Talk:Fascism/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

New definition of Fascism

In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the clue here is "a recent article". This is a subject with decades of academic study. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But I wonder if you could comment on the RS noticeboard. TFD (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Considering the multiplicity of definitions of fascism, and the disagreements among subject experts about it, I don't think it's reasonable to jump at making major changes to the article because of the publication of a single article. Certainly, if their are aspects of it worth exploring we can discuss adding those to the article, but replacing what we have is out of the question.

BTW, your link above is incorrect, so I couldn't check out the source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about "fascism" or "Proud Boys" at WP:NPOVN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Found it. You meant the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected it. TFD (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Let just say that there is a distinct difference between saying "By this definition, the Proud Boys are fascist" and saying "This is the final and definitive definition of what fascism is." Those are two different questions that you seem to be conflating together. I have no problem with the first, if the bona fides of the writer are part of it, but the second is a whole different story.

I may also say that looking at your contributions, you appear to be WP:CANVASSING the talk pages of numerous semi-related articles in order to get people to the discussion in question who might support your position, i.e. "Can we change the definition of fascism in this article because of X", "No", "Then come here and say that this definition of fascism is not acceptable." IMO, your posting those notices in not acceptable, and violates WP:CANVASSING. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It comes under Appropriate notification: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more directly related articles." I also mentioned at RSN that I would ask for input in talk pages. Specifically, inappropriate canvassing is appealing to editors who share one's views, not editors who have a general interest in the topic. Obviously the editors of this article would have a better understanding of the definition of fascism but do not necessary share the same views about it. The discussion is not about whether by this definition the Proud Boys are fascist but whether they are fascist period. It assumes that the definition in the source is the correct one because it is a reliable source. And of course if that is the correct definition of fascism, it can affect other articles. TFD (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, because of the way you phrased the notification, but I'm not planning on pressing the issue. I would suggest, though, that you be more careful in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Careful about what? If you think that it is appropriate to use Britt's 14 points as definitive about who is or who is not a fascist, then say so. Don't interpret my asking your opinion as improper canvassing. I didn't know beforehand that you would accept his definition as definitive, but thought that as a regular contributor, you would have an informed opinion. And now I know that you believe that Paxton et al were wrong about their definition and Britt was right. Many people disagree with the opinion that fascism only includes people like Hitler and Mussolini and include other right-wing dictators such as Papadopolous and Suharto. Do you think we should change the article to reflect these views? Why or why not? TFD (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is actually an important issue. When we categorize groups as fascist, do we do so based on expert analysis by fascism experts or do we do so based on an article by someone who has a master's degree using an article that was written by a journalist? To me, it doesn't matter that her conclusions might be right, but that we are accepting a low standard of proof. History tells us that when we do that, the scapegoat is always the Left or the minorities. We all hate the Proud Boys, but why can't we use reliable sources to describe them and do so in a neutral tone rather than using dubious sources to explain them? TFD (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Being a subject expert is not necessarily measured by the degrees one has, and, no, unless one is fixated on not having the Proud Boys be labelled "fascist", it's really not anything like an "important issue". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So you think that Samantha Kutner is a fascism expert. Thankyou for your opinion. TFD (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you really want to know what I think? I think that you were being entirely disingenuous when you came here touting a new definition of fascism and asking "Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings?", when your actual purpose was to garner negative reactions to the new definition so they would filter back to the RSN discussion and support your position that the Proud Boys aren't fascist, disregarding the results of an RfC. I think that any respect I had for you as a straight-shooter who could be counted on to look at reality and accurately report back what is there, regardless of your ideological position on it, has been wiped away by your current shenanigans, and will take quite a while to be restored. That's what I think. If you ever want to know what I think again, ask me and, if I so desire, I'll tell you, but don't make statements about what you think I think for cheap rhetorical purposes. You don't know me, and I doubt you ever will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. I believe that we should rely on the definition of fascism established by experts. You believe that we should rely on a definition written by Laurence Britt. There is no need to disrespect each other. We just have different standards on what we consider to be expert opinion on the subject. Maybe if you continue to post your opinions I will come around to your view. TFD (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You said that I don't know you and doubt I ever will. I guess you are from a lower middle class background, have OCD and support Kier Starmer. Otherwise I would have to examine your posts to gain further information. I am not interested in knowing anything more. TFD (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW thank you so much for reversing your edit "Please don't be a dick."[1] TFD (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, you read it, too bad you didn't follow it. BTW, you're only batting 0.125, so don't expect to be on the roster nest season. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am removing my last two posts. TFD (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I have restored them. You cannot remove your comments after they have been responded to, nor can you change without indicating the changes. Per WP:REDACTED:

Editing own comments

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes.

*Any deleted text should be marked with <del>...</del>, which renders in most browsers as struck-through text, e.g., deleted.

*Any inserted text should be marked with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted.

*Best practice is to add a new timestamp, e.g., ; edited ~~~~~, using five tildes, after the original timestamp at the end of your post.

*To add an explanation of your change, you may add a new comment immediately below your original or elsewhere in discussion as may be most appropriate, insert a comment in square brackets, e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px [the default changed last month]", or use [[WP:CURRENTSECTION#New section|<sup>[corrected]</sup>]] to insert a superscript note, e.g. ^[corrected], linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation.

If you'd like to withdraw your comments, please feel free to strike them through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascism is Indeed a Far-Right Ideology

At first glance, fascism's non-economic policies may seem to resemble those of communism. Both involve a large amount of governmental intervention into citizens' everyday lives. Both involve authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and extreme nationalism as well as dictatorial rule. Both involve government propaganda. But there are two main differences. The first is the economy. In communism, there is extreme egalitarianism, while in fascism, this is not present. In addition, there is an important difference that pertains to the government itself. In communism, a dictator takes power and establishes the communist society, making everything government-owned. On the other hand, fascism is, at its core, anarchy. The private companies of the country essentially make up the government. So the "government" that has totalitarian and dictatorial power and intervenes at will is actually private companies. "Private" doesn't exist in the communist dictionary. I hope this clears things up at least partially. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand the violation of this policy and, upon reading, do agree with the policy in general, but I thought it was necessary to put those arguments to rest. Reliable sources didn't convince them, so I attempted to explain. I didn't think about this policy when making the comment. My apologies. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I get your frustration , we have a FAQ right at the top.Slatersteven (talk)

Contradictions

So far, all countries which have been deemed “fascist” have all been socialist. Russia, Cuba, Italy (WW II era), etc. Said countries have all been staunchly anti-religion, a key pillar of the right wing. Even here in the USA, fascism and communism has strongly related.

There are a number of quotes making this association, including one from the President. Wiki’s page on McCarthyism:

Following the First Red Scare, President Harry S. Truman signed an executive order in 1947 to screen federal employees for association with organizations deemed "totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive", or advocating "to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.‘

The conclusion reached by the article is not consistent with the long-term, widespread application of the term. States with official state religions and adherence to religious law (ie. Sharia) are more consistent with is considered “right-wing”. Opie8 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done See the note at the top of this page and the extensive links to solid scholarly sources explaining why you are wrong (aside from your clearly displayed ignorance of history). --Orange Mike | Talk 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem consistent with Wiki's neutral point of view

I'm not a right-winger. In fact, I'm further left than most left-wingers. That said, I still understand when things are and are not neutral in point-of-view.

Consider that these two lines exist in this article, separated by two paragraphs.

1) Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents.

2) Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2]

Does this pass the intellectual smell-test?

Given that it *is* a pejorative, and there is, was, and always be some controversy over it (I'm sure both parties have traits of it), it's the only Wiki article I believe I've personally seen which makes no mention of the associated controversy. Wikipedia generally disallows pejoratives to be used in this manner, and the fact that they are allowing this is something that many people will find shocking on both sides of the spectrum. Especially given that there is no factual definition of there term, and its primary use in the United States *is* a pejorative. While those who agree with what is written may find it to be factual, this is all the more reason to apply a higher level of scrutiny to the article. A topic like this lends itself to bias very easily, and I think this is a textbook case of what such a scenario looks like. Were we to be completely fair, I think we would all concede that there aren't a lot of right-wing folks who have a significant amount of editorial control at Wikipedia. This leads certain points of view to be amplified through the echo chamber. Given that no contrary points of view were sought (and they do exist), I think this article falls short of Wikipedia's usual standards. Opie8 (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Opie8, There is indeed a factual definition of the term Fascism. Fascism and fascist ideology are one of the most covered topics ever, there is an overwhelming abundance of scientific and popular literature about fascism. Whole generations of intellectuals, researchers and indeed a lot of the population of Europe has since tried to come to grips with what happened in the 30s and 40s how such atrocities could have happened. There is not a shred of doubt that Fascism is an (extreme) right-wing ideology - opening any reliable history book in the nearest (online these days) libraries will attest to that - as well as the numerous references, sources and further-readings on this article will. Mvbaron (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron, I don't know if you fall for this human trait, but when I tell people to open a "reliable" book, I generally mean for them to open a book which agrees with my point. I'll assume that you concede that "reliable" is, uncontroversially, subjective? That said, I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be, and I actually agree with your overall point. For instance, Nazis were National Socialists, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of people would agree that Nazis were Facists. Socialists, however, are certainly not thought of as right-wing. Also confounded by the definition is a common notion that all political parties display some traits of Fascism, at least as defined by the article. At least in U.S. politics, this appears to be true. Therefore, painting it strictly as "right" is a point is rather easily debatable, with plenty of real-world examples available to people arguing that side of the debate, and thus the definition as offered falls short of factual. Especially without any mention of the controversy. Letting one side of an argument write an article casting their opponents as a pejorative is not a standard any of us want to see become widespread. Roughly 47% of the US would disagree with the article as written, which makes it very controversial, and written from a single perspective. Not generally desirable. At least this is my opinion, which I think I've said enough about, so I'll concede the fate of the article to its authors. Opie8 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

this is not really a forum to discuss this, just a couple of points: First, don't get too hung up on my use of "reliable" here. Really, open any book on Fascism written by an actual historian or an expert and you get the answers you are looking for. Like I said, Fascism is on of the most covered topics ever, and it is universally agreed that it is right-wing (and I'm not talking about blogs or newspapers, but science). Second, the fact the the Nazis called themselves "socialists" is like North Korea being a "Democratic People's Republic" - not really an argument. Third, Wikipedia is en encyclopedia, it reports what reliable sources (e.g. the history books) and other experts say, we cannot put our own thoughts and original reasoning in the article, see WP:OR. Best Mvbaron (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Does this pass the intellectual smell-test?" Yes. End of discussion. Been there, done that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality in Wikipedia means giving due weight based on reliable sources, i.e., books and articles written by experts and published in the academic press. it does not mean given equivalence to opposing views. So astronomy articles will say the universe is 15 billion years old even if 47% of Americans think it is only 6,000 years old. TFD (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Gee, 46.9% of the popular vote in our most recent Presidential election went to the losing candidate. Coincidence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought that might be where they got the number from. TFD (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Were we to be completely fair, I think we would all concede that there aren't a lot of right-wing folks who have a significant amount of editorial control at Wikipedia. This leads certain points of view to be amplified through the echo chamber. Given that no contrary points of view were sought" oh boo hoo, we don't consider the views of fascists, cry me a river! You can't be serious? No one gives a single flying fuck how fascist feel. We don't give even the slightest consideration to the feelings of fascists when writing for wikipedia. WP:NONAZIS. Fascists are not welcome here, their feelings and opinions are not worthy of the slightest consideration. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Characterisation

The opening sentence states that fascism is characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, but that could also be said of Stalinism too, so it is kind of useless. I would have thought a better definition would be Roger Griffin's – that fascism is "a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism that attempts to realize the myth of the regenerated nation" and is characterised by a revolutionary agenda; a "populist" drive towards mobilizing the energies of members of the national community; and an organic concept of the nation. Comments? --Nug (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with adding those characteristics, but I'd be opposed to their replaciing the current ones. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add anything to the lead sentence, it's already overloaded with descriptors. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the lede could use refining, but not further cluttering with more descriptors. Bacondrum (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead

I would like to recommend changing the lead and provide a suggestion below. I would welcome any comments.

Fascism is a right-wing ideology and movement originally developed in Italy following the 1914-1918 world war and copied in numerous other countries. It's main characteristics are charismatic leadership, extreme nationalism and repressive dictatorship. Its most virulent form was National Socialism, or Nazism, which was responsible for launching the Second World War and the Holocaust, causing the deaths of millions of people.

Fascism came to power in Italy, Germany and other countries with the support of traditional elites and capitalists and was fanatically anti-Communist. It declined sharply following the Second World War and remaining and successor fascist movements are generally referred to as neo-fascists.

Attempts to define fascism or to categorize which parties were fascist have proved difficult since its ideology was poorly defined and fascists were never able to form a unified movement. In recent years however, fascism scholars have mostly agreed on Roger Griffin's consensus definition of fascism as "a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultranationalism."

TFD (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Some thoughts:

(1) I'm very much in favor of replacing §1, §2 and §4 of the current lead with §1 and §2 of your suggestion (I think current §2 is excessively detailed and unimportant for the lead)

(2) I'm unsure if your §3 is not too detailed/academic for the lead, and suggest leaving current §3

(3) in sum: §1 (new), §2 (new), §3 (old), §4 (delete)

(4) A small suggestion for your §1:

Fascism is a right-wing ideology and movement, which originally emerged in Italy following the 1914-1918 world war and eventually came to prominence in numerous other countries.

--Mvbaron (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but my main objection is that I don't see the necessity of this. Why do we need a new lead?

More specifically, I don't see your proposal as an improvement with respect to the current lead. Your proposal misses or tones down a few sourced statements, IMHO: the "far-right" aspect, the "ultranationalism" (now becomes just "extreme nationalism"), for example. There are also weird sentences: "with the support of traditional elites and capitalists", which is such a vague sentence, "was fanatically anti-Communist", yes but it was mainly also fanatically anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-many other ideologies, "remaining and successor fascist movements are generally referred to as neo-fascists", but e.g. Francisco Franco, who died in 1975, was the fascist dictator of a major country until his death and was not a neo-fascist, he was a fascist. It also focuses too much on the First and Second World Wars. The first sentence should define what fascism is, I don't think that introducing the Holocaust there amounts to a good encyclopedic definition; the Holocaust was the ultimate consequence of fascism, not its fundamental definition. Also the word "virulent" to describe an ideology looks like editorialization to me, and borderlines a violation of WP:POV.

So, I'm sorry but I think the current lead is much more encyclopedic and readable than your proposed one. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I found that the current lead does not succinctly describe the subject. To answer your other objections:

• What is weird about the expression "traditional elites and capitalists?" They were the two most powerful groups in Europe at the time and often in conflict, but united behind fascism. The existence of aristocracy and reactionary clerics was critical to fascism's rise to power.
• Anti-Communism was far more pronounced than anti-liberalism. In fact liberals were invited to join fascist governments, and many of them followed liberal economic policies before WWs. Fascist governments treated Communists more severely than liberals and democrats.
• Franco today is not considered to have been a fascist but someone who relied on fascist support. (See Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (2013), p. 124.[2] The main successor fascist party was the Italian Social Movement, founded in 1946 by followers of Mussolini, which is routinely called neo-fascist.
• It focuses on the intra-war period because that was when fascism developed and achieved power, before going into serious decline.
• While virulent may look like editorialization, it follows neutrality, because that is the consensus of experts. This is no academic literature that defends Nazism, and very little that defends fascism, unlike all other major rival ideologies.
• WW2 and the Holocaust are the main events caused by fascists and major reasons for fascism's decline in popularity following WW2.

TFD (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi TFD, I like your suggestion as far as making it clearer and more succinct, the prose flow better than in the current lede. I also see no issue with "traditional elites and capitalists?" I've seen the claim that fascists were aided by traditional elites and capitalists put forth by numerous experts, Robert Paxton comes to mind immediately, he said in The Anatomy of Fascism that "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.". I also agree, when looking at noted academic texts on the subject that Anti-Communism was at the forefront of Nazi ideology. Having said that, the lede could use some work with regard to prose, but as far as content goes it is pretty fair and accurate as is, summarises the subject fairly well. It's a complicated subject, we don't want such an extreme and complex ideology given such a brief lede that it fails to reflect fascism's complex history and nature. And one more thing, it most certainly should not be described as merely right wing, it is a far-right ideology, in-fact it is the archetypal far-right ideology - and the academic sourcing to back that claim is all but inexhaustible, there's a very clear consensus among academics in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the term far right is correct since it did not seem to be used at the time. Most of the Right at the time would be considered far right by today's standards, while modern parties that occupy the right half of the political spectrum would have been considered centrist. The Conservative Party of Germany for example, which had been the party of Bismarck, was not far right, but its post-war namesake definitely was. I'd like to see how most sources would describe the Nazi Party.

Also, I think in writing the lead, we should assume that the reader knows nothing about the topic, so wants a brief overview before jumping into the details.

TFD (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fascism is far-right, that's very well established. As I said the academic sourcing to back that claim is all but inexhaustible, there's a very clear consensus among academics in that regard. The Nazi Party was far-right, no credible academic would disagree, there's nothing to discuss there, any claims to the contrary are on the extreme end of the fringe - claiming they are merely right-wing is absurdly out of step with academic consensus, it's comparable to the claims that fascism is left wing. Yes, I think the prose could be improved to make things clearer, but that doesn't mean we should omit key details in the summary. Bacondrum (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be established. See for example The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right. It consistently calls Fascism and Nazism right-wing and reserves the description far right to post-war politics. That could be because fascists were not that different from other right-wing parties in terms of their base of support and hostility to democracy and civil rights. After the war, they lost respectability and became relegated to the fringes, with no support from elites. In that sense, it's similar to Maoism. We are more likely to refer to a Maoist party in the U.S. today as far left, than we would be to describe Mao's party that way.

Incidentally, the terms left and right-wing entered the English language during the Spanish Civil War, when left was used to refer to the socialist, communist and anarchist loyalists, while right-wing was used to refer to Franco, the Fascists and their allies.

TFD (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's just plain wrong it's a very well known fact that left and right wing entered political discourse centuries earlier, in 1789, during the French Revolution and became common in English language by the mid 1800's - this origin is common knowledge amongst students of political science, it's beginners stuff, first year undergrad. As for the routledge companion, the far-right is right, so that may just be a omission of no significance. The term far-right is almost exclusively associated with fascism and related movements like Nazism, again this is first year undergrad stuff, common knowledge. If needed I'll do the work to bring the weight of academia on this to bare, but I doubt such an obviously false claim will get that far. For example Prof. Rodney P. Carlisle's Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right states that: "Typically the term is applied to fascists and neo-Nazi's, although subscribers to left-wing views sometimes use it very liberally..." P694. Bacondrum (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes well known facts are wrong. While seating along ideological lines came into being in 1789, the terms left, right and center did not come to be used for ideological positions until the early 20th century. (See Gauchet, Marcel. "Right and Left". In Pierre Nora, Lawrence D. Kritzman (Eds.), Realms of memory: conflicts and divisions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.)[3] That's why Marx (d.1883) and Engels (d. 1895) did not use the terms, while Lenin and Stalin used the terms in the 1920s. Meanwhile it did not enter common use in the UK until the Spanish Civil War. (Charles Loch Mowat, Britain Between the Wars: 1918–1940 (1955) p. 577.) You can see the increase in usage from 1800 to 2019.[4] I have plotted it against the terms conservative, fascist and far right.

I would be interested if you could provide any examples of the use of the terms left-wing and right-wing in English in the mid-1800s. There is the example of David Strauss in 1837 coining the terms left, right and center Hegelian, but other than that I cannot find anything.

I note that your source is writing about contemporary politics, hence it mentions neo-Nazis but not Nazis. It's provided as an explanation of why the French New Right, formed in the 1960s, is considered far right.

In any case whether we call fascism right-wing or far right isn't crucial to the changes I suggested.

TFD (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think TFD's proposed lead is any better. With recent scholarship Fascism is certainly not difficult to define, for example Roger Griffin defines fascism as a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism that attempts to realize the myth of the regenerated nation, and is characterised by a revolutionary agenda; a "populist" drive towards mobilizing the energies of members of the national community; and an organic concept of the nation. What is so hard to understand about that? In other words, while Fascism is certainly ultra-nationalist, not all forms of ultra-nationalism is necessarily fascist if they lack either the revolutionary agenda, the populist drive or an organic national concept. --Nug (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just that for an encyclopedic article, it might be more user friendly to begin with the description of Fascism as "a right-wing ideology and movement originally developed in Italy" before providing its formal description as "Fascism is a revolutionary form of ultra-nationalism etc." Note though that my proposal ends by providing Griffin's definition. Bear in mind that it should have been possible to write an article about fascism before Griffin's definition. TFD (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Etymology

Has anyone discussed the etymology section, whether or not it needs to be changed? We rather directly state that "fascism" was coined from "fasces". However, Merriam-Webster and Etymonline say there is not a direct correlation between coining "fascism", and "fasces", and perhaps there is some influence, but that "fascism" is formed from "fascio" (meaning "group, association," literally "bundle"). Read into their explanations, it seems to make sense. ɱ (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me it already says that "fascism" comes from "fascio". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but only gives the literal translation of "bundle", making it read that fascism directly came from fasces (something I was also taught in high school Latin), while in fact the translation should include the less literal translation used at the time of "group", as mentioned in these sources. More clarification is needed, in order to align with these sources as well. ɱ (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, then! I'm happy to be disillusioned of a misconception. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer a scholarly secondary source, i.e., a history of fascism. Etymology online gets its information from dictionaries, including, so in this case could be repeating information from Merriam-Webster. Presumably Merriam-Webster gets its information from histories of Fascism. Presumably at some point the party founders considered a name and their reasons might have been recorded. Did the Fascists adopt the name from other pro-war groups or did they coincidentally re-invent the name using different sources? If not, why did they adopt the bundle as their symbol? Surely there must be a better source for this. TFD (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

From "Alice Yaeger Kaplan, Russell Berman. Fascism: Etymologies and Political Usage. In: Reproductions of Banality : Fascism, Literature, and French Intellectual Life. Theory and History of Literature. University of Minnesota Press; 1986.":

Fasces—Latin. Rods or branches wrapped around an ax. Carried by Latin "lie- tors" (executioners) as a show of power. By extension: (1) to cede the fasces, to acknowledge authority; (2) an assembly or crowd.

Citing Sicilian gangs such as the fasci del Lavoratore and fasci Siciliani, the Oxford English Dictionary (Supplement) and Encyclopedia Britannica mark the reemergence of a political connotation for fasces in the 1890s. An obscure French gangster-aristocrat named the Marquis de Mores may have had some knowledge of these groups when, in 1894, he published his "doctrine du faisceau," an anti-Semitic populism that moved him to organize racist leagues in the Paris suburb of La Villette. It is in France, then, that a "faisceau" bound by racism is first organized. (...)

However, the first well-known twentieth-century groups to use the name were Italian interventionists (fasci interventista rivoluzionario, fasci d'azione internazionalista, and so on) organized in 1914 in support of Italy's entrance into World War I. Again, at the level of received ideas, the first modern fascist movement was undoubtedly the Italian one. Mussolini's fasci di combattimento, founded in 1919 as a splinter group of the Italian Socialist party, was established in power in 1922 with the Roman fasces (fascio, in Italian) as its symbol.

They only reference 'fasces', and make no mention of 'fascio', it's less clear than I wish though... But in the end, it's perhaps splitting hairs. The info from the quote I just posed might be worth to include anyways. --Mvbaron (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Books about fascism or its history would be more keen to establish a link between the Ancient Roman emblem of force, unity, and strength together with the modern movement. I on the contrary, would much more likely trust a source detailing it that's not primarily about fascism. I'll take a look more when I have time... ɱ (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that Paxton gives a sufficiently clear explanation in The Anatomy of Fascism (p.4):

The word fascism has its root in the Italian fascio, literally a bundle or sheaf. More remotely, the word recalled the Latin fasces, an axe encased in a bundle of rods that was carried before the magistrates in Roman public processions to signify the authority and unity of the state. Before 1914, the symbolism of the Roman fasces was usually appropriated by the Left. Marianne, symbol of the French Republic, was often portrayed in the nineteenth century carrying the fasces to represent the force of Republican solidarity against her aristocratic and clerical enemies. Fasces are prominently displayed on Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theater (1664–69) at Oxford University. They appeared on the Lincoln Memorial in Washington (1922) and on the United States quarter minted in 1932.

Italian revolutionaries used the term fascio in the late nineteenth century to evoke the solidarity of committed militants. The peasants who rose against their landlords in Sicily in 1893–94 called themselves the Fasci Siciliani. When in late 1914 a group of left-wing nationalists, soon joined by the socialist outcast Benito Mussolini, sought to bring Italy into World War I on the Allied side, they chose a name designed to communicate both the fervor and the solidarity of their campaign: the Fascio Rivoluzionario d’Azione Interventista (Revolutionary League for Interventionist Action). At the end of World War I, Mussolini coined the term fascismo to describe the mood of the little band of nationalist ex-soldiers and pro-war syndicalist revolutionaries that he was gathering around himself. Even then, he had no monopoly on the word fascio, which remained in general use for activist groups of various political hues.

So the ancient Roman connotation was absolutely present, but the much more immediate denotation of fascio as a group or band of people committed to a common purpose is also very important for understanding why Mussolini chose the name fascism for his movement. Generalrelative (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump

I know that this has come up before, and that the discussion is likely to be controversial, but I believe the time has come for a source-based conversation on whether and how to discuss the growing number of scholarly commentators (including noted experts on fascism), who have compared Trumpism to fascism in one way or another. Instead of WP:BOLDly adding the text, I'll present it here for comment first, though note that this text is live over at Fascism in North America where a skeleton text on Trump already existed (to which I added more refs and discussion):

A growing number of scholars have argued that the political style of Donald Trump resembles that of fascist leaders, beginning with his election campaign in 2016, continuing over the course of his presidency as he appeared to court far-right extremists, and culminating in the January 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. As these events have unfolded, some commentators who had initially resisted applying the label to Trump came out in favor of it, including conservative legal scholar Steven G. Calabresi and conservative commentator Michael Gerson. After the attack on the Capitol, the historian of fascism Robert O. Paxton went so far as to state that Trump is a fascist, despite his earlier objection to using the term in this way. Other historians of fascism such as Roger Griffin, Stanley Payne and Richard J. Evans continue to disagree that fascism is an appropriate term to describe Trump's politics.

Note too that this topic is discussed in the article Trumpism but in a rather scattershot way. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Generalrelative, one thought: I don’t think these sources are very high quality, almost all of them are opinion pieces or book reviews. I think there is an interesting debate there (though perhaps better suited for inclusion at one of the articles on trump or his politics than here), but the sources aren’t good enough in my opinion. Cheers Mvbaron (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mvbaron: Thanks for engaging and I hear you. Perhaps Michael Gerson's opinion on the topic is less than notable, but I'd argue that an op-ed by a world-class expert like Robert Paxton or Richard Evans is about as good as we can expect commentary on contemporary politics to get. In such cases reliability and relevance come from the speaker, not the platform. Generalrelative (talk) 07:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be added, I'm sure better sources exist where the sourcing is weak (though some of these primary sources are fine for the views of subject matter experts). For example, Paxton's comments are due and well sourced, he is a leading subject matter expert, a political scientist specialising in fascism and author of more than a dozen highly regarded works on the subject including The Five Stages of Fascism and The Anatomy of Fascism which specifically focus on defining fascism - a primary source can be used for such an experts views. Bacondrum 20:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It is an interesting topic to say the least, but issues can arise in classifying Trump, or associating him with Fascist ideals. A common theme that is usually portrayed is that Fascism is almost solely about an individual having a great deal of power and basically being a "bad guy" to people they don't like, which obviously isn't accurate as a whole, as there's also economic and social tenets of Fascism, instead of just solely political power in the hands of an individual or party. There's other strong man leaders who wouldn't be classified as Fascists even though they hold a great deal of power and have strict laws keeping them in place within their respective countries, i.e. Kim Jong-un in North Korea or Xi Jinping in China, but they're not classified as such because of their respective sociopolitical ideologies. Although Trump made questionable decisions during his presidency which have been criticized by all sides of the political spectrum, he still did in the end admit to a peaceful transition of power to Joe Biden, and told rioters at the Capitol to go home, arguably a bit late however. Richard J. Evans presents a great article as to why Trump, even with some of his problems, is not a Fascist. Sheri E. Berman, a Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University, who focuses on Fascism and related topics, also argues in an article as to why Trump is not a Fascist, and how "Trumpism" lacks characteristics associated with Fascism. Reaper1945 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

As said as well elsewhere, thw whole issue cannot be taken serious and ridiculous, political shoapboxing and hysteria has really no limits. I don't watch all the related articles, but I experienced though the massive POV edits to make appear Trump as the devil incarnate, I am afraid the time soon will come when he will became a Nazi or worse. At least in Europe we lived through and understood what Facism really means and is, but it seems some do not really.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

In fact only one recognized fascism scholar (Paxton) has called Trump a fascist, while all recognized experts who have commented on him say he is not. However, being an expert does not give Paxton's statements, especially in an op-ed in a questionable source, inherent noteworthiness. We would have to show that his opinion has entered the academic discussion. I notice that many prominent experts present different opinions in their academic and popular writing. It's easier to call Trump a fascist, much harder to defend it in a peer-reviewed article and put one's academic reputation on the line.

Most sources that call Trump fascist do so by using a very loose definition of fascism, which could also be used to describe most U.S. presidents. Basically they combine populist demagoguery with pro-big business policies.

TFD (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the conversation, but will note that Paxton is not the only respected historian of fascism to draw this comparison. I emphasized him in my draft text because he made the equation in very straightforward language, and did so after previously refusing to do so, i.e. in response to emerging evidence. Above I have also cited Timothy Snyder (named chair at Yale, author of numerous highly influential books on the Holocaust) and Peter Gordon (named chair at Harvard, influential historian of Weimar-era German thought). I didn't mention, but could have, the critical reply to Gordon's piece by Yale law professor Samuel Moyn, and the subsequent discussion of this exchange, along with the views of Jason Stanley and others, in this presentation by Yale historian Marci Shore: I could also have cited this remarkably even-handed survey on both the popular and scholarly dimensions of the debate published 2 years ago in Central European History by Fairfield history professor Gavriel Rosenfeld: Rosenfeld, Shore, Stanley, Gordon and Snyder all defend in one way or another the value of comparisons between Trump's politics and historical fascism. Though they do not by any means represent a new consensus, it is no longer accurate to say that they represent a fringe point of view either.

I would also note that, in my experience as an academic, public debates like this are indeed highly consequential for one's reputation. And because it is not a normal practice for historians to publish peer-reviewed papers on contemporary issues (the Rosenfeld piece just mentioned being one exception), the popular press is often the best opportunity we have to hear their views on such matters.

Finally, I will reiterate that my goal here is not to introduce language stating in Wikivoice that Trump is a fascist, but rather to draw attention to the robust public debate among respected scholars, with compelling arguments on both sides. Generalrelative (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

See Richard J. Evans, Why Trump isn’t a fascist" (New Statesman, 13 January 2021): "But few who have described Trump as a fascist can be called real experts in the field, not even Snyder. The majority of genuine specialists, including the historians Roger Griffin, Matthew Feldman, Stanley Payne and Ruth Ben-Ghiat, agree that whatever else he is, Trump is not a fascist."

Jason Stanley for example is a philosophy professor "best known for his contributions to philosophy of language and epistemology." His book How Fascism Works was published by Penguin Random House, not an academic publisher. He does not base his definition on existing scholarship but uses his own checklist.[5] As the reviewer in the New York Times Book Review notes, he groups "Trump, Victor Orban, Hitler, the Confederacy, the Rwandan genocidaires and the current government of Myanmar, among others, into a one-sentence definition of fascism: 'ultranationalism of some variety (ethnic, religious, cultural) with the nation represented in the person of an authoritarian leader who speaks on its behalf.'"[6] So there is a question whether Stanley is writing about the same topic as this article or to what extent his book will influence the main body of literature on fascism.

I don't know about your experience in academics, but there are frequently differences between what "public intellectuals" write in their weekly columns or popular books and what they write in peer-reviewed journals. Arthur C. Brooks for example is a noted expert on charities and a conservative political columnist. He wrote two books about charitable giving in the U.S., both of which compared volunteer time by Americans with other nations. Americans volunteer a similar amount of their time as Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Cypriots but far more than other developed countries. This is shown in a chart in his academic book.[7] But in his popular book, he removes these four countries to defend the claim that the welfare state discourages volunteerism.[8]

TFD (talk)

You're of course correct about Jason Stanley. It was confusing the issue on my part to mention him in my comment above.

I have a great deal of respect and personal affection for Richard Evans but I find his characterization of Timothy Snyder bizarre. And in any case he is no more an authority on the matter than Snyder. They are both highly respected historians of the period –– with a long history of criticizing one another (see [9]).

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful engagement. I'll leave off now and hope that others will join the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason he says that about Snyder is that Snyder's book Bloodlands was not published by the academic press but by an imprint known for controversial books. Hence Snyder's influence has been among his readers rather than the academic study of fascism. Also, his book promotes the highly controversial "double genocide" theory, which rehabilitates WW2 collaborators and trivializes or even justifies the Holocaust. (Support of Nazism becomes heroic since it is necessary to prevent the even more genocidal Stalinism.) But it's not even original there, because it was advanced by Ernst Nolte in the 1980s. And note that Evans was one of Nolte's main critics and is cited extensively in that article.

In the link you provided, the first letter is by Norman Davies, who complains about "the magic circle of German and Holocaust interests." Davies was denied tenure at Stanford for among other things because experts said he "tended to blame Polish Jews for their fate in the Holocaust."[10] So I don't see an equivalency in the degree of acceptance of the two sides in this debate.

It is interesting to see Snyder and other anti-Communists coming out against Trump. But I suspect it has more to do with Trump's supposed closeness to Putin. But I see it as coming down to polemics. Russia bad, therefore Trump bad. But all their output is in op-eds rather than journal articles.

So the history of Evans and Snyder criticizing each other isn't a personal feud but part of two very different ways of viewing fascism, Nazism, the Holocaust, etc. But so far, it's Evans' side that dominates academic study. Daniel Lazare btw has an interesting analysis of the Bloodlands in Jacobin, "Timothy Snyder’s Lies."

TFD (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I know I said I'd leave off but this should be responded to.

1) Snyder is a left-of-center Obama Democrat, not some anti-Communist whose opposition to Trump is in any way interesting or would require explanation by crude logic like Russia bad, therefore Trump bad. Many people who care about the rule of law and democratic norms have been concerned about the danger Trump poses since he launched his presidential campaign in 2015.

2) My point in providing the link above had nothing to do with Davies (apologies if that was unclear). It was to show Evans admitting in 2010 that "one of the many reasons Snyder's book made me so cross" was Snyder's prior criticism of Evans' work. It's not entirely a personal feud but there is evidently a personal dimension to it.

3) Snyder's argument is not at all equivalent to Nolte's position in the Historikerstreit. Not even Evans alleges this in his blistering review. And to say that Snyder's work trivializes or even justifies the Holocaust is an almost tragic inversion of reality.

4) The contention that professional historians overwhelmingly side with Evans against Snyder is demonstrably false. See for instance the array of glowing reviews of Bloodlands from respected historians like Wendy Lower ("masterful synthesis"),[11] John Connelly ("morally informed scholarship of the highest calibre"),[12], Mark Roseman ("the book’s core achievement is ... to tell the story of Nazi and Soviet violence in a way that renders that savage chapter anew, and enduringly changes what we see")[13] and Dennis Showalter ("Snyder has written several first-rate books ... And Bloodlands takes his work to a new level"),[14] among many others. You might also take a look at the range of opinions expressed in this special "Forum" on Bloodlands that the journal Contemporary European History published in 2012, in which Mark Mazower gave a broadly supportive review ("as Bloodlands shows, the question of comparison can now be dealt with in a professional and less tendentious manner") and Snyder was given extensive space to address the controversy head-on: [15]. Yes some other historians have been critical –– most prominently Evans –– but they do not represent an overwhelming consensus. If they did, I very much doubt that Yale would have given Snyder that named chair after all this debate had gone down. Generalrelative (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If your position is correct, then I would expect that in future when textbooks about fascism are published, that they identify the world's major fascist leaders as Mussolini, Hitler and Trump and that they will extensively discuss Snyder's views. When that happens, I will certainly support inclusion. TFD (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a note. Federico Finchelstein has also weighed somewhat on the issue. In A Brief History of Fascist Lies (University of California Press, 2020), Finchelstein presents trumpism as follows "as a modern populism in power, Trumpism represents an extreme form of postfascism, an antiliberal, and often anticonstitutional, authoritarian democracy with a political rationale of its own".--Asqueladd (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

As a note to the note: I find this quote extremely confusing. Not only is "postfascism" never explained (in fact this is the only mention of it in the book), but also the same paragraph continues with This [postfascism?] is a political formation with a mythical notion of the truth. Like the fascists, populists replace historical truth with fake ideas about a glorious past that their leaders promise to revive. - and now confusingly talks about "populists" instead of fascists. Finchelstein then asks: Will the rise of leaders like Bolsonaro, Trump, and Orban lead to a twenty-first-century fascism? (...) It is probably (...) unlikely. Mvbaron (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Finchelstein presents his views in greater detail in From Fascism to Populism in History ("Fascism Returns," pp. 7-9, and "Trumpism in History," pp. 9-14). Enzo Traverso defines the concept of post-fascism in an interview published in Jacobin: "On the one hand, the new far right is no longer fascist; on the other hand, we cannot define it without comparing it with fascism. The new right is a hybrid thing that might return to fascism, or it could turn into a new form of conservative, authoritarian, populist democracy. The concept of post-fascism tries to capture this."[16]

There is a serious question however to what extent mainstream U.S. politics can be compared with European politics. Are racism, conspiracism and authoritarianism something that the U.S. imported from Italy and Germany, or do they have their roots in U.S. history? Maybe the right-wing populists in Europe are copying America and not vice versa.

TFD (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, American history overflows with racism, conspiracism and authoritarianism. It's homegrown and not imported from anywhere, but that's not really the point. Fascism is defined, for the most part, descriptively, and if any particular American leader or movement or regime fits the description, then calling it "fascist" is legitimate. It's my personal opinion that Trump and Trumpism is moving in that direction, but isn't quite there yet, but others can differ on that, and if they have the evidence to support their opinions, it needs to be given due consideration. It's certainly not an idea that comes out of left field. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a long American paranoid tradition of seeing the other party in extreme terms. Hamilton was accused of wanting to establish absolute monarchy, while Jefferson was accused of being a Jacobin. Notice the xenoophobic reference to foreign ideologies, and both sides accused the other of forming secret alliances with foreigners. When Obama was president, his extreme opponents said he was not an American and that he was a Communist, terrorist and Muslim. It's hard to argue with people's beliefs and all I can say is that there is no evidence for this and no support among experts.

Before Hofstadter's essay, many observers saw the extreme right of the post-war era as an aberration that must have been imported from Europe. But Hofstadter and other social scientists saw it as a distinctly American phenomenon that pre-dated fascism. Chris Berlet in Eyes Right traced it to colonial America. I don't know why we are looking to Hitler and Mussolini as prototypes for Trump when there are plenty of American examples of demagogues such as Huey Long, Joe McCarthy and George Wallace. It's like the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN argument. Anyone who behaves like Trump (or Obama) can't be a real American.

TFD (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"There is a long American paranoid tradition of seeing the other party in extreme terms." Sorry, but demonizing the enemy is not a uniquely American tradition. The political history of Greece has been largely shaped by the National Schism, with Venizelist-Liberals and Royalist-Conservatives demonizing, persecuting, and killing each other for many decades. Political hostility in the United States has not resulted in its own Schism, at least not yet. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it isn't uniquely American, what's your point? TFD (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Mussolini and his sponsors

Mussolini received funding both from Italy (not only Ansaldo, but also -among others - it:Giuseppe Toeplitz, the president of the Banca Commerciale) and from abroad (especially from England, which was interested in Italy entering the war on the side of the Entente). Renzo De Felice devotes several pages to this subject in the first volume of his biography of Mussolini ("Il Rivoluzionario"). Alex2006 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Then give a few more examples in text, to avoid confusion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit notice?

The possibility of adding "oh shut up about fascism being left wing" to the WP:EDITNOTICE at Template:Editnotices/Page/Fascism has been brought up. Is this a good idea? A bad idea? Against policy? The very purpose of edit notices? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Choice of langiage, no. Basic idea yes.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Fascism is a right-wing ideology" notice at the top of this page is already on the editnotice for the talk page, do you think it needs to be on the edit notice for the article as well? Here is where people as for that change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes as we keep on having to say "look at the faQ"".Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've added it to the article's editnotice as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The talk page already gives more emphasis than other articles that attract this type of editing, for example in climate change, evolution and 9/11. TFD (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The essay OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says, "[Precedence] may be valid in some contexts but not in others." Which one do you think applies and why? TFD (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

AFD contents

So Cdjp1 added content from the now deleted Left-wing fascism article per the dicussion at the AFD. Beyond My Ken reverted it giving a non-reason here. I restored citing the discussion at the AFD and that is has RS backing. Then Black Kite & MjolnirPants stumbled over each other trying to revert. BK citing BRD while ignoring the AFD discussion and Mr. Pants disliking the one source. So how should we add this back in? PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well. The AfD discussion contained suggestions from Cdjp1 that the material be added back in, plus another editor whose attitude to the entire concept of Fascism can be seen above. However, the result of the AfD (by three other editors, plus one who suggested that the material may be able to be folded in to the Pejorative section) was delete. Therefore, there was a consensus that the material was not appropriate for Wikipedia and there therefore needs to be a discussion as to whether any of that material should be added here. The onus is therefore on anyone who wishes to add that material as to why it should be added given the consensus at the AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, Great, so half the respondents thought a merge would be a good thing! So how do would you suggest going about that? PackMecEng (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

An AFD of another article cannot determine the content of this article. The inclusion of content depends on weight. David Horowitz for example is "a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements," according to the SPLC.[17] There is no reason we would want to add his opinions to this article. TFD (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I do not think David Horowitz is cited, could you be thinking of Irving Louis Horowitz who is cited? Either way that is why we are here! If there are issues with the content it can be trimmed to work. PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the article has been deleted and I was recalling discussions from over a decade ago. The discussion is it at Talk:Fascism/Archive 24#Horowitz and Bale quotes. Some editors wanted to mention "left-wing fascism" because it fit in with their view that fascism was left-wing. I think all these things were spun out into the left-wing fascism article. TFD (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, No worries, so looking at the edit in question do you have any specific issues or sources you think do not belong? PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to having a bit about the pejorative use of the term, but (for what should be obvious reasons) I'm not willing to entertain content that's made up from whole cloth and falsely attributed to nominally reliable sources. And that's exactly what the content I reverted was: pure WP:OR with no basis in the cited sources.

The problem is that I have yet to find a source which does more than mention that the word is sometimes used as a pejorative at left-wing ideologies. I'm sure that, somewhere out there, some academic has written about groups falsely calling each other fascist, but I've yet to find such a source, and that fact has led me to suspect there's not enough sources to support much content about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

So are you against all the sources in the text or just the two from your edit summary? Also Google scholar has lots of sources for this kind of thing they even seem academic like. Did you check the internet? PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the Google scholar sources are using the term to describe different concepts. If could be for example the left-wing or Strasserite wing of the Nazi Party, fascists such as National Bolsheviks who masquarade as leftists, a general complaint that some leftists act as fascists or the Communist complaint that social democrats, like conservatives, liberals and Christian democrats, are the same as fascists. Per policy, articles are based on distinct topics which may in fact be described by different names. So for example we have an article on the last definition, social fascism. TFD (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct that is certainly a thing but many of the sources listed in that link talk specifically about left-wing fascism. That's all I'm saying. PackMecEng (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking through those sources right now and not seeing that, or anything even remotely resembling that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm against pure WP:OR being falsely attributed to sources which don't say those things. Did you read my edit summary? Have you even checked the two sources (not one, as you claimed above) which I mentioned? They don't say the things that are attributed to them.

I'm not opposing any sources: I'm opposing material that blatantly fails WP:V. I don't know how much more simply I can state that objection, if you're still not getting it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be confused this is the edit and material in question. I don't know why you would think I didn't read your summary since I expressly referenced it several times. If you aren't going to bother reading what people write or the sources, I don't think I can help you and it becomes a WP:CIR issue. That's on you man. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've explained this twice now, in terms a literal child could understand.

You really need to check the irony levels of your little personal attack here, because they're off the chart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

And I have explained how you are just missing the whole situation and not even bothering to read what people are writing or sources or even the internet. You do you man, I am about done with your nonsense. Either come up with an argument or drop the I don't like it junk. PackMecEng (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can honestly say that this isn't the first time I've seen someone expose their total confusion about very simple and obvious things and try to call it an "explanation", but if it means you're going to knock off the childish insults and chewbacca defense bullshit, then I'm happy enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you say boss. Ya know if most people have no idea what you are ranting about the problem is probably you, not everyone else. Just take the whining and outrage down a notch next time kay? PackMecEng (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking through this thread, it's clear that everybody else knows exactly what I'm talking about, so once again, you might want to check those irony levels. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, going with the "I know you are but what am I" argument huh? Cool story, bro? PackMecEng (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Can everyone in this shouting match please grab a cup of WP:COCOA? This is long past WP:RUC/WP:TALKNO. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, your edit begins, "Victor Klemperer described what he saw as similarities between Nazi Germany and the German Democratic Republic as examples of the GDR's "left-wing fascism." It is sourced to his book, The Lesser Evil: The Diaries of Victor Klemperer, 1945–1959, although no page number is given. I could not find the quote in the book. You are adding text to this article without reading the sources first because of your personal ideology, which is not the way to create a neutral article. Had you even heard of Klemperer before you added the quote? TFD (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, lets pull that sentence then. I have no issue trimming specific problematic areas. Also quit it with the ideology crap. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your next sentence is, "Seymour Martin Lipset classified some nationalist and authoritarian regimes in underdeveloped countries as left-wing fascist, namely in South America, like those led by Juan Perón in Argentina and Getulio Vargas in Brazil." Indeed he said that in his article "Fascism - Left, Right and Center" in Political Man (1960). But Lipset continued to refer to Fascists as right-wing and the article was forgotten in academic writing. What makes you think this 1960 article is significant to the topic, when no modern fascism experts mention it? TFD (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Modern experts mention Lipset's work in general and some even do mention his work dealing with working class authoritarianism. For example the work is cited as reference for historical extremism.[18] Which shows that experts still see the work as significant. Now if you think that his ideas on it are out of date in the modern context, we could state it in a way that marks it as a statement of its time. Plus Lipset in general, I would personally consider a strong expert on the topic. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bear with me, (there's a lot to this response,) but Lipset doesn't actually say that in this book. He says something that's kinda-sorta similar if you squint just right, but it takes some explaining to really get at what he's saying. Which makes sense, as Lipset was a smart man.

In "Fascism" - Left, Right, and Center, Lipset is examining political ideologies through a Marxist framework. He's not arguing that Fascism isn't right wing, or that Fascism can be left wing. He's addressing the commonality of totalitarianism in extremist political ideologies (see horseshoe theory) by arguing that economic status, not social ideologies are the defining origins of different forms of extremism. He defines Monarchism as the extremism of the wealthy, Communism as the extremism of the working class and Fascism as the extremism of the middle class.

His discussion of Peron takes place in an entirely different section (Peronism - the "Fascism" of the Lower Class). The scare quotes are in the original, and make sense, as the section opens with Lipset contrasting Peron with "True" fascism, which he defines as "centrist authoritarianism", bearing in mind that it's the economic center, not the same "political" center we usually refer to that he's referencing. He then spends most of the section drawing a distinction between Peronism and European Fascism, after first noting the similarities and that Peronism was widely considered to be a form of Fascism.

Also, it's worth noting that the original title of this part of the book is not Fascism - Left, Right, and Center but "Fascism" - Left, Right, and Center. Again, note the scare quotes. Lipset makes it rather clear that he doesn't consider anything to be actually fascist unless it meets his criteria (ultranationalism, opposition to both Communism and Monarchism, glorification of the military and xenophobia), though he never outright claims that Peronism was not a form of Fascism. Lipset rather seems to treat Peronism as a unique beast. A relative of Fascism, if you will. He most certainly does not claim that other South American leftist populist movements were Fascist.

Bear in mind that this was written in the late 50's, with McCarthyism still on everyone's mind. He's pushing back against the right-wing notion (popular then, as it is now) that Fascism is a leftist ideology, even though he's pushing sideways, rather than straight back. This is all very clear if you read the whole section.

I have the book if anyone needs quotes. It's a decent work, and a unique take on the matter. It's also decidedly not contradicted by Lipset's later work. Though he seems to have lost interest in his "extremism as an extension of social class" theory later on, it still shines through in much of his work, if you know what to look for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Lipset of course remains important today, particularly for his writings on the radical right, the fragment theory, and American exceptionalism. But that doesn't mean that everything he ever published is remembered.

I have read the essay, since the argument fascism can be left-wing comes up routinely and this essay is cited. IIRC, he said that because Peronism had working class support, that it was left-wing. Fascism with a lower middle class base was centrist, while fascism with aristocratic and grand bourgeois support was right-wing. I would say it is contradicted by his later work and even his earlier work, because he routinely refers to fascism as right-wing, specifically part of the radical right, a concept that he developed for The New American Right published in 1955 and later revised and republished as The Radical Right.

Incidentally, there is an interesting article in NBC NEWS by Noah Berlatsky, "Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene can't stop making Covid-Nazi comparisons" In it he tries to explain why the American extreme right frequently calls fascism left-wing.

TFD (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The main article currently doesn't have much about South America, apart from the recent use of "facho pobre" in Chile (that is the local use, not foreign use for local regimes). Not sure Lipset would be the best source to use in this context, since the article is more about casual use. Adding this directly here using sources that have been used to support the idea that fascism is left-wing looks as a possibly not deliberate way to bring the idea to the article from the backdoor. Personuser (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

he said that because Peronism had working class support, that it was left-wing. Pretty much, though he's not as definitive about it. What's notable is that the way he does that is by using that working class support to contrast Peronism and Fascism. That section consists of 1-2 paragraphs describing Peronism, 2-3 paragraphs comparing it to Fascism while acknowledging that it's frequently considered a type of fascism, and then multiple paragraphs contrasting it with Fascism and comparing other South American Authoritarian regimes to it. He never outright states that Peronism is not Fascism, but he very clearly doesn't believe it is (he makes it clear that South American Authoritarianism shares features with European Totalitarianism, but only writes about the former as distinct from the latter). His conclusion states "If Peronism is considered a variant of fascism, then it is a fascism of the left because it is based on the social strata who would otherwise turn to socialism or Communism as an outlet for their frustrations," which (in the context) very strongly implies that he finds it somewhat nonsensical to consider Peronism to be a variant of fascism.

In other words, he's saying that if one wants to consider Peronism to be a variant of Fascism, then one must invent a left-wing Fascism into which Peronism can be categorized. He's very clearly not stating that Peronism is left wing fascism.

Fascism with a lower middle class base was centrist, while fascism with aristocratic and grand bourgeois support was right-wing. Replace "Fascism" with "Authoritarianism" in your sentence, and I think that would be exactly right. It's partially correct as is, as he considers the roots of Fascism to be in social strata, not political ideology, but when, on those rare occasions on which he directly addresses the left-right political spectrum, he never wavers in claiming or implying that Fascism is right-wing.

If we were to refer to this source here, I would write something like:

• Lipset argues in Political Man that Fascism is an expression of extremism of the conservative middle class, rather than the extreme right, whose extremism he considers to be Totalitarianism, and contrasts this both with leftist views like Socialism and Communism -which he considers to be the extremism of the working class and poor- and the Monarchism which he considers the most radical ideology of the bourgeoise and upper class.

Overall, this work is not as contradicted by his other work as you're saying, because he's clearly exploring some new ideas in this piece. The theory that political extremism is based in social strata (as opposed to political ideology) is a very interesting one that seemed to fly under the radar a bit, and which seems to inform Lipset's later views, though he clearly didn't care to continue pushing it. It's the central point of this whole part about Fascism, from my reading, explaining why he doesn't seem to declare any other claims about political categorization with certainty.

Incidentally, there is an interesting article in NBC NEWS by Noah Berlatsky, That's a very interesting article. I'm not sure if it warrants inclusion here or over at Fascism (insult), but it's still a damn good read and I appreciate the link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Lipset's piece could be incorporated in the history section rather than the use as a pejorative section. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: the material should not be added to this article: (a). if the AfD consensus was "merge", the discussion would have been closed as "merge" not "delete"; (b). I recall having edited the now deleted article and all of its contents seems to have been WP:OR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment on content., not users, this is not History Today.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Fascism far-right?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I find this interesting seeing as in Mussolini's own biography he refers to Fascism as 'The True Left'. I, personally, do not believe that far-right as a designation works for Fascism. It was unique. It [Italian Fascism] was economically far-left and socially far-right. There are very few economists alive who would refer to the Fascist and National Socialist economies as 'conservative'. Maximum70 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

You may not, RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Read the big pink box at the top of the talk page, and follow the links. (And remember that Mussolini was as much a master of the Big Lie as his pupil Hitler.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I did not even see the box at the top. Oh well, I see this has already been a long discussion. Maximum70 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference format

The formatting of the references in this article is a bit of a hodge-podge: about 2/3 non-templated list-defined references, many unused references that have been commented out, numerous list-defined references using CS1 templates, a handful of inline templated references, and one lonely short footnote (which is inevitably throwing a multiple-target error).

Given that most of the references are to pages within books, and hence there are many repeatedly-cited sources, I would suggest one of the two following changes:

1. Convert all the book and journal references to {{sfn}} and use CS1 templates ({{cite book}} etc.) for the bibliography; convert any references to websites to inline CS1 ({{cite web}}) templates, eliminating the list-defined references, or
2. Convert all the book references to use {{r}} and {{rp}}, keep the list-defined references but convert them to use CS1 templates throughout.

I'm happy to do the work of making either of those changes, but would personally prefer option 1 (I find the little superscript numbers that {{rp}} produces make the article look messy and break up the citations, and LDRs make my head hurt).

Thoughts? Wham2001 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody has commented in seven-and-a-half weeks, I am going to go for option 1 above. Wham2001 (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am done. Two further possible improvements to the source list would be to move the uncited secondary sources to a separate section (or remove them entirely), and to add ISBNs for the many, many sources that are missing them. I don't plan to do either of those things unless somebody convinces me to! Also, there were many unused sources among the LDRs that were commented out to prevent them generating reference errors. I removed all the commented-out references: if anybody objects to that let me know and I can gather them from the article history and put them somewhere. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)