Talk:Fascism/Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Fascism vs. socialism

The relationship between Fascism and socialism is debatable with some academics believing that the two are so dissimilar that there is no relationship and others arguing that the similarities between the two are so striking that they are in effect the same thing.

Arguing the similarities

A number of important 20th century thinkers saw many striking similarities between fascism and socialism. These individuals saw that the similarities in the means as well as the ends of fascism and socialism were too compelling to ignore. In this context, Fascism’s attempt to mold society around an idealized version of man is similar to the concept of the scientific socialism argued my Marx.

The political origins of Benito Mussolini as well as most other early fascist thinkers drew heavily from Marxist political parties, and most early fascist movements were comprised primarily of left thinking individuals.

Ludwig von Mises wrote one of the first analysts arguing that fascism and socialism were nothing more than totalitarian collectivist systems which had far more in common with communism than with any other socioeconomic system. In Planned Chaos, von Mises argues that Italian Fascism and German Nazism were socialist dictatorships with both being committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. Von Misses also points out that although fascism still allowed private ownership of property, productive control of that property still resided in the hands of the state, just as in socialist economies.

In the “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich August Hayek the violent conflict between fascism and socialism was not seen as a war between rival ideologies but rather a fight for power between two anti-democratic systems. Hayek believed the rise of Italian Fascism and German Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies. Fascism was seen by Hayek as a natural result of Marxism’s failure. The internationalist and democratic elements of Marxist thought made the creation of a socialist state unrealistic. Socialist activists like Benito Mussolini realized that in order to succeed, they would have to abandon those elements. The fusion of nationalism and socialism sowed the seeds for totalitarianism. Hayek also argued that Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism took this further by incorporating ideas of racial purity.

Hannah Arendt wrote “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, which attempted to trace the roots of communism and fascism and their link to anti-semitism..

More contemporary scholars such as Joshua Muravchik make many of these same arguments.

Highliting the contrasts

Much of what you suggest is already in the Totalitarianism article. That is the appropriate place for it. AndyL 17:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that some of these arguments are in other articles is in itself no reason to not have it here, especially since there is a "fascism and socialism" section within this article. As I have been told on many occasions before, there are many articles which have overlapping and duplicate information as is relevant, and I hardly see how you can argue that this would not be relevant seeing as how "fascism and socialism" exists in the article.

I can assure you that a lack of cooperation on this issue will result in another much dreaded edit war and page protections. TDC 18:21, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is not related to fascism. Most theories of totalitarianism do not count Mussolini's regime as totalitarian, for instance (Certainly Arendt's does not). john 18:33, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Moreover Arendt certainly does not claim fascism is a variety of socialism or that socialism itself is totalitarian. AndyL 18:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"I can assure you that a lack of cooperation on this issue will result in another much dreaded edit war and page protections."

Are you threatening to engage in an edit war if people don't submit to your demands?AndyL 18:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course not (what would give you that idea), just stating the obvious conclusion to the complete rejection of all my contributions, that’s all. TDC 18:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

"what would give you that idea" Your words. AndyL 19:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Origins of Fascism

I've moved the following paragraph by WHEELER here for discussion:

"Fascism was born in France amongst the turbelence produced by the French Revolution. It is born from the clashing ideas between revolution and stability, between bourgeoisie and proletariat bodies, between materialism and faith, between the rise of democracy and class warfare seen as destructive forces and nationalism as a source of preservation and between socialism and capitalism. France was the birth place of syndicalism and anarchosyndicalism which in turn formed Italian Fascism."

The Doctrine of Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile an idealist philosopher and who served as its official philosopher. Mussolini signed the article and it was officially attributed to him. In it, Frenchmen Georges Sorel, Charles Peguy, and Hubert Lagardelle were invoked as the sources of fascism. Sorel's ideas concerning syndicalism and violence are much in evidence in this document. It also quotes from the Frenchman Joseph Renan who it says had "prefascist intuitions". Both Sorel and Peguy were influenced by the Frenchman Henri Bergson. Bergson rejected scientism and mechanical evolution and materialism of Marxist ideology. Also, Bergson promoted an elan vital as an evolutionary process. Both of these elements of Bergeson appear in fascism. Mussolini states that fascism negates the doctrine of scientific and Marxian socialism and the doctrine of historic materialism. Hubert Lagardelle, an authoritative syndicalist writer, was influenced by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who is the inspirer of anarchosyndicalism

AndyL 17:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I just finished reading the book Liberalism and the challenge of Fascism. It all came from there. It all came from France. I hope you read the rest of the paragraphs in the Fascist article you will realize that all the names in the Doctrine of Fascism are French.WHEELER 18:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph above is the "Zeitgeist". One must understand the ideological and political currents the formed the original ideology. Zeitgeist is very important. Things do not just *appear*. There is no vacuum. They are formed by other basic material. I hope that this can be understood and seen.WHEELER 18:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I have added the second paragraph above for context.WHEELER 18:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, does this book actually explicitly claim that fascism "originated" in France? If so plese post a quotation here where the author says something like "fascism originated in France" AndyL 18:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"Like every other French thinker during the nineteenth century, Proudhon was keenly aware of the problem of the two Frances, between which yawned the chasm of the French revolution." pg 356

Proudhon hated democracy and attacked Rouseau. He promoted war as inherent in the very nature of man. He hated the bankers and the financiers but also hated the dumb workers. Proudhon hated socialists. he wasn't atheistic but was bitterly anti-Catholic.

"He it was who first sounded the fascist note of a revolutionary repudiation of democracy and of socialism." pg 366

"Proudhon was the intellectual spokesman of the French middle class...Like the fascists of our time, and unlike the Marxists of any time, he realized that there was a powerful class interest apart from capitalists and workingmen and hostile to both....Marx taunted Proudhon for being champion of the petty bourgeois." pg 366

"Fascist writers both in Germany and in France have not been slow to recognize Proudhon as the intellectual forerunner of of Fascism. One of these writers, Willibald Schulze, hailed him as the Wegweiser of the Third Reich because he repudiated democracy, capitalism, and socialism." pg 368.

Prof. Schapiro goes on to mention Karl Heinz Bremer and an significant article in a Paris fascist journal, quoting "Proudhon welcomed into his 'people' the middle class, who are the brains of the body social, a class that Marx would have stood up against the wall and shot down." pg 369.

The French were tired of the killing. Marx wanted more killing. The middle Class was being squeezed from the bottom by the workers and the bourgeoisie were deathly afraid of more confiscations, and by the financiers who charged exorbiant interest rates. Proudhon touched this and promoted an ideology that fit them. This can only be seen in a France that was constantly split in two. First from 1793 to 1829 in the early part between aristocrats and the bourgeoisie. Then after 1830, until WWI it was between the bourgeoise and the proletariat. France never had a smooth history of transition. It was constantly in turmoil unlike England. England had a smooth transition.

Prof. Shapiro concludes that "In the powerful polemicist of the mid-ninteenth century, it is now possible to discern a herald of the great world evil of fascism....Proudhon is destined to have a new and more prominent place in intellectual history." pg 369

Look: Sorel, Renan, Peguy, Lagardelle, Bergson, Proudhon were all frenchmen. Mussolini and Gentile point in the Doctrine of Fascism to all French men and the first four point to Bergson and Proudhon. France was an idea blender much like a food blender. And this incestous thought processes all came together in Fascism in Italy.

 This is the origins.  The Origin is France thru syndicalism.

pg 362, "According to authoritative syndicalist writers, notably Hubert Lagardelle, Proudhon was the inspirer of the anarchosyndicalist movement, which came prominently to the fore in France during the two decades before the First World War." pg 362.

I see it clear as a bell.

I need information of Henri De Man also but this is very interesting.WHEELER 00:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

nationalism was used to counter the destructiveness of Marxism. he tore everything down. and was willing to kill a lot of people. The French were tired of the killing. Marx promoted internationalism and so Nationalism was the antidote to all this.WHEELER 00:23, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

i labelled the section "Origins". This all falls under Origens. The birthing part. Mussolini took this with D'Annunzio and others and ran with it. Proudhon also liked dictatorships but of the "elite".WHEELER 00:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Chech out Syndicalism. WHEELER 00:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

you can't miss That Sorel had big input as a syndicalist. Lagardelle points to Proudhon. It's unbelievable connections.WHEELER 00:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Schapiro was writing when, in 1949? His suggestions have not been accepted by any other writers, have they? If Schapiro is suggesting that Proudhon's anarcho-syndicalism was the basis of fascism he is unique in that interpretation (and as Marxists are not fans of anarchism I don't think you can blame this on a Marxist bias in academia). It's one thing to say syndicalism had an influence on fascism, it's quite different to say that syndicalism and fascism are the same thing and that the founder of anarchosyndicalism was also the founder of fascism. Even if you are correct that syndicalism spawned fascism (and I find that claim dubious despite your use of the "appeal to authority" fallacy by saying that I can't dare disagree with a Leon Blum Professor of Politics let alone a Professor emeritus - emeritus really just means retired) to say Proudhon founded fascism would be like saying Moses founded Christianity. AndyL 00:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Prof Sternhell also has this throughout his book. The snythesis of syndicalism with nationalism.

Getting back to Pari' and the origin of Fascism in France:

"With his sense of theater, Marinetti knew that in order to strike the imagination of this contemporaries, this cry of rebellion had to come out of Paris. The mecca of arts and letters, an unequaled cultural center, Paris was also a major center of Italian culture where the most famous Italian writer of his period, the nationalist hero of the immediat postwar era, Gabriele D'Annunzio, lived and worked. Marinetti and D'Annunzio often wrote in French and participated in the intellectual life of the French Capitol". The Birth of Fascist Ideology, pg 29.

Clear and convincing proof. Prof. Sternhell backs up Prof Schapiro.WHEELER 14:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Quote from Prof. Sternhell's book: "(Fascism) was not a reactionary or an antirevolutionary movement in the Maurrassian sense of the term. Fascism presented itself as a revolution of another kind, a revolution that sought to destroy the existing political order and to uproot its theoretical and moral foundations." pg 7.

I put this in the article, It was deleted by AndyL.

I quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: "It is not reactionary but revolutionary." AndyL knows more about Fascism than does Gentile and Mussolini.

Quote from Prof. Sternhell's book: "Futurism, thanks to Marinetti, became a political force in the strict sense of the term." pg 234 "Marinetti the Bergsonian futurist" pg239 Prof Sternhell writes: "To this combination of revoltuonary revisionism and integral nationalism was added, in about, l910, a third element, Futurism. pg 28. Marinetti wrote a Futurist Manifesto. pg 28. Lagardelle, writes of a new culture. pg 27

Andyl deletes my lines of futurism in the Fascist article.

I quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: "Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism". Futurism is tied to Fascism.

I am sorry. but I cannot believe AndyL who doesn't know anything about Gentile, Lagardelle, Sorel, Peguy, Marinetti, D'Annunzio, Bergson, or Proudhon, and reverts edits that are found in the Doctrine of Fascism is qualified to do anything and has come to be the so-called "Fascist" and "Nazi" expert and Comissar of reverts. WHEELER 15:22, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, if you're going to be insulting I'm not going to bother discussing with you again. You may have noticed there's hardly anyone left who will bother talking to you. AndyL 17:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)~

Because you have walked around here like a stomping elephant reverting anything you don't like. Many people have labelled me a troll. Well, I do my homework, maybe its time you to do your homework.

I was in the Military and on the construction sites. I got yelled at plenty and it made me a better man. Iron sharpens Iron. That is why they yell at boots at boot camp. WHEELER 19:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Theres actually a very good reason why people are shouted at in bootcamps. To break them down in order to rebuild them in a fashion acceptable to those running the camps. Iron sharpens iron? This actually sounds like fascism talking! Remember steel breaks iron.

Now the point under discussion seems to me to be whether or not fascism is a product of a French intellectual tradition, incorporated within syndicalism, and imported to Italy. Or not.

This misses the point entirely as fascism was not an intellectual movement in any case. The fact is that the fascist bands were carrying out their work throughout 1919 while Mussolinis friends sat in comfort constructing a post facto theoretical construct to justify actions already carried through.

And in that process they used anything they could lay their hands on borrowing from the French syndicalists like Sorel for certain. But in France Sorels theoretical syndicalism was never a major influence on the real actual working class syndicalism of the CGT whereas in Italy it was nothing but an intellectual cover to justify Mussolinis placing his alraea=dy existing movement at the service of the Italian bourgeoisie.

Fascism then originates in Italy as a movement regardless of its borrowing certain themes from Sorel and others.

Yes, I think this is what we've been trying to say for some time. WHEELER is not interested. john 03:26, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler. I am glad you are adding to the debate I think you have something to contribute here. Using "Liberalism and The Challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France (1815-1870), J. Salwyn Schapiro" as what seems to be your sole reference is not a good idea. While yes, this book substantiates your views, you should take into account that those views are in the minority of the historical community (which does not necessarily mean they are wrong). Much in the same way those views which you are advocating are in the minority here.

The idea of tracing fascism to a french intellectual movement is not a widely held viewpoint. Your passion, is I'm sure, well intentioned but you need to be able to persuade your opposition rather than continue to reference the same work over and over again. A work which once again is not as popular elsewhere as it is with you. Try to keep that in mind. GrazingshipIV 08:10, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I quote Prof Schapiro who traces the fundamentals of fascist thought to France. It happened in France because of the split in France. Facsism if read is a hodge-podge of ideas a seemilgy inchorent form of ideas. That was produced in France. Only by understanding France and the turmoil there which Prof Schapiro lays out nicely, one can see the advent of Fascism. I have read Prof Sternhell who points to French Intellectual origins.

I quote from Prof Sternhell, "Sorel and the French Sorelians occupied a special place in Italian intellectual life. For the Italian revolutionary syndicalists, France provided a counterbalance tot he domination of German revisionism ovbr the the world of socialism." pg 154.WHEELER 15:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

2nd for wheeler

I just wanted you to know your not alone wheeler. I second what you've been saying, and can't understand why they are so unwilling to accept the facts, no matter how many references you provide. I reccomend you cite every addition you make, so that they don't have a leg left to stand on with these reverts. Sam Spade 07:53, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I havn't found it useful debating w andy BTW, he seems to focus on ad hominems. Sam Spade 07:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting that Sam doesn't actually provide any argument for why he thinks WHEELER is right. AndyL 08:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Sam is being utterly unfair to Andy, who seldom -- if ever -- uses ad hominems and always uses reasoned arguments. Sam must chare WHEELER's naive understanding of what a historical fact is. Wikipedia shouldn't. Slrubenstein

Arguments in Favor of WHEELER

Sam Spade 08:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Neither of the items you cite are arguments in favour of WHEELER's position particularly as those items deal with facts not theories and opinions (which is really what we're dealing with here). Indeed, a lot of what is said in the verifiability article can be used against him. . I'd be interested in seeing any encyclopedia articles or reference books that state the claims WHEELER is making. Britannica? Americana? Any dictionaries of philosophy or political thought? If any mainstream dictionary or encyclopedia includes the arguments WHEELER is making I'll withdraw my opposition. As it is given that Schapiro was writing over a half century ago and his arguments have not had any impact whatsoever on subsequent literature I'd have to say his position has been rejected as unsound and/or insubstantial. AndyL 08:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Andy's right on this

Look, I think it's legitimate to say that early fascist thinking echoed, expanded and may even have been in part inspired by some ideas put forward by Sorel, Bergeson, even Proudhon; but I don't think there is any reasonable way to say that fascism originated in France. To the extent that there was a coherent cluster of ideas that can be labelled "fascism" - and I think there was, but that remains somewhat controversial - its origins are clearly to be found in Italy. The etymology of the word alone placed the burden of proof on someone who wants to claim otherwise. There are quite large gaps between all the French thinkers that have been named here and the works of the early fascists.

The fascists happily cited a wide variety of 19th century intellectuals. That was part of Mussolini's schtick - fascism was a doctrine of brownshirts and know-nothings; Mussolini was a brownshirt and know-nothing, albeit far from stupid; many of the early fascists were desperate to be taken seriously. Citing Saint-Simon, Proudhon, Pareto, Hegel, god knows who else doesn't make any of those men fascists. He also cited Marx, Adam Smith, Locke and even Jesus Christ - they weren't fascists either.

Wheeler, look again at your quotes from Shapiro. "Proudhon [...] intellectual forerunner of of Fascism", "first sounded the fascist note", "a herald of the great world evil of fascism". He never says "Fascism started in France." He says that many of the ideas that it drew on, many ideas that were similar, many notions that came to be used by the fascists started in France, but he never, ever identifies a single one of those figures as "fascist". Nor does Sternhell - Sternhell idetifies the roots of fascism in the confluence of syndicalism and nationalism, both French doctrines, but unless fascism is redefined to include a broad swath of people traditionally considered non-fascist, it makes no sense to say it originated in France.

Sternhell's thesis remains controversial:

First, to apply fascism retrodictively to constellations of ideas current before 1914 is surely to underestimate the dramatic impact which the First World War had on compounds of organic nationalism with non-Marxist socialism. The war not only crystallized the sense of decadence and crisis of liberal capitalist civilization, and transformed internationalist socialism into a genuine threat to its hegemony, but through the mass mobilization of civilian populations, and the intensification of the state control of society which this necessitated, radicalized the populist, militaristic dimension of the revolt against the status quo without which fascism might never have emerged as an overtly anti-conservative and ritualistic movement of `people power'. The squadristi, the Freikorps, oceanic assemblies and vast rallies were the external manifestations of the unleashing of massified populist energies, signalling that something had burst upon the modern world which was qualitatively distinct from Boulangism or the Cercle Proudhon. A world of collective trauma and exhilaration separates the Camelots du Roi of the Action Française from the Sturmabteilung of the NSDAP. In this sense it is no coincidence that the term `fascism' is derived from a mass movement which combined party politics with extra-systemic violence in a way which has no parallel in pre-1914 France. [1]

As far as I know, only Sternhell is advancing such a radical thesis and he does not enjoy widespread support for it. I would be willing to collaborate in a paragraph offering his interpretation as an alternative POV, but not as an established fact.

Fascism as a coherent thing came into being in Italy. There are respectable mainstream points of view that it never really was a coherent thing, so fascism can only mean the doctrines of Mussolini, Hitler and those who drew directly on them; or that it was a syncretic doctrine drawn from convenient bits of all sorts of thinkers. Either way, I don't see a case for a French origin to fascism unless fascism is redefined as something different than what most people mean by the word. A clearer discussion of the ideological roots of fascism might well name many French thinkers, but that's as far as it goes.

Diderot 08:38, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Sources: same ones as Wheeler, plus [2]

Also, Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 makes this point if you prefer a printed reference. Diderot 08:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

You also have to consider how Zev Sternhell's thesis was directed specifically towards French myths about Vichy. Redefining fascism to give it a pre WWI existence was simply a means towards his (IMO correct) denial of the "foreign fascism" myth. The myth is that French fascism was imposed on France from the outside and imported from Italy and Germany. Sternhell is quite right to identify fascism as a more transnational European entity than the myth allows. France had existing political movement that were quite prepared to join the fascist cause one it existed as a political option. This undermines some of France's claims of collective innocence in WWII. Consider that Sternhell's claim of particularly French roots to fascism is an argument in his effort to prove something else entirely. This makes his claims somewhat suspect.

To claim that French fascism was not without indigenous roots is not to claim that Italian or German fascism was imported from France. Compare Sternhell to Robert Souchy's book French Fascism: The First Wave, which also identifies a variety of post-1918, pre-1940 French political movements as fascist - in substance if not in name - in support of Sternhell's attack on French protestations of collective innocence. However, Souchy's definition of fascism is somewhat ideosycratic: nationalist, traditionalist and anti-democratic. He never claims that nationalism, traditionalism or opposition to democracy were unique to France in the interwar period. Like virtually all commentators on fascism, he identifies the movement's roots in the rise of industrial nationalism, a rearguard defense of tradition, an opposition to socialism, and in the horrors of WWI.

In the end, if you intend to attribute fascism to any pre-Mussolini movement you have to define fascism in a non-historical way. The article as it exists defines fascist by resemblance to Mussolini's government. A French origin is impossible on those terms, since Mussolini's government originated in Italy. The article implies the possibility of defining fascism in terms of a state-centric conception of ideology - that ideology exists only to serve the state - but by that standard Henry VIII was a fascist too. For that reason - because it makes many people fascist who no one would call fascist - few people hold such a definition.

We might expand the definition section to cover elements of nationalism, anti-democratic tendencies and traditionalism. There appears to be a real movement that defines fascism that way. (That would make Mussolini look a lot like George W Bush, but I don't have any problem with that. :^)

Diderot 10:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Prof Sternhell is not alone on this, he mentions A. James Gregor in the first three pages of his work. Sternhell and Gregor and Schapiro, Herbert Hoover, Read Hoover. What did he see?????WHEELER 15:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Shapiro doesn't say it, Sternhell's judgement is motivated by other intentions and thus suspect without outside support, and Gregor is just plain nuts. As for Hoover, what precisely makes Hoover an expert on fascism? Seems to me he spent the 30's and 40's rhetorically covering his ass for doing nothing when the American economy collapsed. He wasn't in Europe, and he wasn't much of a historian. I mean, he can't even quote Mussolini accurately. Diderot 21:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)