Talk:Fascism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

To Andy, it is interesting to note your Origins of Fascism do not have any reference to the people that Mussolini quotes. Why is that? WHEELER 17:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting to note you evidently didn't read everything I said since I addressed that. Do you understand the concept of influence WHEELER? We don't determine influences just by what people identify as their influences. We also look at the similarity of their ideas to previous ideas that were extant in their culture at the time. It's interesting that you now say we can only judge fascism by what Mussolini said about it yet you insist fascism is left wing even though Mussolini explicitly said it was right wing. I guess you only use your "standards" when they reenforce your assumptions and disregard them when the evidence contradicts your assumptionsAndyL 18:02, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In any case, what I wrote in the article doesn't claim that Mussolini cites the encyclical as an influence. Rather it states 'The fascist concept of corporatism and particularly its theories of class collaboration and economic and social relations are very similar" and then describes the similarites before stating "The themes and ideas developed in Rerum Novarum can also be found in the ideology of fascism as developed by Mussolini."

What, in that statement, is incorrect? Do you deny a similarity between the ideas in the encyclical and the ideas of corporatism as explained in various fascist writings? How do you explain that similarity, WHEELER? Can you find any scholarly literature that contests the similarity and has a counterexplanation to the general deduction many scholars have made that the former was an influence on the latter?

My other "contribution", the paragraphs on Fascism and Christianity are taken from the wikipedia article Roman Catholicism's links with democracy and dictatorships and are meant to be a segue to that article where the issue is discussed more extensively.

AndyL 18:12, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

AndyL the reference Librarian at the Hoover Insititute has confirmed Hoover's quotation of the Doctrine of Fascism. The quotation marks seen in your copy mean that yours was doctored to say on the "right". She is sending me copies by snail mail and I will post them as soon as I get them. I will also see that my original edits be put back in and no more revisionism.WHEELER 23:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[1] [2] john 23:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I got the proof in the pudding coming. And one of those pages referred to on the secon site is one of my previous posts on another website. Your first references are ALL MANIPULATIONS OF TEXT. Propaganda. The truth will be set straight.WHEELER 15:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the proof is certainly in the pudding. But all the proof you have coming is that Hoover misquoted Mussolini. Surely the actual Italian text of the Doctrine of Fascism is not that hard to find, and would show what is actually said. In fact, so far as I can tell, Andy has already found it, and it says "destra", that is, "right". john 17:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hoover did not misquote. Andy read a reprinted Encyclopaedia. he even put in the quotation marks that said, they changed the text. The reference Librarian at the Hoover Institute confirms the quote by Hoover. will be sending me the 'UNDOCTORED' version. Sorry.WHEELER 20:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, my library actually has the Enciclopedia Italiana. I shall request it from high density storage and look at it myself. john 00:53, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have to eat my words. The reference Librarian at the Hoover Institute has just e-mailed me back that her first contention is wrong. That Hoover or whoever he quoted from is wrong. I can not believe that the London Quarterly did a botched effort on transaltion. The English are big sticklers on accuracy. I would like to get to the bottom of this. I don't want any "reprinted" versions. I want an origional l932 and not l934 or reprints. We need someone in Italy that can be trusted with originals or other Mussolini writings.WHEELER 14:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting error, WHEELER. As I said, my library has an original copy of the Enciclopedia Italiana. I'll try to get my hands on it and look it up. john 17:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

=

I have tracked down the original 1935 English version of Mussolini's pamphlet:

Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "The Doctrine of Fascism." (Firenze: Vallecchi Editore), p. 36.

This is cataloged by some librarians as a translation of Mussolini's (apparently with Gentile) article in the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932).

Here is the text:

" Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tendig (sic) to the <<right>>, a Fascist century. "

I added the "sic" since there is a typo in the original for the word "tending." I did NOT add the European <<marks>>. This is how "quotes" or emphasis were sometimes displayed. Actually, they are something between an arrow bracket and a parenthesis.

A longer booklet which contains "The Doctrine of Fascism" as a chapter is:

Mussolini, Benito. 1935. "Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions." (Rome: 'Ardita' Publishers).

As long as John Kenney is getting the Enciclopedia Italiana (1932), I would gladly pay for a photocopy of the original pages. I have been trying to track down the so-called quote by Mussolini:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

I pulled this quote off the Wickipedia Mussolini entry because I cannot verify it from any English tranlation of the entry. But if it is in the actual original Enciclopedia Italiana (1932) entry, then it should be replaced.

John Kenney, please contact me offlist. Chip Berlet <[email protected]>.