Talk:Fascism

Fascism is only of the “right”? (Discuss Dispute tag)

‘ based on the consensus of political scientists, historians, and other reliable sources that Fascism is a (far) "right-wing" ideology and not a "left-wing" one’ The problem with this statement is that it is not the consensus of political scientist historians and other reliable sources. If anyone is actually interested in the subject all they need to do is to research “left-wing fascism“ and there are plenty of sources cited by reputable historians, political scientists and other reliable sources stating so, even Marxist organisations readily admit this and have done so via their publications. Worse, to add a “page note” stating that an incorrect supposition (which in turn is subject to punitive measures if you attempt to redress the balance) is clearly wrong, authoritarian and close minded. Finally, apologies, I did not see the page note before I added new citations in the lede. However, I do hope that Wikipedia editors understand this and prepared to be open-minded about the origins, ideology and use of fascism. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Go to Archive 1 and Archive 2 on this talk page and you will see discussions on this topic going back to 2004. I bet you'll see some version of this discussion on every single archive of the talk page since then. This conversation has been held again and again and again and again and again on this talk page for more than seventeen years. This isn't a problem of not keeping an open mind. The problem is that you'll need some pretty hefty evidence to overturn that consensus. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's that word again "consensus". I don't think you people know what that word means. Even though it was invented by Socialists (hell, Nazi has the word Socialist in their name, but "Republic of North Korea", right?). Why don't you just tell it straight; You will never correct it no matter what. There is nothing in source material itself (written by Gentile, a socialist), which does not lean right or left. Pinning fascism to conservatives is a modern invention. It was wrong in 2004, it is wrong now. The fact that the wiki article has been wrong since 2004 is unavailing since articles as far back as 1966 pointed out how communist misuse the word against anyone who disagrees with them (see; Fascism, Right and Left - Hugh Seton-Watson). Some things never change. You also have extreme censorship, which itself is a form of fascism. A wiki editor, who should be ashamed of himself, deleted my previous comment as "empty venting", and you have simply said "fascism is a right-wing ideology" whilst threatning to ban anyone who disagrees with the "(non) consensus".Bears2077 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that Seton-Watson proposes "Non-Marxist totalitarianism" as an alternate name for fascism, which is about as clear a statement that "fascism is not leftist" as one could get in 1966.

Read the FAQ. I won't bother responding to any more comments here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are numerous reliable sources from political scientists, writers et cetera confirming this. However, when I attempted to add the citations to the article they were deleted out of hand with no discussion which further confirms that some Wikipedia editors are not open to debating the issue. When I added new citations they in turn were deleted on the grounds that they were ‘counterfactual and unreliable’ even though the citations followed wiki policy to the letter.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The Griffin book you added consistently discusses fascism as a branch of far right thinking. I just paged through the Hawkesworth book and I can't imagine where it says that fascism is a left wing phenomenon. Even if both of them said that, they would be radical departures from the consensus on this topic, and basing the lead section just on that would be WP:UNDUE. And changes like that require a consensus to be built on the talk page; as the banner at the top says, "This statement is the result of a very long process of discussion and debate and has strong consensus acceptance within the Wikipedia community". - Astrophobe (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: the citations provided by @Inadvertent Consequences:, do not support the assertions of Inadvertent Consequences. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's what I said four days ago. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No articles by political scientists published in reliable sources have claimed fascism was not right-wing, other than a paper by Seymour Martin Lipset in the 1950s, which he later disagreed with. TFD (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. There are many sources that detail the origins of fascism, and they do not declare fascism to be a right wing ideology. Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (published 1951), does not put fascism/nazism on the right but categorizes it with Stalinism as "totalitarian". The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek, published in 1944, traces the roots of Fascism and Nazism. Chapter 12, the Socialist Roots of Nazism, refutes the claim that Nazism has no link to the "left". Much of the book shows the birth of fascism/nazism is rooted in the socialism of the 19th century. Finally, if you read the platform of the Nazi party in 1920 (https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm) it is clearly a socialist policy platform with nationalist overtones.Aseidave (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Arendt wasn't analyzing any totalitarian regime on a left-right axis, but analyzing the shared features of extremist leftist and extremist right-wing politics. She is in agreement with the majority of scholars that totalitarianism is a feature of extremist political systems, not a political system itself, and as such, never assigns a place on the left-right axis to fascism (though she implies several times her agreement with the consensus that it is right-wing).

Hayek makes it clear that Fascism is distinct from left-wing ideologies like Communism and socialism, and describes Fascism as a natural refuge retreated to by those in power when attempts to create a socialist/communist society have failed. Of course, Mussolini and Hitler's shared hatred of socialism was acknowledged by Hayek and used to contextualize this relationship between leftist politics and fascism. He even acknowledges that the societies which actually gave rise to fascism were not socialist or communist, though he downplays this for the sake of his greater point.

Arendt's work was a precursor to the horseshoe theory, and is frequently referenced (along with Lipset, who is discussed below) in that context. Hayek argues a much stronger relationship to left-wing politics than most believed without ever directly classifying fascism as left-wing, but, though it was quite popular at the time, it's long term impact was little more than creating doubt that the emergence of totalitarianism was limited to to extremist governments.

Neither Hayek nor Arendt ever actually claim that Fascism is left-wing.

The link you provided to the Nazi platform predates Hitler's rise to power, during which it is widely acknowledged that the party pivoted from left to right.

One cannot simply skim a few notable works on political science and expect to come away with a good understanding of the subject. One must read them in-depth and read other, complimentary and contradictory analyses in order to really understand what is being said by the author, and how their work has impacted the scholarly consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is completely meaningless to cite works from the 1940s for scholarly opinions on which ideologies are "right" and "left", because as a cursory look at our page on Left–right political spectrum will show, those terms barely existed then. If writers like Arendt use them in confusing and bizarre ways totally at odds with how other scholars use them, it's because they were functionally different terms from the way that we use them today. And interpreting Nazi documents is just the height of WP:OR. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, most sociologists and political scientists were aware of the paradigm and referenced it on occasion, but it certainly wasn't a part of the popular discourse on politics, nor the primary metric of judging political ideologies (it still isn't the latter, but it's a popular enough conception that modern political writers almost always work within it). As such, it'd be very difficult to find any work from that period which directly addresses the left-right continuum. Scholars just weren't working in that paradigm, so the most you get are passing mentions when they use it for grammatical (to avoid excess repetition of terms like "Marxist", "Socialist", "Authoritarian" or "Totalitarian") or rhetorical (to contrast different systems) purposes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a long history of traditional liberals such as Hayek and Arendt comparing left and right unfavorably to their own centrist (at least for their times) politics. You need a source to say that they said fascism and socialism both were really left-wing or right-wing. You even see it in campaign literature: "We are not the party of big business or big labor, but of the middle class."

While it is good to challenge received wisdom, you shouldn't come to conclusions and search for sources that support them. Read those sources and understand their reasoning before you start quoting them.

TFD (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No, they were deleted as you did not only add cites, and makes a major change as a minor edit.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to explain what are you talking about? Personuser (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, his edits did not only add cites (which by the way is not a minor edit), they also made textual changes.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to provide some examples?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove the dispute tag without discussion, that is completely unacceptable. Further, this accusation that I ‘added in citations and hyperlinks using the ‘minor’ option’ is ludicrous. If editors cannot read the edit history correctly then please do not make accusations when the evidence clearly shows all I did was remove an internal link to an in-line. Also, just because certain editors might not agree with the reliable sources does not mean that they should be removed either. I’ve never come across such a group of editors determined to maintain a falsehood. In closing, please do not keep reverting my edits without discussion and leave the dispute tag alone until we can properly discuss the issue. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I engaged with your claims about the sources you added above. Discussing changes to the page based on reliable sources is the only purpose of a talk page. - Astrophobe (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no dispute. There is only fact on one side and ignorance on the other.

This is an encyclopedia, we report verifiable fact. In this case the verifiable fact is that, based on the consensus of subject experts, fascism is a right-wing ideology. That crackpots, ideologues, and a stray academic or two may say otherwise doesn't change that consensus, and it doesn't mean that what they say gets into the article, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE.

This is settled, and it's not going to overturned anytime in the foreseeable future; done, finito, tilt at a different windmill, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: "It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so." The sources say that you're wrong on this issue, as does the strong consensus of editors represented in the FAQ, as do I (a professional historian of the period). You can't get much more definitively wrong than that around here. So no, your "disputed" tag will not remain. For every editor with the time to engage and explain this to you, as Astrophobe has done with admirable patience, there are many more of us who support them. Generalrelative (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: I understand that you have written that you are a “historian of the period”, so what do you say about Copeland’s ‘Left-Wing Fascism In Theory and Practice’? (Oxford Academic Press Twentieth Century British History, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 38–61) or Seton-Watsons ‘Fascism Right and Left’? Best regards.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: Coupland’s ‘Left-Wing Fascism In Theory and Practice’ does not say fascism was left wing. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Inadvertent Consequences: What do I say about them? Not much. Hugh Seton-Watson was a respected Russianist in the mid-20th century but nobody considers his 1966 essay an authoritative source on fascism. And I wasn't at all familiar with Philip M. Coupland's 2002 article. While I don't have time to read it I will let you know that Coupland does not appear to hold an academic post anywhere. Even if he is arguing in favor of your position here (which seems unlikely, judging by the article's abstract) he would still represent a fringe outlier in the field. I hope that's helpful. If you want to learn more about this topic I suggest engaging thoroughly with the talk page archives. And if you're looking for a book on the topic I recommend Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism. Generalrelative (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: ah, the old trick of trying to discredit reliable sources and from your response ‘not much’ knowing absolutely nothing about a well-respected author and historian suggests, with the greatest respect a closed mind on the subject. Wait, did I say that out loud? Anyway, Coupland is a respected author with a PHD from the University of Warwick, three degrees in the social sciences and history. The author is also a published historian and was based at the University of Glasgow for three years.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This rather looks like the "old trick" of pointing out a clear an unambiguous scholarly consensus in order to make the point that having credentials doesn't mean that everything an author writes necessarily reflects that consensus.

But by all means, continue to WP:ABF here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Assume bad faith? really? I’ve had my edits deleted out of hand with no discussion, accusations made about my editing which were found-less and clearly reliable sources declared unreliable and yet I’m the one assuming bad faith? I recommend certain editors look up the definition for hypocrisy. Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

All sources you've cited state the opposite of what you claim. So whilst they are reliable, they do not support your assertion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

i’m unsure as to what you’re reading because I’m looking at these sources right now and they clearly state that racism is of the left as well as the right.Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Racism? Did you mean to type fascism? The Mass Psychology of Fascism – Willhelm Reich, Fascism – Roger Griffin, Encyclopaedia of Government and Politics: Volume 1 – Hawkesworth and Kogan, and ‘Left-Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice - Philip Coupland, are the citations you have provided and none of them state that fascism is left-wing, but in fact state it is right-wing. The first three of those sources are included in the current 13 sources showing that fascism is considered right-wing when placed on the traditional left-right spectrum. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe you should stop worrying about the fact that you've been experiencing pushback and start asking why you're experiencing it. I'll give you a hint: It's because your sources don't say what you claim they're saying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RS are yet to be produced to back the claim, as such there is (as far asa I can see) no valid dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. We already have a FAQ about this to answer exactly these questions. We don't need to expend effort responding to vague requests and open ended questions with nothing to back them up. If people want to ask more specific questions or make specific suggestions, with what seems to them to be plausible backing from reliable sources, then that is different. Most of the time those won't go anywhere either but, except in cases of obvious trolling, we should consider them.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are immune to the FAQ and I'm not sure what we can do to improve this situation. One small improvement would be for the FAQ to draw attention to some of the more prominent serious historians who are/were from the right themselves who wrote of Fascism as right-wing. If we can make it clear that they need to attack their own guys in order to argue this obvious nonsense then maybe some will realise that there is no point in it. Even so, many won't. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

One thing that could help would be adding something visible in the edit screen, since some editors skip the talk page alltogether, not sure how/if this is technically achievable. I was expecting the FAQ to link to a particular discussion, but browsing the archives gave me an idea of why this is not the case. Accusing editors of misusing the minor tag, insisting on it after being proven wrong and giving confusing reasons for why their edits were reverted surely doesn't help a smooth resolution of these cases and puts additional stress on editors addressing the same questions for the nth time. Personuser (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What confusing reasons?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:FAQ editnotice seems to address my first concern, though adding too many editnotices may be counterproductive. Personuser (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, currently the article has Template:Editnotices/Page/Fascism; all we need do is edit that template. But I wouldn't do it without carefully working out the content right here (or maybe at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Fascism, transcluding that discussion here.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a link to the FAQ would be a good addition, but agree that details need some carefull discussion. A disambiguation to Fascist (insult) may also help to avoid some similar discussions, but this is starting to merit it's own section. Personuser (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly POV pushing for the article to just state with a straight-face definitively that Fascism IS far right wing, no dispute whatsoever. There are notable scholarly experts (not just extremist non-scholarly sources) that disagree with that, and everybody here knows this. For this article to be NPOV, it would have to note that not all sources agree. It was have to say something like "most sources consider Fascism to be far right wing, while a minority of sources consider it to be left wing or centrist." That's what NPOV is all about. Major Dump (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But far fewer than say it is, and that is the point, it is a wp:fringe view that fascism is not just of the far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Even if it's a small minority view, to be NPOV the article doesn't have to say the view is correct but only that some experts hold that view. There's not one word in this article that that anyone even questions whether it's far right. What are people afraid of here? Major Dump (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this topic needs its own article. Major Dump (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you would need some very good sources to even try and start it, and its tone would have to make it clear its a a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can keep claiming "There are notable scholarly experts (not just extremist non-scholarly sources) that disagree with that, and everybody here knows this" all you want; that doesn't make it true, or turn a fringe theory advocated by radical right commentators into actual historiography. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it's true. I'm claiming that for the article to be NPOV, it would have to note the disagreement. Major Dump (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

We only note disagreement when it is not Fringe Vs non fringe, we do not give equal weight to fringe views in the name of WP:FALSEBALANCE.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not advocating giving the view(s) equal weight. Major Dump (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are as you are arguing we can't say it is a fact, when academic conesensus is it is a fact. Thus you want to give equal weight to a fringe POV its not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You can definitely say it is a fact that fascism "is placed on the far right.." That's NPOV, as it's definitely placed on the right wing, by apparently the majority of writers. But it's also not placed on the far right wing by notable exceptions. Major Dump (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Such as the source I attempted to put in the article yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1069361420&oldid=1069358976 Major Dump (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we treat fringe viewpoints in a way that is consistent with WP:FRIND. That means we do not rely on references from the fringe voices themselves but only independent subject-matter experts commenting on those fringe voices. Generalrelative (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

But he does not appear to be commenting on what other people have said, he appears to be putting forward a view at odds with the traditional interpretation of fascism (in fact he appear to be very much on the fringe, in fact, he seems to have been almost ann apologist for fascism). Also your edit was very poorly written as what the hell does "called left-wing which have also been constituted by racism, mass murder, and oppression" mean?Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (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.[1] 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.[2] 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)

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)

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.