Talk:Neo-fascism

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neo-fascism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930081524/http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html to http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced opposition to Capitalism

User:G.M. Sir Lawrence is about to engage in WP:Edit warring, by repeteadly adding the same unsourced information about neo-fascism being anti-capitalist. First of all, please write a summary when editing. Second, you have to provide WP:RS to support the edit. I'm referring to this edit and the ones before. I'll revert it back again if other users agree. --Ritchie92 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to put a RS even if actually there're not RS for opposition to Marxism, Communism, Socialism and Liberal democracy too. Plus I think it's questionable also "opposition to socialism" cause Neofascism takes often inspiration from forms of patriotic and national socialism. Ritchie92 speaks Italian so I suggest the reading of this voice in the Italian Wikipedia's version. --G.M. Sir Lawrence (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that other things are not sourced does not mean that you're right to add random things to the page. Also we don't take other languages WPs to be a RS. Also, please, are we still saying that "national socialism" is socialism? Just for the presence of the word "socialism" in their name it doesn't mean that Nazis were socialist. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

G.M. Sir Lawrence I am uncertain if you edited the article while not logged in, but considering the IP seems to have been making an edit specific to one of your concerns I'd like to put a friendly reminder that editors should avoid editing while not logged in. I'm assuming this is either a coincidence or an accident, so please take this message in good faith. That said, there are plenty of sources that talk about neo-fascism as being against marxism, communism, socialism and liberal democracy. I would, as I often do for issues related to this ideology, recommend Against the Fascist Creep as an excellent starting point, particularly for neo-fash movements. There are, of course, many other sources for this. However, starting with Mussolini's tenure, Fascism has never been at odds with Capitalism, and the introduction of Christian Dominionist, Neo-Confederate and Freeman of the Land doctrines into fascism in the Neo-Fascist movement of the United States has only moved Fascism closer to Capitalism, it certainly has not made Neo-Fascism into anything resembling an Anti-Capitalist doctrine. Again Against the Fascist Creep is a good source, so is the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far-Right, which is generally treated as a top-tier source by Wikipedia for issues surrounding far-right political movements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie92, Simonm223, I agree. I have made this edit to clarify that, although I would not be opposed to remove any mention of opposition to capitalism. As you noted above and as I noted in the edit summary, there are neo-fascist groups that actually support free-market capitalism and neoliberalism. The claim of fascist opposition to capitalism and anti-capitalist rhetoric, usually interlinked with racial and antisemitic dog whistles, is a tactic made by neo-fascists themselves to gain support from working and lower-middle class people. No matter how many times they claim fascism to be a third way between free-market capitalism and "communism", their fascist corporatism is still capitalism. Davide King (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article go more into neo-fascism in general?

The article only really defines the term in to the lead; then it immediately plunges into a massive nation-by-nation breakdown that sort of assumes the reader already knows what neo-fascism is. It seems as though we need a general article on neo-Fascism; neo-Fascist movements or regimes by country would be better off split into its own article given its massive size (and given that it's not really a useful way to answer a reader's initial question of "what is neo-fascism?") --Aquillion (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of those ideas: expansion of the general discdussion, and the spin-off of the list. I may be able to do some work on the first of those in the upcoming week, but don't wait for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to improve the history part; but there's so much work to do on the various articles related to the far-right here or elsewhere. As I often see the same contributors on those pages, maybe we should organize a study group on the far-right within a common project. Beyond My Ken Aquillion Azerty82 (talk)

Neo-fascism isn't a term of art in academic usage and I don't think your average political scientist would have heard the term "neo-fascist" before. I also note further that sampling a few of the actual English academic citations in the references, the term "neo-fascist" hasn't appeared once. Some of the groups mentioned in this article can be (and are) called explicitly "fascist", no need for the prefix. Others are characterized as far-right hate groups in other manners but explicitly not as fascist, which is a worthwhile distinction.

The closest thing I can affiliate with neo-fascism is "ur-fascism", as coined by the late Professor Eco. Mind it's not widely entered political science discourse since it's pretty esoteric and Eco falls under a fairly unpopular branch of political thinking characterized by grand theories, but more researchers are talking about ur-fascism today than before and I'd say it has some lexical merit. Also another close concept is neo-Nazism, which is an actual term of art though so should be used precisely.

"Far-right ethnonationalism" would almost immediately improve the title since (1) it sufficiently (but not necessarily) categorizes the organizations mentioned in the article, at least the few I'm familiar with, and (2) political scientists would know exactly what is meant, which is a good sign since it means you're doing words better.

Then there's also the question of what to do with the actual fascist organizations in the article. The answer to this is going to be tough since even in academia there's a split. Some academics don't agree with describing any non-esoteric (in the sense of esotericism/mysticism) movement as fascist. Others think it's only limited in historical scope. I think more reasonably there's quite a few political theorists in philosophy and polisci departments who're open to using "fascist" to describe a broader class of movements, e.g. the academics who're cited in the references. It could be reasonable just to shunt them under the fascism article under some "post-WWII fascism" subsection, which should satisfy most academics (who probably aren't coming to Wiki anyways though but it's good for Wiki's look as an encyclopedia).

tl;dr I'm not suggesting a specific action since I don't want to do any organizing of concepts. I'm just throwing these issues out there for you all to munch on. 2601:14D:4002:6D00:F557:B35D:C52A:CAD4 (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Obraz and Serbian Action

User:SacredDragonX Can you explain why did you revert my edits that remove neo-nazi organisations from this article and are without sources? They obviously belong in neo-nazi article and your edit summary does not give any reason. Polyison (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Racial supremacy?

Fascism advocates for separatism not supremacy, and there's a big difference between the two terms. If someone identifies as a supremacist, it usually means that he wants his group to rule over other groups. On the other hand, separatism refers to the want to separate his group from other groups. I am a Fascist myself, and have read Gentile, Evola, Hitler, Mosley and Feder. Everyone of them proposes separatism. The word Herrenvolk (gentlemen people) was often, sometimes mistranslated into English as "master race", after which it was falsely assumed (without looking at the original text) that the original word must have been "Herrenrasse".

People are by no means the same as race, and the right translation of "Volk" into English would be people, folk or nation. The English word "master" is not the right translation of the German word "Herr" in the context of the word "Herrenvolk", because the word "master" is connotated with the slave-master contrast. But the Germans were never involved in slavery, so a more appropriate translation of "Herr" would be gentleman. Certainly, "master" is an inappropriate translation in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlock Holmes1902 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. -- Hazhk (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the founders of the ideologies not considered reliable sources? -- Sherlock Holmes1902 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No, they had their own objectives and did not feel bound to their own policies or statements. Wikipedia relies on secondary sourcing by mainstream academic authorities. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're right, Sherlock Holmes1902, but you're fighting against a strong current here. Trying to translate "Volk" merely as "people" is like trying to translate the Russian "Родина" into merely "Motherland". People will feel free to translate words as is ideologically convenient. I also agree on your view that Fascist movements are insular and self-preservationist in nature, rather than imperialistic and expansionist. Also, no two Fascist movements are the same as they are based upon different ethnicities with different religions, cultures, geographic locations, natural resources, and histories. There is no built in belief in Fascism that everyone who's different needs to be destroyed. At any rate, Fascism at its core is about the management and maintenance of the Corporate entity within the state as a whole where companies can prosper rather than collectivization and nationalization of the means of production. BTW, I believe in Jeffersonian Democracy and free market enterprise.RRskaReb talk 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)