Talk:Fascism

"Far-left fascism"

The latin root "fasc" means "pertaining to a bundle", which isn't necessarily left nor right on a modern political spectrum, though it can be both.

Conformation and feverish promotion of a current government agenda of far-left communism, socialism, and de-importance of the individual can be accurately described by the word fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neaumusic (talk • contribs) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that President Trump has declared that the US is under siege from "far-left fascism", we should be prepared for a brand-new round of edit requests seeking to remove the description of fascism as a right-wing ideology. We should remind drive-by editors who make these requests that Wikipedia follows what WP:reliable sources say, and that no reliable source, either academic or from the media, describes fascism as left-wing. Politicians say many things in the course of their attempts to be elected or re-elected, and their statements are not considered to be reliable sources of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The above is incorrect. 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. Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, does not put fascism/nazism on the right but categorizes it with Stalinism as "totalitarian". 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. I have little expectation that these facts will influence wikipedia, as wikipedia in political subjects is biased and censored. Aseidave (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not that the article or Wikipedia is biased, it is a fact. --Germanico5468504 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fascism as all other anti-democratic ideologies doesn't fall on the same left-right scale as democratic movements. Theres LEFT wing extremists who went from far-left to fundamentalist far-left and then theres the EXTREMISTS that renegated the "moderate" far-left and shifted to opose that same far left (thats whar RIGHT WING extremists are). But there are no RIGHT wing involved in any of these ideologies since they all continued to be anti- "all-things-right". Everyone who is in the right of the democratic spectre is correct to refer to the anti democratic far-righ (fascism) as far left sicne they are talking about something that ideologicvally is opposed to EVERYTHING of the democratic right. In the same way that far-left democratic/ant-democratic ideologies are correct to refer to fanti-democratic far right (fascism) as far-right because basically it is what it is relative to them ... the renegation of everything they defended. Both situations are viewed form completelly diferent prespectives so they are both correct and wrong at the same time. Sotavento (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And since the german far-right(aka the NSDAP) took ideas from both the american democratic and the italian fascist ideologies at the same time they can't be categorized as any extreme of the spectre. Fascism (italy) is by its own definition a far-left movement gone rogue!Sotavento (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

With regards to "no reliable source, either academic or from the media, describes fascism as left-wing" ... I'd be willing to be that some do (maybe Fox News?), but "reliable" in this context generally means one of the sources that routinely and consistently endorses Democratic candidates ie. a mainstream US news channel or newspaper. I don't know if you would seriously make the argument that academia is a hotbed of right-wing thought either. So, in essence what you're saying, is that sources that lean pretty consistently to the left all agree that a pejorative, controversial ideology describes the right. Hardly a surprising development, and one that few would need an encyclopedia for. At the end of the day, when it comes to subjective issues, the majority of people believe that which mostly resembles one's own views. Is this encyclopedic? Given that most mainstream sources are fairly openly "liberal", maybe, but in this case, when it basically boils down to a political insult, and you're quoting one side of said argument and declaring it definitive, it definitely doesn't seem like it. Opie8 (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)