Talk:Definitions of fascism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone just give me a basic short definition using small words to explains fascism? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.4.249 (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

Contents 1 First discussion 2 Far right = left???? 3 Perhaps too original 4 doctrine 5 In response to "far right=left????" 6 Need to expand list of authors 7 Oligarchy and corporatism 8 that damn political donut 9 Ataturk 10 21st Century USA 11 Liberal Fascism 12 Ernest Nolte 13 Where is the definition? 14 dead link.

[edit] First discussion

My thoughts: I believe that fascism is the forcible means of a particular ideology by war, conquest etc. and not actually a ideology like democracy or communism, and it cannot be classed as either left-wing or right-wing because there are fascist communist regimes and fascist conservative regimes. I hope this makes sense to everyone, my grammer is appalling. BC

Fascim has no definition simply because it , like so many ideologies have no concrete basis. Rather Fascism is whatever one deems it to be apart from congruent historical information agreeable as to 'definition'. It appears to be a word of convience that singularly hopes to portray mulitiple beliefs that are changeable as needs be by the one hoping to present the word as having lasting validity.

There is no definition, because the fascism, which is simply Anti-Comintern Union of Capitalists, is also known under term 'democracy'. That is, when you are both capitalist and anti-communist, you are a fascist. In other words, fascist is right (profit) policy, it is opposed to the left (pro-people). Fascism is dectatorship of bourgeois. Since the Masters of the Universe cannot control population by force in developed countries, they use thought control (propoganda). And it is much easier to deceive the stupid majority when the enslavement is called 'democracy and freedom'. In the world where things are inside out, you are not allowed to call things by their proper names. --Javalenok 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuie Mua Monsignor Marxist maroon? A great deal of the "Classical" Fascists, namely Hitler and Mussolini, DID SEE THEMSELVES AS SOCIALISTS! Don't believe me? Here are some quotes from the Austrian Butcher himself:

"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."

- We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. - The abolition of incomes unearned by work. - The breaking of the slavery of interest - Personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits. - We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts). - We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises. - We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age. - We demand the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation - The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). - The State must ensure that the nation's health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor. - We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people's army. - The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. - Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest. - To put the whole of this program into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power “The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and trade union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will… There is more that unites us than divides us from Bolshevism…above all the genuine revolutionary spirit.”

So there you have it, from the horse's (or rather the ass') mouth itself. The main reason that Fascism is even associated with the Right Wing is because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and as Bolsheviks have an unhealthy affliction of painting their enemies as the Absolutist Monarchists they faced (with varying states of actuality), they began to paint the Nazis as Right Wing.

You also apparently are stupid enough to claim the grandiose and black-and-white rationality of Right=Tyranny Left=Pro-People BS. I, despite being a dedicated American Conservative, am not stupid enough to believe that the Right Wing is blameless and incapable of being corrupted, Given how it has given us the "Joys" of thugs like Bismark, Mettenrich, Ivan the Terrible and indeed most of the Czars, etc. But for however many atrocities people and organizations on the Right have commited, there have been a great deal also commited by those on the Left. I could hardly call people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Ho Chi Mihn "pro-people" even though they were leftist. And also you seem to conveniently forget the some of the first victims of the Fascists were Right-Wing Capitalistic supporters of Democracy. So get your head out of your butt you Marxist buffon You have made no argument whatsoever. ELV

[edit] Far right = left????

Political compass On the website Political compass it is argued that parties labelled as 'far right' are actually more leftist than most modern main stream parties. 'Far right' cannot be correct as a nomer because advocating government control (far left) cannot be a polar opposite to advocating government control (far right).

Actually, communism (government control) is the polar opposite of the free market ideology. Communism is primarily an economic ideology whereas fascism is a social ideology. They are not, nor have they ever been (except in rhetoric) polar opposites. The term 'far right' therefore is incorrect and used by parties identifying themselves as 'left' to discredit the 'right'. Unfortunately for them, fascism is all about state control (if not state ownership of the means of production, then certainly state control of them).

Political compass argues that advocates of state control all belong on the left.

It introduces 2 axis: -an economic x-axis (horizontal) where communism (state control) and free market ideology (no state control) are polar opposites -a social y-axis (vertical) where authoritarianism and libertarianism are polar opposites.

--82.156.49.1 04:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating government control can in fact be an opposite of advocating a different type of government control. The two groups may want the government to control different things, and they may wish to achieve opposite goals. "Government control" is a method, a means to an end. Ideologies may have opposing goals, while using similar means to achieve them.

The Political Compass model is interesting, but has a number of major flaws. For example, the "left-wing", which is supposed to represent state control of the economy, includes the ideology of anarcho-communism, which wants to abolish the state along with private property. Conversely, "free market ideology" always needs a state to define and enforce property rights. -- Nikodemos 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The Political Compass model makes sense, especially when faced with political choice. The traditional right/left scale only gives us a choice between authoritarian type governance; Communist on the left or Fascist on the right with Liberalism or Conservatism somewhere in between. During election time our only choice being what flavor of totalitarianism we want. To keep with current (mis)understanding of the political spectrum, the Compass should be rotated 90 degrees to bring the political axis to the horizontal and the (ideological/economic) axis to vertical. The horizontal line would now have Totalitarianism on the left and Anarchy on the right while the vertical (ideological/economic) line would have profit (capitalistic ideology) at the top and humanist (socialistic ideology) at the bottom. Both Communism and Fascism would be at the far left, but would be widely separated on the vertical axis. Other political platforms would be scattered throughout the biaxial spectrum.Brainworms 18:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perhaps too original

Perhaps these reflections are too much of original research but it would be nice with some comments. After reading much here about fascism and the talk pages, I made the reflection that maybe we, and scholars of fascism, are missing the point. Perhaps fascism is so hard to define exactly because it is no ideology, but rather a set of tools cynically employed for the sole purpose of obtaining power?

Consider this definition given in the text, which I have here edited so that the definition becomes more transparent in terms of other examples, and not applicable solely to the mid-20th century brand of fascism:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist hostility to civil liberties movements [rather than "socialism and feminism"], for they are seen as prioritizing a group rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of civil liberties and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader [the "mass, militarized party" can not be used as a criteria since some countries, most notably the US, does not have European-style political parties]. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of civil liberties movements, but are prepared to override conservative interests - balanced budget, non-involvement in foreign wars, separation of church and state [complementing or replacing "family, property, religious, the universities, the civil service" as examples] - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the religious movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of religous interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, religious, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

It might be more enlightening to only describe the archetypal fascist state of Mussolini in Wikipedia, and not try to create an ideology where none exists. Only a set of Machievellian-style tools for power-grabbers. These are the Fascist strategy for obtaining and securing control over the entire society, in my humble opinion. It should be evident from the above edit that I consider that the Bush regime has skilfully employed this Fascist strategy - but not the non-existant Fascist ideology. --66.176.20.143 02:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doctrine

I'd like to bring to your attention that the doctrine of fascism was only published 10 years after musollini got power as president. one commonly acknowledged feature of fascism is that is has no particular ideology... it would be misleading to use the 'doctrine of fascism' as a definition of it. 82.93.141.171 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In response to "far right=left????"

This is incorrect in the extreme. Though both the right and left both advocate collective control over the means of production, leftism places little moral control over the people of the society, while fascism places heavy reguatuions on the population.

Muigwithania 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not correct in practice. In theory, yes, but in practice no. The bad idea of equating far right and far left is about the goal of the ideology: while the far right outrightly denies the existence of the individual, the individual and his/her wellbeing carries an important role in the leftist ideologies, but and that's an important but: the individual is defined solely by the collective, in kind of an organically dependent position. The difference between far left and far right is as the difference between paranoic scizophrenia and psychopathy (in practice). Said: Rursus ☻ 07:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to expand list of authors

The current list and text is good, but highly idiosyncratic. The major theorists need to be included here, with sections on Laclau, Eatwell, Sternhell, and Orwell, among others. Some of the longest sections are for relatively less-well-known authors, while major scholars have no mention other than in the list I added. Nickodemos: your edit was confrontational, POV, and biased. This is a page in progress. The conservative/libertarian view needs to be mentioned prominently. We need to at least mention world-famous scholars while we wait for folks to have time to write sections on them. Please be patient, and try to work collaboratively. I know you are a better editor than this edit reveals.--Cberlet 03:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the continuous libertarian POV-pushing on this issue has left me extremely distrustful of any mention of their views. My reason for deleting it (which I should have mentioned on the Talk page) was that there are multiple points of view on the political orientation of fascism, not just the "fascism is right-wing" view and the libertarian "fascism is left-wing" view. It seems logical and NPOV to me to mention the majority view (that fascism is right-wing), while explaining that it is controversial and quite vague. If we are to mention minority views, then we certainly need to mention more than one ("fascism as Third Way" should not be neglected, for example). This, however, would lead us into an off-topic discussion. I see three options here:

1. My initial idea of mentioning only the majority view while explaining that it is controversial and vague.
2. Mentioning several minority views.
3. Giving up trying to mention any views on the political orientation of fascism altogether.

-- Nikodemos 07:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is exasperating to have to chase down all the endless attempts by libertarians to plonk the same marginal claims on page after page. I just finished moving text from several pages to Fascism and ideology. Hope that expanded entry can be used as a pointer.--Cberlet 15:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oligarchy and corporatism

Is there any dispute about which regimes were "fascist"? They should be described by their actual behaviour rather than their claimed ideology. They were Oligarchic and corporatist while pretending to be populist and nationalist (of course there are regimes today that satisfy this description but are not yet called fascist). Fourtildas 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] that damn political donut

politics are kinda like a donut when you think about it. Defining fascism is tricky, it's kinda defined by it's conotations and the definations of those who use it. I'd say that fascism COULD be right or left (economically) but would probably be socially liberal. i'd say a soviet dictatorship is kinda fascist. Stalinism is racist, anti intellectual, anti-semitic, and could be seen as similiar to a fascist regime. but it was communist, sorta, economically.

I'd say that fascism is basically nationalism, but it the goals of a fascist nation tend to be of global proportions. Nationalists want soveriegnty within their borders, and acquiring power from other nations through force might be nice, but fascism wants to spread, just like capitalism and communism.

[edit] Ataturk

What about Ataturk the father of Turks? Can someone please define the relation between his thoughts'n action and faschism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.19.226 (talk • contribs)

As far as I know there is nothing saying Ataturk was a fascist and if there is I highly doubt any of it is of serious scholarly quality. - DNewhall 21:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21^st Century USA

Diegueno 03:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Why hasn't Laurence W. Britt's definition [1] been added here yet?

[edit] Liberal Fascism

I think a section with references to Jonah Goldberg's new book Liberal Fascism should be included. It is the first major and new analysis of the term and its ideological roots in a long time. Sluhser589 (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a simple regurgitation of various ideas long put out by many on the more hardened right, which have never been taken seriously by the intellectual, scholarly (or whatever you wish to call it) community. Goldberg is also not an expert in this field, nor a scholar and his views are handily biased and poorly defined in his "work". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above and would point out that Goldberg's work has been harshly criticized by scholars on both the left and the right. There isn't really anything new in his work ("the fascists were leftists" is an old Internet meme) and his argument is virtually incoherent. 98.217.176.55 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Nolte

Would it be suitable to add Nolte's definition from "Three Faces of Fascism" -- "Fascism is anti-Marxism which seeks to destroy the enemy by the evolvement of a radically opposed and yet related ideology and by the use of almost identical and yet typically modified methods, always, however, within the unyielding framework of national self-assertion and autonomy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.192.81 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Said: Rursus ☻ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition I quoted above is from Nolte's book "Three Faces of Fascism", NY & Toronto, c.1969, page 21 -- the quote can be seen in a google books look at "The Fascism Reader" on page 152, where it reprints some of Nolte's book. Nolte's a controversial figure in a number of respects but he's important enough his definition ought to be included.

24.131.192.81 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I made some additions into the preceeding sentence introducing Nolte: what terminology (Hegel), and system (Hegelian (historicist) dialectic). Said: Rursus ☻ 09:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the definition?

As far as I can see, there is no definition of fascism in the article. According to my "original research" (personal opinion, don't use in article), the definition should be approximately as follows:

1. the kind of society proponed: a combined feodalist and small capitalist society (corporativist), where the fascist party fulfills the role formerly carried by the king and nobility,
2. the values: some kind of rightist "catholic", the subordination of the human under some "higher value", obedience and some kind of "universality" in the validity of the leaders decisions,
3. the general balance between "transcendence"/"idiosyncracy": strongly idiosyncratic (not extremely, as the Nazis, but comparatively strong), very intolerant against "deviations", f.ex. criticism, minorities, a very crude welfare system with lots of holes, high level of fear and compensatory aggression, rigidity (and thereby brittleness).

Said: Rursus ☻ 08:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dead link.

1. 12 ^ Griffin, Roger (1995). Fascism. Oxford University Press. ref refers to a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.176.176 (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)