I make no claim of whether fascism is left, right, or center. I was putting in a quote from Hitler saying "We are socialists." You have a quote in there that Mussolini says Fascism is on the right. So why exclude a quote from Hitler saying that they're socialists"? It's POV to delete it if you allow the other. Why is Hitler not being given the same opportunity to self label, in the introduction of the article? Local Panel (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between someone making a non-contentious statement about themselves and expressing an opinion. TFD (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you claimed that socialism is only left-wing, and by that are claiming that National Socialism (Nazism) is left-wing because it declares itself to be socialist. Bear in mind that the Italian Fascists officially declared themselves "anti-socialist" for years, yet the Italian Fascists and Nazis cooperated and had propaganda depicting Mussolini and Hitler, fasces and swastika side-by-side, apparently Mussolini could accept Hitler's National Socialism, but not others, and apparently Hitler who declared himself a national-socialist supported Mussolini who rose to power on a campaign of anti-socialist violence against the reformist Italian Socialist Party, the Communist Party, revolutionary syndicalists, and even very moderate centre-left Catholic trade unions of Italy. Af for the quote about fascism's position in the political spectrum, almost every scholar acknowledges fascism as being right-wing, the quote just confirms this. As for the kind of socialism preached by the Nazis can at best be only described as right-wing socialism a deviant socialist ideology that has nothing to do with the original purpose of socialism: egalitarianism, and instead legitimizes social hierarchy. Socialism was founded as a development of the French Revolution, an revolution of egalitarianism that was denounced by Mussolini's Fascists, Hitler's Nazis, monarchists, and reactionary right-wing movements. Hitler specifically demanded an economy that was hierarchical with the Fuhrer as the leader of it. Right-wing opponents of capitalism have existed for centuries, they don't focus on attacking capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth as mainstream left-wing socialists do, they attack it for being historically associated with liberalism, with a universal cosmopolitan identity, with urbanization and its social ills, and with bourgeois individualism and modernism that rids society of social traditions and cultural collectivism - such as nationality or religion. As I said, North Korea declares itself a "democratic" "people's republic", a majority of scholars claim that it is undemocratic totalitarian state run through terror and coercion and not popular will by a quasi-monarchy and thus not a republic; as Shakespeare said "what's in a name?".--R-41 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

"Right-wing opponents of capitalism have existed for centuries, they don't focus on attacking capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth as mainstream left-wing socialists do.." Oh really? "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -Adolf Hitler. Again, if you allows a Mussolini self-decription quote in there and deletes a Hitler self-description quote from there, they're violating NPOV. You can't single out your favorite fascist dictator who says something that you happen to agree with. Hitler is just as notable in fascism as Mussolini. Whoever deletes the Hitler quote while leaving in the Mussolini quote is violating NPOV. Local Panel (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are now becoming very confrontational and condescending, that is very much against Wikipedia policy. Scholars widely recognize both fascism and Nazism as being far-right. It is a descendent of the far-right Völkisch nationalist movement. Italian Fascism is the original fascist movement and basis of it, when Mussolini rose to power Hitler presented himself as a German Mussolini and had a bust of Mussolini head in the Nazi party's office. In power, Hitler did not reduce the salaries of corporate heads or equalize them with workers, he accepted inequality of wealth and property and did nothing to equalize the distrubution of wealth or property, he courted the heads of corporate industry for votes. Hitler supported Mussolini, a man who rose to power on an anti-socialist campaign against reformist socialists, communists, revolutionary syndicalists, and centre-left Catholic trade unions, highly hypocritical to Hitler's statements. I gave you the "what's in a name" example of North Korea, here's another: Stalin preached that the Soviet Union was a democracy in propaganda over and over again, mainstream democratic people don't accept that claim, should Stalinism be accepted as democratic because Stalin said it was so in spite of strong contention against this by scholars?--R-41 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Confrontational? You misinterpret me. And, the dispute from me is not whether fascism is labeled left or right. This is about whether a quote from Hitler saying he's a socialist is going to be allowed in the introduction. I think it should be, as long as a quote from Mussolini is in there. Otherwise, both should be deleted. You're giving special honor to Mussolini and throwing Hitler to the curb. He's a very notable figure in fascism, and his words should be allowed there in saying whether he's a capitalist or a socialist just as Mussolini is allowed to say he's on the right. You're favoring one over the other, when both are nearly equally associated with "fascism." Local Panel (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote included in the intro is for clarification of fascism's position in the political spectrum that has been contended again and again in this talk page. The quote you mentioned can be put in the Nazism article, Italian Fascism and other fascist movements were quite the opposite of the "we are socialists" quote that Hitler officially preached - they called themselves "anti-socialists" and in 1919 declared "war on socialism".--R-41 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If Hitler's quote has no weight, and if most scholars consider fascism to be on the right as is claimed, then why do you need to buttress that with a Mussolini quote? Either the leaders' views of their own movements matter, or they don't. Which is it? Also, maybe you're not aware that not all socialism is Marxism-based, i.e. not all socialism is for common ownership of the means of production. There are also non-Marxist versions of socialism, which supports private ownership but opposes interest-charging, rent, opposes large wealth inequalities, etc. Nazis were for land redistribution, profit sharing in industries, opposed finance capitalism, etc. When Mussolini says he's opposed to socialism he's talking about Marxist socialism. When Hitler says he supports socialism he's talking about non-Marxist socialism. Local Panel (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that Mussolini is referring only to Marxist socialism when he and the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento declared "war on socialism" in 1919? On the record, the Italian Fascists violently attacked many socialist and left-wing movements in their rise to power from 1919 to 1922: communists, reformist socialists, syndicalists, centre-left Catholic trade unions, and anarchists. I really don't appreciate your position "if you don't include this, I will remove this" but if it is agreed to include the Hitler quote then it can stay - That's petty bargaining. The issue is whether it is consistent with the article as a whole. Major fascists declared themselves to be anti-socialist, claiming that socialism and liberalism were ideologies of the past that had degenerated into failures.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do the research yourself on what you're asking. You mistake me if you think I'm bargaining with you. This is not a bargain. This is about NPOV. I think it is POV to do what you're doing which is allow one in but not the other, as if Mussolini's words are important but Hitler's aren't. You're just selecting the one you agree with, and rejecting the one you disagree with. 20:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Panel (talk • contribs)

Hitler's statement "we are socialists" does not apply to all fascists, as Mussolini declared "war on socialism". You are the one presenting the claim that all fascism is socialist, I provided a quote that appears to rebuke that, then you claimed that the quote was only referring to Marxist socialism - you are the one who made that assertion and you need to present evidence for that. Mussolini didn't say "Marxist socialism", he said "socialism" in general, and if he is inferring that socialism is Marxism which he opposes then he is still claiming the same thing, he is denouncing socialism itself as being Marxist that he opposes and is thus still anti-socialist. And there is no majority of scholars that claim that fascism is socialist at least in its mainstream left-wing form. But a majority of scholars claim that fascism is right-wing, and far-right at that. It is not POV to show inconsistency between two leaders' statements, just as it is neither POV to note the historical fact that Italian Fascist Blackshirts attacked multiple socialist groups: reformist socialists, communists, and syndicalists during the Fascists' rise to power from 1919 to 1922 nor is it POV to point out the historical fact that these events coincided with the Italian Fascists' openly declared statement that they were waging war on socialism. All this reveals is that Hitler appears to be incredibly disingenuous with his claim of being a socialist since he praised the openly anti-socialist Italian Fascist movement. The Italian Fascists had declared themselves to be anti-socialist in 1919, prior to Hitler even being Nazi leader.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

As many keep trying to point out, there is a very big difference between the Mussolini quote and the Hitler quote. If Hitler had said something along the lines of, "We're Left-Wingers, and Fascists..." then it would be relevant. He however, did no such thing. Using that "We are socialists" quote to counter the Mussolini quote is apples and oranges, but it appears the LocalPanel is relying on "high-school diploma radio talk show" definitions of things like "Right" and "Left," which are not in any way grounded in reality, history, or academic scholarship, and he is bound and determined to make this article fit into his personal weltanschauung, regardless of how many academic sources are presented, in clear opposition to scholarly consensus. And here's another example: Communist East Germany was named the "German Democratic Republic (DDR)." Should we then include them on the page for "Democracy?" Obviously, that would be ridiculous...as would be including the Hitler quote. On the other hand, Mussolini clearly claimed to Fascism to be on the Right...and it is a system universally recognized by experts and historians as being on the Right...therefore, there is a clear consensus. No reputable historian puts any weight on that Hitler quote, or on the idea that Nazism or Fascism were Left-Wing concepts. Your POV is akin to arguing in favor of the "Flat Earth Theory." You have been shown incorrect in regards to pretty much everything you've ever posted here. Nobody buys your revisionist, POV, anti-academic bias. Wikipedia is not the place to promote ludicrous fringe theories. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, trying to shoot him down won't resolve the discussion, it will only result in him claiming that you are undertaking insulting personal attacks against him, which you are. Let's stick to facts. Local Panel, please respond to the point I made that if Mussolini is associating socialism with Marxism as you have claimed and is declaring "war on socialism" then he is still anti-socialist.--R-41 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, because it's not something I put into the article or that I'm planning to put in the article. I just thought I'd illuminate you with a little background knowledge to what's going on with these ideas. If you claim I'm wrong about it, I don't care. I can handle that. Let's try to focus on what I actually put into the article ok? Local Panel (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Anti-academic" LOL. "a system universally recognized by experts and historians as being on the Right." That's not true. A significant number of writers consider it to be in the center, and some consider it to be on the left - at least economically. You better to some more research in academia. Local Panel (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please present sources that support your views. TFD (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Why? It's not a claim that I've tried to write into the article. But if I decide to, it will be sourced, rest assured. Local Panel (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's good that you describe non-historians, economists, journalists, and talk-show hosts as "writers," but they should not be confused with academics, at least in reference to history or political science. I'm betting most of the "writers" you're thinking of aren't even qualified to teach high school. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Local Panel, you stated that Mussolini when stated that Italian Fascism was in a "war on socialism" was referring to Marxist socialism - where did you derive this claim - where is your evidence? But besides, even if he was claiming that Marxism is socialism, then he is still presenting an anti-socialist stance by declaring a "war on socialism", a very different stance that Hitler saying of the Nazis "we are socialists". Local Panel, you are claiming that fascism is centrist or left-wing based from a few scholars whose stances themselves have been critiqued by other scholars, the vast majority consider fascism in practice to be far right - are you claiming that numerous scholars have been wrong about this and on what grounds do you justify such dispute? Don't pass it off by saying its not your problem to answer - you have made a controversial proposal criticized by other users, you have to back up your claims for your proposed controversial changes to be understood, recognized and accepted if they have sufficient evidence that rationally can form the conclusion that fascism is a form of socialism as you have claimed.--R-41 (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole argument is missing a major point: A quote from Mussolini describing the direction of fascism in Europe may well be relevant to the article enough to be in the lede, and a quote from Hitler describing himself is definitely not. A quote from a leader of a certain national branch of fascism describing himself as a socialist in a speech (speeches being, for Hitler, simple propaganda) does not belong in the lede of the fascism article itself. Of course, the Mussolini quote is only in there to dispel the constant attempts to insert 'fascism-is-leftist content into the lede. Let's just cut the left-right discussion from the lede entirely, put it somewhere else, and remove any insertion of right and left from the lede immediately. Surely saying it is radically nationalist, authoritarian, collectivist and despotic (to paraphrase) in the lede is enough? ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 11:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The WP:1RR rule is still in effect

Please recall the announcement in June, 2009 that this article is under a one-revert-per-day restriction. Violations of this restriction can be reported at the Edit-warring noticeboard. If you make a change to this article and it gets reverted, open a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)