Talk:Fascism/Archive 1
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I removed the section indicating that the German and Italian Fascists were actually socialists in disguise. The Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" a) to capitalize on the popularity of the word "socialism" - the Social Democrats had recently become very popular in Germany at the time; and b) to annoy their Communist opponents. The Nazis had little sympathy for Marx. And Mussolini did a complete 180 on his opinions of Marxism (despite his former status as the editor of a socialist newspaper), as the quoted text I added from his 1932 "What Is Fascism?" paper indicates.. -kwertii
- This is a MUCH more complex issue than you imply, and your claims here are fringing on the absurd. (a) socialism was not defined strictly by Marx (b) common social-democrat type policies were very much part of Hitler's program, e.g. building the autobahns, instituting various types of workfare programs, which aren't that easy to distinguish from the ones Roosevelt introduced (c) Hitler overtly stated that 'the economy is based on principles of human nature that we cannot change' in rejecting Marxism early after his ascent to power, but that rejection of communism and radical socialism didn't prevent him from instituting (b).
- Beyond that, it's very clear that Mussolini emulated Lenin in many respects, and that Hitler and Stalin and Franco emulated Mussolini in others. Saddam Hussein also emulated Stalin conciously. IT's foolish to therefore imply that this questionable "left-right" axis really matters in comparing these dictators. "socialism" was no more than a tactic to any of them. But it *was* a tactic, and it was effective at buying support from the lower middle class in Hitler's case. Despising Social Democrats as people and as a party is not the same as emulating their policies and instituting programs that at the time were certainly part of 'socialism'.
- An important point to note here is the weird change in the meaning of the word socialism -- see User:Sam Francis/Socialism. -- Sam
The governement of Horthy was not fascist! Fascism was installed by Szálasi government for a short period of time! http://historicaltextarchive.com/horthy/
Questions that need to be answered by the article
What governments were self-described fascist? Only Mussolini, or did others lay claim?
What are some other specific elements of fascism (especially something specific to fascism and not, say, Nazism, or is Nazism encompassed by fascism)?? The Roman-style stiff-arm salute is engagingly specific.
Text transferred from article:
Any discussion regarding Fascism suffers the risk of being undermitted to political or ideological considerations and concepts which might underline with more evidence certain aspects of the fenomenon rather than other ones, so anything might regard this relatively recent epoque, immediately gets a dramatic temperature.
Italian Fascism was however for its country (and in its country) a deeply and widely appreciated social system in which on one side there were quite thrilling applications of individual controls and deprivations of freedom (even if this is what happened by other means in all Europe at that time); on the other side, during Fascism a poor country as Italy was, was built as a strong nation, finally unified below the same flag (still, after the Unity of 1860 there was no national feeling and no common language), economically brought up to self-sufficiency after decades of emigration abroad.
The growth of italian economical indexes (industrial development, average income, productivity, ...) coincided with an international political crisis that saw on unconciliable positions Italy and S.D.N. (Societé des Nations, first international global association from which UNO was born after WWII); this resulted in an "embargo" to italian goods (defense of commerce with Italy). Italy, or should we say Fascism, answered with "Autarchia", a campaign meant to demonstrate that the nation, still not rich, would have been able to sufficiently survive without foreign economical or commercial contribution (this applied to German goods too). So, as a curiosity, really everything was made or produced in Italy: coffee, the national liquid, had been substituted with "ciofega" (made with national cereals), wool was produced in Sardinia, there was an italian benzine, and every kind of product or component had to be completely italian. In case of unavailable goods, the State supported the creation of industries or other instruments to make it. The expected weakening effect of embargo is still to be clearly verified, indeed. Italians were able to find petrol too in their territory, just before the beginning of WWII, and their economy was effectively self-sufficient. More, the effort to provide any particular product remaining inside the borders, gave this nation a productive system settled up in little time but still central in today's economy. For the first time, besides, Italians were able to consider themselves a People with its proper identity, able to claim respect for their nationality.
Reformations and innovations were brought to everyday's life in an unexpectable manner. Poorness was fought with the first social interventions and suburbs were created and houses built for homeless and poors, actually living in sort of favelas. Health system was invented, as well as pension national fund for retired workers, unmarried mothers were assisted and instruction was imposed as compulsory, new families were assisted with marriage bonuses and career preferences and tax reductions. Unhealthy parts of territory were saned ("Bonifiche") and workers were incentivated to better distribute themselves for a better use of land. Small rural ownership (Piccola Proprieta' Contadina) was helped to develop in order to share private property among workers; bigger proprietors (latifondisti) were legally fought so to beat down great concentrations of estate richness, while poor farmers were financed and had specially low rental fees or received a permanent use of farms. Laws were organised in codes ("Codici") that still are a fundamental basis for latin right.
As an ethic political system, Fascism indicated a scheme of individual values in which merit and dignity represented, together with proudness of national origin (jus soli) and perhaps mixed into this, goals to achieve, better that economical or status (career, even in state administration) success. This is not meant as an achieved result, but it was the mentality. The contuinity with own history, and the progress with no denial of past, was the reason of referring to latin system for icons and slogans.
Rural culture was strictly respected as a part of national origin and feeling, in spite of previously rigid rules that separated, in fact and by law, poors and "signori".
Foreign culture was considered obviously destructive on a political side, but Fascism always tolerated cultural relationship among nations, and inside gave protection to hundreds of leftist intellectuals. Exceptions became famous, as for Gramsci, founder of Italian Communist Party (PCI). Artists were protected until possible, even if the worse enemies of the system. For the first time, and with little comparisons, a State organised the production of artworks in most of the fields, from painting to sculpture, from writing to music; a relevant effort was made to provide italy of movie prodution spaces, places, schools and finances.
About religion, an act is notably to be considered: the 1929's "Concordato" between Italian State and the Holy See (Vatican - Roman Catholic Curch). By this act it was finally agreed that State and Church would have been definitely separated, in order to have a "free cult in free state" (libera Chiesa in libero Stato), each one with its competence, without interferences; The Popes' temporal power was ended after some 15 centuries of domain on central Italy. The Fascism (at its origins a socialist movement) protected Catholic Church ensuring its concrete freedom of cult.
Fascism mostly coincides with the figure of the "Duce" (leader, from latin "Dux"), its leader Benito Mussolini, and did not survive at his death.
The latter parts of this article [above - inserted by DP] appear startlingly pro-fascist. They appear to be written by 151.24.189.xxx, apparently a non-native English speaker (perhaps Italian?). They are certainly not NPOV! -- The Anome
- Yikes! Where is Fellini (or is it Phellini?) when you need him? I agree that there are serious NPOV issues here. For one thing, many Italians opposed fascism. Moreover, any account of the appeal of fascism in the 1930s has to provide a lot more context. There was indeed a global economic crisis and people in different countries were struggling to find ways out. I have no doubt that fascism benefited some people, but any discussion of Italian fascism has to explore who it did and didn't benefit, and explore its limitations. Was fascism just about getting the trains to run on time, or was it also about bombing Ethiopia? Should this new section be removed to the talk section until it is rewritten? SR
I recall reading several works arguing that Nazism was not a form of fascism, due to its emphasis on race, which was largely absent from other forms of fascism (such as the Italian or Spanish). Also, some mention should be made of French fascism (and I mean the native French fascist movement, not the Vichy government), since although it was unsuccessful I believe it is theoretically important. Some discussion is needed of exactly what fascism is -- the present article just defines it as the political systeme existing under Mussolini, and then says the system was exported to Spain and Nazi Germany -- it needs rather to explain what the features of fascism are (such as nationalism, anti-democratic emphasis on leadership, corporatism). Finally, some mention of fascist philosophers such as Gentile, and also Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a precursor in part of fascism (although the political, as opposed to literary, activity of D'Annunzio is an absolutely fascinating topic in himself, on which unfortunately way too information seems to be available in English). -- SJK
- You must have meant "way too little information" about D'Annunizio. Anarchist weirdo Hakim Bey has written a freely-associative and sympathetic portrayal of D'Annunzio's post-war antics in Fiume. The book is called TAZ and is put out by some anarchist publisher. He's a character that fascinates the whole political spectrum.
Commentary removed from article and placed here:
The following text is apparently written from a pro-Fascist point of view, and needs re-editing for NPOV::
- sorry, my father was one of those soldiers condemned to death by RSI, so you can imagine I can allow myself no identification at all with fascism. As anyone who suffered from violence, I am not able to consider sponsoring a political position, whatever it be. However, facts are facts, as written in my premise, and understanding this site as more objective rather than ideological, with no sympathy to fascism I felt I had to add some points for a better comprehension of the fenomenon, and I did it, I dared. I'm not depositary of any truth, so please take it as a simple adding of single facts, but please, do not call me pro-fascist. THX Greetings, Gianfranco, Rome -
added Fascist manifesto and restored removed paragraph on Concordato, for a better comprehension of evolution of fascism. Still, for a deeper vision in NPOV, it seems to me as if some other elements should be added (maybe in separate article) about the "governmental" fascism, and the practical as well as ideological peculiar aspects of this system, not capitalistic, yet not marxist.
I judge a political movement by what it says, not what it does. Like Nazism, Italian fascism borrowed elements of its language, style, policies and even following from the left, particularly unsurprising given Mussolini's background. There's nothing intrinsically socialist in the 1919 manifesto, and the movement's "anticlericalism" came to little.
I don't see how the Concordat is so illustrative of Fascism's political evolution: pragmatism had indeed been one of the movement's strengths, and now the Papacy was in on the act. I'm amused by the notion of fascism as a beacon of social consensus: how did this miracle of national goodwill come about? And Italy entered WW2 on 10 June 1940. Don't change content when it's right and you're wrong. User:David Parker
I think that facts might be at least as relevant as words, as I never heard of Hitler describing himself for what he is commonly considered having effectively been. If I were to judge by his self-complimenting words only, I could be a nazi, which I actually are not because I use to judge by facts. So I obviously take care of what has been said and then try to see whether facts correspond to promises, as long as the difference is clear to me. Part of what in the manifesto has been practiced only after the ruin of Fascism, as correctly added to that article, but beautiful words always have an undeniable fascinating effect on masses (Mussolini's public figure was made of that, sometimes beyond a least sense of measure), and I only meant that an effect these words effectively had on lower classes too. Then we can discuss (in another place) whether this was a good thing or not, if fascism was good or bad. In another place.
There's nothing intrinsically socialist in the 1919 manifesto
- If you judge by words, as you said, you haven't read it. If you have a mature point of view, as you have, you already know what a manifesto is made of, and this is for any manifesto, so for this one too. You know (absit iniuria verbis), they say in Usa poor people too are obese; we say instead, in Italy socialists too are rich...
- Seriously, we should investigate what socialist party was, as the original leading committee of fascism came in part from there. Now, these are marxist words, in manifesto, we could perhaps conclude that socialists were not marxists (and it has been said, too).
I am amused, on my side, that a regime can stay up without any consensus for two decades, and that March on Rome was made only by a dozen of rich intellectuals. This is not what has been seen, at least. We could discuss about what is a general consensus perhaps, and which are the real ways it is obtained and kept, and with which ethical style, but the presence of proletarians in March on Rome, however would you judge it, is not a dream of movie directors. Common people taking active part in Fascism's events, whatever might have been the reasons that moved them, have been seen and filmed, so it's quite a miracle that I'm learning today they were ten fascists against a whole nation. If you consider that no consensus was collected at all in popular classes, I very attentively am here to learn. I am old enough for having met all the components of the society I am part of, but still I am young enough to read something that might enlarge my narrow views. Mussolini is generally described as a little serious figure for his extreme propaganda; but why then he would have used it if not to preserve consensus? And if propaganda could not grant him the effect of creating or preserving consensus, why everywhere they say that one of his main activities was propaganda? Which are, tell me please, the classes in which it is wise to suppose propaganda could get a better attention and from which develop support?
Statement about the general consensus on a general conflict among classes is obviously not mine, I'll try to find the source (would say it was Mack Smith but I'm not so sure, i read it many years ago) and put it in a clearer form asap.
As a late answer to a previous talk, a huge part of common people too considered fascism positively because of what you can see above (removed from article). Be careful: again this is not a judgement of mine, my point of view is different and my only benefit from fascism was my father condamned to death, but a relevant part of lower classes (yes, "relevant part" is a relative concept, but it's better than "a lot of people") thought they were receiving a benefit and this is what I am reporting. To be even more personalistic, just for a while, my family also saw ancient land properties disappear due to the sharing of land (we were so-called latifondisti and fascism fought this part of society). Anyway I live in these times, and looking beyond my shoulder I can see that little farmers, at least, were glad we lost our land.
In a neutral point of view (God only knows if this can be achieved on this matter) one describes what happened, the better detailedly he can, starting from the consideration that judgements have to be left to individual consciences (or to tribunals when needed) and that the purpose of making an encyclopedia is better accomplished when there isn't an "official" point of view or an ipse dixit, but a collection of meaningful informations is built in order to allow anyone to develop his own judgement. If I personally had an emotion on this topic, I already happened to roughly explain it would not be a pro-fascist emotion. But those times are gone (whether they are near or far is a relative sensation) and I think that one day they should be considered, if possible, with the same cool approach we use today in discussing about, let's say, Etruscans. Or, it could be, this idea belongs to Voltaire's times, and maybe I'm outdated.
Far from so-called revisionism, that showed out some ideological contents, there should be a cooler scientific way to look at fascism by facts, or at least it should be fetched. Or this would become another "political" (=ideological) debate of which we have enough already.
June 10 is the date of public speech from famous balcony. Determination and diplomat communications are supposed having been in mentioned date. Honestly I am ashamed of my mistake.
Concordat is not illustrative of other than the end of papacy's temporal power, that I would dare suppose is a relevant fact in history. Also, it contains the acceptance by papacy of a role which does not consent any more political activity (theoretically). And In Wikipedia too there are already many pages about Vatican in politics. I would not say that only Mussolini could have been able of doing it, and in fact I didn't say that. As far as I am concerned, Gramsci too, just to say someone that could have been at power instead of fascists, could have obtained the same or even a better result. But pictures portraited the Pope with Mussolini and that's the fact, so we cannot investigate what could have happened, because this would be ideological and not scientific. If after this point we can go a little further, we could also stop a minute to see if Concordato could mean something with reference to fascism. I had recalled that some authors say that first fascism was friendly with everybody and then turned to compliment real important classes only. Well, Concordato could be one of the moments in which this turning became more clearly evident. As an example of such (never denied) pragmatism, it is a point that could be noted.
Monarchists have their own party, in these days they are celebrating because we are allowing the son of last king to enter Italy, abolishing Savoias' familiar exile. They had in the past some relationships with MSI, but it's a long time we don't hear about them for political matters; they are not commonly considered having joined Alleanza nazionale.
- Still we miss a deeper look at fascist peculiarity of not being neither a capitalistic system nor a marxist one.
Despite its diverse origins, Fascism was not a consensus ideology, as exhibited in its militant sloganeering and strong-arm tactics: consensus should not be confused with support, which doubtless existed, though not, it seems, sufficiently to tempt the regime to risk an election under anything resembling the pre-1923 system: much of the veneer of consensus derives from the suppression of opposition rather than a rallying to the fascist banner.
I see no indication in the article of fascist rule having been imposed by a handful of intellectuals, as you suggest it implies: as the movements's response to the 1920 occupation shows, however, its ideological base was not in the working class, which had hardly embraced fascism when last invited to express an opinion. Once in power, the regime was able to extend its political influence through society; but acquiescent participation should not be equated with positive backing.
The question of fascist borrowings from Marxism is frankly a non-starter. The Italian socialist movement's own origins are as disparate as Fascism's, ranging through syndicalism, mainstream social democracy and Marxism: while some leaders continued to take their theoretical cue from Marx even after the 1921 split, however, the party remained a diffuse collection of ideological currents.
But it wasn't the PSI's Marxists who followed Mussolini into Fascism, and again there is nothing in the movement's initial pronouncements to suggest any echo of ideological affinity: progressive capital taxation is common to elements of US Progressivism, British Labourism and other non-Marxist or even non-socialist movements: Britain's Liberals supported nationalisation of the coal industry in 1919 and created much of the welfare state. Bismarck pioneered German welfare provision while prohibiting (however ineffectually) the SPD.
I don't think an article is at all the place to discuss whether a historical phenomenon is good or bad, though one's interpretation will inevitably influence the points selected to convey the key characteristics. These issues can of course be raised in a talk page where they may hopefully feed back into the article text after discussion.
Though elements of the old PDIUM ended up in the AN through their connection with the MSI, I've removed monarchists from the AN's constiuents as those who so joined it are already covered by the MSI.
PS. What happened to your father? I trust that the sentence wasn't executed. User:David Parker
The sentence, issued by a military tribunal of RSI (for alleged antifascism, added to general prevision for officers and soldiers who refused to serve in RSI), was executed, as many others were. As a LAST note about personal matters (I might realise now that this personalistic recall was somehow unpolite, so will everybody please accept my sincere regrets), he was not an antifascist, nor he was a fascist, but simply an artillery officer of the kingdom, who continued serving the Crown in his uniform until he could.
I trust we are used to deal with respectively different kinds of people, with respectively different manners.
Best regards
- -
After an interesting search on Google for "Fascism consensus" [1], I found that some debate is increasing about the theme. First link (read in cached copy), is an interesting work for this talk page. You might also wish to read what a partisan association has on his website: [2] - Sorry, it is in italian, but I think they will not be suspected of pro-fascism. In italian too, an interesting interview with Alberto De Bernardi [3], an historian that has a an engagement in similar organisations, but still a notable scientific correctness.
- -
Some monarchists passed to MSI, that's true. It happened, for more recent cases, in the 1970s. Since then, it is supposed we have assisted to monarchic party gradual disappearance, mainly due to the advanced age of members. The few young members are currently running on their own (I wouldn't swear they still use the same name, but I have read something very recently). We'll hear more soon, I suppose, when the son of last king will finally be in Italy.
Besides, it would not be completely correct to say that all MSI was translated into AN. To be precise MSI-Fiamma Tricolore is the name of a different party which leader is Pino Rauti, historical leader of the extremer minority inside Almirante's MSI, and collects those who didn't go in AN. MSI-FT 3 or 4 days ago elected a new political leader. It has some deputies and maybe it's sensibly nearer to MSI "tradition" than AN.
Very sorry to hear about your father. It was not at all impolite of you to raise his exerience.
We have been talking slightly at cross-purposes here: the better translation of the Italian consenso would in this case be "consent" rather than the more universal "consensus", which implies agreement among all concerned (in this case, society as a whole) on a minimum body of policy reduced to its least controversial elements. The latter rendition does not, I think you will agree, describe Fascism's programme or actions in government.
But again, I think "consent" too must be distinguished from the acquiescence which is most citizens' response (because most of us are, for better or worse, on the whole law-abiding except in exceptional circumstances) to the withdrawal of rights, including the right to organised public political opposition.
The www.romacivica.net/anpiroma site which you cite indeed concedes Fascism an "apex of popular consent", but limits this to the period 1936-40, between the conquest of Ethiopia with its promise of opportunities for overseas settlement, and the declaration of war in 1940 with its deep unpopularity among the many Italians who saw Britain and France as more appropriate allies and viewed Nazi Germany with distaste.
The rallying to the regime which occurred in 1936 (in the face of international sanctions, however ineffectual) is nothing unique: Nazism similarly reached its peak of popularity after the victories of June 1940, and less authoritarian governments have enjoyed spectacular comebacks under similar circumstances, as in Britain following the 1982 Falklands war.
War is, however, not only to most of us undesirable, but also particularly unreliable as a device for national solidarity, as the military developments of 1941-43 show. For all the regime's emotional patriotic songs and domestic displays of enthusiasm for the Axis, the Italian army which had recovered so formidably in 1918 from the disasters of the previous autumn proved itself less than wholehearted in its execution of the Fascist design.
Flagwaving support for the government in times of national crisis or triumph is nothing unique to Fascist Italy or to authoritarian regimes: the question of consent for the exercise of power by a particular political movement or coalition needs, however, to be viewed in the longer term, and to be separated from participation in public structures or expression of loyalty to the state with the government at its head.
- -
The monarchists who stayed out of the 1972 pact with the MSI are now called the Alleanza Monarchica following a succession of name changes. I wasn't aware that the MSI-Fiamma had enjoyed electoral success, and shall add it to the article. User:David Parker
Hitler a socialist? I don't know where to begin explaining why that's wrong. I'd recommend the work of Ian Keershaw to shed light on this debate. While I am a historian, I've been busy lately, so the best I can do now is to side with the contributors opposing that revisionist interpretation.
"Juan Perón admired Mussolini and established his own Fascist regime." Is it really fair ? IMO it's not that obvious. It's a fact that Perón admired Mussolini and was a dictator but he was also much more sensible to social justice than fascist leaders. Ericd 23:38 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Ericd's right regarding the need to change the wording.
I've studied the Vargas and Peron regimes for years and the structural parallels between Brazil and Argentiana to the European fascist states are remarkable and the similiarities between Vargas and Peron to Mussolini are remarkable.
In my view, Vargas and Peron attempted to promote "bourgeois revolutions" to break the domination of agrarian oligarchs who had long ruled their countries, but turned to authoritarian means of rule due to the sharp class conflicts of Brazilian and Argentine society, the weakness of democratic traditions, and the absence of a social base for the policies they sought to enact.
But that's my historical interpretation. So in a NPOV article it has to be called a "fascist-like" or "fascist-inspired" regime.
Thanks 172. Ericd 01:19 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
More Text transferred from article:
- (The government led 1920-1944 by Miklos Horthy, a staunch Conservative, had joined Nazi-Germany in World War II, in hopes of bringing the return of the lost territories of Transylvania, Croatia, and Slovakia, which at the end of the war resulted in German interventions in Hungary, forcing Horthy to abdicate.)
Horthy is generally considered to be right-wing - rather than fascist - and the text makes no suggestion that he actually was fascist. A representative legislature operated throughout Horthy's rule. Horthy's alliance of Hungary with Germany has parallels with that of Finland (not mentioned as a fascist power). On that basis, the Horthy material appears not to be relevant to this article - unkamunka. 12:27, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Why no mention of the socialist, anarcho-syndicalist and futurist roots of Italian fascism?
Seems to be a weird oversight, given the Italian movcement's genesis!
--/anon/
Probably since no-one as yet has felt competent to write on that, or at least not sufficiently competent to provide a good neutral point of view.
--Ruhrjung 12:18, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
--- funny how everyone's running around trying to cover fasism whereever it showed up except the US. Some would say the word (like "radical" and "liberal" and "antisemitic") had to be destroyed in the US so people wouldn't realise the full horror until it was too late. Never wondered why most American dictionaries give a near-useless definition along the lines of "moussolini-style government"? It doesn't take a "conspiracy"...just a one-at-a-time inability to come up with a def'n that encompassed one but not the other. Or, more likely, simple focus on current use more than "proper" use.
But go objectively through the elements listed here. The only one I have any real difficulty satisfying for the US is "economic regimentation" although things like federal laws against boycotts of Israel sure smell like it.